CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
CR
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christina M. Budweth
Indexed as: CR v The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)
OVERVIEW
1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (‘CFSRB’) on November 17, 2025 under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the ‘Act’).
2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3This matter was the subject of a Pre-Hearing and a Motion to determine the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. The Pre-Hearing held on December 19, 2025 framed the issues the Applicant wanted the CFSRB to consider. Those issues were then the subject of a written motion on the issue of jurisdiction. The motion was determined by a Decision dated February 20, 2026 (the “February Decision”). The February Decision determined that the following three issues were within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to consider: that the Respondent has not heard the Applicant regarding her strengths as a parent; that the Respondent has not heard the Applicant regarding her request for a change of worker and the slow pace of the Respondent’s responses to her concerns; and, that the Respondent failed to provide reasons as to why it had not agreed to assess an alternate kin plan.
4The hearing on the merits of this matter took place by videoconference on May 1, 2026. The Applicant attended in person as did the Respondent’s counsel Katie Skinner and Roxanne Sahadeo, the Applicant’s Case Worker and the Respondent’s instructing client.
5After preliminary remarks, the Applicant stated that with the appointment of Ms. Sahadeo as her new case worker “so far everything is working good from my point of view.” The Applicant described Ms. Sahadeo as “Amazing Roxanne.” She stated that Ms. Sahadeo has facilitated her enrolment in various programs which aim to allow her to make positive changes which may allow her to be reunited with her children.
6The Applicant asked to withdraw her application on the issues as defined in the February Decision.
7The Applicant also raised an issue which was not defined as one which would be considered at the hearing; namely, the conduct of the Applicant’s children’s current caregiver N.B. and her suitability as custodian. In addition, the Applicant raised the question as to what investigations were conducted by the Respondent as to N.B.’s fitness and what ongoing monitoring of her fitness was taking place.
8Counsel for the Respondent submitted that this issue was not defined in the Pre-Hearing attendances and therefore not properly the subject of this hearing. Counsel also argued that the issue as set out in paragraph 7 above is one that is squarely before the court and therefore, ineligible for CFSRB consideration.
9A Final Order on Consent was made by Justice Sager of the Ontario Court on March 15, 2026. That Order was based on an Agreed Statement of Facts to which the Applicant was a signatory. She was represented by counsel during the proceeding. The matter will be returned to the court for a Status Review on September 9, 2026. The Final Order settled the issue of the child protection proceeding with the Applicant’s children remaining in the care of N.B.
10Counsel advised that the issue of the fitness of N.B. was squarely before the court. The Applicant agreed that she did agree that the children should remain in the custody of N.B. until such time as she can assemble a kin care proposal that is acceptable to the Respondent. She stated that she did not wish to disrupt her children further.
11I agree with counsel for the Respondent that s.120(8) of the Act, precludes the CFSRB from reviewing the Applicant’s complaint as the issue of N.B.’s appropriateness as a care giver/custodian is squarely before the court. After discussion on this point, the Applicant conceded that this was the case.
12The Applicant then re-iterated her request that this matter be withdrawn as she is currently working constructively with the Respondent.
ORDER
13The application is withdrawn and the CFSRB file is now closed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
14Pursuant 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, May 04, 2026.
Christina M. Budweth
Christina M. Budweth
Member