LR v. Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services, 2026 ONCFSRB 59

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

LR

Applicant

-and-

Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon

Date: April 17, 2026

Citation: 2026 CFSRB 59

Indexed as: LR v Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services

(CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

LR, Applicant

Self represented

Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services, Respondent

Rachel Paquette,

Counsel

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”). The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

2In a Decision dated November 25, 2025, the CFSRB found that:

• The issues raised in the Application were separate and different from those that have been or are before the SCJ and that the CFSRB had jurisdiction to hear the complaints.
• Six of the issues raised by the Applicant had been resolved on a final basis in a prior proceeding and therefore were dismissed.
• That two of the issues raised by the Applicant were not previously resolved by the CFSRB and were to proceed to a hearing.
• The Respondent had not established that the Applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

3At a January 6, 2026, video-conference pre-hearing the parties advised of their preference for a videoconference hearing on the matter. The parties were directed to make disclosure of all arguable relevant documents to one another no later than February 2, 2026. The parties were directed to file documents they intended to rely upon at hearing, along with witness statements no later than February 16, 2026.

4On February 2, 2026, the Respondent confirmed that it had delivered disclosure to the Applicant.

5On February 17, 2026, the Respondent filed arguably relevant documents and witness statements, copying the Applicant.

6To date the Applicant has failed to provide documentary disclosure or witness statements. On February 27, 2026 the Respondent’s counsel wrote to the CFSRB advising that while the Applicant had forwarded various emails to the Respondent, they had not filed documents relevant to the issues nor had they filed witness statements as required. They submitted that the Applicant had not made a reasonable effort to prepare their case and requested direction from the CFSRB. This correspondence was copied to the Applicant. The CFSRB responded to counsel, copying the Applicant, on March 30, 2026 confirming receipt of the correspondence and explaining that the evidentiary issues raised would be dealt with at the hearing rescheduled to April 16, 2026.

7The CFSRB initially scheduled the videoconference hearing for March 4, 2026. The CFSRB was required to reschedule that hearing. A notice of rescheduled videoconference hearing was sent to the parties on March 9, 2026, advising the parties of the new hearing date of April 16, 2026.

8The Applicant requested an adjournment of the April 16, 2026, hearing one day prior at 11:54 a.m. on April 15, 2026. The Applicant communicated that she had a court date that conflicted with the scheduled hearing without providing corollary details. The Respondent was opposed to the Applicant’s request. The Respondent’s counsel sent correspondence to the CFSRB, copying the Applicant, explaining that she and her clienthad spent considerable time preparing for the hearing. The Respondent submits that the Notice of Application in the Applicant’s court matter was filed on March 4, 2026 and the Application Record was filed on March 23, 2026 arguing that the Applicant had knowledge of the other proceeding prior to April 15, 2026 and knew or ought to have known to request an adjournment in a timely manner. The Respondent submitted that they needed certainty and finality in this matter and requested the CFSRB dismiss the Application.

9The CFSRB rejected the Applicant’s adjournment request citing the CFSRB’s Practice Direction on Scheduling, which states that the CFSRB will not grant adjournments unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Applicant was advised that the scheduled hearing would proceed on April 16, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.

10The Respondent attended the video hearing at 9:30 a.m. The Applicant did not attend the hearing.

11After waiting 15 minutes the CFSRB case processing officer contacted the Applicant, who said she would be joining the hearing shortly.

12After waiting another 15 minutes, at 10:00 a.m., I asked the Respondent for submissions. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant had failed to comply with the CFSRB’s direction to provide disclosure and to file witness statements and documentary evidence. She requested that the Application be dismissed.

13The Applicant was still not in attendance when the hearing ended after 35 minutes.

14The Applicant sent an email to the CFSRB at 10:24 a.m. saying that she assumed the videoconference hearing was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Central Standard Time. The CFSRB’s calendar invite to the parties specified Eastern Standard Time. It is not clear why this confusion arose. The Applicant had attended other matters on time.

15The Applicant has attended other CFSRB proceedings in relation to this matter, including pre-hearings, which have been scheduled in Eastern Standard Time. She has been on time and in attendance at those events.

ANALYSIS

16The Applicant has not made disclosure or filed documents and witness statements as directed at the January 6, 2026, Pre-Hearing.

17The Applicant was aware that her request for adjournment had been refused and that the hearing would be proceeding at 9:30 a.m.

18At my request the Case Processing Officer contacted the Applicant at approximately 9:45 to ask if she would be joining the hearing which had started at 9:30. The Applicant told the Case Processing Officer she would join shortly to speak to me about a scheduling conflict. The hearing concluded 20 minutes later and the Applicant still had not logged into the Zoom hearing room.

19I am satisfied that the Applicant received notice of the hearing and also received notice that her request for an adjournment had been refused. Both were sent to the email address the Applicant used to correspond with the CFSRB, and neither were returned undeliverable.

20I am further satisfied that the Applicant was aware that the scheduled time was Eastern Standard Time, as it had been for all prior events.

21The Applicant requested a last minute adjournment that was not granted. She knew in advance of the day’s hearing that her request was denied. She did not attend at the scheduled time, rather she communicated with the CFRSB after the hearing had begun claiming she intended to join the hearing and later alleging she had the time wrong.

22The record also demonstrated the Applicant had not met the disclosure or filing requirements set out by the CFRSB in it’s decision dated Jan 6, 2026.

23Ultimately its not clear why the applicant elected not to attend the hearing. Hearings are scheduled with parties in advance. Considerable time goes into scheduling. Its possible, by way of her actions, the applicant hoped an adjournment would be granted despite having been denied her request one day prior. Such action would be an abuse of process. Having failed to follow the CFSRB’s directions and to attend the hearing, this matter is dismissed.

ORDER

24The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

25Pursuant 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.