CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
A.G.
v.
Catholic CAS of Toronto
WRITTEN REVIEW
REASONS FOR DECISION
Indexed as: A.G. v. Catholic CAS of Toronto (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1A.G. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on May 8, 2009 pursuant to subsection 68.1(1) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) against the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”).
2In the application to the Board, the Applicant alleges that the Society has failed to provide reasons for obtaining an Adoptability Report concerning her son and further alleges that the Report contains inaccurate information.
3The Board determined on May 21, 2009 that the application was eligible for review and asked the Society to file a summary reply and to advise the Board, in the summary reply, whether the Adoptability Report would be before the Court.
4The Society filed a summary reply on May 26, 2009.
5In the summary reply the Society referenced that any alleged inaccuracies in the Society’s files or records regarding a complaint must be communicated to the Society in writing before these issues can be raised with the Board and that the Society must have the opportunity to resolve those issues internally. The Society indicated that the Applicant did not advise the Society regarding her concerns about information contained in the Adoptability Report. The Society informed that they are willing to accept a Notice of Disagreement from the Applicant related to alleged inaccuracies in the Adoptability Report and have included in their summary reply a Notice of Disagreement form
6The Board finds that there is sufficient material before it to conduct a written review of the application pursuant to subsection 68.1(5) of the Act and section 13 of Ontario Regulation 494/06 “Complaints to a Society and Reviews by the Child and Family Services Review Board”.
ISSUES
7The issue before the Board is whether it has jurisdiction to hear the application.
BACKGROUND
8The “Applicant” is the mother of C., born August […], 2008.
9The Society apprehended the child from The [Hospital] on August […], 2008 pursuant to a Court Order.
10C. has been in the temporary care and custody of the Society since September […], 2008. The Applicant has been involved in a child protection proceeding regarding her son in the Ontario Court of Justice, Court File Number [ ] since that time. There have been numerous Court involvements with the Applicant and the Society regarding child protection issues.
11The Society served the Applicant on March […], 2009 with the Affidavit of R.F, a Child Protection Worker, which had been sworn on March […], 2009. In that Affidavit, it was stated that the Society was seeking a Court Order to have the Applicant’s son made a ward of the Crown for the purpose of adoption.
12The Society Adoption Worker, D.M., completed an Adoptability Report in March 2009 to provide to the Court. The Applicant was provided a copy on or around April […], 2009. The Applicant attached a copy of the Adoptability Report with her application to the Board.
13The Society has advised that the Applicant has not attended the child protection Court proceedings regarding her son since March […], 2009 and on April […], 2009, the Applicant advised the Society and the Ontario Court of Justice that she would no longer participate in the Court process.
14The Applicant did not attend the next court appearance on April […], 2009. The Society’s legal counsel, M.M., wrote to the Applicant on April […], 2009 to remind her that the Society was seeking an order from the Court that her son be made a ward of the Crown with no access, for the purpose of allowing him to be adopted. The Society advised the Applicant of the next Court date of May […], 2009 and at that time, the Society would be seeking a date from the Court to hear its motion for summary judgement seeking the above order.
15The Applicant responded by email on April […], 2009 that she was in receipt of the April […], 2009 letter from the Society counsel. She further advised that she becomes ill when she attends Court and as such, she will be no longer a part of it.
16At Court on May […], 2009, the Honourable Justice Cohen set August […], 2009 as the date for the Society’s motion for Summary Judgement (seeking that the child be made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption) to be heard. Justice Cohen directed that legal counsel be provided for the child to ensure his interests would be represented at the upcoming hearing.
17M.M., Legal Counsel for the Society, sent a letter to the Applicant on June […], 2009 advising her of the next court date and that the Justice had ordered that a lawyer be appointed to represent her son’s interests. Counsel M.M. suggested that the Applicant retain a lawyer to assist her.
ANALYSIS
Jurisdiction
18The Board, as a statutory tribunal, may only hear complaints as defined by section 68.1 of the Act. Pursuant to section 68.1 (8) of the Act:
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.
19The Society makes an argument on this ground. The Adoptability Report was prepared for the Court and is before the Court. It is critical to the determination of the issue currently before the Court, specifically whether or not C. is “adoptable” and thus should be made a Crown Ward without access or whether C., because of “unadoptability” (or some other reason), should be permitted access to his biological family. Therefore the Adoptability Report and its contents comprise matters clearly within the purview of the Court, including any concerns about its accuracy.
20As this issue is currently before the Court, the Board does not have jurisdiction
to hear the application of A.G..
CONCLUSION
21For the above-noted reasons, the Board dismisses the application.
Ruth Ann Schedlich
Presiding Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 11th day of June 2009.