CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
D.L. and J.L.
v.
Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society
REASONS FOR DECISION: WRITTEN REVIEW
Indexed as: D.L. and J.L. v. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society
(CFSA s.68)
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from the Applicant on August 27, 2015 regarding a complaint against the Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society ( “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11 , as amended (the “Act”).
2The Board has determined that an oral hearing is not required in this case as the Board has sufficient information before it to make its decision based on the written material filed. The issue for the Board is whether it has jurisdiction to hear the application.
3On August 28, 2015, the Board determined that part of the application was eligible to proceed to the next stage of the Board’s process: the receipt of the Society’s response. The application was found eligible under section 68.1 (4) 4 which relates to the Applicants’ right to be heard by the Society and section 68.1 (4) 5 which relates to Applicants’ right to be given reasons for decisions that affect their interests. The eligibility decision stated that “The Board does not have the authority over issues relating to the return of you children to your care”. The eligible part of the Application related to the Applicants’ concerns about the care and safety of their children in foster care.
4The eligible part of the Application relates to the Applicants’ allegations that the Society did not hear them or provide them with reasons regarding their reports to the Society that the children would come to visits at the Society office and disclose being abused, have “obvious bruises and hunger and the workers failed to act leaving the children in abuse.”
5The Board received the Society’s response dated September 3, 2015. It is the Society’s position that the Board lacks jurisdiction because the matter was before the Court. The Board reviewed the Court documents provided by the Society including the decision of Justice [ ] dated Aril 28, 2015 and materials for a motion originally returnable on June 16, 2015. The motion was adjourned to October 13, 2015.
6Based on its review of the application, the Society’s response and the materials before the Court, the Board has determined that it has no jurisdiction to hear the application. The reasons for this decision follow.
BACKGROUND
7The Applicants are the parents of four children who were apprehended by the Society because of conditions in the home. On April 28, 2015, the Court found that the children are in need of protection.
8The Applicants filed a motion returnable on June 16, 2015 in which they ask for the return of the children to their care. The reasons they list for this request include the Applicants speaking to the Society about the safety and treatment of the children while in care. The Applicants detail their concerns about the children and these mirror the concerns raised in the Application before the CFSRB. The Applicants also detail the responses or lack of response of the Society worker to the concerns.
ANALYSIS
9The Board has no jurisdiction to hear complaints if they involve matters that are before the Court or have been decided by the Court.
10Section 68. 1 (8) (a) of the Act provides that:
68.1
(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.
11The mere existence of a child protection proceeding or the fact that there is overlap between the information before the Board and the Court in an affidavit is not enough to take a matter out of the Board’s jurisdiction (See: Children's Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441). The Act anticipates that a service concern may proceed before the Board at the same time as a child protection application before the Court. However, where the Applicant puts a service concern directly to the Court and asks it to take action, the Applicant takes the matter out of the Board’s hands by placing it before the Court.
12In this case, the Applicants asked the Court to take action based on the inaction of the Society to the Applicants’ concerns about the safety and care of the children. This is a service concern about the Society not hearing the Applicants or providing them with explanations for the alleged lack of action. The Affidavit in support of the motion states (among other things) “when we showed the scratches to the worker, she seemed to minimize our concern and said that “children fall, and not every scratch is noted”. She was not prepared to take any action. We are baffled, as the children were taken from us .. (p)… “[ ] took photos, we alerted the worker, nothing was done” (u)…. “We spoke to the worker, and as usual, nothing was done to help my children” (v)… The Applicants put the service concerns squarely before the Court and the Board no longer has the authority to deal with the service concerns.
13The subject matter of the Applicant’s complaint to the Board is now before the Court.
14In these circumstances, the Board has no authority to deal with this application.
CONCLUSION
15The Board has no jurisdiction to hear this application.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
16Pursuant to Rules 30.1 and 30.2 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including through the media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the Board, as appropriate. The parties may show this decision to the Court on the motion that is referenced in this decision.
SHEENA SCOTT _____________________
Sheena Scott
Vice-Chair
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 6^th^ day of October, 2015.