SL v The Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay, 2025 CFSRB 129

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SL Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christina M. Budweth Date: September 16, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 129 Indexed As: SL v The Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay (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 July 17, 2025, the Applicant submitted this Application (the ‘Application’) to the CFSRB. The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The Applicant previously filed an application with the CFSRB on August 19, 2024 (‘CA24-0139’). That matter was found eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)1, 120(4)4 and 120(4)5. The allegations went to hearing in a written format and a final decision was issued on February 28, 2025 (the ‘February Decision’).

4The Respondent seeks an outright dismissal of the Application: or, in the alternative, an order that it complete an ICRP with the Applicant. The CFSRB sought written submissions regarding the Respondent’s preliminary jurisdictional arguments and this Interim Decision is based on those submissions by the parties.

ISSUE

5The preliminary jurisdictional issues are:

(i) Are the allegation contained within this Application different or separate from the allegations adjudicated in the February Decision; namely does the doctrine of res judicata apply?

(ii) Does the CFSRB have jurisdiction to grant several of the orders sought by the Applicant?; and,

(iii) Is the filing of this Application an abuse of the CFSRB’s processes?

RESULT

6I have found that: (i) the issues contained in the Application are not different or separate from the allegations in CA24—139; (ii) the Applicant has sought some relief that is outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction; and (iii) the filing of this Application does not constitute an abuse of process.

BACKGROUND

7At the time of the events which give rise to this Application, the Applicant was a minor. The Applicant and JK (the father of her child) were both minors at the time of the birth of their son. The involvement of the Respondent with the Applicant and JK was limited to two three-week periods in late 2024 and mid-2025.

8The Applicant has been represented throughout the CFSRB processes by her father. Without any disrespect to the Applicant or her father, the written material indicates that they are not legally trained nor are they experienced in presenting their concerns and evidence in written form.

9In the February Decision, the presiding Member determined that there were three issues before the CFSRB. Those issues were:

1. Did the Respondent fail to proceed with Applicant’s complaint through the Internal Complaints Review Panel process?

2. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard when she expressed concerns for the safety of the Child while in the care of his father JK and JK’s family?

3. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for deciding not to verify child protections concerns related to the safety of the Child while in the care of JK and JK’s family?

10The ICRP issue was the only issue specifically addressed in the Applicant’s originating material to the CFSRB in CA24-0139. Issues 2 and 3 were elucidated by the Respondent in its Written Submissions dated January 17, 2025, comprised of 123 paragraphs which detailed every aspect of the investigation. Attached were three affidavits of staff involved in the investigation: Rosa Lettieri, Tina Morrison and Susie Marrelli.

11This detailed recitation of the facts provided an opportunity for the Applicant’s father, David Leisander, to respond in writing with answers to each of the points made by the Respondent as well as to the evidence contained in the three affidavits of the Respondents employees.

12The parties agreed that the only involvement of the Respondent with the Applicant was from approximately December 8, 2023 to January 10, 2024 and from June 20, 2024 to July 16, 2024.

13Regarding Issue 1, the Member found that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with a determination of eligibility for an Internal Complaint Review Panel (‘ICRP’) within the requisite seven days required by the Act. The Decision further found that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for not proceeding with the ICRP.

14The Member did not provide the Applicant with a remedy for this breach because, as she stated in paragraph 31 of the Decision “I have not seen anything to suggest the Applicant is requesting an order requiring the Respondent to proceed with and (sic) ICRP. In her Reply submissions to CA24-0139, the Applicant questions what an ICRP would accomplish but to retraumatize and revictimize her. Given the Applicant’s position, there is no remedy the CFSRB can order in relation to the Respondent’s breach of the Regulation.”

15In the present Application, the Applicant acknowledges the correctness of the Member’s observation that she did not want to participate in an ICRP at that time; however she submits that “now I am able to attend such a venue without any negative reactions.” She states that she was suffering from PTSD at the time of declining to pursue the ICRP further.

16The Applicant is now seeking the ICRP that she rejected during CA24-0139.

17Regarding Issue 2, the Member’s findings are clear. “The Applicant was provided with opportunities to be heard and that she was heard by the Respondent.” The Member supported her finding with reference to the evidence being “multiple meetings by both Ms. Marrelli and Ms Morrison with the Applicant in addition to other contacts, during which the Applicant was able to impart and did impart information to the Respondent workers.”

18On the question of Issue 3, the Member was also clear in her findings. At paragraph 58, she stated that “as of the date of this hearing, the Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for not verifying protections concerns related to the safety of the Child when he is in the car of JK and JK’s family.

19All the issues articulated in the Application fall within the original service window of CA24-0139.

20The Applicant raises issues that are identical or relate to the original two investigations giving rise to CA24-0139. I will not re-state all the issues raised, however, for illustrative purposes, I will set out some of the most pertinent complaints which include: why did Ms Morrison not listen to the audio tapes provided; why witnesses on the video tapes were not interviewed; and, why did Ms. Letteri did ask certain questions during the investigation. These exact complaints about the investigation and failure to be heard are raised in both Applications.

21Other issues raised include “why the local CAS workers are so far below the Ontario Standard and still working without correction?” and “why is the Ontario Child Protection Standard not being followed?”

ANALYSIS

RES JUDICATA.

22The Respondent takes the position that the Application is subject to the doctrine of res judicata. The principle is applicable where the issue before a court has been decided in a previous case and should not therefore be re-litigated. The three-part test for this principle was established in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Toronto v CUPE Local 79, 2003 SCC 63 at paragraph 23. The court defined the test as follows: the issue must the same as the one decided in the prior decision; the prior judicial decision must be final; and the parties to both proceedings must be the same.

23Both Applications allege complaints within the same time frame and between the same parties. The February Decision clearly addresses both the question of whether the Applicant was heard and whether she was provided with reasons for decisions about her complaints to the Respondent. The fact that the Application adds a few more questions such as “why was Marelli deceptive and deflecting when advising “family court would handle all that? And “why did the CAS lawyer Donk say “Scotlyn was only trying to question Marelli to get more access to her son and less for the dad” are only questions addressing the same time frame and the same fundamental issue in CA24-0139. The fact that the Applicant now feels ready to articulate more micro elements of the interaction between herself and the Respondent’s staff does not negate the fact that the essence of her earlier complaint was considered and adjudicated by the CFSRB.

24The issues raised in this Application as they relate to concerns about the safety and care of the Child and the Respondent’s hearing and communicating decisions to the Applicant about her concerns are identical in both Applications and the doctrine of res judicata applies.

JURISDICTION

25The Respondent argues that the CFSRB is provided with jurisdiction to make specific and limited orders. Section 120 of the Act sets out the matters that may be reviewed by the CFSRB as well as what orders it can make. Specifically, section 120(7) states:

After reviewing the complaint, the CFSRB may,

a) Order the society to proceed with the complaint by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure establish by regulation;

b) Order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the CFSRB;

c) Order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by the regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

d) Order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to the complainant;

e) Dismiss the complaint; or

f) Make such order as may be prescribed.

26The Divisional Court has recently confirmed the limited powers of the CFSRB in the case of H.C. v Children’s Aid society of Toronto et al 2025 ONSC 3742 at paragraph 58.

27The Applicant’s request that the CFSRB adjudicate questions raised in paragraph 21 must be dismissed as falling outside our jurisdiction. The role of the CFSRB is not to explore and opine on the competence of society staff.

ABUSE OF PROCESS

28The final issue of law raised in Application is the position of the Respondent that the Applicant is abusing the CFSRB process in contravention of Rule A8 of the Social Justice Tribunals Ontario Common Rules, specifically Rule A8.1 and 2. The Respondent seeks to bar the Applicant from commencing further proceedings without the permission of the CFSRB.

29A plain reading of the Application reveals that what the Applicant is seeking is an ICRP. As she says “consequently, the ICRP is the only existing avenue for complaints about professional conduct and to receive answers to questions and concerns outstanding. Case workers are not immune to scrutiny due to self regulation and not be treated by their managers as such.”

30A plain reading of paragraphs 30 and 31 of the February Decision communicates that the Member would have been prepared to grant an order requiring an ICRP had the Applicant made that request. The Applicant has now asked for this relief.

31The Applicant and her father are unsophisticated and unrepresented litigants and they should not be excluded from access to the CFSRB and its adjudicative processes merely because of an inability to articulate the relief sought by them.

32The Respondent itself offers access to the ICRP process as an alternative to the dismissal of this Application.

33Further, I consider that the Applicant was a minor at the time of the birth of her child and at the time of filing Application CA24-0139 and that the events which led to her complaint against JK to the police leading to the Respondent’s involvement traumatized her to the point where she could not properly articulate her views and wishes. The Applicant’s improved mental health and her resulting ability to move forward with an ICRP request is not an abuse of the CFSRB’s process.

ORDER

34The Respondent will take all necessary steps to ensure that the Applicant is granted full and fair access to the ICRP process. The ICRP hearing shall be of a duration sufficient for the Applicant to express her concerns not to consist of a duration of more than six hours.

35The remainder of the Application is dismissed.

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.

Dated, September 16, 2025.

Christina M. Budweth

Christina M. Budweth

Member