CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
MT
Applicant
-and-
North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon
Indexed As: MT v North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
MT, Applicant
Allana McComb, Counsel
North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services, Respondent
Sonia Migneault, 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, SO 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.
3In its Response dated February 17, 2025, the Respondent submits that the issues raised by the Applicant are live issues before the Ontario Court of Justice and are not eligible to proceed at the CFSRB.
4The CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction on February 19, 2025, directing the Applicant to make written submissions on whether the issues in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court. The Applicant did not make written submissions.
5The Case Management Direction also stated the Respondent may, but is not required to, file a Reply on or before March 10, 2025.
6The Case Management Direction stated that if the Applicant does not make written submission as directed the CFSRB may decide the jurisdictional issue based on the Application and Response or may dismiss the Application as abandoned.
7This Decision is based on the Application and Response filed with the CFSRB.
ISSUE AND RESULT
8Are the issues in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the court?
9I 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 complaints.
ANALYSIS
10Section 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.
11The Ontario Court of Appeal 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.
12The Respondent’s Response states that they commenced a Child Protection Application before the Ontario Court of Justice on October 2, 2024. The Society filed its’ Protection Application, Notice of Motion, Supporting Affidavit, as well as the Applicant’s Answer and Plan of Care. I note that the Respondent did not file any orders or endorsements resulting from the protection proceeding.
13The Applicant has made the following complaints:
Took my child from me for no reason
Refuse to listen to me
Called me a liar
Refuse me a supervisor
Took my rights as a father away from me
Refuse to take my concerns seriously
Been no contact with me
14The Applicant has complained in his Application that the Respondent took his child from him for no reason, took his rights as a father away from him, and refused him as supervisor. The complaints in the Application that deal with these issues have been or are before the court as follows:
a) The Child Protection Application seeks a supervision order placing the child with her mother for a period of 6 months. Similarly, the Motion brought by the Respondent on October 2, 2024 sought an order placing the child in the care of her mother subject to the supervision of the Respondent. Both the Protection Application and Motion were brought after the Society had obtained a warrant for the child’s removal, which they executed on September 27, 2024. Therefore, the issue of the Applicant’s child being “taken from him for no reason” has been and is before the court.
b) The Child Protection Application seeks to impose several terms and conditions on the Applicant, which include such things as the Applicant abstaining from the use of non-prescription drugs and alcohol while in a caregiving role; the Applicant attending for a drug and alcohol assessment to address substance use and following through with recommendations; and the Applicant attending for anger management counselling and following through with recommendations. These terms and conditions were also sought by way of the October 2, 2024, Motion brought by the Respondent. Therefore, the issue of the Applicant’s “rights as a father being taken away from him” has been and is before the court.
c) The Child Protection Application seeks an access order providing the Applicant with access a minimum of one time per week, with the location, duration, frequency, and level of supervision at the discretion of the Respondent. This Order of access was also sought by the Respondent in their Motion of October 2, 2024. Therefore, the issue of the Applicant “being refused as supervisor” has been and is before the court.
15It is not clear from the documents filed whether some of the Applicant’s complaints relate to the protection proceeding. The Applicant also complains that the Respondent has refused to listen to him, has refused to take his concerns seriously and has not had contact with him. These complaints regarding the services the Applicant has received may not have been addressed as part of the protection proceeding.
16The CFSRB may have jurisdiction to hear the following complaints raised:
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has refused to listen to him.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has refused to take his concerns seriously.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has not had contact with him.
NEXT STEPS
17The Application will proceed to a pre-hearing where the parties will have an opportunity to provide further information and refine the issues set out in paragraph 16, and where they will be offered an opportunity to mediate.
18The CFSRB will email the parties a Notice of Pre-Hearing setting out the date, time, and log in details for the Pre-Hearing videoconference.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
19Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representative 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 the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.
Dated at Brockville, March 21, 2025.
Karynn von Cramon
Karynn von Cramon
Member