CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
BBN (legal name KBH) Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Sonya Vellenga Date: October 07, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 139 Indexed As: BBN (legal name KBH) v The Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin (CYFSA s.120)
Introduction
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 28, 2025, the CFSRB issued a Notice of Eligibility providing that the Application was eligible for review under sections 120(4) and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3A pre-hearing in this matter was held on September 05, 2025. At the pre-hearing, the parties were given the opportunity to participate in mediation and the Applicant declined to participate. The Applicant identified that the application before the CFSRB is for the period of 2016 (the birth of her son) through to present day. The Applicant confirmed that much of the history in the material she filed to accompany her complaint was provided for context and may be subject to an impending civil matter.
4The Respondent alleges that the subject of these complaints (2016 through to present day) is already before the courts and as such the Board has no jurisdiction to consider the allegations raised by the Applicant.
5The Board Member at the pre-hearing canvassed dates from the parties for the receipt of submissions on the issue of jurisdiction.
6The Respondent submitted that the parties have been and are currently involved in court proceedings in relation to the child. The Respondent submits that the issues raised in the Applicant’s CFSRB application material are the same issues listed in the Applicant’s material filed with the courts. The Respondent provided to the CFSRB a copy of the Society’s Court Application, supporting material, the Applicant’s material in response to the Society’s Court Application and the current court order.
7Despite the opportunity to do so, the Applicant did not respond to the issue of jurisdiction raised by the Respondent. The Applicant did not make submissions on whether the issues raised in her application were previously or presently before the Court.
8The Respondent submits that the complaints identified for the period of 2016 through to present day are currently before the Court and therefore the CFSRB is barred from reviewing the Application pursuant to section 120(8) of the CYFSA.
ISSUE
9The issue: are the Applicant’s complaints identified in the pre-hearing report dated September 05, 2025, separate and different from the substantive issues before the court such that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to move forward with the Application under sections 120(4) and 120(4)5 of the Act.
RESULT
10Having reviewed the submission of the Respondent, I find that the Applicant’s complaints specific to the identified dates of 2016 and present day are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to proceed with the Application pursuant to section 120(8) of the CYFSA. In the absence of jurisdiction, the Application must be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
11Under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act, 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.
12The substance of the Applicant’s complaint consists of allegations summarized in the pre-hearing report of September 05, 2025, and are as follows:
(a) The Applicant alleges that she was not heard by the Respondent when she identified that she felt ‘harassed’ by the society from the 2016 referral through to the present-day involvement of the Society.
(b) The Applicant alleges that she was not heard by the Respondent when she shared the opinion of her parenting capacity from her son’s medical team.
(c) The Applicant alleges that she was not given a chance to be heard by the Respondent regarding her concerns that her child had experienced bullying in the school system.
(d) The Applicant alleges that she did not receive adequate reasons for the Society’s involvement in her life for the period of 2016 to present day.
Allegations of Harassment
13The Applicant alleges that she was not heard by the Respondent when she identified that she felt ‘harassed’ by the Society from the 2016 referral through to the present-day involvement of the Society.
14In the Applicant’s original application, she identifies that the Society “showed up to harass me” on the day that her son was born in 2016. She identified that she had to live her life “walking on eggshells living in hell until the next time they will show up”. She chronicles allegations of harm and abuse by the system that date back to her own childhood. At the pre-hearing meeting, the applicant identified that these examples were shared to provide context to the allegation of harassment and that she plans to bring these allegations to civil court.
15The Respondent included in their documents, the application filed in the Ontario Court of Justice. This Application included a copy of the text messages sent by the Applicant between March 19, 2025, and March 24, 2025, wherein the Applicant details her complaints with respect to her allegation of harassment by the Society. This document is before the courts.
16The Respondent included in their documents, the Applicant’s Answer and Plan of Care filed with the Ontario Court of Justice. This document includes the request that she (the Applicant) be able to “move forward without more harassment from agencies….”. Furthermore, the Applicant requested an order that the Society “stop harassing with false narrative with biased workers”.
17In the Child Protection application filed by the Respondent on March 31, 2025, the Respondent identified that they are requesting a six-month supervision order as the Applicant “has been very clear that she will not engage without a court order”.
18In the Answer and Plan of Care filed with the courts on May 5, 2025, the Applicant entered a synopsis of notes, letters, and narrative she intended to rely upon to support her claim of harassment.
19The Respondent also identified that in the Applicant’s Affidavit filed with the courts on June 5, 2025, the Applicant provided a synopsis of the notes, letters, and narrative she intended to rely upon to support her claim of harassment.
20Given the Applicant’s Answer and Plan of Care and Affidavit filed at the Court of Justice to support her claim of harassment against the Respondent, I find that the allegation that the Applicant felt ‘harassed’ by the society is an issue that remains before the courts and on that basis the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to consider the Applicant’s claim of harassment again as defined by subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act.
Allegations regarding Parenting Capacity
21The Applicant alleges that she was not heard by the Respondent when she shared the opinion of her parenting capacity from her son’s medical team.
22In the absence of submissions from the Applicant, I referred to the narrative in her CFSRB application dated July 25, 2025, wherein she identifies several documents that attest to her parenting capacity.
23In the Answer and Plan of Care filed with the courts on May 5, 2025, the Applicant included these same documents to demonstrate evidence that her son’s medical team can attest to her parenting capacity.
24I find that the allegation that the Applicant was not heard with respect to the opinion of her parenting capacity from her son’s medical team is an issue that is before the courts and on this basis the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction over this issue as defined by subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act.
Allegations regarding the School System
25The Applicant alleges that she was not given a chance to be heard by the Respondent regarding her concerns that her child had experienced bullying in the school system.
26In the Applicant’s original application, she documents several instances of alleged bullying in the school system and includes several documents that speak to her experience communicating with the school system.
27In the Answer and Plan of Care filed with the courts on May 5, 2025, the Applicant included these same documents along with her son’s incomplete Individual Education Plan from 2024.
28I find that the allegation that the Applicant was not heard with respect to the concerns she has with the Education System is also an issue that is before the courts and on this basis the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction over this issue as defined by subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act.
Allegations regarding Adequate Reasons
29The Applicant alleges that she did not receive adequate reasons for the Society’s involvement in her life for the period of 2016 to present day.
30The Respondent provided a history of the Society’s involvement in the Applicant’s life for the period of 2016 to present day in the following documents: the Response letter to CFSRB dated August 5, 2025, detailing a history of the Society’s involvement and the Affidavit of the Society dated March 28, 2025.
31In the Answer and Plan of Care filed with the courts on May 5, 2025, the Applicant provided a copy of her file disclosure received previously in 2024 from the Society.
32I find that the allegation that the Applicant did not receive adequate reasons for the Society’s involvement in her life for the period of 2016 to present day is also an issue that is before the courts and on this basis the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction over this issue as defined by subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
33For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaints in the Application related to the period of 2016 (the birth of her son) through to present day are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court. Accordingly, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear these complaints.
ORDER
34The Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
35Pursuant 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, October 08, 2025.
Sonya Vellenga
Sonya Vellenga Member