CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
MS
Applicant
-and-
Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jessica Lubrick
Indexed As: MS v Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).
2The Application was filed on September 8, 2025. The CFSRB determined the Application was eligible to proceed on September 9, 2025, pursuant to section 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. This is the nineth Application the Applicant has filed with the CFSRB against the Respondent.
3In its Response, the Respondent submitted that the substantive issues raised in the current Application were raised in the previous Application, CA25-007, and determined in the CFSRB’s decision of February 13, 2025. The Respondent submitted that the current Application should be dismissed as proceeding with the current Application would be re-litigating issues already determined.
4In a Case Management Direction (“CMD”) dated September 23, 2025, the CFSRB directed the parties to file submissions on whether the issues raised in the current Application differ from those raised in the January 2025 Application.
5The parties filed their submissions as directed. This decision addresses whether the Application should be dismissed because the issues raised have already been determined.
ISSUE
6Should the Application be dismissed because the issues raised have already been determined in the previous Application, CA25-007?
RESULT
7The CFSRB finds that this Application may proceed in part.
8Concerning the issue of whether the Applicant was heard and provided reasons in relation to the removal of the Child, J.S., from life support, the notification of the Applicant of the Child, J.S.’s illness, and the administration of a Covid vaccination to the Child, J.S., the Application may proceed.
9All other issues that the Applicant seeks reviewed in relation to the Child, J.S., were previously adjudicated by the CFSRB in the January 2025 Application. It would be an abuse of process to allow these complaints to be relitigated and so they are dismissed.
10Concerning the Applicant’s complaints relating to the Child, S.W., the CFSRB finds the complaint was made prematurely, and is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
Current Application
11In the current Application, the Applicant outlines complaints against the Respondent in relation to the Children, J.S. and S.W. The Applicant is the mother of J.S., who passed in February, 2024 while in the care of the Respondent, and is the aunt of S.W.
12The Child, S.W., was not identified as an affected Child in the Applicant’s January 2025 Application.
13With respect to the Child, J.S., the Applicant raises concerns about the Child’s placements and access with the Applicant in the two years prior to his passing as well as concerns relating to events surrounding the Child’s hospitalization and passing in February, 2024. The Applicant also complains of the Respondent’s alleged failure to return to her specified personal belongings of the Child.
14Concerning the Child, S.W., the Applicant alleges that she was not heard or provided reasons by the Respondent in relation to the Respondent’s denial of the Applicant’s offer to take the Child into her care.
Applicant’s January 2025 Application: CFSRB File CA25-007
15In her January 2025 Application to the CFSRB, the Applicant raised concerns relating to J.S.’s placements and the Applicant’s access to the Child. The Applicant also outlined complaints in relation to the events surrounding the Child’s hospitalization and passing as well as identified specific personal items that belonged to the Child that she sought returned from the Respondent.
16The January 2025 Application was decided on the basis of the Application and the Response in accordance with Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure.
17In addition to the Application and Response filed in the January 2025 Application, the CFSRB also considered issues raised in an Application filed in July 2024 that was dismissed as abandoned.
18The CFSRB found that the Respondent had not provided the opportunity to be heard or provided with reasons for several issues raised including the Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant with her son’s hospital and doctors’ notes, schoolwork, silver chain, dream catcher, and moccasins, the Respondent’s decision to allow a sibling to attend at the hospital, and the Respondent’s alleged failure to return all of her son’s ashes.
19The Respondent sent a letter dated March 11, 2025 to the Applicant in response to the CFSRB’s Order to provide reasons outlined in the February 13, 2025 decision.
The Applicant Cannot Relitigate CA25-007
20In the current Application, the Applicant raises the same complaints as the January 2025 Application in relation to (1) the Child, J.S.’s placements and access with the Applicant in the two years prior to his passing, (2) the events surrounding the Child, J.S.’s hospitalization and passing in February, 2024 and (3) the Respondent’s alleged failure to return to the Applicant specified belongings of the Child, J.S.
21While most of the issues in the current Application are virtually identical to those addressed in the January 2025 Application, there are three specific complaints that were not raised previously:
a. the Respondent’s alleged failure to consult with the Applicant in relation to the decision to remove the Child, J.S., from life support;
b. the Respondent’s alleged failure to notify the Applicant that the Child, J.S., was ill in or around the end of January, 2024; and
c. the Respondent’s alleged failure to advise the Applicant of the Child, J.S., receiving a Covid vaccination.
22The doctrine of res judicata prevents the re-litigation of already decided matters.
23More specifically, a party is prevented from re-litigating specific complaints where the issue is the same as one decided in a previous proceeding, the prior decision was final and the parties to the proceeding are both the same. This would be issue estoppel as outlined, for example, in Toronto (City) v C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63.
24As the complaints outlined in paragraph 20 above are the same as those raised in the January 2025 Application, the Applicant may not re-litigate these complaints before the CFSRB. These complaints are dismissed.
The Application May Proceed on those Issues Not Raised in CA25-007
25The new complaints outlined in paragraphs 21(a) and 21(b) above stem from the same factual basis as those complaints addressed in the January 2025 Application. The Respondent submits that the doctrine of cause of action estoppel precludes these complaints from going forward at this time. In other words, the Respondent submits that the new complaints should have been raised previously. The Applicant submitted that she was so consumed with grief at the time that she had not thought of these issues until later. This is understandable in the circumstances. The Applicant has also been self-represented. As such, it is reasonable to allow the Applicant to proceed with her complaints in relation to the Respondent’s alleged failure to consult on the removal of the Child, J.S., from life support and the Respondent’s alleged failure to notify the Applicant of the Child, J.S.’s illness.
26With respect to the complaint regarding the Covid vaccination, it is unclear when it came to the Applicant’s attention that she was not advised by the Respondent that the Child had received a Covid vaccination. The Application only states that the Applicant became aware of this fact “much later”. The Respondent also does not address this issue. The issue of whether the Applicant was heard and reasons were provided in relation to the administration of the Covid vaccination may proceed.
The Complaint Regarding the Child, S.W., is Premature and May Not Proceed
27The Applicant has made a complaint to the CFSRB in relation to the alleged denial of her offer to take the Child, S.W., into her care.
28The Response sets out that the Applicant made the request on September 4, 2025. The Application was filed on September 8, 2025. The Application was filed four days after the Applicant’s request was made. At the time the Application was filed, the Respondent had not yet responded to the Applicant’s request to care for S.W. Therefore, the complaint was filed with the CFSRB prematurely and cannot proceed.
29The Respondent has, by virtue of responding to the Application, explained that the Applicant does not meet the screening criteria to have a child placed in her care. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant will receive a letter explaining its decision but, at the time the Application was filed, no such decision had been made. The CFSRB notes that the Applicant has now been provided with a reason for its decision regarding the Applicant’s request. The Applicant has likely, in the meantime, been provided with a letter from the Respondent explaining its decision.
30In any event, however, section 120 of the Act applies to services “sought and received”. The Applicant’s request to care for the Child, S.W., is not a service sought or received but rather a service offered and would place this complaint outside of consideration by the CFSRB.
ORDER
31The Application may proceed, in part, on the issues of whether the Applicant was heard and provided reasons by the Respondent in relation to the removal of the Child, J.S., from life support, the notification of the Applicant of the Child, J.S.’s illness and the administration of a Covid vaccination to the Child, J.S.
32The balance of the issues are dismissed.
DIRECTIONS
33The CFSRB will issue further directions as necessary.
confidentiality order
34Pursuant 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, November 06, 2025.
Jessica Lubrick
Jessica Lubrick
Member