AA v. Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, 2020 CFSRB 65

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AF Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: July 3, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 65 Indexed As: AA v Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

AF, Applicant Self-represented

Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County Tony Circelli, Counsel

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2The Application was found eligible to proceed under section 120(4) 5 of the Act: The Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affected her interests.

3The Applicant is the mother of two boys EM and MM (the “Children”). The Application outlined the following:

1. The Respondent inaccurately recorded statements in her file.
2. The Applicant alleged that facts in Respondent letters and its verification decisions regarding abuse and parental conflict were inaccurate.

4In its Summary Reply, the Respondent argued that the Applicant’s concerns were thoroughly investigated and that the concerns were matters involving custody and access. The Respondent verified concerns relating to a risk of emotional harm to the children related to adult conflict. The file was subsequently closed, and the Respondent indicated that it would no longer be involved in the Applicant’s custody and access issues. These issues were best addressed in Family Court.

5In a Case Management Direction dated May 21, 2020, the parties were directed to provide written submissions on the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear the Application based on the provisions of section 120(8) of the Act on or before June 5, 2020. Parties were directed to consider and or refer to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441.

6The Applicant provided submissions on June 18, 2020. The submissions dealt with the substance of the complaint, namely the Applicant’s view that the Respondent’s findings related to abuse were inaccurate and inconsistent. She indicated that the April 13, 2020 letter produced by the Respondent was used in Family Court proceedings.

7The Respondent’s April 13, 2020 letter verified a risk of emotional harm to the children related to adult conflict, and especially post-separation conflict. It addressed the Applicant’s concerns with her former partner’s physical and emotional abuse to the Children; and his abuse towards the Applicant. The letter suggested that the two parents reside separately to minimize conflict in front of the children.

8The Respondent failed to provide submissions on the issue of jurisdiction.

THE LAW

9Section 120 (1) of the Act provides that, if a person has “a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society [and the complaint] relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may decide” to make a complaint to either the society or the CFSRB.

10Section 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

11The 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).

12Part X of the Act covers issues related to inaccuracies in children’s aid society records. As such, the Applicant was directed to submit any concerns with records to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner as the CFSRB no longer has jurisdiction to hear complaints related to inaccuracies in records.

ANALYSIS

13In analyzing the claim, I focused on whether the CFSRB had jurisdiction to review the complaint based on the exclusion of s. 120(8).

14After reviewing all of the evidence before me, including the Applicant’s submissions on jurisdiction, I find that the Applicant’s allegations of alleged physical and emotional abuse of the children; and abuse towards her were clearly before the Court. As such, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address the complaint.

15The Applicant confirmed in her submissions that the Respondent’s letter of April 23, 2019 was “used against her” in Court. The Applicant’s allegations dealt with the same issues that were addressed in the April 23, 2019 letter. In response to Questions 9 and 10 of her Application (Has the concern you describe above been dealt with in Court? and is the concern you describe above currently before the Court?), the Applicant indicated “yes”.

16Given the Applicant’s confirmation that the issues were before the Court, and her confirmation that the Respondent’s letter of April 23, 2019 addressing the alleged abuse were before the Court, I find that all of the issues in the Applicant’s complaint were placed squarely before the Court. As such, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address the complaint.

ORDER

17The Applicant’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

18Pursuant 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.