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”).
2This is the Applicant’s third CFSRB Application involving the Respondent.
3The first Application, CA24-0065 (“June 2024 Application”), was resolved following a prehearing mediation on June 6, 2024.
4The second Application, CA25-0199 (“January 2026 Application”), was dismissed in a decision dated January 13, 2026 on the basis that the Applicant’s complaints were either the same as those raised and resolved through the mediation of the June 2024 Application or, in the case of the Applicant’s new complaints, could not be confirmed to be separate and different from substantive issues before the court.
5The Applicant filed the current Application on February 11, 2026. The Application is 170 pages long. In light of the high volume of material appended to the Application, in a Case Management Direction (“CMD”) dated February 12, 2026, the CFSRB directed the Applicant to file submissions by February 17, 2026 summarizing her specific complaints and specifying the remedy that she was seeking. The CFSRB limited these submissions to 10 pages double-spaced, 12-point font.
6On February 17, 2026, the Applicant filed submissions (“February 12, 2026 Application Summary”) in accordance with the timeline but not the page limits outlined in the February 12, 2026 CMD; the Applicant’s submissions were 14 pages double-spaced.
7The CFSRB determined the Application was eligible to proceed on February 19, 2026, pursuant to section 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
8In a Response dated March 2, 2026, the Respondent sought to have the current Application dismissed for the following reasons:
a. The Applicant’s complaints were already addressed by the CFSRB in the January 2026 Application and relitigating these concerns without providing evidence to conclude whether the issues are separate and different than those before the court would be an abuse of process;
b. The Applicant’s complaints are issues that had been before the court in a child protection proceeding;
c. The Applicant has not filed a complaint with the Internal Complaints Review Panel; and
d. The Applicant did not receive services from the Respondent.
9In a CMD dated March 4, 2026, the CFSRB directed the Applicant to file by March 10, 2025 submissions to a maximum of 12 double-spaced pages addressing the following:
a. The difference between the current Application and the January 2026 Application and why the Application does not represent an abuse of process; and
b. How the issues brought forth in the Application are different and separate from the issues before the court in the child protection proceedings.
10The CFSRB also directed the Applicant to file any copies of court documents relevant to her complaints.
11If 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 March 12, 2026.
12The Applicant filed her submissions in accordance with the timeline outlined in the CMD but failed to follow the page requirements. The Applicant’s submissions consisted of two document packages. The first package contained 16 pages of submissions (“Applicant’s first submission package”) and the second package contained 177 pages (“Applicant’s second package) of mixed documents including two affidavits from two different court proceedings, one court order, numerous emails and various excerpts from CPIN records.
13The Respondent filed responding submissions on March 12, 2026 in accordance with the CMD.
14The Applicant filed further submissions with the CFSRB on April 1, 2026. These unsolicited submissions were provided approximately three weeks after the latest submission deadline outlined the CMD and so were not reviewed or considered in making this decision.
15I have considered the Applicant’s February 12, 2026 Application Summary, the Response, the Applicant’s first submission package, the two affidavits and single court order included in the Applicant’s second submission package and the Respondent’s submissions in making my decision.
16As the CFSRB did not indicate that the court documents were to be included in the Applicant’s page count, I find it appropriate to consider the court documents in deciding this matter. I also considered the Applicant’s first submission package despite her failure to comply with the page limitations set out in the CMD. There is minimal prejudice to the Respondent in this regard.
ISSUE
17The issues are:
a. Should the Application be dismissed because the issues raised were already determined in a prior CFSRB Application?
b. If issues raised were not determined in a prior CFSRB 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
18The Application may proceed in part.
19Concerning the issues of whether the Applicant was provided reasons why the Respondent failed to deliver a letter to the Child in March, 2025 and whether the Applicant was heard by the Respondent in relation to allegations made about her parenting in December, 2023 and to school planning for the Child in May, 2024 and March, 2025, the Application may proceed.
20All other issues that the Applicant seeks reviewed must be dismissed as they are not separate and different from substantive issues before the court.
ANALYSIS
21The Applicant is the parent of the child, C.G. (the “Child”), whose placement the Respondent was monitoring as part of a protection application initiated by a different society (“Society 1”) in June, 2024.
22The court granted Society 1 leave to withdraw the protection application in August 2025.
23The Respondent monitored the placement of the Child up until the Child’s relocation 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 prior CFSRB Applications indicate that the Respondent was involved at least as far back as December 2023, the date of the Applicant’s earliest complaint.
24In addition to the protection application, the Applicant and the Child’s father have been involved in a family court proceeding. Based on an affidavit sworn by the Applicant in late October 2025 and included with the Applicant’s submissions, it appears that the family court proceeding was ongoing at least up until this date. No further details were provided with respect to the current stage of this proceeding nor whether it has concluded.
The Applicant is not barred from proceeding on complaints first raised in the January 2026 Application
25In the current Application, the Applicant outlines the following complaints previously raised in the January 2026 Application in relation to sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act:
a. The Respondent allegedly denied the Applicant the right to be heard through failing to notify the Applicant of injuries the Child allegedly sustained from the Child’s father administering medication in December, 2024;
b. The Respondent allegedly failed 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 was intoxicated while occupying a caretaking role;
c. The Respondent allegedly failed 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 was exhausted while in a caretaking role; and
d. The Respondent’s allegedly failed to provide the Applicant with reasons why a letter drafted by the Applicant to the Child in March 2025 was not provided to the Child by the Respondent.
26In addition to the above complaints, the Applicant also presents two new complaints to the CFSRB in the current Application. Specifically, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent denied her the right to be heard in relation to allegations made about her parenting by the Child’s father in December 2023 and in relation to school planning for the Child in May, 2024 and March, 2025.
27The doctrine of res judicata prevents the re-litigation of already decided matters.
28More 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.
29The complaints outlined in paragraph 25 above were first brought before the CFSRB in the January 2026 Application. The CFSRB did not dismiss these complaints on their merits in the January 2026 Application but rather dismissed them because it was impossible to determine based on January 2026 Application materials whether the complaints were separate and different than issues before the court. Given that the CFSRB could not consider whether the substance of these complaints were separate and different from issues before the court at this time and did not direct the Applicant to file copies of court documents relevant to her complaints as part of her January 2026 submissions, I do not find it appropriate to bar these complaints on the basis of re-litigation.
30With respect to the new complaints dating to December 2023 and May 2024 outlined in paragraph 26 above, while the circumstances giving rise to these complaints occurred prior to the resolution of the June 2024 Application, the Applicant submitted that she did not receive the CPIN records from which the service complaints derive until 2025. Given same, these complaints could not have been brought forward at the time of the June, 2024 Application and should not be dismissed on this basis.
31Moreover, while all of the new complaints outlined in paragraph 26 did arise prior to the resolution of the January 2026 Application, given that these complaints would have been dismissed on the same basis as the complaints outlined in paragraph 25 above had they been brought forth in the January 2026 Application, it would also be inappropriate to barred them from proceeding on the basis of re-litigation for this reason.
The complaints outlined in paragraph 25 (a) - (c) are not separate or different than the issues that were or are before the courts
32Section 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.
33The 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 441).
34The complaints outlined in paragraph 25(a) – (c) require the CFSRB to make a factual determination on a parenting or caregiving issue prior to deciding the service complaint.
35For the CFSRB to assess whether the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of injuries that the Child sustained from his father (paragraph 25(a)), the CFSRB would first need to determine that such an event occurred that would trigger the Respondent’s potential obligation to notify.
36For the CFSRB to determine that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons why the Respondent took no action and/or completed no follow-up after discovering that the Child’s father was intoxicated or exhausted while in a caregiving role (paragraph 25(b) and 25(c)), the CFSRB would need to consider whether the Respondent made such discoveries in the first place.
37The Applicant’s submissions indicate that child protection proceedings were ongoing from June, 2024 until August, 2025. The Applicant has also filed an affidavit from this proceeding sworn by a child protection worker from Society 1 detailing numerous accusations of poor caregiving that been made by both the Child’s parents about each other for the court’s consideration throughout the proceeding.
38In addition, in her affidavit sworn as part of the family court proceeding in October, 2025, the Applicant puts her ongoing concerns before the court regarding the father’s care and conduct towards the Child in seeking, among other relief, an order for sole decision-making authority and supervised parenting time for the father.
39Issues that require factual determinations on caregiving concerns are not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to determine. These are issues within the court’s mandate to consider as part of assessing the parenting arrangement in the best interests of a child. Accordingly, the complaints outlined in paragraph 25(a) - (c) above are not separate and different from the substantive issues that have been or are currently before the court and must be dismissed.
The Applicant may proceed on the issues outlined in paragraphs 25(d) and 26
40The three remaining complaints outlined in paragraphs 25(d) and 26 do not relate to issues that are or have been before the court. Specifically, the Applicant alleges that she was not provided reasons why the Respondent failed to deliver a letter to the Child in March, 2025 and was not heard in relation to allegations about her parenting made by the Child’s father in December, 2023 and in relation to school planning for the Child in both May, 2024 and March, 2025.
41All three of these complaints relate to the way in which the Respondent allegedly communicated or failed to communicate with the Applicant. The Applicant is not requesting that the CFSRB make any factual determinations in relation to parenting issues but is requesting reasons why the Respondent interacted with her in a particular way or, in the case of an alleged denial of the right to be heard, failed to interact with her at all. These types of issues are within the mandate of the CFSRB to determine and are not typically court concerns.
42There has also been no indication that these specific service complaints were put before the court in the protection proceeding. With respect to the family court proceeding, given that the only parties to this proceeding are the Applicant and the Child’s father, service complaints in relation to Children’s Aid Societies would not be something that would typically be considered as part of this type of proceeding in any event.
43As these complaints are not before the court and within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to determine, I find that the Application may proceed on the issues outlined paragraphs 25(d) and 26 above.
ORDER
44The Application may proceed on the issues of whether the Applicant was provided reasons why the Respondent failed to deliver a letter to the Child in March, 2025 and whether the Applicant was heard by the Respondent in considering allegations made about her parenting in December, 2023 and in relation to school planning for the Child in May, 2024 and March, 2025.
45The balance of the issues are dismissed.
confidentiality order
46Pursuant 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, April 09, 2026.
Jessica Lubrick
Jessica Lubrick
Member