AN v. Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society, 2024 ONCFSRB 7

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AN Applicant

-and-

Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan Date: January 29, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 7 Indexed As: AN v Highland Shores Children’s Aid (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

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, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2This is the second application filed by the Applicant against the Respondent. In the first application in 2019, the parties reached a settlement at the pre-hearing stage and the file was closed in 2020 (“First Application”).

3In the current Application, the Applicant complains about information provided by the Respondent to the Court, including related to some issues in her First Application. The Applicant also seeks the CFSRB’s assistance “to intervene” in an upcoming proceeding before the Court. The Applicant requests that the CFSRB assist her to challenge “facts” being presented by and the “pleadings” of the Respondent.

4This decision explains why the Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB.

ANALYSIS

5Subsection 120(8)(a) 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;

6The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 411 at paragraph 35, that the mere existence of a child protection proceeding does not automatically bar the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint about services an individual has received from a children’s aid society if the complaints are “separate and different from the substantive issues before the court”.

7The Applicant appears to be aware that there are limitations to the CFSRB’s involvement with issues before the Court. In her Application, she states, “[a]lthough it is acknowledged that the CFSRB does not normally assist with cases coming before the court, this case presents with unique and pressing urgency…”.

8The CFSRB has no jurisdiction to assist an applicant with matters before the Court or intervene in court proceedings, regardless of their uniqueness or urgency to an applicant. The CFSRB may not conduct a review of matters that are substantively before the Court, including the evidence presented and pleadings filed as part of a court process.

9Further, the Applicant has not presented any complaints in her current Application that are separate and distinct from substantive issues before the Court.

10For these reasons, the CFSRB is barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Act from reviewing the Application.

ORDER

11The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

12Pursuant 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.