N.M. v. Family & Children's Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, 2023 CFSRB 52

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

N.M.

Applicant

-and-

Family & Children's Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington

Respondent

DECISON

Adjudicator: Louise Charette

Date: June 9, 2023

Citation: 2023 CFSRB 52

Indexed As: NM v Family & Children's Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1. (the “Act”).

2The CFSRB found the application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. The Applicant alleges the Respondent did not give him the opportunity to be heard when a decision that affected his interests was made, and that the Respondent failed to give him reasons for its decisions that affected his interests.

BACKGROUND

3The Applicant is the father of a child who was born September 17, 2017 (“the Child”). The court materials on file indicate the Applicant and the Child’s mother were involved in a relationship for approximately three years, that they separated in April of 2020 and that there is “extreme high conflict” between them. The materials also indicate that police and Children’s Aid Services reports have been made by both parties.

4On February 23, 2023, the CFSRB received the Applicant’s Form 2 Application about complaints against a Children’s Aid Society.

5On March 24, 2023, the Respondent filed a Response. The Respondent submits there are issues with jurisdiction.

6On March 25, 2023, the Applicant wrote to the CFSRB stating “I wish to proceed and dispute that [the Respondent’s] reason to dismiss is jurisdiction regarding my claim to be heard in this tribunal court”.

7A Case Management Direction (CMD) dated March 30, 2023, indicates the Applicant shall make written submission on the issues raised by the Respondent regarding the CRSRB’s jurisdiction and request for dismissal on or before April 14, 2023.

8The Applicant did not provide written submissions as requested or otherwise communicate with the CFSRB following the March 30, 2023, CMD.

9The CMD dated May 1, 2023, instructs the Applicant to advise the CFSRB by no later 5:00 p.m. on May 8, 2023, if he intends to proceed with his application, and if so, provide an explanation for the failure to provide submissions as directed.

10A CMD dated May 5, 2023, indicates the Applicant provided a response and that he is instructed to make written submissions by no later than May 12, 2023. The Applicant did not provide written submissions as requested.

ISSUES RAISED

11The Respondent argues the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the application as the Applicant does not meet the criteria set out in section 15(2) of the Act in that he did not seek a service. It also argues the issues raised are before the court. The Respondent further submits that if the CFSRB determines it has jurisdiction to review the application, it should nevertheless be dismissed pursuant to section 15(3) of the Act.

12The CFSRB must decide whether it has jurisdiction. In doing so, I reviewed and considered the correspondence and emails provided by both parties as well as the Response provided by the Respondent including Family Court documents.

The Law

13Section 2(1) of the Act indicates that a service includes:

(a) A service for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family,

(b) A mental health service for a child or the child’s family,

(c) A service related to residential care for a child,

(d) A service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family

(e) A service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others,

(f) Counselling for a child or the child’s family,

(g) A service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community,

(h) A service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act or the Provincial Offences Act, or

(i) A prescribed service;

14Section 15(2) of the Act states:

Service providers shall ensure that children and young person and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decision affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving;

15Section 15(3) of the Act states:

Subsection (2) does not apply to a child or young person or parent of a child or young person if there is a good cause for not giving that person an opportunity to be heard or represented as described in that subsection.

16Section 120(1) allows an individual who sought or received a service from the Society to make a complaint to the CFSRB about the service sought or received if the complaint relates to any of the matters set out in section 120(4).

17Section 120(4) of the Act reads as follows:

The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

1. 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).

2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.

3. 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.

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2).

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

6. Such other matters as may be prescribed.

18Subsection 120(5) indicates that: After reviewing the complaint, the CRSRB may,

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant

(e) dismiss the complaint.

19Section 120(8) of the Act states:

The Board shall not conduct a review of a complain under this section if the subject of the complain,

(a) Is an issue that has been decision by the court or if before the court.

Issue 1: Is the Applicant a service recipient?

20The Respondent argues the Applicant did not seek nor was he provided a service. The Respondent notes he contacted them on different occasions with concerns about the child’s mother and that as such he is considered a “referral source” and not as someone who received or sought a service.

21A letter prepared by the Respondent dated December 21, 2022, which was forwarded to the Applicant, confirms he has made different complaints against the child’s mother. The letter also confirms the file against the Child’s mother is closed.

22The Respondent also refers to the Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated February 22, 2023, and an affidavit which indicates he is identifying himself as a “regular referral source”.

23As noted above, the Applicant did not provide written submissions regarding the above noted issue. The application before the CFSRB indicates he filed a complaint against the Child’s mother in relation to an incident which occurred on February 13, 2023, and that the Respondent disclosed he was the “reporting person” without his consent/permission. He also notes the Respondent did not give him a chance to be heard when the decision to contact the Child’s mother was made about him being the “reporting person” and that the Respondent did not give him a reason for its decision for doing so.

24The Respondent submits the Applicant did not voice any concern regarding the sharing of the information he provided and that he did not ask the Family Court to redact any identifying information about referral sources in his Notice of Motion.

Issue 2: Are the issues raised before the Court?

25The Respondent argues the Applicant being disclosed as the “referral source” is before the Family Court and as such the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

26The Respondent refers to the Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated February 22, 2023, and his affidavit in support. It notes the affidavit sets out the information he is relying on in asking the Family Court to order disclosure of records held by the Respondent and this evidence includes identifying himself as a “regular referral source” when describing the February 13, 2023, incident that led him to contact the Respondent.

27The Applicant indicates in the application submitted to the CFSRB that “The Society and I were just in a Tribunal court about the same issues I’m filing about today”. He did not provide written submissions on this issue as requested by the CFSRB on March 30th and May 5th, 2023.

28The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441 that the mere existence of child protection proceedings does not bar the CFSRB from reviewing complaints about services received from a children’s aid society if the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

ANALYSIS

29I considered whether the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s complaint pursuant to sections 120(4)4 and 120(4) 5 of the Act.

30I find in this case that the Applicant is a “referral source” and as such he was not provided a “service” as defined in section 2.1 of the Act. His application before the CFSRB indicates he filed a complaint against the Child’s mother and that the Respondent disclosed he was the “reporting person”. The letter prepared by the Respondent dated December 2022 refers to the different complaints he filed and that the service file against the Child’s mother is closed. His affidavit before the Family Court indicates he identifies himself as a “regular referral source”. As such, I find he is not a service recipient.

31I also find the issues raised by the Applicant are before the Family Court. In his application submitted to the CFSRB he refers to his complaint against his ex-spouse neglecting their son’s medical issues on February 13, 2023, and that he and the Respondent were just before the court on the same issues. Court documents reveal his concerns regarding him being disclosed as a referral source is before the court, describing the incident that led him to contact the Respondent. As such, I find that the Applicant’s complaint is not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

32In light of the above, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction.

ORDER

33For the reasons noted, the Applicant’s application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

34Parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CRB documents or decisions, or any other documents or information provided or used in this Application, with anyone including through the media or online. The CRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CRB, as appropriate.