CB v. Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County, 2024 CFSRB 152

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CB Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: December 13, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 152 Indexed As: CB v Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

CB, Applicant Self-represented

Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County, Respondent Anaïs Lussier-Labelle, 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”). The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

2In an August 28, 2024 Case Management Direction (“CMD”), the CFSRB directed a written hearing on the basis that a written format would be the most efficient, focused, and effective format to consider and decide the issues raised in the Application. The CMD directed that the following documents would be part of the record for the hearing:

• The Application and Response and any attachments to those documents;

• The parties’ submissions (including attachments) in response to the March 27, 2024 and April 11, 2024 Case Management Directions;

• The Respondent’s April 9, 2024 email to the CFSRB and the court documents linked in that email.

3The Case Management Direction also set timelines for the parties to submit additional documents and submissions. The Applicant requested and was granted an extension to file her materials.

issues

4Has the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests?

RESULT

5The Applicant’s allegations that are outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction are dismissed. With respect to the remaining allegations, I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided her with reasons for decisions which affected her interests.

analysis

6The Applicant is the mother of one child. At one point she had sole decision- making authority (custody) for the child. In April 2023, following a lengthy family law trial, the court awarded sole decision-making authority to the child’s father while providing the Applicant with defined parenting time (access).

7The Applicant’s submissions are not always easy to understand. A persistent theme is the Applicant’s belief that the Respondent is part of a criminal conspiracy involving her ex-partner, the judge in her family law trial, multiple police forces, the governments of Ontario and Canada, the United Nations, and other international organizations. Specifically, she alleges that the Respondent has trafficked her child “for financial extortion purposes” and compromised Canada’s national security.

Issues outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction

8While the Application and the Applicant’s subsequent submissions are lengthy, they focus primarily on matters that fall outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction and on the perceived conspiracy.

9In the 2023 family law trial, the safety of the Applicant’s child while in the care of the child’s father and the Applicant’s concerns about her own parents having access to the child were extensively canvassed and the trial judge made rulings on those issues. The family law trial also resulted in decisions regarding where the Applicant’s child would primarily live, which parent would have decision-making authority, and what parenting time the Applicant would have. As a result, the CFSRB is barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Act from reviewing allegations related to these issues.

10The Applicant’s allegations that the Respondent breached her privacy is also outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. Part X of the Act provides that such issues are to be dealt with by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Applicant is also raising these allegations in a federal court proceeding.

11In addition, whether or not specific Respondent workers are registered with the College of Social Workers is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.

12I will accordingly not be making any determinations with respect to the issues set out in paragraphs 9 through 11. These issues are dismissed as outside the CFRSB’s jurisdiction.

The Applicant’s Submissions for the Hearing

13The Applicant’s hearing submissions do not explain how the Respondent failed to hear her concerns or failed to provide her with reasons for specific decisions that affected her interests. Instead, she alleges that a 2016 file opening was intended to interfere in her family court proceeding and was “a form of domestic terrorism” connected to “an Islamic Jihad.” She also alleges that the Respondent’s actions interfered with her career in the Canadian Armed Forces. Finally, she alleges that the Respondent engaged in “medical abuse.”

14All the remedies sought by the Applicant are outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction, including her request to be reimbursed for medical expenses and her request for an order finding the Respondent guilty of colluding with a number of individuals “with intent to cause physical, emotional, and psychological harm” to the Applicant and her child.

The Respondent Heard the Applicant’s Concerns and Provided Her with Reasons for Decisions that Affected Her Interests

15The Applicant’s allegations span the years from 2016 to 2024, a period during which the Respondent had intermittent involvement with the Applicant’s family. The Applicant’s materials are vague regarding specific time periods and decisions with respect to which she says the Respondent failed to meet its obligations to hear her concerns and provide her with reasons.

16The Respondent has detailed 19 instances in which it was involved with the Applicant’s family. The Respondent has explained how in each of those instances it heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided her with reasons for its decisions. Those reasons were provided through telephone calls, emails, letters, and in-person meetings. A few examples are set out below.

17The Respondent acknowledges that it failed to send the Applicant a letter mentioned in a November 2017 email. The Applicant and Respondent continued to correspond following that email providing an opportunity to discuss the Applicant’s concerns. The Respondent and the Applicant also had a one and a half hour in-person meeting on December 18, 2017.

18In 2018, Respondent staff had two in-person meetings with the Applicant to hear her concerns about the safety of her child in the father’s care. The Respondent then facilitated an in-person meeting between the Applicant and the child’s father. The meeting focused on assisting the parents in their communication.

19In November 2021, the Respondent’s Director of Service and a Supervisor met in person with the Applicant. A follow up letter to the Applicant on November 19, 2021 confirmed that a worker had been assigned to investigate protection concerns the Applicant had raised and advised the Applicant that other issues had to be dealt with in family court. On December 8, 2021, the Respondent sent the Applicant a letter summarizing the investigation into the protection concerns and explaining why it had concluded that the Applicant’s child was not at risk of harm.

20In June 2022, the Respondent’s Child Welfare Manager wrote to the Applicant after the Applicant had sent the Respondent several unclear emails. In his letter to the Applicant, the Child Welfare Manager wrote that it was difficult to understand the Applicant’s specific concerns. He stated “I would really like to understand your concerns, specific to the services you may have received from our organization. To that end, I am requesting that you separate out your concerns related to our agency and that you summarize all of these into a singular summary.” The Applicant did not do so.

21In a February 12, 2024 letter to the Applicant, the Respondent listed the people interviewed during an investigation into child protection concerns, summarized what each of the interviewees had said, and explained why it had concluded that the Applicant’s child was not at risk of harm.

22The Applicant admits she received letters from the Respondent. She dismisses those letters, however, because she says that the letter writer’s “perception and narrative construction as an unregistered social worker without any ethical constraints or guidelines, render her communications invalid.” The Applicant’s dissatisfaction with the worker’s professional qualifications does not change the fact that the worker provided her with explanations for decisions made by the Respondent.

23The Applicant has consistently been unhappy when the Respondent has not reached the conclusions she thought appropriate or has not taken actions she wanted it to take. Her perception of the Respondent’s actions appears to be affected by her belief that the Respondent is part of a multi-party conspiracy which aims to harm her, her child, and Canada’s national security. This perception does not render the Respondent’s explanations invalid.

24The Respondent has provided the Applicant with written explanations and multiple in-person meetings. It has continued to engage with her even when she has made allegations that are not matters the Respondent can deal with or she has alleged that the Respondent is part of a complex conspiracy. The June 2022 letter from the Child Welfare Manager is just one example of the Respondent’s attempts to clarify and respond to the Applicant’s concerns. The instances described above illustrate how the Respondent has heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests.

conclusion

25I conclude that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with an opportunity to express her concerns by meeting with her repeatedly. The Respondent has taken her child protection concerns seriously as evidenced by conducting multiple investigations.

26I also conclude that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with meaningful reasons for decisions that affected her interests. The Respondent has explained to the Applicant how it reached its conclusion in investigations, detailing who was interviewed, what each interviewee said, and how it decided that the Applicant’s child was not at risk of harm. The Respondent has also met with the Applicant to explain its decisions in-person. Further, the Respondent has been clear in explaining to the Applicant what matters need to be dealt with in family court.

order

27The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

28Pursuant 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.