CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SC
Applicant
-and-
Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Lise Henrie
Indexed as: SC v Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (CYFSA s.1200)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
SC, Applicant
SC, Self-represented
Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, Respondent
Tina Tom, Director of Operations and Counsel
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 mother of three children. The concerns raised by the Applicant refer primarily to the two youngest children (the “children”).
2In its Notice of Eligibility dated April 10, 2026, the CFSRB advised the parties that the following allegations were deemed eligible to proceed to the next stage of the CFSRB’s process:
a. The Respondent refused to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint, in accordance with section 120(4)1 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA).
b. 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, in accordance with section 120(4)4 of the CYFSA; and
c. The Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected her interests, in accordance with section 120(4)5 of the CYFSA.
3In its April 21, 2026 Response, the Respondent submitted that all matters raised by the Applicant are matters that remain before the Family Court or Criminal Court, or both and as a result, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application.
4This decision decides the jurisdictional issues raised by the Respondent.
ISSUES
5Are the issues in the Notice of Eligibility separate and different than the substantive issues that are before the Court?
RESULT
6The CFSRB finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s complaints.
ANALYSIS
Legal framework
7According to section 120(8) of the CYFSA, 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”. The language of this subsection is mandatory in that the CFSRB does not have any discretion to take jurisdiction if the subject of the complaint is before the court.
8The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441 that the 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.
Respondent’s position
9The Respondent raised questions regarding the CFSRB’s jurisdiction in this matter in its April 21, 2026 response to the Notice of Eligibility issued by the CFSRB on April 10, 2026. The Respondent submits:
(a) Regarding the allegation that the Respondent refused to proceed with the ICRP complaint -
i. The Respondent acknowledged the Applicant’s ICRP complaint of October 10, 2025. This complaint is included in the submissions and sets out the Applicant’s concerns from January 2025 to May 2025 that she was not heard or given reasons about her concerns about her children’s father. She raises concerns that a worker refused to help her with a restraining order, and failed to follow a court order for shared parenting time. She alleges that the worker participated in abusing the children psychologically and financially, including through placing a no-contact order that prevented the applicant from continuing her work.
ii. An August 29, 2025 Family Court order made as a result of motion without notice where the Applicant was seeking a restraining order based on a 115-page Affidavit. The Court found that the Affidavit consisted mostly of references to exhibits without any context. The Court found that the motion did not meet the threshold of urgency as set out in the Family Law Rule 14 (4.2).
iii. On October 8, 2025, the Applicant applied to the Ontario Court of Justice for a private prosecution of the children’s father. The offences alleged were dated from October 2015 to the date of the application and included the January 2025 allegations of assault.
iv. In its October 17, 2025 response to the Applicant, the Respondent explained that it reviewed the Applicant’s concerns and determined that they were the same concerns that the Applicant included in her October 8 Private Prosecution Application and in the detailed information she filed in support of her August 2025 motion for a restraining order. The Respondent did not proceed as the Applicant had brought her concerns before the court, and the Respondent was therefore prohibited under section 119(11) of the CYFSA to review her complaint.
(b) Regarding the allegations that the Applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard and that the Respondent failed to give reasons -
The Respondent submits that the allegations the Applicant set out in her application are before the Family and/or Criminal Courts. As indicated above, the Applicant brought her concerns to both the Family Court and the Ontario Court of Justice. According to the Respondent, both matters brought by the Applicant remain before the two Courts. According to an October 22, 2025 email from the Applicant to a Respondent employee, the Applicant’s urgent motion for a restraining order was “temporarily denied, until the children are examined by the medical team”. The Applicant also writes that “the endorsement about urgent motion restraining order on hold”. The applicant also writes that she is “in the midst of organizing a private prosecution”. This suggests that the issues giving rise to the restraining order were still pending.
Applicant’s position on jurisdiction
10The Applicant did not provide formal submissions in response to the jurisdictional issues raised by the Respondent on May 1, 2026. She did, however, send emails dated April 28 and 30, 2026, and included attachments of medical test results, correspondence from a physician, an emergency department report and a missing persons poster and a Family Court order from April 2018, as well as a video of a conversation.
11The Applicant’s emails do not address how her issues are separate from the matters that are before the Family and Criminal Courts. The Applicant makes submissions on matters of parental alienation, domestic violence, as well as her hopes for family reunification. The documents provided by the Applicant are evidence of a parent who is seeking help to reunite her family; however, I do not find that she provided evidence to show that the issues that she raised are different from the ones before the Courts. For this reason, I must find that the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The legislation is mandatory.
Conclusion
12I find that the Respondent provided detailed evidence that shows that the substance of the Applicant’s complaints have been raised by her in both the Family Court and the Criminal Court, in particular in the detailed affidavit for the Family Court and in the information she filed in support of her August 2025 motion for a restraining order. I find that the Respondent’s submissions provided a strong prima facie case that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction due to the two matters that are before the Courts.
13In her submissions, the Applicant did not show that her concerns were different from those that were before the Courts and, for this reason, I must find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s complaints. Section 120(8) of the CYFSA makes it mandatory for the CFSRB to decline jurisdiction in this case.
ORDER
14I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application as the matters are before the courts.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
15Pursuant 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 19, 2026.
Lise Henrie
Lise Henrie
Vice-Chair