TP v. Bruce Grey Child and Family Services, 2025 CFSRB 42

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

TP Applicant

-and-

Bruce Grey Child and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: April 03, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 42 Indexed As: TP v Bruce Grey Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

TP, Applicant Self-represented

Bruce Grey Child and Family Services, Respondent Ali Mirza, 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, the Respondent submitted that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application as the “overarching issue” in the Application “is in the purview of the Superior Court of Justice in Owen Sound”.

4Further to the pre-hearing held in this matter on February 24, 2025, the CFSRB identified in its February 25, 2025, Pre-Hearing Report (“February 25 PRE-HEARING REPORT”) the following two issues:

• The Applicant alleges the Respondent has not heard his concerns regarding parental alienation from his children or regarding the negative impact of this parental alienation on his children.

• The Applicant alleges the Respondent has not provided him with acceptable reasons for its failure to act on his concerns regarding parental alienation.

5The CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction on March 3, 2025, directing the Respondent to make written submissions on or before March 14, 2025, regarding the jurisdictional issues and whether the issues in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

6The Case Management Direction also directed the Applicant to make written submissions in response to the Respondent’s submissions on or before March 28, 2025, on whether the issues in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

7The Respondent filed its submissions with the CFSRB on March 14, 2025. The Applicant filed his submissions in response with the CFSRB on the same date. I reviewed and considered these submissions, as well as the Application and Response, in this decision.

ISSUES

8Are the two complaints identified in the February 25 PRE-HEARING REPORT separate and different from the substantive issues before the court?

RESULT

9Having reviewed the submissions, I find that the two complaints in the Feb 25 PRE-HEARING REPORT are separate and different from the issues before the Court. The CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

analysis

10Under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act, the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

11The 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”.

12There are no child protection proceedings involving the parties. However, the Applicant and his former partner are involved in family court in relation to their children.

13The Respondent submits that the specific issue of parental alienation is before the court as reflected in the Answer of the Applicant filed in his family court proceeding in Owen Sound, which the Respondent provided as evidence in support of its submissions.

14In addition, the Respondent submitted that there are no service-related issues that are separate and different from the substantive issue of parenting time and parental alienation before the court. It argues that any issue in the Application is directly related to the Applicant’s parenting time and what he describes as parental alienation, are issues that he has raised in his Answer in the court proceedings, and which are before the family court to determine.

15The Respondent submits that its understanding is that the only endorsement that has been made to date in the family proceeding was regarding a motion brought by the Applicant to late file his materials and that other than that, there have not yet been any court appearances or orders made. The issues of parenting time and parental alienation have not been determined and remain before the court.

16The Applicant submits that the specific service-related concerns he has raised are distinct from the issues being litigated in the family court.

17The issues related to parenting time and parental alienation have, indeed, been placed before the family court by the Applicant. The Applicant’s Answer dated January 16, 2025, filed in his family court proceeding make numerous references to parental alienation and the denial of access and speak to various types of communications and negotiations that have occurred on the issue of access.

18The CFSRB has no jurisdiction to determine the Applicant’s parenting time with his children, nor can it make any determinations regarding whether there has been parental alienation or determinations on the quality of the Respondent’s investigation into the Applicant’s complaints in this regard.

19While it is true that the Applicant’s complaints stem from his concerns about parenting time with his children and parental alienation, he has filed two e-mails which explain his service complaints, including that there was a lack of meaningful follow-up or intervention regarding his concerns about parental alienation and that during his interactions with the Respondent’s child protection worker he found her dismissive of the serious nature of his concerns. In an e-mail dated January 14, 2025, to the CFSRB and attached to his Application the Applicant states, “I have repeatedly brought forward concerns about the treatment and emotional well-being of my children amidst ongoing parental alienation and distressing family dynamics. Unfortunately, there has been a lack of meaningful follow-up…it was disheartening to feel that my concerns were not only ignored but also belittled during our interactions.” In an e-mail dated January 8, 2025, to the CFSRB and attached to his Application the Applicant states, “I reported concerns regarding parental alienation…Since [the Respondent’s] involvement, I regret to say the situation has worsened…Communication has deteriorated further…. They are required to investigate allegations of parental alienation and consider the emotional and psychological effects on the children involved. It is concerning that these obligations may not have been adequately met in my case.”

20The Respondent has not addressed these service complaints in their Response or jurisdictional submissions. The Respondent has provided information about meeting with the Applicant on October 24, 2024, and sending him a closing letter on November 20, 2024, as well as a chronology of the Applicant’s subsequent service complaints and its responses. However, it has not provided information demonstrating that the Applicant’s concerns about parental alienation had been heard, nor information about the explanation provided to the Applicant regarding its assessment, its decision to close the file, and the reasons as to why it would not become involved. The Respondent did not provide its closing letter in its submissions.

21There is no mention in the Answer provided to the family court of the Respondent’s investigation or involvement nor mention of any of the Applicant’s service complaints. While the family court may ultimately make determinations regarding parental alienation and the Applicant’s parenting time with his children, it will not make any determinations regarding the services the Applicant has received from the Respondent.

22On the materials before me and given the lack of documentation demonstrating that the Respondent heard and provided reasons to the Applicant relating to his service complaints, I find that the issues identified in the February 25 Pre-Hearing Report are not before the court.

ORDER

23The Application is upheld and shall proceed to a hearing on the 2 complaints identified in the February 25, 2025, PRE-HEARING REPORT.