CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
CY
Applicant
-and-
Hamilton Child and Family Supports
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christine Staley
Indexed As: CY v Hamilton Child and Family Supports (CYFSA s.120)
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 found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3In its Response dated September 16, 2024, the Respondent submitted that the Application was not eligible to proceed because the matter was before the Court.
4A Case Management Direction dated September 26, 2024, directed the Applicant to make written submissions by October 10, 2024, on whether the issues in the Application were separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. The Respondent was to provide a Reply by October 17, 2024, if desired.
5The Case Management Direction further directed that if the Applicant did not make written submissions by October 10, 2024, the CFSRB may decide the jurisdictional issue based on the Application and Response or may dismiss the Application as abandoned.
6The Case Management Direction was emailed to the Applicant on September 26 and again on September 27, 2024, after the Applicant asked for clarification.
7The Applicant did not submit written submissions.
ISSUES
8The issue is:
a. Are the issues in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court?
RESULT
9Having reviewed the submissions and documents presented, I find that the 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
10Under 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.
11The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid 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”.
12The Respondent provided a Child Protection Application issued September 13, 2024, a Plan of Care, a Notice of Motion and supporting Affidavit, in support of its position.
13The Applicant’s complaint relates to the social worker assigned to their matter. The Applicant has asked for “the old worker back or no worker at all”.
14The Child Protection Application addresses the Applicant’s engagement and preparedness to continue working with the Respondent’s worker. Further, an Affidavit of the worker at issue was filed in support of the Protection Application which puts forward their evidence of the relationship, efforts and management of the matter.
15The Children’s Protection Application, Notice of Motion and Plan of Care specifically asks the Court to review and order access and communication with the Respondent’s workers. The Court remains seized with the issue of the access and engagement of the Respondent’s workers.
16CONCLUSION
17For the reasons set out above, I find that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the matter.
ORDER
18The Application is dismissed.
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.
Dated at Mississauga, November 08, 2024.
Christine Staley
Christine Staley
Member