DD v. The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2025 CFSRB 53

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

DD Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: April 17, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 53 Indexed As: DD v The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

introduction

1In 2016 and 2018, the Applicant filed applications 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. In November 2018, the CFSRB decided that the second application was an abuse of process and declared the Applicant to be a vexatious litigant: DD v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2018 CFSRB 56 (“DD”). As a result, she is required to obtain permission from the CFSRB before filing any new applications against the Respondent.

2The Applicant is now seeking to file a new Application (“the proposed Application”). The proposed Application was served on the Respondent in error prior to the CFSRB determining whether to grant the Applicant permission to file the proposed Application

issue

3Should the Applicant be permitted to file the proposed Application?

result

4The Applicant’s request to file the proposed Application is denied and the CFSRB’s file is closed.

analysis

5In DD, the CFSRB concluded that the Applicant’s questions about her son’s adoption had been “definitively addressed” in multiple court proceedings and that the Applicant’s actions in seeking answers to the same questions at the CFSRB was an abuse of process. The CFSRB also decided that the Applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant due to vexatious conduct which included “persistent attempts to re-litigate various aspects of her son’s removal from her care and subsequent adoption, and to seek remedies to which she is not legally entitled … [and commencing] proceedings without basis for the purpose of harassment and oppression of other parties.” (DD at para 35)

6The proposed Application seeks information about the current whereabouts of the Applicant’s son, alleges that her son was not adopted, accuses Respondent staff of perjury, and expresses concerns about alleged abuse of her son. The Applicant has not provided any reason why the CFSRB should permit her to file the proposed Application and, in particular, has not explained how the proposed Application differs from her previous applications to the CFSRB.

7On its face, the proposed Application is repetitive of the numerous legal proceedings initiated by the Applicant in various fora. In each of these proceedings, the Applicant has sought information about her son and made serious allegations against the Respondent. She refuses to accept that her son was adopted despite consistent rulings to that effect in multiple court proceedings.

8It would be an abuse of process to require the Respondent to respond yet again to allegations which have already been dealt with in multiple proceedings.

9For these reasons, the Applicant’s request to file the proposed Application is denied.

order

10The Applicant’s request to file the proposed Application is denied and the CFSRB’s file is closed.

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. 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.