AM v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2024 CFSRB 52

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AM Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: May 07, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 52 Indexed As: AM v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

AM, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent Ihtasham Shabbir, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (“the Act”). The Applicant alleges she 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 the Society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects her interests. The application was deemed eligible on April 18, 2024.

2Rule 22.1 permits the CFSRB to decide a s. 120 Application on the basis of the Application and Response which I have deemed appropriate in the circumstances.

3Specifically, the Applicant alleges the following:

A. She did not get a chance to prove that she could care for the children.

B. She has not received any information about her children for over 8 years from the Society and she is allowed information and updates about her children by court order.

C. She was informed this year that she was discriminated against due to her disability because there were multiple people complaining about the Society worker that was in charge for discrimination.

4The Respondent Society seeks a dismissal of the Applicant’s complaint summarily based on written material submitted.

5The Applicant, AM, is the biological parent of 3 children born in 2008, 2011 and 2012. All the children have been adopted.

ISSUES

6The issues are:

i. Can the applicant complain under S. 120(4) about not receiving information?

ii. Did the Society fail to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects their interests?

iii. Is the allegation of discrimination within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB?

RESULT

7I find that the information portion of the Applicant’s complaint should be dismissed.

8I find that the Society did not fail to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects her interests, specifically the Applicant was provided with sufficient reasons as to why she could not care for her children.

9I find that the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to determine that the Applicant was discriminated against under S. 120(4).

10The application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

The Applicant cannot bring an application under S. 120(4)4 regarding the information portion of her complaint.

11The applicant no longer has legal custody of the children and has not for many years. She does not, therefore, fall within the definition of a parent.

12I accept the submissions of the Society that final adoption orders have been made for each of the 3 children, in 2012 and 2015.

13I am dismissing this portion of the Application. The Applicant has alleged that the Society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2). Pursuant to S. 15(2) service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving. The applicant is not a parent. This portion of the application is dismissed.

The Society did not fail to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects their interests.

14I find that the Society did not fail to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects her interests, specifically the Applicant was provided with reasons as to why she could not care for her children.

15The Society has provided a detailed chronology of their involvement with the Applicant and the court history. Through this involvement and the Society’s various applications the Applicant was provided with reasons why the Society was of the view she could not care for her children.

16I accept the following submissions from the Society:

• The Society became involved with the Applicant following the birth of her first child in 2008. The Society was involved voluntarily with the Applicant until 2009, providing parenting support. Her first child was removed from her care in 2009 and protection proceedings were initiated. Thereafter, the Applicant exercised supervised access. The Applicant was represented by counsel throughout the protection proceedings. In 2010 an Order was made for Crown wardship placing the child in the care and custody of the Society with no access for the purposes of adoption. The matter was decided by way of summary judgement. The Applicant was provided with reasons by the Society for their decisions throughout this process.
• The Applicant’s second child was removed at birth in 2011 by the Peel Children’s Aid Society, who initiated protection proceedings. The Applicant again exercised supervised access. Following a multi-day trial in 2013 the child was made a Crown Ward with no access. The Applicant was provided with reasons by the Society for their decisions throughout.
• The Applicant’s third child was removed at birth in 2012 and placed in the care of the Society, who initiated protection proceedings. The Applicant exercised supervised access. In 2013 an Order was made for Extended Society Care with no access. The Applicant was provided with reasons for the Society’s decisions throughout.
• Given the forgoing I am satisfied that the Applicant was repeatedly provided with reasons for decisions the Society made in relation to her ability to parent. Through the Society’s court documents and through the process she was provided with sufficient information to understand why the Society made the decisions it did.

Is the allegation of discrimination within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB?

17The Applicant has alleged that she was discriminated against when the children were removed. The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to determine allegations of discrimination.

Summary

18I find that the information portion of the Applicant’s complaint should be dismissed; that the Society provided the Applicant with sufficient reasons for the decisions it made regarding her parenting her children; and that the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to determine that the Applicant was discriminated against under S. 120(4).

ORDER

The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

¹ Pursuant 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.