CL v. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, 2025 CFSRB 31

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CL Applicant

-and-

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan Date: March 10, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 31 Indexed As: CL v Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (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 the Applicant has filed with the CFSRB.

2The Applicant is the father of an infant son (the “Child”) who is not in his care and custody. The Respondent provides child protection services to the Applicant, the Child and the Child’s mother.

3In November 2024, the Applicant filed his first application with the CFSRB, in File CA24-0208. That application was concluded by the CFSRB’s decision dated January 22, 2025 (“CFSRB’s January 2025 Decision”) wherein the CFSRB found that the Applicant’s complaints were not separate and different from the substantive issues in Child Protection proceedings involving the parties before the Ontario Court of Justice (“Court”).

4As part of the Respondent’s submissions in File CA24-0208, the Respondent filed several Court documents, including a December 12, 2024, Endorsement (“December 2024 Endorsement”). In the December 2024 Endorsement, the Court made orders further to an earlier motion, including the temporary placement of the Child with his mother subject to the Respondent’s supervision on 13 terms, and access of the Child to the Applicant at the discretion of the Respondent with respect to frequency, location, duration, and supervision. The December 2024 Endorsement also ordered the Applicant to “work with the [Respondent] on a schedule for his access”.

ISSUE

5The issue is:

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

RESULT

6The CFSRB finds that the Application is not eligible for review. Almost all of the Applicant’s complaints in the current Application are ones that have been previously adjudicated inf File CA24-0208 and it would be an abuse of process to allow them to be relitigated. The “new” complaints made by the Applicant in the current Application are ones that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review. They are either issues before the Court and cannot be reviewed under section 120(8)(a) of the Act or are matters within the sole purview of the Information and Privacy Commissioner under Part X of the Act. Thus, the Application must be dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Current Application

7In the current Application, the Applicant reiterates many of the same complaints from his first Application, including relating to the Respondent’s plans to reunify the Child with his mother, the Respondent’s positions taken in Court, concerns about Respondent worker, N, bias against him as a father, and concerns with his parenting time with the Child.

8The Applicant also raises three new complaints. He complains that the Respondent is withholding certain documents from him, expresses concerns about the Child’s mother breaching Court-ordered terms placing the Child at risk of harm, and complains about a February 2025 meeting with the Respondent related to scheduling parenting time with his Child.

9The Applicant acknowledges his earlier application to the CFSRB and in materials filed with his Application, states that the current Application pertains to “other reasons which recently happened”. The Applicant requests that the CFSRB provide the following relief further to the Application:

1. Conduct a comprehensive review of CAS’s handling of this case, including their approval of the accelerated reunification program for [the Child’s mother] without addressing the significant risks to [the Child]’s safety.
2. Investigate the unprofessional conduct of [Respondent worker N] including her intimidation tactics and obstruction of information, and take appropriate disciplinary action.
3. Mandate that CAS implement transparent processes for determining treatment goals, evaluating risks, and ensuring accountability in future cases.

Applicant’s First Application: File CA24-0208

10File CA24-0208 was concluded through the CFSRB’s January 2025 Decision. The Applicant had an opportunity to participate in that application and make submissions prior to a written hearing on it.

11In the CFSRB’s January 2025 Decision, the CFSRB found that the Applicant’s complaints in his application were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court and the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction to review them.

The Applicant Cannot Relitigate Issues from File CA24-0208 in a Further Application

12The 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.

13In the current Application, aside from the Applicant’s three new complaints set out in paragraph 8, above, the Applicant raises the same complaints raised in File CA24-0208. These include concerns about the Respondent’s plans to reunify the Child with his mother, the Respondent’s positions taken in Court, concerns about Respondent worker, N, bias against him as a father, and previous concerns with his parenting time with the Child. The CFSRB’s January 2025 Decision was a final decision and involved the same Applicant and Respondent as the current Application.

14Thus, 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 CA24-0208 that resulted in a final decision. It would be an abuse of process to do so.

The Applicant’s New Complaints Are Matters Before the Court or Not Otherwise Within the CFSRB’s Jurisdiction to Review

15The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s new complaints in his current Application.

16Subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act sets out that the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a section 120 complaint if the subject of the complaint “is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court”.

17The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441 held that the mere existence of child protection proceedings does not bar the CFSRB from reviewing complaints about services received from a children’s aid society if the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

18I find that two of the Applicant’s three new complaints relate to issues that are squarely before the Court. The 13 terms of placement of the Child with his mother and the Applicant’s parenting time with the Child (including relating to frequency, location, duration, and supervision at the discretion of the Respondent) are issues specifically addressed in the December 2024 Endorsement. As part of the ongoing Child Protection proceedings, the Applicant can raise his concerns about the Child’s mother’s alleged breaches of court-ordered terms and challenge the Respondent’s decision making related to his parenting time with the Child. I find that those issues are not separate and different from those before the Court. Thus, I find that these complaints are outside of the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act.

19Further, in the current Application, the Applicant also complains about the Respondent’s failure to provide him with certain documents. Complaints related to the collection, use and disclosure of records including personal information held by the Respondent are within the sole purview of the Information and Privacy Commissioner under Part X of the Act. Thus, I find that this complaint is also outside of the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review.

20While I find that the CFSRB cannot review the complaints in the current Application, I note that the remedies sought by the Applicant, set out in paragraph 9 above, are in any event not ones that the CFSRB could order under subsection 120(7) of the Act.

ORDER

21The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

22Pursuant 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.