AM v. Ogwadeni:deo, 2026 CFSRB 61

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AM

Applicant

-and-

Ogwadeni:deo

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Lise Henrie

Date: April 23, 2026

Citation: 2026 CFSRB 61

Indexed as: AM v Ogwadeni:deo (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

AM, Applicant

AM, Self-represented

Ogwadeni:deo, Respondent

ML, Student-at-law

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 (the “Act”). The Applicant is the Child’s paternal grandmother and kin-in-care caregiver.

2On March 23, 2026, the Respondent filed a motion for:

a) An Order dismissing the Application for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to s. 120(8)(a) of the Act because the subject matter overlaps with ongoing child protection proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice (the “Court”) and is therefore statutorily barred from Board review.

b) An Order dismissing all issues seeking disclosure of third-party personal information (the parents’ information) on the basis of Part X (privacy), as the Board cannot compel the Society, Ogwadeni:deo, to breach its statutory obligations.

3This decision decides the jurisdictional issues raised by the Respondent’s motion.

ISSUES

4Are the issues in the Application separate and different than the substantive issues that are before the Court?

5Does the CFSRB have jurisdiction to hear a complaint pursuant to section 120 where the subject-matter requires information about a third party?

RESULT

6The CFSRB finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s complaints that are related to her interests, but does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints that are before the court or that relate to third parties.

ANALYSIS

Applicant’s complaints

7In this Application, the Applicant alleges:

a) that the Respondent failed to proceed with a complaint made by the Applicant in or around December 22, 2025 (section 120(4)1 of the Act).

b) that, with respect to the December 22, 2025 complaint, the Respondent failed to respond or otherwise follow its complaint procedure (section 120(4)2 and 3 of the Act).

c) that the Respondent failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding the following issues, as required under (section 120(4)5 of the Act):

i. Why the Respondent allegedly allowed for the expansion of time between the Child and the Child’s mother (the “Mother”) despite the alleged persistence of safety concerns;

ii. Why the Respondent allegedly allowed the Child to be transported to and from access with the Mother by individuals who the Respondent has allegedly not properly screened;

iii. Why the Respondent allegedly allowed the Mother’s access with the Child to be supervised by individuals who the Respondent has allegedly not properly screened;

iv. Why the Applicant was allegedly not given advance notice of a meeting that occurred with the Respondent in or around September 3, 2025;

v. Why the Respondent allegedly failed to provide the Applicant with the opportunity to notify a representative from the Child’s First Nation to be present at the meeting on September 3, 2025;

vi. Why the Respondent has allegedly failed to properly document alleged incidents of harm to the Child reported by the Applicant in the Child Protection Information Network (“CPIN”);

vii. Why the Respondent allegedly characterized the Applicant’s communications with the Child’s extended family in relation to the Child as a breach of the Respondent’s privacy and confidentiality policies;

viii. Whether the Respondent received confirmation from the Child’s attending physician that the physician was aware of the Child’s pre-existing medical conditions prior to prescribing medication in or around October, 2025;

ix. Why the Respondent has required that the Respondent attend at all medical appointments for the Child following the incident that occurred in October, 2025; and

x. Why the Applicant has allegedly not been fully reimbursed for expenses that she incurred for the Child and was allegedly advised would be reimbursed by the Respondent.

Respondent’s Motion

8The Respondent first raised questions regarding the CFSRB’s jurisdiction in this matter in its February 6, 2026 response to the Notice of Eligibility issued by the CFSRB on January 30, 2026. The parties agreed to attend mediation before addressing this issue. As the mediation did not result in a settlement, the Respondent brought forward this motion regarding the CFSRB’s jurisdiction on March 23, 2026.

9For this motion, the Respondent submits:

(a) That the Child has been the subject of ongoing child protection proceedings since June 2025. The Applicant’s complaints including those relating to medical decision-making, access arrangements (including for the Mother and the Child’s father), supervision, transportation safety, and parental conduct are issues before the Court and subject to ongoing judicial oversight. The Board, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to review these complaints pursuant to s. 120(8) of the Act.

(b) That the request for information relating to the child’s mother, including safety plans, access plans, supervisory arrangements, and details of her conduct during access constitutes the mother’s personal information, and she has expressly requested that her privacy be protected. Under Part X (ss. 285–287 CYFSA), the Society is prohibited from disclosing more personal information than is reasonably necessary. The Society’s refusal to release this information is therefore not a refusal to provide a service but compliance with its statutory obligations. The Board cannot order the Society to breach Part X.

(c) That the Applicant’s complaints do not concern “services” sought or received by her as required under s. 120 of the Act.

(d) That the Board’s jurisdiction does not extend to:

• reviewing medical decisions made by physicians;

• adjudicating the accuracy of CPIN notes, which have a dedicated statutory correction mechanism;

• systemic concerns about treatment of Band Representatives;

• allegations of retaliation that are not tied to the refusal of a service;

• administrative reimbursement timelines; or

• re-adjudicating the substance of the underlying complaints of the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP).

Applicant’s Position on the Motion

10The Applicant’s March 23, 2026 written submissions are that the Application is properly before the Board and should proceed to a full hearing. The Applicant submits that the complaints do not relate to any court order.

11With respect to section 120(8)(a) of the Act, the Applicant submits that she is not asking the CFSRB to make decisions relating to access, medical care or safety plans, but rather challenges how complaints were handled, whether concerns were properly documented, whether reasons were provided and whether the complaint process was fair and accessible.

Review

• Does the Notice of Eligibility determine jurisdiction?

12The Applicant submits that the CFSRB already confirmed jurisdiction when it determined that the Application was eligible to proceed under section 120(4) of the Act. However, the CFSRB notes for a complaint to be eligible for review under section 120 of the Act, an applicant must be seeking or receiving services or have received services from a society and the complaint must relate to those services. The issue of jurisdiction may not have been raised with the CFSRB at the initial stage. As indicated above, the Respondent did raise the issue of jurisdiction in its February 6, 2026 response to the Notice of Eligibility. The question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, based on the information available and is now properly before the CFSRB.

• Did the Respondent fail in providing evidence?

13While the Applicant submits that the Respondent failed to provide copies of the court documents referenced in its February 6, 2026 Response, those documents were filed on March 24, 2025 as part of their supporting documentation.

14The CFSRB reminds the parties that those orders involved third parties who are not party to this application and pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, these orders, as well as any other information disclosed in this proceeding, are to be treated as confidential.

• Are the issues before the Court pursuant to section 120(8)(a)?

15The CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review complaints in respect of a service sought or received from a society is not infinite. There are boundaries. The CFSRB considered section 120(8)(a) of the Act which provides that the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint if: “the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court”.

16The CFSRB finds that this provision confirms that the concept of “subject of the complaint” is a broad category that encompasses more than the content of any specific issue raised by a party before the Court. As such, a specific issue may not have been raised in Court proceedings; however, the proceedings may have addressed the broader subject matter included in a complaint.

17I find that the Endorsements filed by the Respondent on March 24, 2026 dated July 3, 2025, September 5, 2025, October 22, 2025, January 19, 2026, February 17, 2026, and March 11, 2026 address the child’s mother’s time with the child, although not in great detail. Despite the lack of detail, the CFSRB finds that any of the Applicant’s complaints related to the time the child spends with the Child’s mother are within the purview of the Court, and therefore not within the CFSRB ‘s jurisdiction. More specifically, the Applicant requests at paragraphs 7. (c)(i), (ii) and (iii) above are not within the CFSRB jurisdiction and will not be considered at the hearing.

• Does the CFSRB have jurisdiction to hear a complaint pursuant to section 120 where the subject-matter requires information about a third party?

18The CFSRB has already determined that some of the Applicant’s complaints relating to the Mother are not within its jurisdiction. If there are other complaints that require disclosing personal information about the Mother or another third party, the Respondent would not be in a position to provide that information to the Applicant without the third party’s consent. The Act is clear that access to personal information collected under Part X of the Act is an issue that is outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. As of January 1, 2020, the Information and Privacy Commissioner rather than the CFSRB has jurisdiction over such issues.

19Should any complaint proceeding to a hearing require disclosure of a third party’s personal information, the CFSRB will determine whether it is appropriate to deal with the matter or whether it may be appropriate to redact the documentation or make some other arrangement.

• Are the Applicant’s complaints “services” sought or received by her as required under s. 120 of the Act?

20Some of the Applicant’s complaints relate to the Child, and not to her interests, as required under s. 120 (4)5 of the Act. The CFSRB does not find that the Applicant’s complaints that she was not provided with reasons for the following decisions relate to the Applicant’s interests:

• whether the Respondent received confirmation from the Child’s attending physician that the physician was aware of the Child’s pre-existing medical conditions; and,

• why the Respondent has required that the Respondent attend at all medical appointments for the Child following an incident.

21The CFSRB finds that these decisions relate to the Child, and therefore are not subject to s. 120(4)5 of the Act. As the Child is in a kin-in-care arrangement, the Respondent has lawful custody of the Child. Section 120 (4) distinguishes between a complainant whose interests are affected, and the failure to comply with subsection 15(2) of the Act which applies to children and their parents. For this reason, the Applicant does not have the status to request information regarding decisions made for the child’s medical needs.

• Does the CFSRB have jurisdiction over the Respondent’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process?

22Regarding the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent failed to proceed with a December 22, 2025 complaint and to respond or otherwise follow its complaint procedure, the CFSRB finds that it has jurisdiction. Pursuant to section 120 (7) of the Act, the CFSRB may order the Respondent to proceed with the complaint review procedure (s. 120(7)(a)), and to require the Respondent to provide a response (s. 120(7)(b)) for its decision regarding the December 22, 2025 complaint. The CFSRB agrees with the Respondent that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to re-adjudicate the substance of the complaints before the ICRP. The CFSRB jurisdiction in this matter is limited to determining whether it should order that the Respondent proceed with the complaint or provide a response.

• Conclusion

23In reviewing the crux of the Applicant’s complaints, the CFSRB finds that some of these were before the court, more specifically matters relating to the time the Mother may spend with the Child. Some complaints relate to the care of the Child and not to the complainant’s interests. There are some complaints that relate to the to the Respondent’s services to the Applicant, including financial matters. The latter are in line with a section 120 complaint. Finally, there are some complaints that were not sufficiently addressed by the Respondent to determine that they should be excluded from the review. Some of those issues may not relate to the complainant’s interests, or they may be before the Court, but there is insufficient information to make that finding. For that reason, those complaints remain before the CFSRB for the purpose of the hearing.

24Finally, section 120 provides the CFSRB with limited powers in making orders. To be clear, the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to compel the Respondent to change any of its decisions nor to provide any information regarding a third party. If any of the complaints deemed to be within the CFSRB jurisdiction in this decision raise issues regarding third party personal information, the CFSRB may revisit the appropriateness of dealing with that complaint.

ORDER

25This matter may proceed to a hearing.

26For the reasons above, the CFSRB finds that the following complaints are within its jurisdiction:

a) whether the Respondent failed to proceed with a complaint made by the Applicant in or around December 22, 2025 (section 120(4)1 of the Act).

b) whether, with respect to the December 22, 2025 complaint, the Respondent failed to respond or otherwise follow its complaint procedure (section 120(4)2 and 3 of the Act).

c) whether the Respondent failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding the following issues, as required under (section 120(4)5 of the Act):

• Why the Applicant was allegedly not given advance notice of a meeting that occurred with the Respondent in or around September 3, 2025;

• Why the Respondent allegedly failed to provide the Applicant with the opportunity to notify a representative from the Child’s First Nation to be present at the meeting on September 3, 2025;

• Why the Respondent has allegedly failed to properly document alleged incidents of harm to the Child reported by the Applicant in the Child Protection Information Network (“CPIN”);

• Why the Respondent allegedly characterized the Applicant’s communications with the Child’s extended family in relation to the Child as a breach of the Respondent’s privacy and confidentiality policies;

• Why the Applicant has allegedly not been fully reimbursed for expenses that she incurred for the Child and was allegedly advised would be reimbursed by the Respondent.

27In accordance with section 120(8) of the Act and Part X of the Act, the CFSRB finds that it does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the following issues:

• Why the Respondent allegedly allowed for the expansion of time between the Child and the Mother despite the alleged persistence of safety concerns;

• Why the Respondent allegedly allowed the Child to be transported to and from access with the Mother by individuals who the Respondent has allegedly not properly screened;

• Why the Respondent allegedly allowed the Mother’s access with the Child to be supervised by individuals who the Respondent has allegedly not properly screened;

• Whether the Respondent received confirmation from the Child’s attending physician that the physician was aware of the Child’s pre-existing medical conditions prior to prescribing medication in or around October, 2025;

• Why the Respondent has required that the Respondent attend at all medical appointments for the Child following the incident that occurred in October, 2025.

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.

Dated, April 23, 2026.

Lise Henrie

Lise Henrie

Vice-Chair