SB v. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, 2024 CFSRB 160

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SB

Applicant

-and-

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley

Date: December 31, 2024

Citation: 2024 CFSRB 160

Indexed As: SB v Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (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.

3In its Response dated November 25, 2024, the Respondent submitted that the Application was not eligible to proceed because the matter was before the court.

4A Case Management Direction dated November 26, 2024, directed the Applicant to make written submissions by December 5, 2024 on whether the complaints in the Application were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court. The Respondent was to provide a Reply by December 12, 2024, if desired.

5The Applicant provided written submissions on December 2 and 3, 2024. The Respondent provided a written Reply on December 5, 2024.

ISSUE

6The issue is:

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

RESULT

7Having reviewed the submissions and documents presented, I find that the complaints in the Application are not separate and different from the issues before the court. The CFSRB has no jurisdiction to review the complaints in the Application.

ANALYSIS

8Under 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.

9The 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”.

10The Applicant’s complaints in her Application that accord with the CFSRB’s eligibility determination include three main allegations: (a) the Respondent did not provide reasons to the Applicant for the removal of her children or why access to her children needed to be supervised: (b) the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns that one of her children should not reside with and be supervised by the maternal grandparents; and (c) the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with an explanation of what she needed to do to lift the requirement that she must have supervised access with her children.

A. The Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent did not provide reasons for the removal of her children or the requirement for supervised access is not a separate or different issue than what has been or is currently before the court

11The Applicant submits in her Application that following a medical incident with one of her children, the Respondent discharged that child into her care with the requirement that the child’s father was to only have supervised access. The Applicant submits that she complied with this requirement. It is alleged that a week later, the Respondent removed both of the Applicant’s children from her care with a requirement that she have only supervised access to them, without providing reasons.

12A Child Protection Application was heard and a Temporary Order granted in child welfare court on October 21, 2024. The Child Protection Application and Order specifically review the events and matters which led to the removal of the children from the Applicant’s care, the placement of the children, as well as the terms of supervised access for the Applicant.

13A Temporary Order was granted on November 25, 2024, which reviewed the need and reasons for the removal of the children from the Applicant’s care, their placement, and the requirement for supervised access. The matter will be reviewed again on December 19, 2024.

14The court remains seized with the issue of why the children were removed from the Applicant’s care as well as why the Applicant requires supervised access. As a result, I find that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

B. The Applicant’s Complaint that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns that one of her children should not reside with and be supervised by the maternal grandparents is not separate or different from issues currently before the court

15The Applicant complains that she brought a concern to the Respondent that the paternal grandparents were not properly supervising one of the children. It is alleged that the Respondent did not listen to her concern that the child could have resided with the maternal grandparents, but Respondent did not evaluate that option.

16The Temporary Order granted in child welfare court on October 21, 2024, placed the children in the care of the paternal grandparents.

17An Endorsement of Justice K.S. Neill on November 25, 2024, reviewed the placement of the children, including an evaluation of the two sets of grandparents. A Temporary Order was granted placing one child with the maternal grandparents, subject to terms of a motion dated November 19, 2024. I was not provided with this motion.

18The matter was adjourned to December 19, 2024 “for an update and to discuss next steps and if terms of constant supervision of the other’s access to the children may be relaxed….”.

19As such, the court has decided the issue of which set of grandparents the child should be placed with and remains seized of this issue. I find that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to hear this issue.

C. The complaint that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with an explanation of what she needed to do to lift the requirement that the children have supervised access with her is not a separate and different issue than what is currently before the court

20The Applicant also complains that she has asked the Respondent’s workers multiple times what she needs to do to lift the requirements related to the children’s supervised access with her. She also submits that she has attempted to do what she believes they want but has not been told why her efforts are not sufficient.

21The Respondent submits that the court proceedings ensure that every respondent is provided with a plan of care which clearly sets out a society’s expectations for the return of a child, and that this issue is before the court. It also submits that the Applicant’s ability to reunite with her children will depend upon her ability to convince the court that the children are safe.

22I agree with the Respondent. Section 100 of the Act states that the court shall obtain and consider a plan of care for the child’s care prior to making an order. Part of what the court shall consider under subsection 100(b) of the Act is “a statement of the criteria by which the society will determine when its care or supervision is no longer required”. As such the issue of what the Applicant needs to do to lift the requirements of the children’s supervised access with her and whether she has sufficiently fulfilled those requirements is squarely before the court.

CONCLUSION

23For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaints in the Application are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

ORDER

24The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

25Pursuant 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.