GC v. Ottawa Children’s Aid Society, 2024 CFSRB 66

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

GC Applicants

-and-

Ottawa Children’s Aid Society Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: June 10, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 66 Indexed As: GC v Ottawa Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

GC, Applicant Self-represented

Ottawa Children’s Aid Society, Respondent Mark Hecht, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120(4)5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (“the Act”).

2The CFSRB has concluded that the allegation that the Respondent has failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision is eligible to proceed.

3The Applicant has put forward a plan for the 4-year-old child VP, who was a foster child placed with the Applicant’s sister for approximately a year and a half. During this time the Applicant was involved with assisting in VP’s care and developed a bond with VP. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide reasons for failing to approve her plan through a Caregiver Evaluation conducted in September 2023 and for not correcting inaccuracies in that Evaluation.

4The Respondent has argued that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s complaint because she was not in receipt of service and because the matter is presently before the Court.

ISSUES

5A Case Management Direction dated April 25, 2024 identified two preliminary issues:

i. Whether the Applicant has sought or received services from the Respondent?

ii. Whether the subject matter of the Application has been or is before the Court?

Results

6I find that the Applicant has sought or received services from the Respondent.

7I find that the subject matter of the Application has not been or is not before the Court.

ANALYSIS

Has the Applicant sought or received services from the Respondent?

8The CFSRB can only review service complaints brought by individuals who have sought or received a service from a children’s aid society. The definition of service in the Act includes “A service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family”.

9I find that the Applicant has sought a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection. The Applicant has put forward a plan for the 4-year-old child VP, who was a foster child placed with the Applicant’s sister for approximately a year and a half. During this time the Applicant was involved with assisting in VP’s care and developed a bond with VP. The Respondent conducted a Caregiver Evaluation of the Applicant as a result and in so doing provided a service to the Applicant.

Has the subject matter of the Application been or is before the Court?

10Section 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

11The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society 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.

12The Respondent has provided all relevant documents and Court orders as required by Rule 20.1 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure when raising a section 120(8) objection, which included Reasons for Decision from Justice Smith dated February 1, 2024 granting the Applicant’s motion to be added as a party to the protection proceedings regarding VP.

13I find that the complaints the Applicant has brought to the CFSRB do not relate to the protection application and may be considered irrelevant to it. Her complaints relate to the Respondent’s failure to address her complaints and provide reasons. The CFSRB does not, of course, have jurisdiction to consider or act on the plan the Applicant has put forward for VP. That is squarely before the Court. The CFSRB, though, does have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s complaint about not being provided with reasons for failing to approve her plan through a Caregiver Evaluation conducted in September 2023.

ORDER

14Application CA24-0002 shall proceed to a hearing on the merits.

confidentiality order

30Pursuant 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.