CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
MB
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand & Norfolk
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley
Indexed As: MB v Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand & Norfolk (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
MB, Applicant
Self-represented
The Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand & Norfolk, Respondent
Alexis Kinnear, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2This decision explains why the CFSRB cannot review the Application.
the law
3Section 120(8)(a) of the Act states:
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.
background
4The Applicant is the father of seven children.
5The Applicant, his partner and his parents (who had custody of the six oldest children and care of the seventh child) made plans to move to Nova Scotia.
6On February 12, 2020, the Respondent brought a protection application seeking to have the six oldest children placed in its interim care for six months. The Respondent also prepared a motion seeking to have the youngest child (who was already the subject of an ongoing protection application) placed in its care.
7On February 12, 2020, Mr. Justice D.J. Gordon of the Superior Court of Justice made an order placing the children in the temporary care of the Respondent on a without prejudice basis. He also directed the children remain in Ontario.
8At least some of the adults involved subsequently moved to Nova Scotia. The Applicant listed an Ontario address on the Application.
analysis
9The 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).
10The Applicant makes a number of arguments regarding his family’s mobility rights under section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s 91(24).
11The Applicant states that representatives of the Respondent “lied in Court”. He states that he and his family “did not get the chance to properly speak in our defense, as the judge was only interested in hearing one side of the facts”.
12The arguments and complaints set out in paragraphs 10 and 11 all relate to the substantive issues before the Court. The Applicant’s dissatisfaction with the Court’s process, the evidence placed by the Respondent before the Court and the decision of the Court cannot be addressed by the CFSRB.
13For these reasons, I conclude that the subject matter of the Application is not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the Court. As a result, the CFSRB is barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Act from reviewing the Application.
order
14The Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
15Pursuant 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.