SE v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2024 CFSRB 26

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SE Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: March 08, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 26 Indexed As: SE v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent

Kaherine Georgious Counsel

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This is an Application (“Complaint”) 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 Complaint was found eligible for review under sections 120(4) 4 and 120(4) 5 of the Act: It is alleged that the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made, or a chance to be heard when she raised concerns about the services she is receiving; and it is alleged that the Society has failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected her interests.

3The Applicant is the aunt and former adoptive parent for three children (the “Children”).

4The Applicant identified the following Issues/Concerns in her Complaint:

1. The Respondent did not hear her concerns regarding access to the Children;
2. The Respondent did not hear the Children’s preferences regarding access with the Applicant;
3. The Respondent did not hear one of the Children’s requests that a new worker be assigned;
4. The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns that staff is biased against her; and
5. The Applicant alleged that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons for denying access to the Children.

5In its Response to the Application, the Respondent argued that the CFSRB did not have the jurisdiction to review a complaint as the Applicant is no longer a parent under s. 2(2) of the Act. In addition, the Complaint should be dismissed as they have been dealt with by the Ontario Court of Justice and the CFSRB is therefore precluded from reviewing the Complaint pursuant to s. 120(8) of the Act.

6In a Case Management Direction dated February 9, 2024, the Applicant was directed to provide written submissions on the following 2 issues:

• Whether she is a parent as defined in the Act
• Whether the issues in the Complaint are separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court

7The Applicant did not provide submissions by the deadline of February 23, 2024.

THE LAW

8A “parent” in the Act is defined as:

a) the person who has lawful custody of the child; or b) if more than one person has lawful custody of the child, all of the persons who have lawful custody of the child, excluding any person who is unavailable or unable to act, as the context requires.

9Subsection120(1) indicates that a complaint in respect to a service sought or received from a society may be reviewed by the CFSRB. Subsection (4) 4 indicates that the CFSRB can review allegations that the society has failed to comply with s. 15(2) of the Act. Subsection (4)5 states that the CFSRB may review allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affected the complainant’s interests.

10Section 15(2) of the act states that: “Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.”

11Subsection 120(8) of the Act states:

The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,

a) Is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

12The CFSRB Rules of Procedure provides the CFSRB with the ability to hold hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or videoconference. Subsection 8.1 of the Rules state:

In deciding the format of a hearing, the CFSRB will consider:

a) whether it is a fair and accessible process for the parties; b) the costs and efficiency of the process; c) the potential for a more expeditious resolution; d) the convenience of the parties; e) the consistency with the CFSRB’s mandate; f) whether the facts or evidence may be agreed upon; g) the estimated duration of the hearing; h) whether the issues for hearing are predominantly legal issues; i) whether oral testimony is likely to be needed; j) any objections to the format of the hearing.

ANALYSIS

13Firstly, I found that based on CFSRB Rule 8.1 (above), the CFSRB has the authority to review a complaint in writing. Given the lack of submissions on the part of the Applicant and given the fulsome submissions and documentation provided by the Respondent, I found that a review of the Complaint in writing would be the most efficient and expeditious approach to this matter. Additional oral evidence from the Applicant was not required as the disposition of the Complaint focuses on the narrow issue of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Complaint.

14As noted above, parents, children, and youth have a right to be heard regarding services they receive and are eligible to have Complaints reviewed pursuant to section 120(4)4 of the Act.

15In this case, the Applicant is no longer a parent. The Children have been placed in the extended care of the Respondent pursuant to an order by Justice D. Szandtner dated July 26, 2023. Given the Justice’s decision, I find that the Applicant no longer has the right of a parent and therefore the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review her allegations that her rights to be heard were not honoured by the Respondent.

16With respect to the Applicant’s concerns that a request for a change of worker by one of the Children was not heard, the Applicant is not considered a parent, and therefore her concerns related to one of the Children’s requests cannot be considered under section 120(4)4. Similarly, the CFSRB cannot review the Applicant’s concerns regarding the Children’s alleged access preferences.

17Given that the Applicant does not have the status of a parent, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review Issues/Concerns 1, 2, and 3.

18I considered the Applicant’s allegations related to bias and treatment by Respondent staff as it relates to access. The Applicant’s allegations relate to issues that occurred after the Court issued is reasons on July 26, 2023. As noted above, the Applicant had her parental rights removed by the Court. As a non-parent, the Applicant is not in receipt of services as defined by s. 2(1) of the Act. The Children are in receipt of services as they are in the extended care of the Respondent. As such, the Applicant does not have the rights to have her allegations of bias reviewed by the CFSRB pursuant to s. 120(4)4 of the Act. Issue/Concern 4 is therefore dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction.

19With respect to the Applicant’s allegations that she was not provided with reasons for the Respondent’s decisions regarding access to the Children, I find that the reasons for the Respondent’s application to place the Children in extended care were placed squarely before the Court. The Court made a clear finding related to the issue of access at paragraph 187 of its Reasons for Judgement in which it stated: “The court finds that there is no contact with the aunt/mother that would be in their best interests given the history of the aunt/mother and her adult children’s behaviour and her lack of remorse for the same”.

20Given that the reasons for placing the Children in the extended care of the Respondent were clearly before the Court, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address this issue pursuant to s. 120(8) of the Act. Therefore, Issue/Concern 5 is dismissed.

DECISION

21For the reasons identified above, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s Complaint.

22The Application is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

23Pursuant 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.