CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
OH Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Caroline Sand Date: January 13, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 11 Indexed as: OH v The Children’s Aid Society of The Region of Peel (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
OH, Applicant CB, Counsel
The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, Respondent CM, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On May 7, 2025, the Applicant filed an Application 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”).
2The hearing for this matter is scheduled to proceed on March 26, 2026.
3The Applicant has also filed an Application at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (“HRTO”) based on a similar fact pattern.
4The Respondent previously sought dismissal of this Application in whole or in part, or that it be held in abeyance pending the final determination of the HRTO proceeding. The CFSRB denied the Respondent’s request in a decision dated September 19, 2025. The decision also explained that while the CFSRB does not have statutory authority to defer under the Act, the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure allow for such deferrals.
5On December 11, 2025, the Respondent requested that it be relieved from Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, so that it may share the CFSRB Application with the HRTO to support its request that the HRTO defer the Application pending the conclusion of the CFSRB Application.
6The Applicant opposes the request and submits that the disclosure request is not necessary or proportionate, and that the HRTO does not require access to the CFSRB Application to adjudicate the request. The Applicant further submits that to grant the request would be unfair, would prejudice the Applicant, and “improperly facilitate cross-forum use of confidential information and undermine the integrity and independence of tribunal processes governed by distinct statutory mandates and procedural rules.”
ISSUE
7The issue is: Should the CFSRB waive its confidentiality rules to allow the Respondent to rely on the CFSRB Application in support of its Request to Defer the HRTO Application.
RESULT
8The CFSRB grants the Respondent’s request to waive the confidentiality rules so that it may share the CFSRB Application with the HRTO in consideration of its Request to Defer.
ANALYSIS
9Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure govern the confidentiality of documents and decisions in CFSRB proceedings, as follows:
9.3 Subject to an order of the Court or the CFSRB, parties and their representatives shall not use documents or information obtained under these Rules or in the course of the CFSRB's proceeding for any purpose other than the proceeding before the CFSRB.
9.4 All CFSRB decisions are subject to a confidentiality order and may also contain information subject to section 87(8) of the CYFSA, 2017. The CFSRB publishes a redacted version of its decisions. No one shall circulate, reproduce, communicate or publish any information contained in or obtained from an unredacted decision of the CFSRB without first obtaining an order of the CFSRB or the Court.
10Rule 9 permits use of documents from a CFSRB proceeding only when a court or the CFSRB makes an order permitting such use. Each request is considered and decided on its particular facts.
11In this case, the Respondent is seeking a deferral of the HRTO Application until such time as the CFSRB proceeding is concluded. The Respondent has requested that only the CFSRB Application be shared.
12I disagree with the Applicant’s submission that it would be procedurally unfair to share the CFSRB Application with the HRTO and that such sharing would undermine the integrity of tribunal independence. Where there are overlapping facts raised, there is a possibility of inconsistent decisions if the two matters proceed concurrently.
13The CFSRB has allowed confidentiality to be waived when an Application has been filed at the HRTO, and the HRTO is considering whether to defer or dismiss the Application before it where there was a previous CFSRB proceeding. The CFSRB has found that the HRTO cannot make an informed decision on the issue before it without reviewing the relevant CFSRB documentation. (See LT and Durham Children’s Aid Society, 2019 CFSRB 15)
14For this reason, I conclude that it is appropriate to vary rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure to permit the Respondent to share the CFSRB Application with the HRTO for the sole purpose of supporting its Request to Defer the HRTO Application pending the outcome of the CFSRB proceedings.
ORDER
15For the purpose of the Request to Defer the HRTO proceeding (File 2025-61550-I), Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure with respect to CA25-0082 are varied as follows:
- The Respondent may use the May 7, 2025 CFSRB Application for its Request to Defer the HRTO proceeding.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
16Pursuant 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. This Confidentiality Order is varied as set out in paragraph 15 above.
Caroline Sand
Caroline Sand Vice-Chair