CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
D.O.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay
REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION
Indexed as: D.O. v. CAS of the District of Thunder Bay (CFSA s.68)
1The Applicant, D.O., father of the child, Z.O., D.O.B. August [...], 2000, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, (the “Board”) on August 3, 2007 pursuant to sections 68 and/or 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C11 (the “Act”). The Application was deemed to be eligible for review and a pre-hearing conference was arranged.
2A pre-hearing teleconference was held on Thursday, September 27th, 2007 at which time the Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay (the “Society”) indicated that it would be bringing a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Board to review this application. A hearing on jurisdiction was held on November 30, 2007. At that time the Board was unable to reach a conclusion based on the evidence before it. A decision was made to reopen the jurisdiction hearing on February 19, 2008, and a letter was sent to the Applicant and the Society. On March 19th, 2008, the Board heard the Society’s motion on jurisdiction in Thunder Bay.
BACKGROUND
3The Applicant has one major concern: that his previous spouse, the mother of his seven year old daughter, Z.O., has unsupervised visits with the child. The Applicant believes there is considerable risk of harm to the child by the mother and that, in his view - the best interests of the child require that only supervised visits take place. From August 2005, the child has resided primarily with the Applicant. The Applicant feels his concerns have not been taken seriously and addressed appropriately by the Society. The Applicant has taken advantage of the Internal Complaint Review Process and received a decision dated April [...], 2007 from G.Q., MSW, Manager of Residential Services, setting out the decision of the Internal Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”). However, the concerns raised before the Board were not the same issues raised before the ICRP. Accordingly this matter is proceeding as a direct complaint to the board pursuant to section 68.1 of the Act.
ISSUES
4The following complaints were raised by the Applicant before the Board:
- The fact that the child has slept with her stepfather while the stepfather was naked, was not properly investigated by the Society.
- An incident on July [...], 2007 (where the child was allegedly locked out of her mother’s home and chased by her fourteen year old stepbrother with a knife) has not been properly investigated by the Society. In this regard, the Applicant clarified during the teleconference that it was the police who advised him that the Society would be following up with him. The Applicant clarified that this was done about one week later after he initiated an inquiry.
- The physical abuse of his daughter in the mother’s home where her eyes were swollen and there was bruising. It was initially reported that the child had fallen down the stairs. Subsequently, there was an indication that the injuries were caused by the stepbrother, N., slamming a door in the child’s face.
- The Applicant wishes a copy of the Case Comprehensive Risk Assessment and the Family File, which the Society is not prepared to share, due to privacy considerations of other individuals.
MOTION
5The Society argued that the Board had no jurisdiction to hear this application because the issues have been decided by the Court, or, are not issues that can be brought before this Board under sections 68 and 68.1(4) of the Act. The Society further stated that the Applicant was awarded custody of Z.O. The child’s mother, Ms. B., was given access during specific days and times as set out in the judgment of Mr. Justice D.C. Shaw in the custody action dated January [...], 2008.
DECISION
6The Board grants the motion of the Society and will not proceed to hear the complaints.
ANALYSIS
7The Board must determine if it has jurisdiction to review this application under sections 68.1.
8These issues were not raised before the ICRP and are therefore a direct complaint to the Board under section 68.1(4) of the Act. All four allegations involve physical and sexual abuse of the Applicant’s daughter.
9The Applicant presented his allegations of abuse before Mr. Justice D.C. Shaw of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Court File No. [XX-..-....], January [...], 2008. As the Applicant has already presented his issues to the Court, the Board has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint by virtue of section 68.1(8). Section 68.1(8) reads as follows:
(8) The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,
(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court; or
(b) is subject to another decision-making process under this Act or the Labour Relations Act, 1995. 2006, c. 5, s. 26
RECOMMENDATION
10It is the recommendation of the Board that Mr. D.O. be allowed to read a “sanitized” version of the Case Comprehensive Risk Assessment. The Board feels that by having the document sanitized, the privacy of the individuals will be duly protected.
CONCLUSION
11The Board finds that it has no jurisdiction to hear these complaints and dismisses the application.
Wendell White Presiding Member
Ruth Ann Schedlich Panel Member
Frances Sanderson Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 15th day of April, 2008.