BS v. Durham Children’s Aid Society, 2026 CFSRB 50

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

BS Applicant

-and-

Durham Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ivana Vaccaro Date: March 30, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 50 Indexed as: BS v Durham Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

BS, Applicant Self-represented

Durham Children’s Aid Society, Respondent SG, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (“Act”).

2The CFSRB found the Application was eligible to proceed under subsections 120(4)3 and 5 of the Act.

ISSUES

3The issues to be determined are as follows:

a) Whether the Respondent complied with the complaint review procedure and any other procedural requirements regarding the Applicant’s complaint allegedly filed with the Respondent in or around October 9, 2025, in accordance with subsection 120(4)3 of the Act; and,

b) Whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affected his interests in relation to the Child, K.S., in accordance with subsection 120(4)5 of the Act.

RESULT

4Having reviewed the Application, the Response and the hearing documents filed by the parties, I find the following:

a) With respect to the issue identified in paragraph 3(a), the Applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or any other procedural requirements regarding the Applicant’s complaint allegedly filed with the Respondent in or about October 9, 2025. Albeit the Applicant understood the Respondent confirming receipt of his complaint as triggering its obligations under section 120(4)3 of the Act, it did not. To trigger the Respondent’s obligations, the Applicant should have filed his complaint in the form required under section 56 of Ont. Reg. 156/18, which he did not do until after the Application with the CFSRB was filed. Although the Respondent could have drawn the Applicant’s attention to the deficiency in the form of his complaint, it was under no obligation to do so. However, in its response to the Applicant’s complaint of in or about October 9, 2025, the Respondent did refer the Applicant to the relevant regulation and included a document which explained the formal complaint process; and,

b) With respect to paragraph 3(b), as the Applicant did not provide any particulars concerning the decisions the Respondent made that affected him in relation to the Child, K.S., I could not ascertain whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for those decisions. Accordingly, the Applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent failed to provide him with reasons for the decisions it made.

5In the Case Management Direction dated February 5, 2026 (“CMD”), the CFSRB directed that the hearing of the Application would be conducted in writing, pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure.

6The Applicant filed an Application on December 3, 2025 in which he alleges the Respondent received an anonymous tip that it subsequently acted upon without screening, corroboration or “lawful grounds” and questioned the Child, K.S. at school, “without notice or consent”. Although the Applicant acknowledges that no action was taken by the Respondent, as there were no protection concerns, he alleges the methods used by the Respondent to collect information from the Child, including the “unauthorized interview” of the Child, was “procedurally improper, unlawful and in breach of both statutory and constitutional safeguards”.

7In the Application, the Applicant requests a “full detailed and unredacted copy of all files, notes, communications, phone logs, emails and files” which were exchanged between the Respondent and Durham Regional Police Service (“DRPS”) in relation to the matter involving the Child, K.S. The Applicant seeks the oversight of the CFSRB, together with the Ontario Ombudsman (Children and Youth Unit), the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, and the Ministry of the Attorney General.

8The Applicant notes that he complained to the Respondent in writing regarding this matter, but that he did not meet with the Respondent’s Internal Complaints Review Process. The Applicant provided a copy of the complaint letter to the Respondent, which the Applicant delivered to the Respondent by email on or about October 9, 2025 (the “complaint letter”). In the complaint letter, the Applicant articulates the same allegations as in the Application. The Applicant claims that the Respondent acknowledged receipt of his complaint letter but failed to proceed with it, respond to his update requests or provide any indication of next steps, which he alleges demonstrates the Respondent’s failure to comply with its complaint process.

9On December 9, 2025, the CFSRB determined that the Application would proceed on the bases set out in paragraph 2 above.

10In the Response, the Respondent takes the position that the Application falls outside of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction, pursuant to subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act based on the Applicant’s statement in the Application that there is an outstanding civil action against the Respondent. At the same time, the Respondent acknowledges that it has not been served with a lawsuit.

11The Respondent also alleges that the Applicant may be using the CFSRB process to augment or enhance the claims he seeks to make against his previous employer, the DRPS.

12A Pre-Hearing was held on January 19, 2026. The Respondent requested that the hearing proceed in writing, pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure. The Applicant did not agree. The CFSRB directed each party to file submissions respecting whether the Application should proceed to a hearing in writing, which they both did.

13In his submissions opposing a hearing in writing, the Applicant reiterated his request for a complete, unredacted copy of all the Respondent’s records relevant to the issues raised in the Application, including records exchanged between the Respondent and DRPS. The Applicant asserted that if the Application proceeded to a hearing in writing, without the disclosure required from the Respondent, it would breach his right to natural justice and procedural fairness.

14In addition, the Applicant recited the alleged facts concerning his complaint to the Respondent on or about October 9, 2025, the correspondence exchanged between the parties regarding what the Applicant alleged was a “formal complaint” and the Respondent’s failure to provide a substantive response to his request for status updates in November and December 2025, all of which led to the filing of the present Application. The Applicant maintains that the Respondent represented to him that a formal complaint process had been initiated, and he accuses the Respondent of misleading him and not alerting him to the fact that the complaint letter was defective.

15The Respondent, on the other hand, takes the position that it did not fail to comply with its complaint review procedure or any other procedural requirements with respect to the complaint letter. At the time the Application was filed, the Applicant had not filed a complaint with the Internal Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”) pursuant to section 56 of Ont. Reg. 156/18 which states: “A complaint to a society under subsection 119(1) of the Act must be made in the form entitled “Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP)” and dated”.

16The Respondent further asserts that the complaint letter delivered by the Applicant to the Respondent by email on or about October 9, 2025 did not qualify as an ICRP complaint under section 119 of the Act. The Respondent claims that the Applicant did not file an ICRP complaint until December 5, 2025, after the present Application was filed with the CFSRB. A panel meeting was held on December 18, 2025, and the Respondent served the Applicant with its response to the ICRP complaint on January 16, 2026, which it asserts confirms its compliance with its obligations under subsection 120(4)3 of the Act. The Respondent filed a copy of its response to the ICRP complaint dated January 16, 2026, which it maintains confirms the Respondent complied with its obligations under section 56 of Ont. Reg. 156/18, and provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions.

17In its CMD, the CFSRB directed the hearing of the Application to be conducted in writing and set deadlines for each party to submit their hearing materials and submissions. Specifically, the Applicant was given until February 24, 2026 to file his materials and submissions, and in doing so, the Applicant was required to identify the specific deficiencies in the Respondent’s compliance with its complaint review process in relation to the complaint letter of October 9, 2025 and the specific decisions for which he alleges he has not received reasons.

18Moreover, the CFSRB addressed the Applicant’s concern regarding the absence of disclosure from the Respondent and noted that:

The information contained in the disclosure requested by the Applicant is, in effect, the remedy that the Applicant is ultimately seeking from the CFSRB in response to his complaint under section 120(4)5 of the Act. A written hearing will expedite the resolution of this complaint and, if the Respondent is ordered to provide reasons, supply the Applicant with the information he seeks without undue delay.

19The Respondent was given until March 10, 2026 to file its responding materials and submissions to the specific events and decisions identified in the Applicant’s materials. The Applicant was given the option of filing a Reply by March 17, 2026. While the Respondent filed its materials and submissions by the deadline noted, the Applicant did not.

20On February 6, 2026, after the CMD was issued, the Applicant sent an email to the CFSRB attaching a significantly redacted document. He requested that the CFSRB accept the redacted document and maintained that it would be impossible for him to proceed with the hearing of this matter without disclosure from the Respondent.

21Moreover, on February 20, 2026, the Applicant sent submissions to the CMD in which he claimed the CFSRB had failed to address the disclosure issues, the integrity of the proceeding had “fallen into disrepute” and the CFSRB had “abandoned jurisdiction in this matter”.

22On February 24, 2026, the CFSRB accepted the redacted document from the Applicant as part of his hearing materials and submissions; however, it deferred the decision on how much weight to be given to the document to the hearing of the matter.

23On the same day, the Applicant delivered an email to the CFSRB in which he accused the CFSRB of being “wilfully blind” to the disclosure issues and of misrepresenting that disclosure was the remedy sought. The Applicant also took the position that the CFSRB had abandoned this matter, and apart from the redacted document, did not file any further materials or submissions in accordance with the directions set out in the CMD.

24The Respondent’s hearing materials and submissions, which included an Affidavit from its Service Relations and Privacy Program Supervisor (“Supervisor”) dated March 10, 2026, reiterated its earlier submissions that it did not fail to comply with the complaints review process or any procedural requirements; and, moreover, that it provided reasons for the decisions it made in its response to the Applicant’s ICRP complaint which was filed on December 5, 2025. The Respondent also emphasized that the Applicant failed to comply with the direction in the CMD which required him to provide particulars concerning the decisions the Respondent made for which it allegedly failed to provide reasons.

ANALYSIS

(a) Did the Respondent comply with the complaint review procedure and any other procedural requirements regarding the Applicant’s complaint allegedly filed with the Respondent in or around October 9, 2025, in accordance with subsection 120(4)3 of the Act?

25Subsection 119(1) of the Act states:

A person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the society in accordance with the regulations.

26Section 56 of Ont. Reg. 156/18 provides that a complaint to a society under subsection 119(1) of the Act must be made in a form entitled, “Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP)”. Upon receipt of the said form, a society has seven days to determine whether the complaint is eligible for review. If the complaint is not eligible for review, a society must notify the complainant of its decision and the reasons for it in writing. If the complaint is eligible for review, a society must establish an Internal Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”) and provide the complainant with a date and time for a meeting with the ICRP. (See sections 57 to 59 of Ont. Reg. 156/18)

27Subsection 120(4)3 of the Act states that the CFSRB may review allegations that a society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under the Act relating to the review of complaints.

28At the time the Applicant filed the Application with the CFSRB, he did not file a complaint with the Respondent pursuant to section 56 of Ont. Reg. 156/18. While he delivered an email to the Respondent after 5:00p.m. on October 9, 2025, identifying his complaint as a “formal” complaint, that is insufficient to satisfy the requirement under section 56 of Ont. Reg. 156/18. I am therefore not satisfied that the Applicant filed a complaint with the Respondent under subsection 119(1) of the Act in accordance with the referenced regulation.

29The confirmation received from the Respondent on October 10, 2025, that the Applicant’s “request for a formal complaint process” had been received and would be responded to, does not satisfy the requirement of section 56 of Ont. Reg. 156/18. Albeit the Respondent could have advised the Applicant the complaint letter was insufficient or defective, if he intended to initiate a formal complaint process, it was under no obligation to do so. The Respondent did, however, refer the Applicant to Ont. Reg. 156/18, and furthermore included a link in its correspondence to a document titled “Process for raising a concern or complaint” which sets out the different ways in which the Applicant could put his concerns or complaints to the Respondent, including information on how to initiate a formal complaint process and a link on how to access the requisite form.

30The Applicant did not file a complaint with the Respondent in the form required under section 56 of Ont. Reg. 156/18 until December 5, 2025, after the present Application was filed with the CFSRB. By the Respondent’s account, the matters complained of to the ICRP and the CFSRB were delineated. The ICRP meeting was held on December 18, 2025 and subsequently on January 16, 2026, the Respondent provided the Applicant with its written response to his ICRP complaint, including reasons.

31Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Respondent did comply with its obligations under subsection 120(4)3 of the Act, once the Applicant filed his complaint with the Respondent in the required form on December 5, 2025. However, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s complaint letter to the Respondent, which was sent by email on or about October 9, 2025, complied with subsection 119(1) of the Act or section 56 of Ont. Reg. 156/18. For these reasons, the Applicant’s claim that the Respondent failed to comply with its obligations under section 120(4)3 of the Act must be dismissed.

(b) Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affected his interests in relation to the Child, K.S., in accordance with subsection 120(4)5 of the Act?

32Subsection 120(4)5 of the Act states that the CFSRB may review allegations that a society has failed to provide a complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests. The “right to reasons” under the Act is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held at para 13 that:

A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

33After submitting the significantly redacted document as part of his hearing materials and submissions, which the CFSRB accepted, the Applicant has effectively withdrawn from participating in this written hearing on the basis of his allegation that the process is both procedurally unfair and a denial of his right to natural justice. The Applicant insists that without first receiving the disclosure he seeks from the Respondent, the Applicant cannot proceed to a written hearing.

34The CFSRB explained in its CMD that the disclosure sought by the Applicant is effectively the remedy he is seeking, in obtaining reasons for the decisions the Respondent made which affected him in relation to the Child, K.S. The Applicant clearly disagrees with the CFSRB.

35It is not the CFSRB’s role to question the appropriateness or correctness of the decisions made by the Respondent, but rather to determine whether the Respondent met its obligation under subsection 120(4)5 of the Act to provide the Applicant with reasons for the decisions it made that affected him in relation to the Child, K.S. The scope of the CFSRB’s authority under subsection 120(4)5 of the Act is to determine whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for the decisions it made, not whether those decisions were made in bad faith.

36The CFSRB made clear in the CMD that, in addition to exchanging the hearing materials and submissions by the deadlines noted, the Applicant was required to provide specific details regarding the decisions made by the Respondent which he claims he did not receive reasons for.

37The Applicant has not provided any specific details regarding the decisions made by the Respondent for which he was not given reasons. Without the Applicant doing so, it is not possible for the CFSRB to determine whether reasons were provided in accordance with subsection 120(4)5 of the Act. The Applicant has had ample time to identify the decisions made by the Respondent but has chosen not to do so and effectively withdrawn from this process. As such, the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent did not provide him with reasons must be dismissed.

38Moreover, the Respondent maintains that it provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions in its response of January 16, 2026 to the ICRP complaint. Having reviewed the Respondent’s response to the ICRP complaint, which divided the Applicant’s multiple complaints into various categories, I am satisfied that at minimum, the Respondent provided the Applicant with responses to his complaints, which included reasons for the decisions identified in the response.

ORDER

39For the foregoing reasons, the Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

40Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this Application with anyone, including through the media or online. The CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.

Ivana Vaccaro

Ivana Vaccaro Adjudicator