CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
GM
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon
Indexed As: GM v Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
GM, Applicant
Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Respondent
Ben McIvor, 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”).
2The CFSRB has concluded that the following allegations are eligible to proceed:
The Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests were made, or a chance to be heard when they raised concerns about the services they are receiving.
The Society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects their interests.
3The Applicant’s daughter is medically fragile and in the temporary care of the Respondent Society.
4The Respondent argues that the Applicant’s concerns “are outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB as the concerns outlined in her Application, fall squarely within live issues before the Court.”
ISSUES
5A Case Management Direction dated June 14, 2024, identified the following issue:
i. Are the issues in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the court?
Result
6I find that there are complaints identified in the Application that are separate and different issues from those that have been or are before the court. The CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear those.
ANALYSIS
Has the subject matter of the Application been or is before the Court?
7Section 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
8The Court of Appeal for Ontario 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.
9The Respondent provided several documents and Court orders in support of its’ position. Included are the Reasons of Krawchenko, J. dated June 20,2023 and the reliance of the Respondent on paragraphs 31 and 33 of that decision. Paragraph 21 states that the Applicant believes she is “not being heard” regarding her child’s care, which may or may not have detrimental effects on the child. At paragraph 33 Krawchenko, J. goes on to state that the Applicant’s allegations relating to her treatment and the reasons for same will ultimately be tested and determined at a full hearing of the Protection Application. I note that the Respondent has not filed the Protection Application or the supporting affidavit, which may include other relevant information.
10On the information in front of me, though, I find that not all the Applicant’s complaints relate to the Protection Application. Those complaints relate to the communication and information the Applicant has been provided regarding her child’s recent move, health status, care, and services and ADR and Signs of Safety meetings.
11I find that reasons relating to these complaints would not be expected as part of the court process addressing the protection application. Only those complaints related to sections 120(4)4 and 5 can be considered by the CFSRB. The CFSRB does not, of course, have jurisdiction to consider whether the Applicant’s daughter is a child in need of protection or where she is placed. That is squarely before the Court.
12I find, though, that the CFSRB does have jurisdiction to hear the following complaints raised in the Application:
That she does not have clear information regarding her child’s recent move, the reasons for that move, and what steps the Respondent took to challenge the move.
That she does not have clarity regarding the care and services her child is receiving.
That she has not been provided with explanations for the Applicant’s daughter’s rapid health deterioration in 2023 if available.
That she has not been given reasons for the Respondent’s refusal to engage in ADR.
That she has not been given reasons for the Respondent’s refusal to convene a Signs of Safety and/or Family Group Decision meeting.
ORDER
13The Application will proceed to a hearing on the 5 issues identified in paragraph 12 above.
confidentiality order
14Pursuant 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.
Dated at Brockville, July 29, 2024.
Karynn von Cramon
Karynn von Cramon
Member```