MA v. Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin, 2024 CFSRB 137

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MA Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: November 21, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 137 Indexed As: MA v Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

MA, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin, Respondent Renée T. Constantini, Counsel

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, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under subsections 120(4)1, 120(4)2, 120(4)3 and 120(4)5 of the Act. The first three subsections deal with allegations about how the Respondent handled the Applicant’s complaint to the Respondent’s Internal Complaint Review Panel (“IPRC”). The fourth subsection deals with allegations that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions which affected his interests.

3The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s complaints “are largely before the Ontario Court of Justice in a proceeding under the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) … [and therefore] the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints.”

4In an October 2, 2024 Case Management Direction (“CMD”), the CFSRB directed the Applicant to provide written submissions on whether the issues in the Application were separate and different than the substantive issues that are or were before the court. I have considered those submissions as well as the Application, the Response, and court documents provided by the Respondent.

ISSUE

5Are the issues in the Application separate and different than the substantive issues before the court in a current CLRA proceeding?

RESULT

6The portion of the Application dealing with the IPRC process cannot proceed. The remaining issues in the Application are not separate and different than the substantive issues before the Court. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application and it must be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

7The Applicant is the parent of two children. He is engaged in CLRA proceedings with the children’s mother.

8In summer 2024, the Respondent conducted an investigation into concerns raised by the Applicant and another individual about the children’s wellbeing in the care of their mother. The Respondent ended the investigation in August 2024, having verified the concerns but having also concluded that “the child protection concerns are currently mitigated.” The Applicant states that if a “proper investigation” had taken place, the Respondent’s conclusion would have been different. He wants the investigation reopened.

ANALYSIS

9The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D, 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.

10The Applicant’s submissions on the jurisdictional issue do not address the IPRC process. Generally, complaints about how a children’s aid society handles an IPRC complaint involve procedural issues which are separate and different than substantive issues before the court in child protection or CLRA proceedings. In this case, however, since the IPRC Complaint was submitted to the Respondent on the same date as the Applicant filed the CFSRB Application, the Respondent had no opportunity to deal with the IPRC complaint before the Application was filed. Thus, that portion of the Application must be dismissed. For the following reasons, I find that the remaining issues must also be dismissed as they are before the court.

11On the Application, the Applicant answered yes to Question 10 (Is the concern you describe above currently before the Court?”. In his submissions on the jurisdictional issue, however, he states that the CLRA proceedings deal with issues of “child support, parenting time and decision making” and safety concerns rather than “direct action” by the Respondent. He complains about the Respondent giving the child’s mother advance notice of workers’ visits to her home, arguing that this gave her and her partner time to prepare for the visits. He also feels that the Respondent did not give sufficient weight to information it received when it interviewed his children.

12In essence, the Applicant feels that the children’s wellbeing is at risk given criminal charges against the partner of the children’s mother and alleged substance abuse and intimate partner violence in the children’s mother’s home. As noted above, he feels that a “proper investigation” would have led to additional action by the Respondent.

13The Applicant’s complaints about how the investigation was conducted, such as giving one week’s notice of a home visit, are outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB. The CFSRB has no authority to order an investigation reopened.

14The Applicant’s concern about the children’s wellbeing is an issue before the court. The Motion to Change and the supporting affidavit filed by the children’s mother in the CLRA proceedings include her position regarding the Applicant’s concerns. The Applicant himself acknowledges in his submissions on the jurisdictional issue that “safety concerns” are before the court in the CLRA proceedings.

15For these reasons, I conclude that the portion of the Application dealing with the IPRC process cannot proceed. I also conclude that the remaining issues in the Application are not separate and different than the substantive issues before the Court. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application and it must be dismissed.

ORDER

16The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

17Pursuant 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.