KR v. Children and Family Services for York Region, 2026 CanLII 56044

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

KR Applicant

-and-

Children and Family Services for York Region Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelaine Lahaie Date: March 30, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSR 49 Indexed as: KR v Children and Family Services for York Region (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

KR, Applicant Self-represented

Children and Family Services for York Region, Respondent SA-M, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application (the “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 (the “Act”).

2The Applicant is the mother of five children (the “children”), named in the Application. She filed her Application with the CFSRB on February 17, 2026. It was found eligible to proceed on February 19, 2026 under section 120(4)4 and section 120(4)5 of the Act, on the basis the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made, or a chance to be heard when she raised concerns about the services she was receiving. The Applicant also alleged that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for a decision that affects her interests.

3In the February 19, 2026 Notice of Eligibility sent to the parties, the Respondent was asked to “address in its Response the issue of whether the CFSRB is barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Act from reviewing some or all of the Application. If the Society takes the position that the CFSRB is barred by section 120(8)(a) from reviewing some or all of the Application, the Applicant may make written submissions on this question no later than 10 days after receipt of the Response.”

4The Respondent filed its response on February 25, 2026, arguing that, under section 120(8) of the Act, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction in this matter as the issues brought forward by the Applicant are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

5The Applicant filed her submissions in two emails sent on March 11, 2026. The CFSRB finds her emails did not address how the issues brought forward in her Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court. She argued in her submissions that:

a. She has moved to a new home and there have been no reports of child neglect, abuse or safety concerns. There is also no evidence that her child cannot be properly cared for. She included a copy of her medical records from her most recent birth;

b. Her family has falsely claimed that she suffers from mental health issues, including making false claims of abuse about her. She is kept in the dark about what is happening with her children;

c. Her human rights and rights as a mother have been violated because her parenting time has been limited and she is not permitted to have unsupervised visits with her children, which damages the parent-child bond; and

d. Communications with her children have been withheld because the phone that she provided to her son was removed.

6In rendering my decision, I reviewed the Application, the Respondent’s Response, which included multiple court documents, and the Applicant’s submissions.

ISSUE

7The issue is whether the CFSRB has the jurisdiction to review the Application.

RESULT

8I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application, and it must be dismissed.

ANALYSIS

9Section 120(8)(a) of the Act provides that 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. This means that the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to hear this application if the complaint relates to a matter that is before the court.

10The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441 held 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.

11Accordingly, the application of subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act to the review of an applicant’s complaints is essentially a two-part review. First, the CFSRB must consider what constitutes the “substantive issues” before a court, and second, whether the applicant’s complaints are “separate and different” from those substantive issues.

The two eldest children ONRM and OJRM

12In a final parenting order issued on September 28, 2021, the court directed that the Applicant’s two eldest children shall reside with and be in the care of their maternal grandparents. This same order directs that the maternal grandparents shall have decision making responsibility for both children, including applying for passports and government documents and traveling outside of Canada and, that such decisions do not require the consent of either parent.

The Child TR

13The Child TR (“TR”) was born on November 2, 2021 and was moved to a place of safety on December 30, 2021 after the Applicant had been apprehended under the Mental Health Act. The Respondent subsequently opened a Child Protection Application and a temporary order issued on January 4, 2022 found that TR was in need of protection. TR was placed in temporary Society care, and the Applicant was encouraged to participate in any reasonable requests for assessment and to follow any professional recommendations for treatment and, to develop a long-term plan for TR. A final Order placing TR in interim society care was issued on February 14, 2023.

14On August 29, 2023, TR’s placement was varied to place him in the temporary care of the Applicant, subject to the Respondent’s supervision and specific terms and conditions.

15TR was placed in the care of the Respondent on a temporary basis on December 12, 2024 by way of a temporary Order. A Status Review Application continues to be before the court for TR.

16I find that the Applicant has been involved in all proceedings before the court for TR. She has been represented and has had the opportunity to bring forth motions and plans of care.

The Child SRA

17The Child SRA (“SRA”) was born on October 22, 2023. On December 12, 2024, a Warrant to Apprehend a Child was issued by the court, directing that SRA be brought to a place of safety. On December 17, 2024, SRA was placed in the care of Peel Children’s Aid Society by way of a temporary order. The Child Protection Application was transferred from Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (“CASRP”) to the Children and Family Services for York Region (“CFSYR”), leading to the care of SRA also being transferred to CFSYR. A Status Review Application continues to be before the court for SRA.

18I find that the Applicant has been involved in all proceedings before the court for SRA. She has been represented and has had the opportunity to bring forth motions and plans of care.

The Child SR

19The Child SR (“SR”) was born on March 29, 2025. On April 1, 2025, SR was removed from the care of the Applicant and on April 7, 2025, a temporary order was issued placing SR in the care of the CASRP. The Child Protection Application was transferred from Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (“CASRP”) to the Children and Family Services for York Region (“CFSYR”), leading to the care of SR also being transferred to CFSYR. A Status Review Application continues to be before the court for SR.

20I find that the Applicant has been involved in all proceedings before the court for SR. She has been represented and has had the opportunity to bring forth motions and plans of care.

Issues Before the Court

21I find that the issues of care of the children, the role of the Respondent in managing that care, including the scheduling of visits with the Applicant are all issues that are before the court. I also find that the terms and conditions, including the necessary mental health supports, that the Applicant must meet in order to have her children returned to her have been clearly articulated by the courts.

Issues in the Application

22The Applicant indicates that she was not heard when she raised concerns and was not given reasons for decisions that affect her interests. In her Application, she highlights the following issues:

a. Her children were unlawfully apprehended and illegally place in foster homes;

b. The Respondent placed her two eldest children in a kinship arrangement with abusive family members and in doing so, did not respond to her concerns;

c. Her youngest child was apprehended without court order and no proof that the child was harmed; and

d. She has provided a safe and stable home for her children. She would like her children back and does not require support.

Are the issues raised in the Application separate and distinct from those before the court?

23I find that the issues in the Application are not separate and distinct from the issues before the court.

24The Applicant’s children were not unlawfully apprehended. Rather they were taken to a place of safety due to parenting concerns. This is supported by multiple court documents. The Applicant filed plans of care in response to these actions and had an opportunity to raise her concerns with the court. She was also provided with specific terms and conditions to be met to have her children returned to her.

25When the eldest children were placed in a kinship arrangement by the court, the Applicant had an opportunity to bring forward her concerns during the court proceedings.

26Therefore, as the issues brought forward in the Application are not separate and distinct from the issues before the court, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application and it must be dismissed.

ORDER

27The Application is dismissed.

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.

Michelaine Lahaie

Michelaine Lahaie Vice-Chair