SK v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, 2025 CFSRB 39

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SK

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Caroline Sand

Date: March 31, 2025

Citation: 2025 CFSRB 39

Indexed As: SK v Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County (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”).

ISSUE

2The issue is:

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

RESULT

3The CFSRB finds that the Application is not eligible for review.

ANALYSIS

4In response to Question 6 (Tell us why you are applying to the CFSRB) the Applicant wrote:

asked if safe after children service put a no contact order. Didn’t reply CMHA and others took it children services didn’t know if I was and put safety plan.

5The Applicant listed a child under Question 4 (Children Affected this this Application) but wrote “Nothing” to explain “Applicant’s Relationship to Child.”

6It was unclear from the limited information provided, what the Applicant’s complaints were, and whether they fell within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review under section 120 of the Act.

7The CFSRB held a videoconference today to better understand the Applicant’s complaints, because it could not determine eligibility based on the information set out in the Application. The Applicant attended with a support person, as did the Director of Service from the Respondent.

8The Applicant alleged that the Respondent advised the Applicant’s ex-partner, who is the mother of the child named in the Application, to seek a no-contact order. The Applicant further explained that the police advised him in person that he and his ex-partner are not to have contact with one another, but there was no written order. The Applicant described that his ex-partner began to contact him, which concerned his mental health practitioners involved in his care through CMHA. Those practitioners suggested he contact the Respondent to ask if he would be safe around his ex-partner, and the Respondent did not reply to him.

9I explained that complaints about the Respondent can only be reviewed by the CFSRB if they relate to a service “sought” or “received” by the Applicant or the Applicant’s children, as set out in section 120(1) of the Act. I explained that the Applicant’s complaint did not appear to relate to a service. The Applicant responded that his ex-partner’s children were at risk of being impacted negatively if the Applicant and his ex-partner resumed a relationship.

10The CFSRB can find a complaint eligible for review only if it meets two threshold tests. First, an applicant must demonstrate that they have sought or received a service, as described in subsection 2(1) of the Act, from a children’s aid society. Second, the complaint set out in the application must relate to the service sought or received.

11Subsection 2(1) of the Act defines what constitutes a “service” under the Act. This includes:

(a) a service for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family,

(b) a mental health service for a child or the child’s family,

(c) a service related to residential care for a child,

(d) a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family,

(e) a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others,

(f) counselling for a child or the child’s family,

(g) a service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community,

(h) a service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or

(i) a prescribed service; (“service”);

12The Application does not support that the Applicant has sought or received a service as defined in the Act. Thus, the Application does not meet the first threshold test for eligibility under section 120(1) of the Act.

13The Application is therefore not eligible to proceed.

Previous Applications

The Applicant filed three earlier applications to the CFSRB. The Applicant withdrew the first Application, file CA22-0110, pursuant to a letter from the Applicant’s physician. The Applicant confirmed at today’s videoconference that the issues from that Application were resolved. The CFSRB found Application CA24-0111 to be ineligible for review in a decision dated August 8, 2024. The CFSRB found Application CA25-0016 ineligible for CFSRB review in a decision dated February 11, 2025. The reasons that the previous Applications were ineligible for review also apply to this Application and are not repeated here.

Respondent’s Submissions

14The Respondent submitted that the Applicant has filed numerous Applications with the CFSRB and asked that the CFSRB consider Rule A(8) of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure. Rule A(8) sets out:

A8.1 The tribunal may make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuse of its processes.

A8.2 Where the tribunal finds that a person has persistently instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted a proceeding in a vexatious manner, the tribunal may find that person to be a vexatious litigant and dismiss the proceeding as an abuse of process for that reason. It may also require a person found to be a vexatious litigant to obtain permission from the tribunal to commence further proceedings or take further steps in a proceeding.

This is the third Application filed by the Applicant in the last year and a half that has been found to be ineligible for CFSRB review. While the Applicant may be filing the Applications in good faith, he appears to not grasp the limits of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. The CFSRB has limited resources, as does the Respondent. The CFSRB may require the Applicant to obtain permission from the tribunal to commence further proceedings if he continues to file Applications that are not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.

ORDER

15The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

16Pursuant 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.