CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
KAC
Applicant
-and-
Family and Children’s Services Niagara
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Malcolm M. MacFarlane
Date: February 27, 2023
Citation: 2023 CFSRB 99
Indexed As: KAC v Family and Children’s Services Niagara (CYFSA s.120)
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, 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: it is alleged that the Applicant was not heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made and to be heard when she had concerns about the services she is receiving; and the society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected her interests.
BACKGROUND
3The Applicant is the mother of a daughter and son (the “Children”).
4The Applicant, in her December 10, 2022 Application, enumerated six issues which are summarized as follows:
- The removal of her Children was unlawful as there was no child maltreatment, she was not provided with reasons or grounds for the removal of her Children, and the Children were removed without a full and complete investigation.
2.The Applicant alleges that the Respondent fraudulently redirected her welfare payments to the Children’s foster parents.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s workers falsely accused her of being a bad mother and being unable to care for her Children based on “malicious gossip.”
The Applicant alleges her Children have suffered emotional distress as a result of being removed from the Applicant’s care and having her access restricted.
The Applicant alleges that it was illegal for the Children to be removed without a warrant.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent does not have legal authority to enroll the Children in school or to make decisions regarding access to the Children by other individuals and has not heard her concerns nor involved her in any decisions regarding the Children’s education and leisure activities.
5In its December 22, 2022, Response, the Respondent stated that the CFSRB
lacked jurisdiction to review the Application because the issues in the Application were
before the Superior Court of Justice (File FC-22/637) in a child protection proceeding
addressing custody and access issues. The respondent submitted the following documents in support of this argument:
Form 8B Child Protection Application dated August 31, 2022
Notice of Motion dated August 31, 2022
Affidavit by worker Alaine Morrison dated August 31, 2022
Form 33B Plan of Care dated September 20, 2022
Endorsement Sheet by Madam Justice Bingham dated September 2, 2022
Endorsement dated September 27, 2022 adjourning the matter to October 21, 2022
Temporary Order dated November 23, 2022
6In its December 22, 2022 Response, the Respondent also stated that the CFSRB had previously received an Application from this Applicant under File #CA22-0109 that contained the same issues and that the CFSRB dismissed that Application in its entirety in a November 30, 2022 decision. Having previously dismissed this prior application, the Respondent argued that the current Application should not proceed.
7In a December 30, 2022 Case Management Decision (CMD), the CFSRB directed the Applicant to make written submissions as follows:
“On or before January 13, 2023, the Applicant shall make written submissions to the CFSRB identifying what, if any, issues in the current Application are different than those raised in her previous Application. If she identifies any such issues, she shall also make written submissions on whether those issues are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court in the child protection proceeding.”
8The December 30, 2022 CMD also provided that the Respondent could submit a Reply to the Applicant’s submissions if they chose. The Respondent did not provide a Reply to any of the Applicant’s submissions.
9The Applicant provided a submission to the CMD in the form of an email dated December 30, 2022 and an attachment entitled “Applicant’s Answer” dated December 30, 2022. Subsequently, the Applicant updated their submission with a further submission entitled “Applicant’s Answer 2nd Submission” on January 30, 2023, as well as forwarding several items of email correspondence copied to all parties.
THE LAW
10[Section 120(8)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/