SF v. Peel Children’s Aid Society, 2024 CFSRB 11

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SF
Applicant

-and-

Peel Children’s Aid Society
Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley
Date: February 06, 2024
Citation: 2024 CFSRB 11
Indexed As: SF v Peel Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

introduction

1The Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) decided in April 2023 that the Applicant was a vexatious litigant. 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 with the CFSRB under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

3This decision explains why the CFSRB is denying the Applicant permission to file the proposed Application.

basis for vexatious litigant decision

4In an April 14, 2023 decision, the CFSRB decided that the Applicant was a vexatious litigant. It did so because the subject matter of the Application in question (CA23-0025) was the same as the Applicant’s two previous Applications (CA20-0093 and CA22-0101), both of which the CFSRB had dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. All three Applications contained complaints related to the Respondent’s removal of the Applicant’s child from her care.

the proposed application

5The Application which the Applicant now seeks to file with the CFSRB complains that “CAS took away my child for no reason.” On the proposed Application, the Applicant answered “yes” to question 9 (Has the concern you described above been dealt with in Court?) and question 10 (Is the concern you describe above currently before the Court?).

analysis

6The three previous Applications and the proposed Application all deal with the Applicant’s upset about the Respondent removing her child from her care. As noted in the previous CFSRB decisions, the basis for the child’s removal is a matter that has been before the Court. The Applicant acknowledges this in her answers to questions 9 and 10.

7In its earlier decisions, the CFSRB has repeatedly explained to the Applicant that it cannot review matters that are or have been before the Court.

8Filing a fourth Application dealing with the same subject matter, particularly when that subject matter is outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction, would amount to an abuse of process. For these reasons, the Applicant’s request to file the proposed Application must be denied.

order

9The Applicant’s request to file the proposed Application is denied.

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.