WC v. North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services, 2025 CFSRB 22

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

WC

Applicant

-and-

North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan

Date: February 25, 2025

Citation: 2025 CFSRB 22

Indexed As: WC v North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services (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”). This is the second application filed with the CFSRB.

2In August 2024, the Applicant filed his first application with the CFSRB, in File CA24-0132. That application was concluded by the CFSRB’s Decision dated November 14, 2024 (“CFSRB’s November 2024 Decision”).

3The Applicant is the father of three children. The Applicant and his family have received services from the Respondent.

ISSUE

4The issue is:

a. Is the Application eligible for review by the CFSRB?

RESULT

5The CFSRB finds that the Application is not eligible for review. Most of the Applicant’s complaints in the current Application are ones that have previously been adjudicated in File CA24-0132 and it would be an abuse of process to allow them to be relitigated. The only new complaints made by the Applicant in the current Application are ones that pertain specifically to issues before the court and are therefore, matters which the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review under section 120(8)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the Application must be dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Current Application

6In the current Application, the Applicant describes that a court matter in which he and the mother of the children was involved “was finalized” on December 6, 2024. The Applicant states that “50/50 custody was granted on a 4 month trial under [the Respondent’s] supervision” subject to several terms and conditions.

7The Applicant complains that the children’s mother is not following the specific terms and conditions of the December 6, 2024, court order. The Applicant complains that he has raised these and previous related concerns about the mother with the Respondent and the Respondent is not following up appropriately. The Applicant also complains about a particular Respondent supervisor, N, including N’s work with the Applicant’s family since 2023, and N being in “a conflict of interest” through her work with the Applicant’s family.

Applicant’s Earlier Application: CFSRB File CA24-0132

8In his first application, in CFSRB File CA24-0132, the Applicant also raised concerns about the safety of his children while in the care of their mother and his perception that the Respondent was not taking his concerns seriously. In that application, the Applicant also named Respondent supervisor N, complained about N being biased and in a conflict of interest, and outlined concerns with N’s work with the family, including in 2023.

9File CA24-0132 was concluded through the CFSRB’s November 2024 Decision. The Applicant had an opportunity to participate in that application and make submissions prior to a written hearing on it. In the CFSRB’s November 2024 Decision, the CFSRB found that the Applicant’s concerns about the children’s safety in the care of their mother had been placed before the court in various Child Protection proceedings. The CFSRB found that the complaints in the Application were not separate and different that the substantive issues before the Court and the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction to review them.

The Applicant Cannot Relitigate Issues from File CA24-0132 in a Later Application

10The legal doctrine of issue estoppel (a branch of res judicata) prevents the re-litigation of issues previously adjudicated in an earlier proceeding to avoid an abuse of process [see, for example, Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63]. This applies where: (1) the issue is the same as one decided in a prior decision; (2) the prior decision was final: and (3) the parties to both proceedings are the same.

11In the current Application, aside from new complaints related to a December 6, 2024, court order, discussed below, the Applicant raises the same complaints raised in File CA24-0132. These include the Applicant’s previous concerns about the children’s safety in the care of their mother and concerns about Respondent supervisor N (e.g., related to N’s work with the Applicant’s family in 2023, being biased, and “in a conflict of interest” in her work with the Applicant’s family). The CFSRB’s November 2024 Decision was a final decision and involved the same Applicant and Respondent as the current Application.

12Thus, the CFSRB is prevented by the doctrine of issue estoppel from reviewing again in the current Application, the complaints made previously by the Applicant in File CA24-0132 that resulted in a final decision. It would be an abuse of process to do so.

The Applicant’s Complaints Related to a December 6, 2024 Court Order are Not Within the CFSRB’s Jurisdiction to Review

13There is only one meaningful difference between the Applicant’s complaints in his current Application and his first application in File CA24-0132. In the current Application, the Applicant also complains about a specific court order that was finalized on December 6, 2024, the mother’s alleged lack of adherence to the terms and conditions of that order, and concerns about the Respondent’s follow up to the mother’s alleged breach of those terms and conditions. These complaints relate to a court order that was issued after the CFSRB’s November 2024 Decision and are therefore not barred from review by the doctrine of issue estoppel.

14However, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review these new complaints.

15Under 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.

16The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 411 at paragraph 35, that the mere existence of a court proceeding does not automatically bar the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint about services an individual has received from a children’s aid society if the complaints are “separate and different from the substantive issues before the court”.

17The Applicant has not presented any complaints in the current Application that are separate and distinct from substantive issues before the court. Indeed, at part 9 of the Application, to the question, “[h]as the concern you describe above been dealt with in Court?”, the Applicant checked the box “yes”.

18Instead, in the Application, the Applicant has specifically listed the terms and conditions of a four-month court order issued on December 6, 2024, complains that the mother is not following those terms and conditions, and alleges that the Respondent is not addressing the mother’s breaches of them. These are all issues, including by the Applicant’s own admission, that have been and remain squarely before the court, and for which the Applicant’s recourse is through the court proceedings.

19Accordingly, for the reasons set above, the Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB.

ORDER

20The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

21Pursuant 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.