CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SC
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley
Indexed As: SC v Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
SC, Applicant
Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex, Respondent
Jill E. Scrutton-Fulford, 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”).
2In a Case Management Direction dated January 28, 2020, the CFSRB directed the parties to make submissions on the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application. The parties were subsequently given an extension until May 1, 2020. Both parties made written submissions.
3This decision explains why the CFSRB cannot review the Application.
the law
4Section 120(4) of the Act states:
The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2).
Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with section 15(2).
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
Section 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
5On April 22, 2015, Justice Templeton of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, found the Applicant’s daughter in need of protection and placed her in the care of the Respondent as a Crown Ward with no provision for access by the Applicant.
6The Applicant unsuccessfully appealed the April 22, 2015 order: S.C. v. CAS of London and Middlesex, 2015 ONSC 7219. Her motions for leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada were dismissed: S.C. v. Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex, April 29, 2016 Endorsement, Court File No. 46227 (OCA); [S.C.] v. Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex, 2016 66264 (SCC).
7The Applicant’s daughter was adopted in 2017.
8The Applicant alleges that her daughter has been neglected and abused since she was removed from the Applicant’s care. She states that both she and her daughter have been “continuously tortured by all those around and in charge of every legal, law enforcement, court and government agency in Canada!”
9The Applicant requests that her daughter be returned to her, that she receives compensation and that those who she says have harmed her and her daughter lose their jobs.
analysis
10The 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 if the complaints are “separate and different from the substantive issues before the court” (para 35).
11Part of the Application concerns the Applicant’s desire to have her daughter returned to her care. That issue was dealt with by the courts and all attempts by the Applicant to overturn the decision have failed. Thus section 120(8)(a) bars the CFSRB from reviewing any part of the Application which concerns the Applicant’s loss of her daughter to Crown Wardship.
12The remainder of the Application describes many difficulties experienced by the Applicant. She alleges that various individuals and organizations have maltreated her. These allegations are unrelated to any services she may have received from the Respondent and do not fall within any of the sub-sections of 120(4). As a result, the CFSRB is unable to review this part of the Application.
13For these reasons, I conclude that the CFSRB cannot review 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. 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, May 14, 2020.
Catherine Bickley
Catherine Bickley
Vice-Chair