CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
LL
Applicant
-and-
Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney
Indexed As: LL v Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
LL, Applicant
Self-Represented
Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, Respondent
Tony Circelli, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
1This Application consists of issues/concerns raised under section 120(4)(4) and 120(4)(5) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, C.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2A pre-hearing in this matter was held on November 12, 2020 at which time a number of jurisdictional issues were raised. I asked the parties to provide me with documentation and submissions on 3 issues: What issues raised in the complaint were decided by the Court or are before the Court?; Was the Applicant in receipt of “service” as per section 2(1) of the Act?; and Does the Applicant currently have the rights of a parent in relation to the child as per section 2(2) of the Act?
3The Respondent was given until November 27, 2020 to disclose documents in support of his argument that the issues in the complaint were issues that have been decided by the Court. The Applicant was given until December 4, 2020 to provide any additional documents on the same issue. Both parties were given until December 18, 2020 to provide submissions on the 3 issues identified at the pre-hearing.
4I note that the request for section 120(8) submissions from the parties was also made in a Case Management Direction dated August 4, 2020.
5On August 21, 2020, the Applicant provided submissions. The Applicant argued that she was pressured and threatened by the Respondent to agree to the Statement of Agreed Facts. The Applicant also argues that the Children’s Law Reform Act case involving the maternal grandmother did not address her complaints about services provided by the Respondent. For these reasons, the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review her complaint.
6Both parties did not provide submissions on the remaining 2 issues as directed in the Pre-Hearing Report; however, on November 23, 2020 the Respondent provided 6 documents to the Board and the Applicant for review.
THE LAW
7Section 120 (8)(a) of the Act states that:
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
8The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441, that the mere existence of a child protection proceeding does not automatically bar the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint about the services an individual has received from a children’s aid society. In DD the Court found that complaints about how the children’s aid society had handled the temporary placement of the applicant’s children could proceed before the CFSRB. Those complaints “were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court” (para 35).
ANALYSIS
9In analysing the Application, I focused on whether the issues/concerns identified in the Application had been or are currently before the Court. I did not have sufficient evidence or submissions to address the issues of the Applicant’s legal status as a parent; and whether the Applicant was in receipt of services.
10The Respondent argued in its Summary Reply that the Applicant’s concerns were historical in nature and were an attempt to relitigate the CYFSA case.
11The Applicant identified the following issues/concerns in her complaint:
The Applicant was concerned that she was provided with conflicting advice by Respondent staff regarding whether she and Brandon London could parent with supervision which she felt led to the apprehension of her son;
The Applicant alleged that her concerns with the apprehension of her son were not heard by the Respondent;
The Applicant alleged that she was not provided with an explanation as to why her son was apprehended by the Respondent; and the rationale for the apprehension was not presented to the Court;
The Applicant’s concerns in relation to the placement of her son with Jessica London were not heard by the Respondent;
The Applicant’s concerns that her son was returned to the same abusive home that she left were not heard by the Respondent;
The Applicant was not provided with an explanation why the kinship plan with her parents was not pursued by the Respondent;
The Applicant alleged that her concerns about her son’s safety and welfare at Jessica London’s home were not heard by the Respondent e.g. boyfriend sleeping over during COVID and other COVID concerns; criminal record of Jessica’s boyfriend;
The Applicant was concerned that Respondent staff did not work with her to reunify with her son after the protection concerns were addressed and she was concerned with being told by Respondent staff that she will never parent again;
The Applicant was concerned with the sanitary/health conditions at the North Wellington Office where access visits were held;
The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent did not encourage access visits; and
The Applicant was concerned with the tone and content of some of the statements she received from Respondent staff e.g. “There is no chance that your going to get him back…now and in the future”.
12The Respondent provided copies of the following Court documents to the Applicant and the CFSRB on November 23, 2020.
Child Protection Application issued October 17, 2016
Amended Answer and Plan of Care from Applicant dated January 24, 2017
Endorsement of Justice Caspers dated February 14, 2017
Amended Protection Application issued August 1, 2017
Request to Admit dated November 9, 2017
Statement of Agreed Facts dated December 5, 2017
13My review of the documents confirms that issues of the apprehension of the Child; access; custody; and placement of the Child with his paternal Aunt were addressed on multiple occasions by the Court. The Applicant was represented by counsel during most of the Court proceedings including for the Answer and Plan of Care dated January 24, 2017; Amended Application for Child Protection dated August 1, 2017; Request to Admit dated November 9, 2017; and Statement of Agreed Facts dated December 5, 2017.
14The documents presented clearly identify the Respondent’s position regarding the apprehension of the Child, the reasons for it changing its position, the placement of the Child with his paternal aunt, and access issues. The documents speak about the Applicant’s use of drugs and alcohol; and her exposure to violence and abuse in the home of her in-laws and by her ex-partner. For example, the Statement of Agreed Facts dated December 5, 2017 indicated that the parents agreed to the placement of the Child with his paternal aunt; it outlined the parenting and child protection concerns with the Applicant; and addressed the fact that two applications for party status by the Applicant’s parents had been filed with the Court and both were dismissed. Finally, the Statement outlined that the Applicant would have supervised access to the Child once per month at the discretion of the paternal aunt.
15Based on these documents, I find that the Applicant’s concerns regarding the circumstances and reasons for the apprehension of the Child; her interaction with Respondent staff at that time; and access arrangements were before the Court. As such, Issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 were clearly before the Court and therefore the CFSRB is precluded from review of these issues/concerns.
16The Endorsement addressed the Respondent’s position regarding the placement of the Child with his maternal grandparents and the reasons for the Respondent’s refusal to place the Child with them. These reasons included allegations made by the Applicant and her ex-partner about the maternal grandparents; and concerns with historical charges and offences related to the maternal grandfather. As such, I find the issue of the grandparents’ application for party status in the Child Protection Proceedings has been addressed by the Court and therefore I cannot address issues 6 of the complaint.
17For the reasons outlined above, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 in the Applicant’s complaint pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act.
NEXT STEPS
18I have found that issues 7, 8, and 9 were service issues which were not addressed in the Court proceedings. In addition, at this point in time I do not have sufficient evidence before me to determine whether issue 11 was addressed in previous Court matters.
19These 4 issues will be addressed at the next Pre-Hearing/Mediation session scheduled for January 11, 2021 from 1:00 – 5:00.
20I may issue further directions as necessary.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
21Pursuant 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.
Dated at Toronto, December 23, 2020.
Daniel McSweeney
Daniel McSweeney
Member