SK v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, 2025 CFSRB 146

BETWEEN:

SK Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tracy Foster Date: October 21, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 146 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”).

2This is the fifth Application the Applicant has filed against the Respondent with the CFSRB.

3The Applicant identifies himself as “not a parent, just partner to ex” to a child (the “Child”) named in the Application. Previous Applications identify that the Applicant is the former partner of a parent of the Child.

ISSUE

4The issue is:

a. Should the Application be dismissed as an abuse of process under the Rule A8 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure?

RESULT

5For the reasons set out below, the CFSRB finds that the Application is dismissed as an abuse of its processes.

ANALYSIS

6Rule A8 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure states:

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.

Previous Applications

7As mentioned above, the Applicant has submitted four previous Applications with the CFSRB.

8The Applicant withdrew his first Application, file CA22-0110. The Applicant later confirmed at a subsequent videoconference on a different Application that the issue found eligible to proceed on in Application CA22-0110 was resolved.

9The CFSRB found the Applicant’s three subsequent Applications CA24-0111, CA25-0016 and CA25-0058 ineligible for CFSRB review in decisions dated August 8, 2024, February 11, 2025 and March 31, 2025.

10In these decisions, the CFSRB explained the jurisdiction of the CFSRB and outlined that it 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 defined 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.

11The CFSRB determined that the Applicant is not a parent to the Child as set out in section 2(2) of the Act. Additionally, in Applications CA24-0111, CA25-0016 and CA25-0058, the CFSRB determined that the Applicant did not seek or receive services from the Respondent relative to his complaints and are therefore not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction.

Respondent’s Submissions

12In response to the CFSRB’s Notice of Application on this Application, the Respondent submitted a motion pursuant to Rule A8 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, stating:

“The Applicant has filed multiple applications with the CFSRB, the majority of which have been deemed ineligible for review… the Applicant continues to submit applications that do not meet the statutory threshold under section 120(1).”

13In light of the above, the Respondent seeks that the CFSRB:

“declare the Applicant a vexatious litigant under Rule A(8); dismiss the current Application as an abuse of process; and, require the Applicant to obtain permission from the tribunal before initiating any future proceedings.”

Abuse of Process

14The CFSRB’s decision for Application CA25-0158 issued on March 31, 2025 states:

“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.”

15Although he withdrew his original Application CA22-0110, the Applicant indicated that the one issue the CFSRB found was eligible to proceed under the Act was resolved. The three subsequent Applications were found ineligible for CFSRB’s review. With this current Application, the Applicant continues to raise issues that are substantively similar to the previous Applications for which the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction.

16Given the above, I am satisfied that the Applicant’s continued Applications against the Respondent constitute an abuse of process. Should the Applicant continue to submit substantively similar Applications against the Respondent, the CFSRB may find the Applicant to be a vexatious litigant.

ORDER

17The Application is dismissed as an abuse of the CFSRB’s processes.

18The Applicant must obtain permission from the CFSRB before initiating any future proceedings against the Respondent.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

19Pursuant 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.

Tracy Foster

Member