LR v. Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, 2020 CFSRB 89

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

LR

Applicant

-and-

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF THE REGION OF PEEL.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Silvia Novak
Date: October 07, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 89 Indexed As: LR v Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

LR, Applicant Self-Represented

Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, Respondent Laura Shaw, Counsel

Introduction

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 Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) found the Application eligible under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

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 biological mother of a child who was made a Crown Ward in 2017 and then adopted in 2019.

5The Applicant feels the Society:

a. is keeping her son from her;

b. failed to provide her with reasons as to why they have not returned him to her care;

c. is lying about his whereabouts; and

d. is ignoring her complaints and concerns.

6In its August 28th, 2020 Summary Reply, the Respondent challenged the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application. The Respondent submits that the issues raised in the Application were all before the Ontario Court of Justice as part of a child protection proceeding and attached various Court documents as well as previous correspondence to the Applicant.

7A September 9th, 2020 Case Management Decision (“CMD”) directed the Applicant to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue. The CMD suggested the Applicant may wish to review the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441 (“DD”). The CMD included information on how that decision could be accessed online.

8The deadline for submissions has passed and the Applicant has not provided any.

analysis

9The Court documents provided by the Respondent include a trial decision dated July 14th, 2017 wherein the Court outlined its reasons for ordering the child be made a Crown Ward without access.

10A Status Review Application was later commenced by the Respondent seeking to terminate the Crown Wardship so the child could be adopted by family in another country. The Applicant was served with this Status Review Application.

11A Final Order was made on March 14th, 2018 terminating the Crown Wardship Order to ensure “no impediment” for a family adoption in the other country. The Order indicates the Applicant and her lawyer were present.

12After reviewing all of the evidence before me, I find that the Applicant’s concerns regarding the child’s custody, her access to him and his whereabouts were all decided by the Court.

13Given the decisions the Applicant disagrees with and seeks explanation for were all made by the Court and not the Respondent, the Applicant’s concerns are not eligible for review by the CFSRB.

order

14The Applicant’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

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.