CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
JLM
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the City of Guelph and the County of Wellington
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jessica Lubrick
Indexed as: JLM v The Children’s Aid Society of the City of Guelph and the County of Wellington (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 November 24, 2025, pursuant to section 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3This is the second Application filed by the Applicant. The first Application, CA24-0065 (“June 2024 Application”), was resolved following a prehearing mediation on June 6, 2024.
4In a Response dated December 4, 2025, the Respondent sought to have the current Application dismissed for the following reasons:
a. The Applicant did not receive services from the Respondent;
b. The Applicant’s concerns were already addressed by the CFSRB in the June 2024 Application;
c. The Applicant’s complaints were issues that had been before the court in a child protection proceeding; and
d. The Applicant’s relief sought was beyond the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to grant.
5In a Case Management Direction (“CMD”) dated December 8, 2025, the CFSRB directed the Applicant to file submissions by December 14, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. addressing the following:
a. The difference between the current Application and the June 2024 Application and why the Application does not represent an abuse of process;
b. Whether the Applicant sought or received services from the Respondent and what those services were; and
c. How the issues brought forth in the Application are different and separate from the issues before the court in the current child protection proceedings.
6If the Applicant failed to provide submissions as directed, the CFSRB indicated that the jurisdiction issue may be decided based on the Application and Response or the Application may be dismissed as abandoned. The Respondent’s responding submissions, if any, were to be filed by December 19, 2025 at 4:00 p.m.
7The Applicant filed her submissions on December 16, 2025, 2 days after the December 14, 2025 deadline outlined in the CMD. The Respondent filed responding submissions on December 19, 2025 in accordance with the CMD. Despite the CMD providing no directions for the filing of further submissions, the Applicant proceeded to file supplementary submissions on December 22, 2025.
8I have considered the Application, the Response, and the submissions of both parties in making my decision on jurisdiction as set out below. As the Respondent filed responding submissions despite the lateness of the Applicant’s submissions, I find it appropriate to consider all the submissions in deciding this matter.
ISSUE
9The issues are:
a. Did the Applicant seek or receive services from the Respondent?
b. If the Applicant did seek or receive services from the Respondent, should the Application be dismissed because the issues raised were already determined in the June 2024 Application?
c. If issues raised were not determined in the June 2024 Application, should the Application be dismissed because the complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues that were or are before the Court?
RESULT
10Though the Applicant did receive services from the Respondent within the meaning of the Act and raised some new issues, the Application must be dismissed on the basis that the Applicant’s complaints cannot be confirmed to be separate and different from the substantive issues that were or are before the Court.
ANALYSIS
The Applicant did receive a service from the Respondent
11The Applicant is the parent of the child, C.G., whose placement the Respondent was monitoring as part of a protection application initiated by a different society. As such, the Applicant did receive services from the Respondent.
12The Act sets out that only those who “sought or received a service” from a society may complain to the CFSRB in relation to matters under section 120(4). Such matters include allegations that service providers did not ensure that children and their parents had an opportunity to be heard when decisions affecting their interests were made or that they had concerns about the services they were receiving.
13The definition of “service” is outlined in section 2.1 of the Act and, among other services, includes services for a child (or the child’s family) who is or may be in need of protection and services for a child (or the child’s family) that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community.
14The Respondent was assisting a different society that had carriage of a protection file involving the Applicant’s family. The Respondent monitored the placement of the child, C.G., up until C.G. relocated to another jurisdiction in or around May, 2025. It is unclear when the Respondent’s involvement with the child began but, in any event, the Applicant’s submissions and the June 2024 Application indicate that the Respondent was involved at least as far back as December, 2023, the date of the Applicant’s earliest complaint.
15The Respondent submits that, as the Applicant did not reside in the Respondent’s territorial jurisdiction, the Applicant received no services from the Respondent. I do not agree. As the parent of C.G., a child whose placement the Respondent was monitoring over the period of the Applicant’s complaints, the Applicant did receive services from the Respondent.
16I conclude that the Applicant received services from the Respondent within the meaning of the Act.
The Applicant Cannot Relitigate the June 2024 Application
17In the current Application, the Applicant raises the same complaints as the June 2024 Application in relation to an alleged lack of reasons provided by the Respondent for a file closure in December, 2023 after the Applicant complained of signs that C.G. was subject to physical abuse.
18The Applicant also outlines the following additional complaints in relation to sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act that were not raised previously:
a. The Respondent’s alleged failure to seek comments from the Applicant in relation to the well-being of the child, C.G., when drafting case updates between June and August, 2024;
b. The Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant with reasons why disclosure initially requested in October, 2023 was allegedly not provided to the Applicant in full until July, 2025;
c. The Respondent’s alleged failure to notify the Applicant of injuries allegedly sustained by the child resulting from the administration of medication in December, 2024;
d. The Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant with reasons why the protection investigation in relation to the child, C.G., was allegedly closed in December, 2024 despite there allegedly being verified ongoing concerns;
e. The Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant with reasons why the Respondent allegedly took no action in January, 2025 when the Respondent allegedly discovered that the father of the child, C.G., was intoxicated while occupying a caretaking role;
f. The Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant with reasons why the Respondent allegedly completed no follow-up in January, 2025 after allegedly observing that the father of the child, C.G., was exhausted while in a caretaking role;
g. The Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant with reasons why a letter drafted by the Applicant to the child, C.G., in March, 2025 was not provided to the child by the Respondent;
h. The Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant with reasons why the Respondent’s protocol regarding addressing complaints was allegedly not followed in relation to the Applicant’s complaints made to the Respondent in March, 2025;
i. The Respondent’s alleged failure to advise the Applicant and provide reasons why, in April, 2025, her information was shared by the Respondent with another society; and
j. The Respondent’s alleged failure to notify and provide reasons to the Applicant why the Respondent’s protection file in relation to the child, C.G., was closed in May, 2025.
19The doctrine of res judicata prevents the re-litigation of already decided matters.
20More specifically, a party is prevented from re-litigating specific complaints where the issue is the same as one decided in a previous proceeding, the prior decision was final and the parties to the proceeding are both the same. This would be issue estoppel as outlined, for example, in Toronto (City) v C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63.
21As the complaints related to the December 2023 incident are the same as those that were raised and resolved through the mediation of the June 2024 Application, the Applicant may not re-litigate these complaints before the CFSRB. These complaints are dismissed.
22The new complaints outlined in paragraph 18 above were not addressed in the June, 2024 Application. These incidents occurred following the resolution of the June 2024 Application and so could not have been raised previously. As such, these complaints are not barred from proceeding on basis of re-litigation.
The CFSRB Cannot Confirm that the New Complaints are Separate and Different than the Issues that were Before the Court
23Section 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.
24The CFSRB is not barred from reviewing complaints where the parties are or were involved in a court proceeding. However, before the CFSRB can embark on a review of a complaint about services from a Children’s Aid Society, the CFSRB must be satisfied that 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).
25The Applicant submits that the new complaints in her present Application arose following the receipt of the Respondent’s records in July, 2025. The Applicant also refers to a child protection proceeding involving a different society that was ongoing at the time she received the Respondent’s records. It is unclear whether the Applicant received these records as part of the disclosure provided to her in the protection proceeding.
26The Applicant states that the protection proceeding concluded shortly after she received the Respondent’s records and that the proceeding lasted approximately 21 months in total.
27The exact outcome of the protection proceeding is unclear, as the Applicant indicates that the protection application was withdrawn but also states that it was struck.
28Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent provides any further details in relation to the protection proceeding.
29In her Application, the Applicant also refers to a family court proceeding that she was involved in and that was ongoing in January, 2024. The Applicant does not state when this proceeding was commenced, what issues were before the court, what parties were involved and whether the proceeding has concluded (and, if concluded, the outcome).
30Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent provided any court documents including pleadings or orders as part of their submissions to the CFSRB.
31The complaints outlined in paragraph 18 above all relate to events that, based on the Application and the Applicant’s submissions, occurred while the protection proceeding was ongoing and, potentially, while the family court proceeding was ongoing. While the complaints outlined do relate to matters within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB, without further information about the issues that were before the court, I cannot conclude that the court did not address these same issues.
32As there is not sufficient evidence to confirm that the issues before the CFSRB were not before the Court, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s complaints. The Application must be dismissed.
ORDER
33The Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
34Pursuant 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, January 13, 2026.
Jessica Lubrick
Jessica Lubrick
Member