CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SP
Applicant
-and-
Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Caroline Sand
Date: July 16, 2025
Citation: 2025 CFSRB 89
Indexed As: SP v Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (CYFSA s.120)
OVERVIEW
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”).
2This is the second Application filed by the Applicant. The first Application, CA24-0169, was dismissed because the CFSRB determined the concerns raised by the Applicant were issues that were before the court in a child protection proceeding, and therefore the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction to review it.
3The current Application appeared to raise the same concerns brought forward in the first Application. On June 20, 2025, the CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction to the Applicant, directing the Applicant to provide submissions explaining how the complaints/allegations in the current Application differ from those in the first Application. The Applicant was also directed to address how proceeding with the current Application would not be an abuse of the CFSRB process.
4The Applicant filed written submissions as directed. The following decision explains why the Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB.
ISSUE
5Is the Application eligible for review by the CFSRB?
RESULT
6The CFSRB finds that the Applicant’s allegations contained in the current Application relate to the same issues that the CFSRB found were not in the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to decide. The Application is not eligible for review because it is not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. The Application must be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
7The CFSRB’s limited jurisdiction to review complaints regarding a Society is set out in section 120 of the Act. Section 120(8)(a) of the Act provides that the CFSRB cannot conduct a review of a complaint if the subject matter of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.
8The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441, that the mere existence of a child protection proceeding does not bar the CFSRB from reviewing complaints about the services from a children’s aid society if the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.
9The CFSRB determined in its December 30, 2024 decision that the “concerns raised by the Applicant are issues that relate to the subject matter of the child protection proceeding and are all issues over which the court has jurisdiction in the context of the child protection proceeding.
10The Applicant’s submissions of June 18, 2025, show that the substance of the complaints is essentially the same as the previous Application. The Applicant submits that the Respondent did not follow the law or its own policies or standards, and that there is “new information and evidence and a continuing impact resulting from the issues.” The Applicant submits that she has been denied access to her Child since October of 2024, that she was forced to stop breastfeeding the Child, and that the Respondent retaliated against her for challenging the Respondent’s treatment of the Child. The Applicant sets out various legislation she alleges the Respondent violated, including several Family Law Rules (Court of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43), several sections of the Act beyond section 120, and several sections of the Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46).
11While the Applicant has set out new complaints in the current Application, they relate to the same circumstances that have already been determined to be before the court, and outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review. As set out in the December 30, 2024 decision, “As a party to the child protection proceeding, the Applicant is entitled to present her own evidence to support her claims.” The Applicant may raise the issues raised in this Application at the Ontario Court of Justice proceeding. The CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to hear the complaints.
ORDER
12The Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
13Pursuant 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, July 16, 2025.
Caroline Sand
Caroline Sand
Vice-Chair