SKG v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2024 CFSRB 31

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SKG
Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney
Date: March 19, 2024
Citation: 2024 CFSRB 31
Indexed As: SKG v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent
Justine Sherman, 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 his interests were made, or a chance to be heard when he raised concerns about the services he is receiving; and it is alleged that the Society has failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected his interests.

3The Applicant is father to a daughter (the “Child”).

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

1. The Applicant alleges that Respondent Workers failed to accept and consider his evidence regarding his ex-wife’s history of domestic abuse, her alleged evil religious practices, and other concerns related to her ability to care for the Child;

2. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his allegations that Workers were biased against him and supported the Child’s mother;

3. The Applicant alleges that Respondent Workers did not hear his concerns regarding the Respondent’s child protection investigation which he alleged was biased and discriminatory; and

4. The Applicant alleges that his concerns regarding statements made by Respondent Workers in Court documents were not heard.

5In its Summary Response, the Respondent argued that the Complaint did not allege that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision or did not hear the Applicant.

6The Response requested that the Complaint be dismissed based on the materials before the CFSRB. The Respondent argued that the Applicant’s concerns have been or are currently before the Ontario Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. As such, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review the Complaint pursuant to the exclusion in section 120(8) of the Act.

7The Respondent also argued that it has heard the Applicant’s concerns through calls, meetings, letters, and Court materials; and has provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions. Despite this, the Applicant has continued to make unsubstantiated allegations against the Child’s mother and remained dissatisfied with the Respondent’s decisions.

8After having reviewed the Complaint, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Complaint pursuant to sections 119 and 120 of the Act.

THE LAW

9Section 120(8) of the Act states that the:

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

10Rule 22.1 in the Child and Family Services Review Board Rules of Procedure indicates that within 20 days of determining eligibility the CFSRB will:

a. make its decision based on the application and the response; or

b. decide to hold a hearing.

ANALYSIS

11I considered whether the CFSRB had jurisdiction to address the issues in the Complaint. As noted above, pursuant to Rule 22.1, I have the authority to decide the Complaint based on the Application and Response.

12In this case, I find that there is sufficient information on file to persuade me that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Complaint pursuant to s. 120(8) of the Act.

13My reading of this section of the Act confirms that the concept of “subject of the complaint” is a broad category that encompasses more than the content of any specific issue raised by a party before the Court. As such, a specific issue may not have been raised in Court proceedings; however, the proceedings may have addressed the broader subject matter included in a complaint.

14The Respondent appended the following documents to its initial Response:

• Endorsement of Justice Sherr dated January 30, 2023

• Endorsement of Justice Kristjanson dated August 29, 2023

• Report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer presented to Court October 5, 2023

• Affidavit and Report of the Children’s Lawyer

• Endorsement related to Temporary Care dated April 6, 2023

15The Endorsement of Justice Sherr, dated January 30, 2023, related to the Respondent’s protection application. It addressed issues of custody and access in relation to both parents. It addressed the Respondent’s concerns related to the Child’s mother’s access; the Applicant’s continued unverified allegations against the Child’s mother; and the Applicant’s unwillingness to work with Respondent staff. Justice Sherr also directed that the Respondent provide the Family Court Judge options related to supervised access between the Child and her mother, and any services it could provide to the family.

16The Endorsement of Justice Kristjanson addressed issues of parenting time; supervision; the Applicant’s concerns with the Child’s mother; the Applicant’s concerns with the Respondent Workers; the Applicant’s concerns with the investigation and outcome including allegations that Respondent Workers failed to review evidence presented to them; allegations of gender bias on the part of Respondent Workers; the Applicant’s failure to cooperate with Respondent Workers; and what was in the Child’s best interests. Paragraph 26 highlighted the Applicant’s concerns with Respondent Workers. The Endorsement concluded that the Applicant engaged in coercive control of the Child’s mother and has used the Courts and the Respondent as part of his coercive control (paragraphs 46 – 47).

17Based on my review of the evidence presented by the Respondent, I find that all the Issues/Concerns in the Complaint have been or are currently before the Court in the Child Protection and/or Family Court matters. The various Courts have had an opportunity to review the Applicant’s evidence related to alleged risks and harm to his daughter; the Applicant’s concerns with the Respondent’s investigation and outcome; and his concerns around his interaction with Respondent Workers. In addition, I find the Court is the most appropriate venue for the Applicant to raise any concerns with documents presented to the Court for consideration.

18In this case it appears as if the Applicant is dissatisfied with the Respondent’s position and is using the CFSRB Complaint process in a similar fashion as he has used the Courts and the Respondent as outlined above.

19As such, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review these matters as they have been placed squarely before the Court. The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review the Complaint pursuant to s. 120(8) of the Act.

DECISION

20The Complaint is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

21Pursuant 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.