JZZ v. Children and Family Services of York Region, 2025 CFSRB 164

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JZZ Applicant

-and-

Children and Family Services of York Region Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ivana Vaccaro Date: November 14, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 164 Indexed As: JZZ v Children and Family Services of York Region (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

JZZ, Applicant Self-represented

Children and Family Services of York Region, Respondent Alison Moonsie-Mohan, Counsel

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, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (“Act”).

2The CFSRB found the Application was eligible to proceed under section 120(4)4 and 5 of the Act.

3Specifically, the Applicant’s concerns, as confirmed in the Pre-Hearing Report of August 12, 2025, are as follows:

1. The Applicant alleges the Respondent did not hear her concerns regarding the following:

(a) The Applicant alleges she wrote to her case worker AD, to AD’s supervisor, and to the Acting Director KS with no responses from these individuals and that KS refused to meet with the Applicant.

(b) The Applicant alleges that she was not heard by the Respondent regarding her allegations that the Respondent “kidnapped” her 16-year-old son and placed him in a group home.

(c) The Applicant alleges that she was not heard regarding her concerns about her 16-year-old son being “abused” in a group home leading to two teeth being knocked out and resultant scars on his lips.

(d) The Applicant alleges she was not heard by the Respondent about the changes and deterioration she saw in her son following her son’s involvement with the Respondent.

(e) The Applicant alleges she was not heard by the Respondent regarding the negative impact on her relationship with her son following the Respondent’s involvement.

2. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide reasons for the following:

(a) The Applicant alleges she was not provided with reasons for the Respondent becoming involved with her then age 17-year-old son on or about February 3, 2020, at which time she alleges her son was “kidnapped” by the Respondent’s workers.

(b) The Applicant alleges she was not given reasons by the Respondent for why the Respondent placed her son in a group home where he was assaulted and injured.

(c) The Applicant alleges she was not given reasons for why the Respondent started meeting “secretly” with her son in 2019.

(d) The Applicant alleges she was not given reasons for why the Respondent continues to be involved with her son.

ISSUES

4The issues to be determined are as follows:

1. Was the Applicant given the opportunity to be heard regarding the concerns she raised in subparagraphs 3(1)(a) to (e) above?

2. Was the Applicant provided with reasons regarding the decisions made in subparagraphs 3(2)(a) to (d) above?

RESULT

5Having reviewed the Application, Response and the hearing documents filed by the parties in this matter, I find the following:

1. In relation to issue 1(a), the Applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns that she wrote to her case worker AD, AD’s supervisor, and the Acting Director KS with no responses from these individuals and that KS refused to meet with the Applicant.

2. In relation to issue 1(b), the Respondent did hear and address the Applicant’s concerns that the Respondent “kidnapped” her 16-year-old son and placed him in a group home.

3. In relation to issue 1(c), the Applicant’s concerns about her 16-year-old son being “abused” in a group home leading to two teeth being knocked out and resultant scars on his lips involved the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (“CAST”), not the Respondent, and could not be heard or addressed by the Respondent.

4. In relation to issue 1(d), the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns about the changes and deterioration she saw in her son following her son’s involvement with the Respondent.

5. In relation to issue 1(e), the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding the negative impact on her relationship with her son following the Respondent’s involvement.

6. In relation to issue 2(a), the Respondent did provide the Applicant with reasons for the Respondent becoming involved with her then 17-year-old son on or about February 3, 2020, at which time she alleges her son was “kidnapped” by the Respondent’s workers.

7. In relation to issue 2(b), the Respondent could not provide the Applicant with reasons why the Respondent placed her son in a group home where he was assaulted and injured, because CAST was involved with TZ at the time, not the Respondent, and the Applicant acknowledges as much.

8. In relation to issue 2(c), the Respondent did provide the Applicant with reasons why the Respondent started meeting with her son in 2019.

9. In relation to issue 2(d), the Respondent did provide the Applicant with reasons why the Respondent continues to be involved with her son.

6This Decision was made following a hearing in writing.

ANALYSIS

7The CFSRB has explained that the right to be heard under section 120(4)4 of the Act entails the following:

To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33 (para 14).

8Section 120(4)5 of the Act states that the CFSRB may review allegations that a society has failed to provide a complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests. The “right to reasons” under the Act is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held at para 13 that:

A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

9The Applicant has set out a narrative that is not borne out by the evidence. The Applicant’s documents are replete with accusations that the Respondent kidnapped, abused, harmed, defrauded and stole from her son TZ, even in the face of the Respondent’s reasons or explanations for its involvement with TZ.

10In response to the Applicant’s allegations, the Respondent repeatedly listened and explained to the Applicant that its involvement with TZ was voluntary, that it accorded with TZ wishes, and that TZ himself did not wish to share information with the Applicant or have a relationship with her for some time. The evidence also demonstrates that the Applicant’s conduct towards the Respondent has risen to a level of abuse and harassment, limiting the Respondent’s ability to communicate with her safely.

11After the CFSRB determined the Application would proceed to a written hearing, the Applicant continued to file written submissions in which she made incredulous allegations against the adjudicator who presided over the Pre-Hearing and demanded an in-person hearing. The Applicant believes that only an oral hearing can bring to light her narrative.

12The Respondent’s evidence is internally consistent, logical and credible. The documents filed in response to the CFSRB’s Case Management Direction dated November 5, 2025, corroborate the Respondent’s position and lend to its credibility.

Issue 1(a): The Applicant alleges she was not given an opportunity to be heard when she wrote to her case worker AD, AD’s supervisor, and Acting Director KS and received no responses from these individuals, and KS refused to meet with her.

13There has been a long history of Respondent involvement with the Applicant’s son, TZ, who is now over the age of majority. Prior to the Respondent’s involvement, CAST was involved with the Applicant and TZ.

14In the Response, the Respondent explained that, when TZ attained the age of 16, he entered into a Voluntary Youth Services Agreement (“VYSA”), which was facilitated through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. TZ then moved to Continued Care and Support for Youth program (“CCSY program”) when he attained the age of 18, and more recently TZ has been involved with the Respondent through the Ready, Set, Go program (“RSG program”).

15The Respondent filed a copy of the VYSA which was signed by TZ on October 9, 2019. The duration of the VYSA was from October 9, 2019, to October 8, 2020. The VYSA allowed for an extension up to 24 months, with the VYSA terminating no later than TZ’s 18th birthday. The VYSA includes a provision that, when TZ attains the age of 18, he is eligible to enter the CCSY program.

16The Respondent also filed a copy of the RSG program agreement, signed by TZ on March 17, 2023, for the period of April 1, 2023, to September 1, 2023. This agreement also includes a provision that the period may be extended prior to the end of the period provided the youth is still eligible for the RSG program, and moreover, that the agreement is renewable up until TZ attains the age of 23.

17The Applicant alleges, instead, that the Respondent kidnapped her son TZ, withheld him from her, and while in the Respondent’s care, TZ suffered abuse and neglect. The Applicant’s documents, submissions and communications are replete with allegations of this nature, all of which date back to as early as February 2014 and involve CAST as well.

18In the Application, the Applicant alleges that she called AD, AD’s supervisor MW and Acting Director KS, but they each refused to meet with her and told her there was nothing they could do to help her and TZ. She also alleges that she filed a complaint with the Respondent but received no response. The Applicant attached a copy of the complaint she submitted through the Respondent’s ‘Complaints, Compliments & Feedback’ email (“Online Complaint”). The Applicant received an automated response confirming receipt of her feedback. The Applicant then filed the present Application which mirrors the complaint filed with the Respondent.

19In the Applicant’s Submissions dated July 31, 2025, and Hearing Documents dated September 8, 2025, the Applicant alleges that she called AD and that he did not answer her call. She claims that she persisted in calling AD, and that he finally answered the phone but would not answer her questions, then proceeded to tell her that he would be going on vacation.

20In the Response, the Respondent alleges that the Applicant’s Online Complaint was submitted on its ‘Complaints, Compliments & Feedback’ email on May 26, 2025, and that the Acting Director KS contacted the Applicant on May 27, 2025, and left her a voicemail. The Applicant called KS back that same night, and they spoke for 20 minutes. The Applicant told KS she did not have money to buy food or medication and blamed her financial situation on the Respondent. The Respondent claims that KS provided the Applicant with information concerning resources for financial assistance but could not provide her with money. The Respondent alleges that KS told the Applicant that TZ’s worker AD was working with her son to ensure his needs were met.

21On May 28, 2025, the Respondent alleges that KS emailed the Applicant, who reiterated her request for money and requested a meeting with KS in person. KS offered to meet with the Applicant virtually instead. KS continued to provide the Applicant with information concerning financial resources, including Ontario Works, and encouraged the Applicant to tell TZ that he should contact his worker AD if he needed more money.

22Between May 30, 2025, and June 6, 2025, the Respondent claims that the Applicant continued to contact KS requesting money and insisting on an in-person meeting. The Applicant refused to agree to meet virtually.

23Prior to contacting KS, the Applicant had been contacting AD and AD’s supervisor MW continuously. The Respondent described the Applicant as repeatedly calling AD and accusing AD of “kidnapping” TZ. Moreover, each time the Applicant asked why TZ remained in the Respondent’s care, AD explained that TZ had signed a VYSA and that TZ had chosen to go to an internal foster home for adult assistance with self-regulation and school attendance at the age of 16.

24In or about the time the Applicant spoke with AD, the Respondent’s allege she also spoke with AD’s supervisor, MW. MW contacted the Applicant on May 6, 2025, given the ongoing issues experienced by AD in his communications with the Applicant. The Respondent alleges that MW spent 45 minutes on the phone with the Applicant during which the Applicant continued to ask for monetary compensation and complained about the Respondent’s involvement with TZ. MW explained to the Applicant that TZ was receiving financial assistance through the RSG program, and MW provided the Applicant with additional information about the Respondent’s complaints process.

25However, during this time the Respondent alleges that the Applicant continued to “bombard” MW with text messages, insisting on meeting with her in person, even while she was on vacation. It was during this time that KS offered the Applicant a virtual meeting as well. The Applicant refused to meet with either MW or KS virtually and continued to send persistent and aggressive text messages to MW.

26In the Response, the Respondent also claims that it was compelled to develop safety procedures for AD and other staff dealing with the Applicant given her abusive and threatening conduct, including physical aggression. That procedure includes avoiding all in-person meetings with the Applicant.

27The Respondent describes an in-person meeting between the Applicant and one of its workers at a community centre to review a disclosure package the Applicant received from the Respondent. The disclosure package had been redacted and the Applicant was upset by it. The worker brought with her a Mandarin interpreter to assist her during the meeting during which the worker and Applicant would review the disclosure package together. Instead of reviewing the disclosure package, the Applicant became belligerent and accused the worker of “kidnapping” TZ, demanding compensation of $10,000,000.00. The Respondent alleges that the Applicant advanced on the worker, and both the worker and the interpreter had to call the meeting off and leave the community centre for their safety.

28The documents filed by both parties are consistent in identifying that the Applicant continues to communicate with the Respondent’s staff by phone, and that she refuses to meet virtually, but insists instead on an in-person meeting with the Respondent’s workers.

29To date, the Applicant has demonstrated the same persistence in scheduling an in-person hearing with the CFSRB, notwithstanding its determination that the hearing would proceed in writing, and its refusal to grant her request for an oral hearing. The Applicant continues to file requests for an in-person hearing, including in her Accommodation Request dated October 24, 2025. The basis for the Applicant’s request is to confront the Respondent’s workers in person.

30The CFSRB jurisdiction’s is limited to what is set out under s. 120 of the Act. The purpose of the hearing is to identify, by way of evidence, whether the Respondent has met the requirements of the Act. It is not an opportunity for the Applicant to cross examine witnesses on past decisions involving the care of TZ.

31I am satisfied that the evidence demonstrates the Respondent’s workers spoke with the Applicant over the phone, and by text, and offered to meet with her virtually to discuss her concerns. The applicant has been heard outside of an in-person meeting and her concerns have been addressed in a meaningful way.

Issue 1(b): The Applicant alleges that she was not heard by the Respondent regarding her allegations that the Respondent “kidnapped” her 16-year-old son and placed him in a group home.

32The Applicant’s documents, submissions and communications are replete with allegations that the Respondent kidnapped TZ on February 3, 2020, and placed him in a group home, and that the concerns she raised regarding his kidnaping and placement have been ignored by the Respondent. However, it is clear from the evidence before me that the Respondent’s workers repeatedly explained to the Applicant how TZ ended up in the Respondent’s care and in a group home, including during the time that TZ was in the care of CAST.

33In the Response, the Respondent explains that, at the age of 15, TZ had already been living outside of the family home in a rented room arranged by his mother in Markham. At the age of 16, TZ and the Applicant had extensive involvement with the Respondent and by October 2019, TZ voluntarily involved himself with the Respondent through the VYSA. At the time, the Respondent advises that the Applicant lived in Toronto and did not wish to continue paying for his rent given that TZ had to give up his part-time job due to poor grades. Before the Respondent became involved, CAST had been involved with the Applicant and TZ since February 2014; however, while TZ lived in Markham, CAST could not assist him. From July 2015 to March 2016, TZ was placed in a group home by CAST, not the Respondent. At the time, TZ was running away from home a lot and had issues with his mother, the Applicant.

34In October 2019, the Respondent sent TZ for counselling with a Chinese therapist, and TZ changed schools, but the Applicant did not approve. The Applicant insisted on TZ’s financial support to go to her, not him. The Respondent described the Applicant as being very mistrusting of the therapist and the Respondent and that, at that time, she began alleging that TZ was being bullied in the group home.

35By January 2020, the Respondent alleges that TZ did not want a relationship with the Applicant and there were constant conflicts. The Applicant also continued to hold TZ’s passport and health card. TZ then moved into an internal foster home available under VYSA, but he continued to struggle. The Applicant continued to call the Respondent’s after-hours line shouting angrily that her son had been kidnapped but TZ did not want the Applicant to know his whereabouts since he continued to have conflict with her. The Applicant was told by the Respondent that TZ did not consent to the Respondent releasing information concerning his whereabouts, but the Applicant would not accept the Respondent’s explanation and maintained that the Respondent lured TZ into its care and “kidnapped” him.

36The Respondent alleges that throughout the life of the VYSA, the Applicant would call AD, accusing the Respondent of kidnapping TZ, abusing him and stealing his money, and AD would patiently listen to the Applicant and explain that TZ did not want to contact her, did not want to share information with her and that the VYSA was between TZ and the Respondent.

37The Respondent claims that, when TZ turned 18, the VYSA ended, and he automatically became enrolled in the CCSY program, which is corroborated by the VYSA. The Applicant continued to call and email the Respondent demanding that TZ be moved to a private school while threatening staff. The staff continued to answer her calls and emails throughout. At that time, the Respondent states that a safety plan was put in place for AD not to meet with the Applicant in person owing to her aggression.

38The applicant’s evidence that the Respondent did not hear her concerns regarding the Respondent “kidnapping” TZ or TZ moving into a group home is not persuasive because the materials before me demonstrate that the Applicant has not only been heard but provided with explanations.

39It is the Applicant’s narrative that the Respondent is a “cruel, heartless, inhumane, and evil organization” that employed “deceit, intimidation, fabricated facts, and meticulously crafted traps” to lure TZ into its care and a group home which prevents her from accepting that her concerns have been heard and addressed.

Issue 1(c): The Applicant alleges that she was not heard regarding her concerns about her 16-year-old son being “abused” in a group home leading to two teeth being knocked out and resultant scars on his lips.

40In the Application, Hearing Documents, and Submissions dated August 7, 2025, the Applicant alleges that, in August 2015, TZ was subjected to “brutal abuse” when CAST placed him in a “violent hellish” group home. The allegations of abuse are not made against the Respondent, but CAST, and the alleged incident occurred when TZ was in the care of CAST, not the Respondent. As such, the Applicant’s concerns should have been directed to CAST, not the Respondent. This issue falls outside the scope of the present Application before the CFSRB and must therefore be dismissed.

Issue 1(d): The Applicant alleges she was not heard by the Respondent about the changes and deterioration she saw in her son following her son’s involvement with the Respondent.

41In the Application, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent caused TZ to “suffer from multiple physical illnesses, especially life-threatening heart condition and an incurable eye disease with a high risk of blindness”. The Applicant also alleges that the Respondent turned a “lovely child who was healthy, loved learning, and had a bright future into a desperate young man who is sick, feels hopeless, and even feels that his life had no meaning”.

42The Applicant also raised these allegations in the Online Complaint and Submissions dated August 7, 2025. I accept the Respondent’s assertion that its workers did speak with the Applicant both before and after receiving the Online Complaint from her and offered to meet with her virtually, but the Applicant refused, insisting instead on an in-person meeting to address her concerns. The Applicant’s insistence that she meet the Respondent’s workers in person, in the face of its safety concerns, does not mean the Respondent did not hear her concerns regarding TZ. What is clear from and consistent with the Applicant’s documents, submissions and communications is that she does not believe or accept what the Respondent tells her and calls its workers “liars”. The applicant seeks relief outside of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. The Board has no authority to order substantive monetary compensation from the Respondent, or to disband the Respondent.

43In the Response, the Respondent explained that it continued to support TZ with his “educational needs, medical and dental/orthodontic needs, immigration support so that he obtained his Canadian citizenship as well as psychological supports for his aggression and inability to control his anger”. The Respondent also explained that TZ continues to meet with his worker to set healthy goals in the RSG program, and that he has since obtained a room in the building where the Applicant resides. The Respondent states that TZ is now content for the Applicant to know about some aspects of his life but not all of it.

44I find that although the Respondent was limited in the amount of information it could discuss with the Applicant concerning TZ, it did nonetheless continue to respond to her phone calls and text messages to address her concerns regarding TZ, his circumstances and its involvement with him.

Issue 1(e): The Applicant alleges she was not heard by the Respondent regarding the negative impact on her relationship with her son following the Respondent’s involvement.

45The Applicant alleges in the Application and in the Online Complaint that the Respondent deliberately “drove a wedge” between her and TZ by telling him that she was mentally ill and preventing TZ from contacting her. As a result, the Applicant alleges she lost years of bonding with her son, which took a physical, psychological and financial toll on her. For this, the Applicant also seeks substantive monetary compensation, including the reimbursement of any medical expenses which have resulted from illnesses she alleges she developed because of the Respondent’s involvement.

46In the Response, the Respondent describes a strained relationship and ongoing conflict between the Applicant and TZ and that TZ did not want to contact the Applicant or let her know anything about his life until more recently. TZ had described the Applicant as being controlling and angry. Even now the Respondent alleges that TZ does not want the Applicant knowing about all aspects of his life.

47In addition to the Respondent consistently explaining that TZ did not want to have contact with the Applicant, or limited contact only, the Respondent also explained that it did not have the authority to provide financial compensation to the Applicant and referred her to various financial resources and other supports she could apply for. In that regard, I am satisfied that the Respondent has heard and addressed the Applicant’s concern regarding the impact of its involvement on her relationship with TZ, albeit the Applicant refuses to accept its explanation.

Issue 2(a): The Applicant alleges she was not provided with reasons for the Respondent becoming involved with her then age 17-year-old son on or about February 3, 2020 at which time she alleges her son was “kidnapped” by the Respondent’s workers.

48While the Applicant alleges the Respondent did not provide her with reasons for its involvement with TZ on or about February 3, 2020, the evidence does not bear this out. I find that the Respondent not only heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding what she describes as her son being “kidnapped” by the Respondent, but that it also provided her with an explanation as to how TZ came into its care multiple times.

49In the Response, the Respondent explained that TZ did not want a relationship with the Applicant at that time and did not want to share information with her given the significant level of discord. The Respondent also explained that TZ would not consent to disclosing information to the Applicant and that AD tried to explain all of this to the Applicant as well as how TZ came into its care. The Applicant admits that she called the police because she believed TZ had been kidnapped by the Respondent. However, the police did not proceed with an investigation after it spoke to the Respondent and learned of the VYSA.

50The Respondent asserts that the Applicant called non-stop, and that AD repeatedly spoke with her and provided her with an explanation concerning the circumstances surrounding their involvement with TZ. The Applicant persisted nonetheless with her allegations and is clearly not satisfied by the explanation provided. Again, the Applicant’s dissatisfaction with the reasons provided by the Respondent does not mean that reasons weren’t provided to her. I am therefore satisfied that the Applicant was provided with reasons.

Issue 2(b): The Applicant alleges she was not given reasons by the Respondent for why the Respondent placed her son in a group home where he was assaulted and injured.

51As with issue 1(c), the Applicant’s allegations concern the conduct of CAST, not the Respondent, and as such, this issue falls outside the scope of the present Application before the CFSRB and must be dismissed. The Respondent is not in a position to provide reasons why CAST placed TZ in a group home, only CAST can do that.

Issue 2(c): The Applicant alleges she was not given reasons for why the Respondent started meeting “secretly” with her son in 2019.

52The Applicant alleges that the Respondent sought out TZ and met with him “secretly” to lure him into its care in the Application, Online Complaint, Hearing Documents, and Submissions dated August 7, 2025, and that the Respondent did not give her the reasons why it started meeting “secretly” with TZ.

53Moreover, in the Applicant’s Hearing Documents, she alleges that, at the Pre-Hearing, the Respondent admitted it proactively sought out TZ following a referral from CAST. She insists that this admission contradicts the Respondent’s claim that its involvement with TZ was voluntary and confirms that TZ was abducted. I disagree with the Applicant’s allegations concerning the Respondent’s failure to provide reasons.

54In its Response, the Respondent outlined a clear and coherent chronology surrounding its involvement with TZ, and how it responded to the Applicant’s requests for information concerning its involvement with TZ, to the extent it was able to do so. The Respondent became involved with TZ in October 2019, following a referral from CAST, through a VYSA, in which the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was involved. At the time, the Applicant lived in Toronto and TZ lived in York Region so CAST could no longer be involved and referred the matter to the Respondent. In February 2020, TZ moved into an internal foster home, through the VYSA with the Respondent. TZ did not want any involvement with the Applicant at that time and the Applicant had refused to continue paying for his apartment in York Region.

55The Respondent did not make an admission at the Pre-Hearing which contradicted its position. In fact, the Respondent had provided this explanation in the Response and explained that AD did speak with the Applicant many times, providing her with as much information as possible given TZ’s age and express wishes. The Applicant, in her materials, refuses to acknowledge this.

56I am not satisfied that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons why it met with TZ and subsequently became involved with him. I find instead that the Respondent did provide the Applicant with reasons; however, the Applicant refuses to accept its reasons.

Issue 2(d): The Applicant alleges she was not given reasons for why the Respondent continues to be involved with her son.

57The Respondent’s involvement with TZ continues through the RSG program and the Respondent has explained this to the Applicant. Specifically, in the Response, the Respondent provides that TZ continues to meet with his worker to establish healthy goals.

58The Respondent’s continued involvement with TZ has been explained to the Applicant. In the Response, the Respondent describes how MW has had regular contact with the Applicant regarding this issue and that the Applicant’s communication has been accusatory in nature, demanding compensation for the alleged harm the Respondent has caused her and TZ and an in-person meeting with her and the Respondent’s lawyer. The Applicant subsequently contacted KS regarding the same issue, and KS spoke to her over the phone, offering to meet with her virtually, which the Applicant declined.

59I am not satisfied the Respondent failed to provide reasons for its continued involvement with TZ but find instead that it did. The Applicant has consistently refused to accept the Respondent’s reasons, which does not in and of itself amount to a failure to provide reasons.

ORDER

60For all of the foregoing reasons, the Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

61Pursuant 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.