IMB v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2024 CFSRB 104

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

IMB

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley

Date: September 24, 2024

Citation: 2024 CFSRB 104

Indexed As: IMB v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

IMB, Applicant

Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent

Justine Sherman, 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 CFSRB concluded that the following allegation was eligible to proceed:

a. The Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests were made, or a chance to be heard when they raised concerns about the services they are receiving.

3The Applicant is the father of two (2) children who are currently in the care of the Respondent.

4The Respondent argues that the Applicant’s complaints “are issues that have been placed squarely before the Court and have been decided by the court" and are outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.

ISSUE

5The issue is:

a. Are the issues in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the court?

RESULT

6The issues in the Application are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application and it must be dismissed.

analysis

7Under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act, the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the Court or is before the Court.

8The Court of Appeal for Ontario 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”.

9The Applicant and Respondent have provided several documents, audio files, and past and current court orders in support of their arguments, including two protection applications, endorsements and a status review application.

10The protection applications addressed custody and access of the Applicant’s children where the Court was directed to consider the best interests of the children. In reviewing the evidence before it, the protection orders that followed provide that the children were to be placed in the Respondent’s care with access to the Applicant at the Respondent’s discretion pending the disposition of the Status Review Application before the court.

11The Court remains seized with issues of custody, access and child protection concerns. A Status Review Application will be heard on October 10, 2024 where all parties are entitled to present evidence in support of their claims and positions on all of these issues. This will include the children’s views as both children have their own legal representation appointed by the court.

12The Applicant’s complaints relate to the custody of the Applicant’s children as well as the validity and necessity of the protection proceedings and order. The Applicant also requests the CFSRB to have the Respondent cease all involvement in his matter. These issues are the subject matter of the current child protection proceedings to be addressed by the Court. The Applicant also asks the CFSRB to review the court proceedings and intervene to reinstate his “custodial rights”. The CFSRB has no jurisdiction to consider whether a child is in need of protection or where they are placed. I find, therefore, that the issues in the Application are not separate and different from the issues before the Court.

order

13The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

14Pursuant 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.