ES v. Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, 2023 CFSRB 85

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

ES Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: September 11, 2023 Citation: 2023 CFSRB 85 Indexed As: ES v Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

ES, Applicant Self-represented

Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, Respondent Ayana Hutchinson, Counsel

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This is an Application (Complaint) filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under sections 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2The CFSRB found the Complaint eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act: It is alleged that the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made, or a chance to be heard when he raised concerns about the services he is receiving; and it is alleged that the Applicant was not provided with reasons for decisions that affected his interests.

3The Applicant is the father of 4 sons (the “Children”).

4The Applicant identified the following Issues/Concerns in his Complaint:

1. The Applicant alleged that Respondent staff (MH and AR) did not hear his concerns regarding his ex-partner abuse of the Children (extortion by ex-partner; domestic violence by ex-partner; ex-partner’s mental health; physical abuse of the Children; emotional abuse of the Children by removing them without a Court order; parental alienation; Children’s absences from school), nor did MH consider the evidence he provided in support of his allegations; and refused to interview the Children;
2. The Applicant alleged that Worker MH displayed bias against him in support of his ex-partner by attempting to gather information which would undermine his ability to parent the Children; and writing a letter to the Court in support of his ex-partner;
3. The Applicant alleged that his attempts to communicate with MH (e-mails; telephone calls) and AR were not heard and were ignored; and
4. The Applicant alleges that MH breached his right to service in French.

5In its Summary Response, the Respondent argued that the issues/concerns in the Complaint focused on custody, access, and parental decision-making authority which were decided before the Court. The Respondent appended the following Court documents to its Summary Reply:

• Endorsement dated October 31, 2021
• Endorsement dated November 30, 2021
• Inscription sur la motion, date 22 février 2022
• Costs Endorsement dated March 10, 2022
• Endorsement Sheet dated August 3, 2022
• Inscription, le 24 novembre 2022
• Inscription supplementarie le 15 décembre 2022
• Inscription supplementarie le 16 décembre 2022
• Inscription le 28 mars 2023

6In addition, the Respondent argued that it had fulfilled its responsibility to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard, and it has provided the Applicant with reasons for decisions which affected his interest. As such, the Respondent argued that the Complaint should be dismissed.

7In a Case Management Direction dated July 17, 2023, the Applicant was directed to provide written submissions on whether the issues included in the Applicant were separate and different than those before the Court. The Respondent was directed that it could provide further submissions on or before August 7, 2023, if it deemed necessary.

8The Applicant’s submissions reviewed his arguments and evidence in the Complaint and addressed his concerns with the Summary Reply. The submissions did not address the jurisdictional issue of whether the issues/concerns in the Complaint were similar to the issues that were before the Court.

THE LAW

9Section 120(8) of the Act states that the:

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

10The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441 that the 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

11In assessing the Complaint, I reviewed the Application, Response (including documents cited in paragraph 5), and the Applicant’s submissions.

12My reading of section 120(8) of the Act confirms that the concept of “subject of the complaint” is a broad category that encompasses more than the content of any specific issue raised by a party before the Court. As such, a specific issue may not have been raised in Court proceedings; however, the proceedings may have addressed the broader subject matter included in a complaint.

13In this case, issues related to access and supervised access, custody, parental decision-making, parental conflict, family violence, parental alienation, kidnapping, and the well-being of the Child were placed squarely before the Court on several occasions as per the documents identified in paragraph 5. For example, the Inscription le 28 mars 2023, addressed the Applicant’s concerns with the Children’s mother. The Applicant was invited by the Court to outline his concerns with the Children while in their mother’s care. After listening to the Applicant’s evidence, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s 9 concerns with the Children’s mother were general in nature and were not supported. In addition, the Court addressed the issue of parental alienation; however, it found that the Applicant had engaged in a campaign to alienate the eldest Child from his mother. In addition, the Applicant had engaged in intimidation of the Children’s mother. The Court concluded that the Applicant had engaged in a process of undermining the Children’s mother’s parental role. The Court also addressed allegations of physical violence in the parental relationship.

14Given the contents of the Inscription dated March 28, 2023, as well as the other Court documents provided by the Respondent, I find that the Court clearly addressed and decided what actions were in the Children’s best interests, including considering the Applicant’s concerns regarding the abuse of the Children. As such, I find that the contents of Issue/Concern 1 were placed squarely before the Court and, as such, were excluded from review by the CFSRB pursuant to s. 120(8) of the Act.

15Issues 2, 3 and 4 are service-related issues which pertain to the interaction between the Applicant and Respondent staff. These issues were not before the Court, in fact, I could not find any mention of the Respondent in the Court documents provided to me. As such, I find that the CFSRB has the jurisdiction to review these service-related issues.

DECISION

16For the reasons identified above, I find that Issue/Concern 1 in the Complaint has been placed squarely before the Court and the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review this Issue.

17The CFSRB has the jurisdiction to review service-related issues that were not before the Court. As such, Issues/Concerns 2, 3, and 4 can move on in the Complaint review process.

18The parties will be contacted by the CFSRB shortly to arrange for next steps.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

19Pursuant 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.