CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SM Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Algoma Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: April 01, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 52 Indexed as: SM v Children’s Aid Society of Algoma (CYFSA s.120)
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, (the “Act”).
2The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3In its Response dated March 6, 2026, the Respondent submitted that the Application was not eligible to proceed because the matter had been or was currently before the Court. It submitted various Court Orders and a Statement of Claim in support.
4An email to the Applicant from the CFSRB on March 12, 2026, directed the Applicant to make written submissions by March 16, 2026, on whether the issues in the Application were separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. The Applicant provided their submissions on March 16, 2026.
5The Applicant’s complaint relates to three separate concerns: a) a “plethora of human right complaints” as supported by their filing of three separate Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) complaints; b) the Respondent’s lawyer’s unethical practice in court on December 2, 2025; and c) the Respondent’s failure to intervene in an incident that occurred on February 17, 2026.
ISSUE
6The issue is whether the concerns in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues that have been or are currently before the Court?
RESULT
7Having reviewed the submissions and documents presented, I find that the first two concerns listed in paragraph 5 above, are not separate and different from the substantive issues that have been or are currently before the Court, and as a result, are outside of the authority of the CFSRB to review. The concern about the Respondent’s alleged failure to intervene in an incident that occurred on February 17, 2026, is separate and different from what has been or is currently before the court. As a result, this concern can be reviewed by the CFSRB. The Application is upheld in part.
ANALYSIS
8Under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act, the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the Court or is before the Court.
9The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441, that the mere existence of child protection proceedings does not bar the CFSRB from reviewing complaints about services received from a children’s aid society if the complaints are “separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.”
10Both parties have provided various court documents, including, temporary and final orders, statements of claim, and notices of withdrawal. In addition to the documents provided, other proceedings such as previous CFSRB filed, current HRTO matters, previous complaints to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and Court Appeals are mentioned.
A. The Applicant’s allegations of infringements of the Ontario Human Rights Code, [R.S.O. 1990, c H.19](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html), are outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB
11The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s staff have unfairly stereotyped and discriminated against her in the areas of citizenship, disability, association, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, and for receiving public assistance. This has impacted her treatment and fair access to services pursuant to the Human Rights Code. The Applicant submits that she has provided a large amount of evidence to prove this allegation already to the HRTO on January 19, 2026. No further information was provided by the Applicant about the status of these HRTO complaints.
12The Respondent submits that it has not received any information from the HRTO for any complaints from the Applicant.
13Whether the Respondent has discriminated against her under the Ontario Human Rights Code is a matter already before the HRTO.
B) The Applicant’s allegations that the Respondent’s lawyer acted unethically in court on December 2, 2025, has been before the court.
14The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s lawyer engaged in unethical legal practices and intentionally misrepresented the contents of legal documents to the court on December 2, 2025. Specifically, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s lawyer made claims regarding physical health concerns, misrepresenting that they posed a protection concern for the children
15The Respondent submits that there continues to be an outstanding child protection matter before the courts and that the Applicant’s health has been one of the considerations reviewed by the Court.
16A six-day trial was held before Justice Kwolek, ending March 4, 2025. Justice Kwolek’s decision of June 23, 2025, made a finding that the children were in need of protection and were to be placed in the care of the maternal grandmother with continuing access to the Applicant. On August 1, 2025, Justice Kwolek released a final order related to conditions and terms for the Applicant’s access and parenting time.
17On July 23, 2025, the Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal of Justice Kwolek’s June 23, 2025, Order, and a further Notice of Appeal of Justice Kwolek’s August 1, 2025, Order, on August 4, 2025. The August 4, 2025, Appeal remains before the Court.
18On September 2, 2025, the Applicant filed a Status Review Application.
19A Case Conference for the Applicant’s Status Review Application was held on December 2, 2025. It is the Case Conference Brief filed by the Respondent that the Applicant takes issue with.
20The Applicant’s physical and mental health were given great consideration during the trial and formed a large basis of Justice’s Kwolek’s decision to find the children in need of protection. As such, it would have been a consideration during the Status Review process and will likely also form part of the Appeal.
21This concern is not different from what has been and continues to be before the court. As a result, it is not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review.
C) The Applicant’s allegations that the Respondent failed to intervene in an incident dated February 17, 2026, is separate and distinct from what has been before the court.
22The Applicant alleges that there was an incident on February 17, 2026, between her children and the maternal grandmother, where the Respondent did not properly intervene.
23This incident took place after all of the court proceedings that were presented to the CFSRB by both parties. It is possible that it may form part of further status reviews or court considerations, but as of the date of the Application, it had not.
24Further, the Respondent has not made any argument that the incident in question has been before the court. The Respondent’s submissions focussed instead on what took place on February 17, 2026, and the communications it has had with the Applicant afterward.
25I find that the Applicant’s concern regarding the incident of February 17, 2026, is different and separate from what has or currently is before the court.
CONCLUSION
26For the reasons set out above, I find that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the matter on the issue of alleged human rights violations or alleged unethical conduct of the Respondent’s lawyer at court. I find that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review whether the Applicant had an opportunity to be heard or was provided reasons for decisions with respect to the alleged incident that took place on February 17, 2026.
ORDER
27The Application is upheld in part. The CFSRB will hear the Applicant’s complaint that she was not provided an opportunity to be heard or provided reasons for decisions with respect to the alleged incident that took place on February 17, 2026.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
28Pursuant 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.
Christine Staley
Christine Staley
Member