CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
MS
Applicant
-and-
Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jessica Lubrick
Date: December 12, 2025
Citation: 2025 CFSRB 184
Indexed as: MS v Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services (CYFSA s. 120)
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (the “Act”).
2The CFSRB determined the Application was eligible to proceed on September 9, 2025, pursuant to section 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3In a Response dated September 19, 2025, the Respondent sought to have the Application dismissed on the basis that issues raised in the current Application were resolved in a previous Application to the CFSRB, CA25-007.
4After receiving submissions from the parties, the CFSRB issued an Interim Decision on November 6, 2025 (“Interim Decision”). In the Interim Decision, the CFSRB indicated that the Application would proceed on whether the Applicant was heard and provided reasons by the Respondent in relation to three issues:
a. the removal of the Child, J.S., from life support;
b. the notification of the Applicant of the Child, J.S.’s illness; and
c. the administration of a Covid vaccination to the Child, J.S.
5On November 12, 2025, the Respondent provided the CFSRB with a Statement of Claim in a civil action brought by the Applicant currently before the Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) in which the Respondent is named as a party. The Respondent requested that the current Application before the CFSRB be dismissed as the Applicant’s complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues that are now before the Court.
6In a Case Management Direction (“CMD”) dated November 13, 2025, the CFSRB directed the Applicant to file written submissions by November 18, 2025 on whether the issues in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. If the Applicant failed to provide submissions as directed, the CFSRB indicated that the Application may be dismissed as abandoned. The Respondent’s responding submissions, if any, were to be filed by November 21, 2025.
7Neither party filed submissions following the release of the CMD.
8I determined the CFSRB had sufficient evidence to decide whether the complaints are separate and different from the issues before the Court. I reviewed the Application, Response, Request to Dismiss, and Statement of Claim in making my decision, below.
ISSUE
9The issue is:
a. Should the Application be dismissed because the complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court?
RESULT
10The Application must be dismissed on the basis that the Applicant’s complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court.
ANALYSIS
The Applicant’s complaints are not separate and different from the issues before the Court
11The Applicant’s complaints outlined in the Statement of Claim in the civil action are virtually identical to the three issues currently before the CFSRB.
12Section 120(8)(a) of the Act prevents the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint if the subject matter of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.
13The CFSRB is not barred from reviewing complaints where the parties are or were involved in a court proceeding. The CFSRB retains jurisdiction to review a complaint about services from a Children’s Aid Society if the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court (Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 411)
14Among other allegations, the Applicant makes three claims against the Respondent in the Statement of Claim that are nearly identical to the complaints currently before the CFSRB. Specifically, the Applicant seeks the following findings from the court:
a. The Respondent removed the Child from life support without her consent (paragraph 7(A)(VII) in the Statement of Claim);
b. The Respondent did not advise the Applicant of the Child’s illness in a timely manner (paragraph 1(A)(IX) in the Statement of Claim); and
c. The Respondent gave the Child a covid vaccination without the Applicant’s knowledge or consent (paragraph 1(A)(VI) in the Statement of Claim).
15These claims are not separate and different from those complaints currently before the CFSRB. They are virtually identical to the complaints before the CFSRB and outlined at paragraph 4 above.
16As the issues before the CFSRB are currently before the court, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review them, and the Application must be dismissed.
ORDER
17The Application is dismissed.
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.
Dated, December 12, 2025
Jessica Lubrick
Jessica Lubrick
Member