MM v. Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin, 2024 CFSRB 99

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MM

Applicant

-and-

Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley

Date: September 18, 2024

Citation: 2024 CFSRB 99

Indexed As: MM v Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

MM, Applicant

Self-represented

Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin, Respondent

Dana Haklander, Counsel

Introduction

1The Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) found this Application eligible to proceed 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 Respondent then challenged the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application because, it states, the Applicant’s “complaints and concerns are before the Superior Court of Justice (“the Court”)”

3A July 15, 2024 decision of the Court decided competing motions from the Applicant and the child’s father regarding parenting time. The Court concluded that it was in the child’s best interests to have regular parenting time with her father.

issue

4Are the issues in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court?

RESULT

5I find that the issues in the Application are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. Thus, section 120(8)(a) of the Act bars the CFSRB from reviewing the Application.

analysis

6The Applicant is the mother of a young child. She alleges that the child is not safe in the care of the child’s father due to the father’s substance abuse issues and due to historic sexual assaults by a family member with whom the father currently lives. She has brought her concerns to the Respondent and is not satisfied that these concerns have been heard and that she has received meaningful reasons for the Respondent’s decision not to verify “caregiver with a problem” with respect to the child’s father.

7The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441 that the 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.

8In her submissions, the Applicant acknowledges that ”issues regarding parenting time and decision making are before the court” yet maintains that “this CFSRB application is about my right to be heard and receive reasons for decisions.”

9In reaching its July 15, 2024 decision, the Court considered both the substance abuse issue and the Applicant’s allegations that the child is not safe due to historic sexual assaults by a family member with whom the father currently lives. It concluded that it was in the child’s best interests to have regular parenting time with her father. The Court ordered unsupervised parenting time with the child’s father to start promptly and increase to alternate weekends.

10The lack of separation between the issues in the Application and the issues that were before the Court is reflected in the Applicant’s August 1, 2024 correspondence to the Respondent. The Applicant sent the Respondent a copy of the July 15, 2024 Court decision and directed the Respondent’s attention to a paragraph in which the Court noted concerns about the child’s father’s alcohol use. She reiterated her concerns about the child’s father having parenting time in light of these concerns. Those concerns, however, were before the Court and carefully considered by the Court.

11For these reasons, I conclude that the issues raised in the Application are not separate and different than those before the Court. Specifically, the issue of the child’s safety in the care of her father has been considered and decided by the Court and thus the CFSRB cannot review the Applicant’s and Respondent’s interactions with respect to this issue. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application and the Application must be dismissed.

order

12The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

13Pursuant 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.