CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SC Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Caroline Sand Date: February 12, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 19 Indexed as: SC v Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
SC, Applicant Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, Respondent Self-represented
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”). The Application was found eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
2This Application concerns two of the Applicant’s children (the “Children”).
3The Applicant filed a previous Application (“July Application”) with a different society named as Respondent (“July Respondent”), naming the same Children. The July Application was resolved by way of settlement agreement.
4The Applicant alleges in this Application that the Respondent did not conduct a balanced investigation, and favoured the mother of the Children, who used the Respondent to get an advantage in family court. The Applicant alleges that the children were left unattended on an access exchange. The Applicant refers to audio recordings he provided to the Respondent but makes no allegation. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s closing letter was written for the purpose of supporting the mother in court, and was not child centred, but rather, focused on the Applicant.
5The Respondent submits that the Application should be dismissed because the substance of the Application has already been the subject of a decision-making process, namely, the CFSRB. The Respondent further submits that it would be an abuse of process to proceed with the Application, as it would be relitigating issues that have already been addressed within the child welfare system.
ISSUES
6The issues are:
a. Have the issues raised in the Application already been subjected to another decision-making process under this Act?
b. Would it be an abuse of process to proceed with this Application?
RESULT
7The CFSRB finds that the allegation pertaining to the children being left unattended has already been addressed by the CFSRB in the July Application. It would be an abuse of process to allow it to proceed.
8The CFSRB finds that the allegations raised pertaining to the Respondent’s closing letter of January 8, 2026 may proceed for CFSRB review.
ANALYSIS
9For context, the Applicant lives in a different region from the Children, and for that reason, two different child protection agencies have been involved in this matter. The Respondent in this matter has assisted the July Respondent in the course of its investigations, as happens when parents and children live in different regions.
10The Applicant makes allegations pertaining to an access exchange in which he alleged the Children were left unattended in a car. This exact issue was raised in the July Application and addressed in the course of the previous CFSRB proceeding. For this reason, it may not be raised again and would be an abuse of process to do so.
11The Applicant refers to an audio recording of one of the Children. The Respondent submits that it learned in the course of its investigation that the audio recording dates back to 2023, and it had already been reviewed by the July Respondent and the court. The CFSRB finds the Applicant makes no clear allegation with regard to the 2023 audio recording, and it is dismissed.
12The Applicant makes allegations about the Respondent’s closing letter of January 8, 2026. The Applicant submits that the Respondent focused its investigation on him, and not the Children. The Applicant submits that the January 8 closing letter does not explain how the child safety concerns were assessed. The Applicant further submits that the Respondent has not meaningfully engaged with the Children or interviewed them since July 2025.
13The Respondent submits that the “decision” to not continue an investigation because it learned in the course of its investigation that there are no new allegations, and instead, the Applicant has raised previously investigated issues, is not a “decision,” as contemplated in section 120(4)5 of the Act.
14I understand the Respondent’s position, however, a decision to not provide service, when a service was sought, is a decision nonetheless, for which an applicant is entitled to reasons. Such an issue falls within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction under section 120(4)5 of the Act.
ORDER
15The allegations pertaining to the Children being unattended in the car and pertaining to audio recordings are dismissed.
16The allegations pertaining to the letter of January 8, 2026, may proceed in the CFSRB process.
NEXT STEPS
17The CFSRB will issue a Case Management Direction that will set out the next steps for the review of the Applicant’s complaint.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
18Pursuant 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.
Caroline Sand
Caroline Sand Vice-Chair