CR v. Bruce Grey Child and Family Services, 2026 CFSRB 31

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CR

Applicant

-and-

Bruce Grey Child and Family Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Rupinder Hans Date: March 06, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 31 Indexed as: CR v Bruce Grey Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

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, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2The Application consisted of complaints under subsection 120(4)3 and 4, and section 119(5) of the Act.

3On February 2, 2026, counsel representing the Respondent wrote to the CFSRB seeking permission to use documentation from CA25-0229 in two Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (the “OCSWSSW”) complaints.

4The Respondent seeks to be relieved from Rule 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB Rules in order to use the following documentation from CA25-0229 to address the OCSWSSW complaints:

i. The Application dated December 29, 2025;

ii. The Response dated January 16, 2026; and

iii. The Pre-hearing/Mediation Report dated February 6, 2026.

5The CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction dated February 2, 2026 (“CMD”) providing timelines for the Applicant to provide responsive submissions, and the Respondent to provide reply submissions, if any.

6On February 4, 2026, the Applicant advised that he does not consent to the request, and the Respondent is seeking exceptional relief. The Applicant states the Respondent’s is seeking to use confidential pleadings from an active CFSRB matter in an unrelated professional regulatory process. He asserts that allowing the pleadings to be disclosed risks discouraging candid participation, increases tactical pressure and erodes the integrity of the CFSRB’s confidentiality regime.

7On February 6, 2026, the Respondent advised that CA25-0229 is highly relevant to the two complaints as the OCSWSSW has, by letter dated January 23, 2026 (the “January 23 letter”), outlined its concerns that the complaints before it “may be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process” and has specifically provided the parties an opportunity to be heard on these concerns. A copy of the January 23, 2026 letter was provided to the CFSRB, and it states that there are concerns for the following reasons:

a. The Complaint has already been considered/is being considered by another body/legal process; and

b. The Complaints Committee is not the appropriate forum to undertake the review requested.

8The Respondent submits that the documentation is relevant to determine whether the complaints have already, or are currently, being heard and whether the OCSWSSW is the appropriate forum to undertake the review requested. Without review of the documentation, the OCSWSSW cannot determine what, if any, impact the CFSRB proceeding has on the complaints. Further, without a waiver of confidentiality, the Respondent would be unable to meaningfully provide submissions on the specifically identified issues and concerns expressed by the OCSWSSW as it is bound by confidentiality. The Respondent asserts that it is seeking a variance specifically to respond to the OCSWSSW in making its determination.

9On February 23, 2026, the Applicant made further submissions. I note the CMD did not provide for further responsive submissions from the Applicant, nonetheless, I considered the additional submissions.

10I considered both parties’ submissions in their entirety.

ISSUE

11The issue is whether the CFSRB should waive confidentiality to enable the Respondent to rely on documents and materials in CFSRB File No. CA25-0229 in two OCSWSSW complaints.

RESULT

12The Respondent’s request that the CFSRB waive the confidentiality order is granted. Variance of the confidentiality order is, however, limited to the following:

a. The Applicant and Respondent may refer to and use the following documents:

i. The Application dated December 29, 2025;

ii. The Response dated January 16, 2026; and

iii. The Pre-hearing/Mediation Report dated February 6, 2026.

b. The names of the Applicant’s children, and other children referenced in the documents, shall be redacted.

13Given that the documents do not, on their face, disclose children’s information, and that I am ordering children’s information to be redacted, the risk of varying this confidentiality order is low. In addition, all parties to this application are directed to take reasonable steps to prevent the further dissemination of the information in the case file, including advising the OCSWSSW of the confidentiality order in place. The waive is for the sole purpose of the sharing of redacted documents listed above with the OCSWSSW and for no other purpose.

ANALYSIS

14I find the Applicant may share limited documents with the OCSWSSW. My reasons for such are set out below.

15The Pre-hearing/Mediation Report contained a confidentiality order consistent with Rule 9.3 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure which govern the confidentiality of documents and decisions in CFRSB 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.

16The Respondent seeks a waiver of the CFSRB’s confidentiality rules so it can use specific documents from the CFSRB proceeding for the two complaints before the OCSWSSW. In the January 23, letter, the OCSWSSW expressed concerns that the Applicant’s complaint before it may be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process as defined in s. 24(2)(b) of Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 31, warranting that it decline to investigate the matter. The OCSWSSW provided an opportunity for the Applicant and Respondent to provide written submissions. The Respondent submits that it cannot provide meaningful submissions on the identified concerns without a variance of confidentiality, and that documentation in CA25-0229 directly relates to the complaints before the OCSWSSW.

17As noted in LT v Durham Children’s Aid Society, 2019 CFSRB 15 at para 12:

The question of whether an application before one administrative tribunal raises allegations that have already been resolved in proceedings before another administrative tribunal is an important one. The HRTO cannot make an informed decision on the issue without reviewing the relevant CFSRB documents.

18I adopt the reasoning in LT v Durham Children’s Aid Society. I agree with the Respondent that the reasoning is analogous and should apply to the OCSWSSW. I find that the OCSWSSW will need to review certain CFSRB file materials to determine whether issues raised by the Applicant have already been resolved in a proceeding before the CFSRB. I am further persuaded by the Respondent’s assertion that it will need to rely upon those documents in order to respond to the OCSWSSW in its determination of whether the complaints ought to be dismissed on the basis of the expressed concerns that the complaints are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

19For these reasons, I conclude that it is appropriate to vary the CFSRB’s confidentiality order to permit the Applicant and Respondent to use specific CFSRB documents in the OCSWSSW matter, limited to the Application, Response, and Pre-hearing/Mediation Report.

ORDER

20The Respondent’s request is granted, and the variance of the Board’s confidentiality order is limited to the following:

a. The Applicant and Respondent may refer to and use the following documents:

i. The Application dated December 29, 2025;

ii. The Response dated January 16, 2026; and

iii. The Pre-hearing/Mediation Report dated February 6, 2026.

b. The names of the Applicant’s children and other children referenced in the documents shall be redacted.

21The Applicant and Respondent are directed to take reasonable steps to prevent the further dissemination of the information in the case file, including advising the OCSWSSW of the confidentiality order in place.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

22Pursuant 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.

Rupinder Hans

Rupinder Hans

Vice-Chair