MC v. Ogwadeni:deo, 2025 CFSRB 12

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MC Applicant

-and-

Ogwadeni:deo Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: February 06, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 12 Indexed As: MC v Ogwadeni:deo (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This Application was filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) on January 14, 2025. On January 17, 2025, the CFSRB found the 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”).

2Under Rule 21.1(a) of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure, the CFSRB may decide an application based on the Application and the Response. I find that this is an appropriate case in which to do so as the Response raises a jurisdictional issue which can be decided on the basis of the submitted documents.

issue

3Is the issue in the Application separate and different than the substantive issues that have been decided by the court or are currently before the court?

RESULT

4The issue in the Application is not separate and different than the substantive issue that has been decided by the court and is before the court. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application and it must be dismissed.

overview

5The Applicant’s child is in extended society care. In July 2024, a court ordered the child committed to a secure treatment centre for 180 days. The Applicant expected her child to return home in mid-January 2025 as, at the time, the Respondent was exploring possible reunification of the Applicant and her child. Instead, in mid-January 2025, the administrator of the secure treatment centre filed an application to the court to extend the term of the child’s commitment. The request to extend the child’s commitment to secure treatment was supported by the Respondent.

6The Respondent attached to its Response the July 2024 court order and the January 2025 application to the court to extend the term of commitment.

analysis

7The Applicant is seeking reasons for the decision to extend her child’s time in secure treatment.

8In its January 23, 2025 Response, the Respondent explains why it supported the treatment facility’s request to extend the child’s time in secure treatment. In the Response, the Respondent also raises section 120(8)(a) of the Act. That section bars the CFSRB from reviewing an application if “the subject of the complaint … is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.”

9The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D, 2011 ONCA 441 that the mere existence of related court 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.

10The initial decision to commit the child to secure treatment was made by the Ontario Court of Justice. The decision on whether that commitment should be further extended is an issue that the secure treatment facility, with the support of the Respondent, has brought back before the court. Thus, the issue central to the Application is squarely before the court.

11For these reasons, I conclude that the issue raised in the Application is not separate and different than the substantive issue before the court. 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.