CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
LW
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the City of Sarnia and the County of Lambton
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christina M. Budweth
Indexed as: LW v The Children’s Aid Society of the City of Sarnia and the County of Lambton (CYFSA s.120)
OVERVIEW
1On February 26, 2026, the Applicant submitted this Application (the “Application”) to 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 grandmother of three children (E., D. and a female child D.) who are the subject of this Application (the “Children”).
3The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under section 120(4)5 of the Act. Specifically, the CFSRB found the following allegation eligible to proceed:
- The Society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects his/her interests.
THE ISSUE - JURISDICTION
4This matter has been the subject of a Case Management Direction (‘CMD”) dated March 12, 2026 which acknowledged the Respondent’s intention to raise jurisdictional issues about the Application. The CMD in paragraph 10, specifically addressed certain complaints by the Applicant that on their face were outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB among them the decision to issue monetary awards. The CMD also determined that the Application should proceed to a pre-hearing videoconference and noted that if the parties were not able to reach a resolution of the matter at the pre-hearing, then the Respondent was free to pursue its jurisdictional arguments.
5The Application was not resolved at the pre-hearing; however, in the Pre-Hearing Mediation Report dated March 27, 2026, the nine issues for hearing were identified and articulated by the Adjudicator and a timeline for the exchange of material on the jurisdictional issue was set out.
6The Respondent provided a detailed submission regarding the jurisdictional issue together with supporting material consisting of various child protection applications, temporary orders and final orders as well as the Traditional Customary Care Agreement between the Walpole Island First Nation (the “WIFN”), the Applicant and the biological parents of the Children.
7On April 28, 2026 (4 days past the deadline to do so) the Applicant provided a four paragraph Response in which she indicated that she no longer wants the WIFN to be involved in her “complaint”. The Applicant further submitted that she is seeking retroactive compensation for the six years of care that she provided to the Children. As part of her claim for compensation, the Applicant alleges that the female child D. “was placed in my custody and is still under my CCA since 2021”. While this issue is not specifically set out in the Pre-Hearing Report, it is woven throughout the issues.
8Attached to the Applicant’s responding statement were many copies of draft orders in the child protection proceedings and other documents that were provided with the Respondent’s material.
9The Respondent takes the position that the CFSRB is barred from hearing this matter because of section 120(8)(a) of the Act in that the issues raised in the application are issues “decided by the court.” The Respondent also takes the position that some of the issues are outside the scope of its involvement and are issues arising out of the Applicant’s involvement with the Walpole Island First Nation (the “WIFN”).
10The Applicant’s Response and material do not address the jurisdictional issue.
RESULT
11I have found that the Applicant has made an application about issues that have been decided in child welfare proceedings by the court or arise from the Applicant’s involvement with the WIFN and that the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to consider these complaints.
ANALYSIS
(a) First Customary Care Agreement (2020) (CCA) (b) Why did the Second Customary Care Agreement not include Financial Provisions and (c) Request for Subsidies
12The Respondent’s material sets out the sequence of events leading to the execution of the CCA. A CCA is a negotiated agreement traditionally used among First Nations peoples. The Respondent is only aware of one CCA. The Respondent is not a signatory to the CCA.
13The CCA was executed on March 11, 2021. This document was negotiated between the Applicant, the Children’s biological parents and the WIFN and it applies to only the Children E. and D. All of the Children were removed from the Applicant’s care on June 5, 2021 and the matter first brought before the court on June 8, 2021. Several temporary orders regarding the placement of the Children E. and D. were made. The protection proceedings regarding these Children were terminated by the court on March 29, 2022 as a result of the presentation of the CCA to the court. At the time of the presentation of the CCA, the Applicant was represented by counsel. The younger children, E and D were returned to the care of the Applicant and that care is governed by the CCA. Paragraph 22 of the CCA under Duties of the WIFN stipulates the WIFN “will ensure that the Customary Caregiver has the supports needed to care for the children appropriately, including her ability to ensure that the children’s physical, mental, medical, emotional and cultural needs are met.”
14Paragraphs 26 through 31 specifically identify and articulate a Dispute Resolution process.
15The Respondent has advised that the Applicant unilaterally terminated the CCA in January of 2026. The Applicant’s responding material suggests that she no longer wishes to be bound to the terms of the CCA nor does she wish any involvement with the WIFN in so far as the Children and their care is concerned.
16The Respondent was not a participant in the negotiation nor a signatory to the CCA and, therefore, if there are concerns about the circumstances surrounding the execution and use of the document or provision of support and services there under, then a review of that falls to the WIFN and the provisions of the Dispute Resolution process.
17Further, as the court relied on the presentation of the CCA in ordering the discontinuance of the protection proceeding on March 20, 2022, I agree with the Respondent that s. 120(8)(a) of the CYFSA applies to these complaints and the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to consider the Applicant’s complaints as these issues have been adjudicated by the court.
18Finally, on the issue of a Second CCA, the Respondent has submitted that, to its knowledge, such a document was never executed and, if it was, then concerns about the circumstances surround the execution or non-execution and the circumstances of any discussion around such a document should be addressed by the WIFN. As the Applicant did not file any response to this assertion, I accept the evidence of the Respondent that no such second CCA was executed or exists. Again, the issue of financial support for the Applicant and the grandchildren under her care is governed by the CCA and is beyond the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.
(d) Why Did the Respondent not Verify allegation of Sexual Abuse
19According to the Respondent’s material, the Applicant made two referrals regarding sexual harm to the Respondent. The Ontario Provincial Police investigated and the allegations were not verified. During this period, there was a court order in place and court proceedings ongoing with regular scheduled attendances. After the reports of this incident, the Applicant stopped taking E. and D. to court ordered sibling visits. The Applicant was a party to the court proceedings, and the female child D. was represented by the OCL.
20This issue has been considered and determinations made by the court and pursuant to s.120(8)(a) of the CYFSA this matter has been determined by the court and the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to consider the Applicant’s complaint.
(e) Sibling Access and (f) Access between the Applicant and the female D.
21In the Agreed Statement of Facts (the “ASF”) executed by the Applicant in connection with the child protection proceeding regarding the female child D., in paragraph vv, the Applicant recognizes that the female child D. does not want to go to her home. The ASF also recognizes that the female child D. shall be “offered” access to the Applicant a minimum of once per month. The ASF was executed while the Applicant was represented by counsel.
22The final order of the court dated October 10, 2024, although not signed until May 07, 2025, specifically states in paragraph 4 that the female child D. “shall be offered access” to the Applicant. There is no provision in the order for the involvement of the Respondent in such access visits.
23The access between the female child D. and her siblings D. and E. is governed by paragraph 9 of the order which provides that access shall occur a minimum of once per week and shall be arranged between the guardians of the female child D. and the Applicant. There is no provision in the order for the involvement of the Respondent in such access visits.
24Accordingly, the issue of access has been determined by the court and under the provisions of s. 120(8)(a) the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to consider this issue.
(g) Discrepancies between Draft and Final Orders
25Any discrepancy between a draft order of the court and a final version of that same order rests solely with the court and any complaints by the parties about the order as to its wording or otherwise is appropriately dealt with by a motion to the court.
(h) Funding for the Applicant under an Alternate Support Funding
26The Applicant has identified something termed an Alternative Support Funding in her claim for compensation for some care of her eldest granddaughter, the female child D. The Respondent has submitted that it is not aware of any Alternative Support Funding available to the Applicant through its services. The Respondent has submitted that the term ASF refers to the Agreed Statement of facts referred to in paragraph 20 above. The Applicant has not responded to this submission by the Respondent, and I accept the Respondent’s submission on this point.
27The Applicant’s eldest child, the female child D., has not resided with the Applicant on a continual basis since February 26, 2023. Prior to that she was living with several different relatives pursuant to orders of the court. If in fact, the Applicant is claiming financial relief under the terms of a CCA, that claim is properly made to the WIFN and the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to consider such a claim.
(i) Removal of the Children After an Overdose by the Biological Father
28The issue of the Children’s removal from the Applicant’s home because of a concern over drug use by the Applicant as well as the biological father of the Children is clearly addressed in the various child protection proceedings as well as in the Respondent’s material in support of the child protection hearing regarding E. and D. in paragraph 18 of that document. For the Applicant to complain that she was not provided with a reason for the Children to be removed from her home following an incident of drug overdose in her home defies logic. Further, this is a matter that has been considered by the court as described in paragraph 14 above and, accordingly, the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
ORDER
29This Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
30Pursuant 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 12, 2026.
Christina M. Budweth
Christina M. Budweth
Member