CL v. The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2025 CFSRB 118

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CL Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelaine Lahaie Date: August 27, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 118 Indexed As: CL v The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (CYFSA s.120)

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”).

2On May 7, 2025, the CFSRB held a Pre-Hearing/Mediation with the parties. The mediation was interrupted due to one party having a family emergency.

Applicant’s Proposed Amendments to the Application

3Later on May 7, 2025, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB seeking to amend the Application (“Amended Application”) to include additional allegations and relief.

4On May 8, 2025, the CFSRB issued a Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report (“PHMR”) that directed the Applicant to provide the CFSRB and the Respondent with her proposed amendments to the Application. The Respondent was given an opportunity to make written submissions on the proposed amendments and the Applicant was invited to reply to any written submissions made by the Respondent.

5On July 11, 2025, the CFSRB issued an interim Decision (“July Decision”) denying the Applicant’s request to amend the Application and requesting that, within six days, the parties inform both the CFSRB and the other party whether they were prepared to continue with the mediation that began on May 7, 2025.

6On July 11, 2025, the Respondent requested that the matter be sent to a pre-hearing. The Respondent did not indicate whether it wished to continue with the mediation.

7On July 16, 2025, the CFSRB issued a Notice of Video Conference Pre-Hearing for August 6, 2025, and sent a calendar invitation to the parties. The Respondent accepted the invitation.

Applicant’s Requests for an Adjournment and Other Relief Related to a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Proceeding

8Later, on July 16, 2025, the Applicant sent an email to the CFSRB seeking to address four issues.

a) The Applicant requested that the scheduled pre-hearing be held in abeyance because she is out of the country.

b) The Applicant sought clarity on Rule 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure (“CFSRB Rules”) dealing with confidentiality.

c) The Applicant submitted that she has an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO Application”) that has the same factual matrix as this current Application before the CFSRB. She sought to have CFSRB proceedings “held in abeyance” until the HRTO has adjudicated the HRTO Application.

d) The Applicant requested to use the following materials, which are part of her CFSRB Application, in her HRTO Application:

i. The Application.

ii. The Amended Application.

iii. The Applicant’s “urgent safety concerns” e-mail submission dated May 8, 2025 (11 pages) (“May 8 email”).

iv. The Applicant’s follow-up email sent on May 12, 2025 (“May 12 email”).

v. The PHMR.

vi. The Respondent’s response to the Amended Application dated May 26, 2025, and the Applicant’s reply.

vii. The July Decision.

9On July 18, 2025, the CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction (“July CMD”) directing the Applicant to provide her return date to Canada on or before July 25, 2025. The CMD also sought submissions from the parties, should they wish, on the issue of placing the Application in abeyance pending the outcome of the HRTO proceedings.

10The July CMD also clarified that CFSRB Rule 9.4 applies only to the materials that are before the CFSRB.

11The Applicant’s submissions with respect to placing the Application in abeyance cited the Rules incorrectly or cited Rules that do not exist at all. The Applicant’s submissions and emails are voluminous, difficult to understand and often lack coherence.

12The Applicant emailed the CFSRB on August 1, 2025 informing it and the Respondent that she would return to Canada on August 4, 2025. The Applicant stated that she would not be ready to proceed with the pre-hearing on August 6, 2025. In her email, the Applicant also refers to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.S.22, which does not apply to section 120 applications before the CFSRB.

13The CFSRB cancelled the pre-hearing scheduled for August 6, 2025.

Respondent’s Request to Proceed and for Relief Due to the Applicant Filing CFSRB Documents with the HRTO

14In its July 24, 2025 submissions, the Respondent provided a copy of the Applicant’s existing HRTO Application, including submissions wherein the Applicant was seeking to add the Respondent and some of its employees as respondents in the HRTO Application. The HRTO Application makes extensive reference to the ongoing CFSRB proceedings and includes copies of documents that the Respondent provided for use during the CFSRB proceedings.

15As part of its submissions, the Respondent seeks the following from the CFSRB:

a) That the Application be sent to a pre-hearing;

b) An order that the Applicant has contravened Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure;

c) An order directing the Applicant to remove the CFSRB materials and references from her HRTO Application and supporting documents;

d) An order that the Respondent can provide the HRTO with an order made by the CFSRB relating to the Applicant’s contravention of Rules 9.3 and 9.4; and

e) An order that the Applicant is directed to follow the CFSRB’s Confidentiality Order and if she fails to follow this direction, her Application may be dismissed as an abuse of process.

ISSUES

16The issues are:

a) Did the Applicant contravene the CFSRB Rules of Procedure concerning confidentiality?

b) Should the Applicant be granted permission to use information and documents in the CRSRB’s file related to this Application in the HRTO proceedings?

c) Should the Applicant’s CFSRB Application be placed in abeyance, pending the outcome of the HRTO proceedings?

RESULT

17The CFSRB finds that the Applicant contravened the CFSRB Rules regarding confidentiality. The CFSRB finds that there is no basis to grant permission for the Applicant to use information or documents in the CFSRB’s file related to this Application in the HRTO proceedings. Further, the Application shall not be placed in abeyance. A pre-hearing shall be scheduled for the continuation of this matter as soon as possible.

ANALYSIS

Did the Applicant contravene the CFSRB Rules concerning confidentiality?

18The CFSRB’s Confidentiality Order is contained in both the PHMR and the July decision. CFSRB Rules 9.3 and 9.4 clearly state that parties and their representatives shall not use documents or information obtained in the course of CFSRB proceedings for any other purpose than the proceeding before the CFSRB, without an order of the court or the CFSRB. Additionally, unredacted CFSRB decisions shall not be circulated, reproduced, communicated, or published. Hearings of the CFSRB are held in private pursuant to section 87(4) of the Act. The provisions of the Act and the CFSRB Rules are intended to protect children’s information and privacy.

19The parties should also be aware that pursuant to section 87(8) of he Act, “no person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.” Contravening this provision may constitute an offence under section142(2) of the Act.

20Based upon the submissions of the Respondent, which is the only information before the CFSRB dealing with the HRTO Application, the Applicant has already filed documents from the CFSRB proceedings with the HRTO. These documents are as follows:

a) The Exhibits attached to the CFSRB Application.

b) The Respondent’s April 14, 2025 response to the CFSRB Application.

c) The Respondent’s May 26, 2025 response to the Amended CFSRB Application.

d) Emails dated March 7, May 7, May 8, May 12, May 24 and June 30, 2025, from the Applicant to the CFSRB and the Respondent (“Applicant emails”)

e) Emails dated May 20, June 23, June 26, and June 30, 2025 from the Respondent to the CFSRB and the Applicant (“Respondent emails”)

f) Emails dated March 7 and June 26, 2025 from the CFSRB to the Applicant and / or Respondent (“CFSRB emails”).

21I find that the Applicant contravened the CFSRB Rules concerning confidentiality by using documents and information from the CFSRB’s file in the HRTO’s proceedings without the CFSRB’s permission.

22For any documents or information in the CFSRB’s file that have already been filed or otherwise used in the HRTO proceedings, the parties should take all reasonable steps to prevent any further dissemination of this information, including requesting a confidentiality order from the HRTO.

Should the Applicant be granted permission to use information and documents in the CRSRB’s file related to this Application in the HRTO proceedings?

23In her July 16, 2025 email, the Applicant sought permission to use seven documents from the CFSRB’s file in the HRTO proceedings. These documents are described at paragraph 8d. I addressed the materials that were already filed with the HRTO above. The parties are encouraged to seek a confidentiality order from the HRTO with respect to these documents and information. I will now address the materials that have not yet been filed with the HRTO.

24I find that all the documents described in paragraph 8d are subject to the CFSRB’s confidentiality order. All documents were created for the purpose of the CFSRB proceeding and, as such, shall not be used for other proceedings without a court order.

25The CFSRB only varies the confidentiality order in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the Applicant has failed to explain the specific reason that she needs to use this information from the CFSRB’s file in the HRTO proceedings. Without this information, I am not satisfied that this is a situation that merits waiving or varying the confidentiality order.

26The Applicant’s request to use the documents indicated at paragraph 8d is denied.

Should the Application be placed in abeyance, pending the outcome of the HRTO Application?

27The Applicant seeks to have her current proceedings before the CFSRB placed in abeyance, pending the outcome of her HRTO Application. The Applicant asserts that the HRTO Application deals with similar matters as those before the CFSRB. In an email dated July 16, 2025, she referenced the July Decision wherein the CFSRB stated that it does not have jurisdiction over parts of her complaint. She noted that the Respondent had objected to the CFSRB’s jurisdiction on overlapping grounds. She also stated that the “substance of this matter is now properly before the HRTO, where the same factual matrix is being adjudicated.” She stated that proceeding with the Application risks duplicating efforts, creating inconsistent findings and prejudices her ability to fully participate and respond. She also indicated that placing the Application in abeyance aligns with procedural fairness, efficiency and access to justice.

28I find that the Applicant’s rationale for placing the Application in abeyance lacks merit. The substance of her original complaint is firmly within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction, as noted in the CFSRB’s April 4, 2025 Notice of Eligibility.

29The Application before the CFSRB falls squarely within its jurisdiction under section 120 of the Act to hear complaints about services received from a children’s aid society and provide applicants with an opportunity to be heard and to receive reasons behind decisions that affect their interests. The HRTO’s jurisdiction is different from the CFSRB. The HRTO hears applications about discrimination and harassment under the Human Rights Code. There is no clear reason why the application before HRTO should prevent the CFSRB proceedings from moving forward.

30Further, the Applicant has not pointed to any provision of the Act or any Rule in the CFSRB Rules that requires the CFSRB to defer an application because there are other legal proceedings dealing with the subject matter of the Application.

31In the interests of efficiency and procedural fairness, CFSRB matters are to be dealt with expeditiously. Rule 24.1 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure states that the hearing of a matter will begin within 60 days of determining eligibility. This Application was determined to be eligible on April 4, 2025. As such, a hearing in this matter should have occurred on or before July 3, 2025. This matter has already been delayed by the Applicant seeking to amend her Application, after which the CFSRB issued its July Decision.

32As I find that the Applicant has provided no compelling reasons as to why this Application should be held in abeyance, the Application shall proceed to a pre-hearing as soon as possible.

ORDER

33The Applicant shall follow the CFSRB’s Confidentiality Order. Failure to do so may result in the CFSRB taking steps to dismiss the Application as an abuse of process.

34The Application shall proceed to a pre-hearing. The parties shall provide to the CFSRB within 7 days of this Decision their availability for a further videoconference pre-hearing between September 15 and October 3, 2025.

NEXT STEPS

35The CFSRB will schedule a further videoconference pre-hearing with the parties and provide a Notice of Videoconference Pre-hearing providing the date, time, and log in details.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

36Pursuant 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.

37Notwithstanding this confidentiality order, either party may file this Order with the HRTO for the purpose of ensuring compliance with Rules 9.3 and 9.4 and to assist with protecting any further dissemination of documents or information from the CFSRB’s file, which have already been filed with the HRTO without the CFSRB’s permission.

Dated, August 27, 2025.

Michelaine Lahaie

Michelaine Lahaie

Vice-Chair