A.D. v. York Region CAS, 2008 CFSRB 6

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

A.D.

v.

York Region Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION

Date: February 7, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 6

Indexed as: A.D. v. York Region CAS (CFSA s.68)

Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Motion – A.D. v. York Region CAS (CFSA s. 68), 2008 CFSRB 55

INTRODUCTION

1On June 12, 2007, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from A.D. regarding a complaint against the York Region Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). A.D. complained that the Society failed to investigate the alleged abuse of his daughters, S.D. and Ad.D., and an alleged pattern of parental alienation against him. A.D. claims that he first brought these allegations to the Society in 2004 and repeatedly raised them with the Society since that time.

2The Society argued in a preliminary motion that the Board did not have jurisdiction to hear A.D.’s complaint on the grounds that all of the matters raised by him are before the Court.

3The Board must decide whether the subject matter of the Applicant’s complaint is before the Court.

4The Board concludes that the matters of complaint to the Board are not before the Court and as such, it does have jurisdiction to review A.D.’s complaint. The Board denies the Society’s motion.

BACKGROUND

5A.D. is the father of Ad.D., aged 8 and S.D., aged 4. Between 2004 and 2006, A.D. had restricted access to his daughters which involved weekly visits of two hours each supervised at the Society’s offices. Since November 2006, his access has been increased to four hours per week with continued supervision by the Society.

6In the material submitted with his application, A.D. alleges that his daughters have been psychologically and emotionally abused by his ex-wife, T.G. and M.G., her mother. He also alleges that his ex-wife and her mother engaged in a pattern of parental alienation against him. He alleges that he has repeatedly made these concerns known to the Society since 2004 and that the Society has failed to act on them or address them. In the pre-hearing conducted on September 12, 2007, A.D. gave a more specific articulation of his concerns as follows:

1. workers including D.B. failed to acknowledge, respond or investigate any and all complaints made concerning the children from September 2005 until May 2007;
2. the Society failed to investigate statements made by the children in the presence of a Bartimeaus worker which were material to the children’s protection needs;
3. the Society ignored the receipt and the content of professional articles and journals provided by the Applicant;
4. the workers assigned to the file from September 2005 until May 2007 failed to make contact with the Applicant;
5. the Society failed to investigate the Applicant’s protection concerns from September 2005 until May 2007;
6. while investigating claims and concerns made by the mother, the Society failed to contact the father about those concerns as it relates to the best interests of the children;
7. the Society staff was biased and partial towards the mother which was evidenced by their timely investigation of the allegations and complaints made by the mother while the father’s complaints were disregarded;
8. the Society staff failed to consider the children’s need for an ongoing relationship with the father as they failed to devise a permanent or long term plan for the children;
9. following the removal of D.B., the Society did not contact the father until May 2007 to advise him of the change of worker;
10. after the insistence of counsel the new worker reluctantly agreed to meet the father in June 2007 despite being assigned to the file in the spring of 2007;
11. the Society failed to investigate the father’s claim that he had undertaken several steps to advance his parenting skills and it chose to file outdated information in response to an access motion without following up with the father to confirm the information.

7The Society’s position regarding A.D.’s complaint is that it encompasses matters which are before the Court and as such does not fall under the Board’s jurisdiction to review.

MOTION

8On December 14, 2007, the Board heard the Society’s motion in Newmarket for a determination as to whether the Board has jurisdiction to review this application. Raymond Goddard, counsel, represented A.D. and Anthony Snider, counsel, represented the Society. The Society argued that the Board is without jurisdiction because the complaint concerns matters which are before the Court. A preliminary motion was raised by counsel for A.D. at the opening of the hearing, requesting that the Society's documentary evidence not be considered because specific passages were not highlighted as required by the Board in the Endorsement Sheet which was issued following a Pre-Hearing Conference. The Board made a finding that the documents would be considered as none of them were new to the Applicant, but asked the Society to make page references where necessary, and noted that Applicant's counsel would be provided with time to review and comment on the documents during the hearing, if needed.

ANALYSIS

9The Society took an overview approach to the 11 issues outlined above and asserted that each of them is a matter that is before the Court and therefore are not matters that the Board by virtue of section 68.1(8)(a) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c11