CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
PW
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan
Indexed As: PW v The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
PW, Applicant
Self-represented
The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Respondent
Jeffrey W. Boich, Counsel
OVERVIEW
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, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3The Respondent submits that the Application consists of complaints that have been or are presently the subject matter of issues in Child Protection proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice (“Court”) or cannot otherwise be reviewed by the CFSRB as it would be an “abuse of process”.
4In its January 9, 2025 Case Management Direction (“CMD”), the CFSRB directed the Respondent to provide all relevant Court documents further to its submissions. It has done so. The CMD also directed the Applicant to provide written submissions on how the issues in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court and why the Application is not an “abuse of process”. The Applicant did not do so.
5On January 23, 2025, the Applicant sent two separate email messages to the CFSRB, as well as to numerous other persons and organizations, including media and the Ombudsman. Those email messages, included among other things, a police Occurrence Report from 2017, a cease and desist letter against the Applicant by a law firm, and a police media release. None of these documents are relevant to the issues presently before me and I did not consider them submissions further to the CMD.
6As a result, my decision is based on the Application and documents filed with it, the Response, and the Court documents provided by the Respondent.
ISSUES
7The issues are:
a. Are the Applicant’s complaints in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court?
b. Is the Application an abuse of process?
RESULT
8The Applicant’s complaints in the Application are not separate and different than the substantive issues before the Court. Thus, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application and it must be dismissed. Given this finding, there is no need to consider the second issue, whether the Application is an abuse of process.
ANALYSIS
9The Applicant is a mother who has received services from the Respondent over several years relating to several of her children.
10In her Application, the Applicant complains about the Respondent allegedly not following laws and regulations related to child abuse and neglect in foster care, being involved in “organized crimes” and cover ups, working fraudulently, employing unregistered social workers, and engaging in other activities including assault of her children. In support of her Application, the Applicant filed Court documents related to a Status Review Application issued December 12, 2022 related to her child, G, and some forwarded email messages. The email messages included one from the Applicant responding to a Respondent worker’s letter in August 2022 related to an outcome in Court, and another including audio recordings the Applicant sent to her lawyer in March 2020.
11The Respondent filed several Court documents in support of its submissions, including a reported decision of a trial in the Protection Application involving the parties in relation to G (“Trial”). As part of the July 28, 2022 Trial decision, the Honourable Madsen, J. placed G in the Respondent’s care and custody with access to the Applicant. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s CFSRB Application is a reiteration of several conspiracy theories advanced by the Applicant at the Trial. The Respondent provided several citations from the Trial decision to support its submissions, including the following paragraphs:
104The mother’s testimony and presentation during trial appeared consistent with the conclusions of multiple medical professionals referred to above:
a. For example, the mother made sweeping, unsupported, and repeated allegations and references to: pedophile rings and child traffickers having infiltrated the child protection agencies, schools, the police, and other institutions and being somehow linked to organized crime. She made repeated references to conspiracies. She stated her belief that one of the child protection workers is a Russian spy, stating that the workers should all be investigated “like in China.”
b. Consistent with her belief that conspiracies abound, when asked whether she would follow a court order, she stated that courts are fraudulent organizations. She had previously told society workers that the courts are part of organized crime networks.
107The mother believes strongly that her children have been harmed and are at risk of further harm – from society workers, from pedophiles, from human traffickers, and others. She believes that the society permits that harm. She does not easily accept evidence to the contrary. This was evident for example in her insistence that the child’s sister B. injured him, when he presented at access with bruises which he stated were from falling off his bicycle. Despite a medical opinion from the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program (CAAP), in Hamilton, Ontario, that the photos provided were consistent with a fall off a bicycle, she continued to state at trial that the bruises were a result of abuse. This was notwithstanding that the police also spoke with the child and saw his bruising, finding no basis for further action.
142The mother repeatedly stated her belief that children’s aid society workers should be registered with the social work college and that she will not work with them unless the society is “reformed.” She stated that she will not allow workers into her home, and will not cooperate even if ordered to do so. She repeatedly stated that she believes that children’s aid societies are infiltrated by pedophiles and somehow linked to human trafficking and organized crime.
12The Respondent also provided several Court documents related to a Status Review Application issued December 12, 2022, and an Amended Status Review Application amended April 19, 2024, related to G and involving the Applicant, wherein the Respondent is seeking the placement of G with another person (not the Applicant) subject to the Respondent’s supervision. These Court documents reference events that occurred after the Trial decision and to which the Applicant referred in documents she filed with her CFSRB Application (e.g., an August 2022 letter from a Respondent worker to the Applicant outlining what the Applicant needs to do so the Respondent can assess whether G could return to her care).
13The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D, 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.
14In the absence of submissions from the Applicant, I do not have her perspective on what, if any, issues raised in the Application are different than the substantive issues before the Court. I do note from the Trial decision that the Applicant was an active participant and represented by legal counsel during it and that she has been an active participant in the Status Review Application proceedings, including filing an Affidavit and Answer and Plan of Care in February 2023.
15On the face of the Court documents, including the Trial decision in the Protection Application and the documents filed related to the Amended Status Review Application, I find that the Applicant’s complaints in her CFSRB Application are issues that have been previously addressed at Court or are before the Court. These include the Applicant’s concerns that the Respondent was allegedly not following laws and regulations related to child abuse and neglect in foster care, being involved in “organized crimes” and cover ups, working fraudulently, employing unregistered social workers, and engaging in other activities including assault of her children.
CONCLUSION
16For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the issues in the Application are not separate and different than the substantive issues before the Court. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application and it must be dismissed. As the Application must be dismissed on this basis, there is no need to consider whether the Application is also an abuse of process.
ORDER
17The Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
18Pursuant 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 Toronto, March 03, 2025.
Tamara Jordan
Tamara Jordan
Vice-Chair