CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
JH
Applicant
-and-
North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon
Indexed As: JH v North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)
BACKGROUND
1On June 20, 2023, the Applicant filed an Application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2On December 18, 2023, the CFSRB dismissed the Application.
3The Respondent Society’s Executive Director (“ED”) is now also a Respondent in an Application brought by the Applicant before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”). The ED is asking the CFSRB to relieve them from Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure so that they may:
…use, share, discuss and disclose any documents and decisions related to CFSRB file CA23-0084 for the sole purpose of relying on them in the HRTO Application 2024-56761-I.
4The ED bases this request on its position that the Applicant’s HRTO Application “is an attempt to relitigate issues already dealt with in CFSRB Application CA23-0084”.
5The Applicant is not consenting to the ED’s request, based on his view that the CFSRB decision is flawed.
CFSRB CONFIDENTIALITY RULES
6Rules 9.3 and 3.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure govern the confidentiality of documents and decisions in CFSRB proceedings. CFSRB decisions are subject to a confidentiality order and documents and information obtained during a CFSRB proceeding cannot be used outside of the proceeding without first obtaining an Order from the CFSRB or the Court.
ANALYSIS
7The ED seeks relief from the CFSRB’s confidentiality rules so that the ED can use, share, discuss and disclose any documents and decisions related to CFSRB file CA23-0084, for the sole purpose of relying on them in the HRTO Application 2024-56761-I.
8In support of their request, the ED relies on the CFSRB decision in LT v Durham Children’s Aid Society, 2019 CFSRB 15 (“LT”) which states, at para 12:
The question of whether an application before one administrative tribunal raises allegations that have already been resolved in proceedings before another administrative tribunal is an important one. The HRTO cannot make an informed decision on the issue without reviewing the relevant CFSRB documents.
9I adopt the reasoning in LT. The HRTO cannot determine what, if any, impact the CFSRB proceeding has on the HRTO Application without reviewing the relevant CFSRB documents.
10For these reasons, I conclude that it is appropriate to vary the CFSRB’s Confidentiality Order to permit both the Applicant and ED to use specific CFSRB documents in the HRTO proceeding.
ORDER
11For the sole purpose of participation in HRTO File 2024-56761-I, the CFSRB’s Confidentiality Order with respect to CFSRB file CA23-0084 is varied as follows:
o The Applicant and ED may refer to and use the following documents:
June 20, 2023 Application
July 7, 2023 Response
August 1, 2023 Pre-hearing/Mediation Report
August 31, 2023 Pre-hearing Report
September 29, 2023 Respondent’s Written Submissions
November 23, 2023 Applicant’s Response
December 18, 2023 Decision
o The names of the Applicant’s children and any other children referenced in the documents shall be redacted; and,
o The parties may use an unredacted version of this Decision in the HRTO proceedings.
confidentiality order
Pursuant 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, except as varied through this decision. 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 at Brockville, February 24, 2025.
Karynn von Cramon
Karynn von Cramon
Member