AA v. Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, 2025 CFSRB 5

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AA Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: January 13, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 5 Indexed As: AA v Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

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.

3In its Response, the Respondent submitted that the Application was not eligible to proceed because the matter was before the court. The Respondent attached to its Response several court documents in support of its position.

4A Case Management Direction dated November 28, 2024, directed the Applicant to make written submissions by December 6, 2024 on whether the complaints in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court. The Respondent was to provide a Reply by December 13, 2024, if desired.

5The Applicant provided written submissions on November 30, 2024. The Respondent did not provide Reply submissions.

ISSUE

6The issue is:

a. are the complaints in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the court?

RESULT

7Having reviewed the submissions, I find that there are 3 complaints in the Application that are separate and different from the issues before the court. The CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear the following complaints:

a) that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s complaint that it was biased against him with respect to his September 23, 2024 concern;

b) that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s September 23, 2024 concern about the need to protect his children from harm or provide reasons for its actions following the Applicant’s expressed concerns; and

c) that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concern about an alleged breach of his confidentiality.

8I find that the following complaint in the Application is not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to hear:

a. that the Respondent’s employees made alleged errors and/or failed to adhere to the Respondent’s complaint review processes or timelines.

ANALYSIS

9Under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act, the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

10The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid 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”.

11The Applicant’s complaints in his Application include four main allegations: (a) the Respondent did not hear his concerns that the Respondent is biased against him (b) the Respondent failed to hear the Applicant’s concern on September 23, 2024 to protect his children from harm and/or provide an adequate response to his concerns; c) the Respondent’s employees made errors and failed to follow the Respondent’s complaint procedure and timelines; and d) the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concern of an alleged breach of the Applicant’s confidentiality.

12The Respondent submits that these complaints have been decided by the Court and provided five Court Orders from the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court in Brockville, Ontario from July 13, 2022 to August 21, 2024, pursuant to a Child Protection Application. The Respondent also submits that the Applicant was represented by legal counsel throughout the protection proceedings.

13In his written submission, the Applicant submits that his complaints are about decisions made as a response to a complaint made on September 23, 2024, which was after the Final Order in the child protection proceedings dated August 21, 2024. The Respondent acknowledges that the Applicant’s most recent complaint to the Respondent was made after August 21, 2024.

14Neither the Applicant or the Respondent have provided details or submissions about the substance of the Applicant’s September 23, 2024 concerns to the Respondent.

A. The Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent did not hear his concern of bias against him, as it relates to the Applicant’s September 23, 2024 complaint to the Respondent, has not been before the court

15The Applicant complains that the Respondent “has demonstrated a consistent bias against [him] and has unfairly taken sides with the children’s mother. This perceived alliance has compromised [his] children’s safety and well-being and prevented fair assessments of their needs and [his] concerns”.

16The Respondent’s affidavit in support of a Child protection Application on July 13, addressed issues of parenting time, supervision, the Applicant’s concerns with the children’s mother, the Applicant’s concerns for the safety of the children, the Applicant’s concern with the Respondent workers. Paragraph 33 of that affidavit specifically notes that the Applicant had voiced concern to the Respondent that they were colluding with the children’s mother. Based on this, I find that the Applicant’s concern of bias against him was put before the court when the children’s best interests were being determined at that time.

17However, the Applicant has been clear that his Application is in relation to a concern he brought to the Respondent on September 23, 2024, after the Final Order was granted. The Applicant’s written submissions of November 30, 2024, clarify that his Application “focuses on service-related issues with [the Respondent] post-Final Order, specifically in their response to my complaint, their communication, and the adequacy of their actions”.

18The Respondent has provided no information about the September 2024 complaint, including whether the substance or issue of the complaint was one that had been before the court.

19Based on the limited information provided, I find that the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent did not hear his concern of bias as it relates to the September 2024 complaint is separate and different than what was before the court. As a result, I find that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

B. The Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent did not hear his September 23, 2024 concern about protecting his children from harm and/or provide reasons is separate and different than the issues before the court

20The Applicant complains that the Respondent has failed to hear his concerns about the safety of his children or to provide reasons for decision made as a result.

21The issue of whether the children are in need of protection is a matter squarely within the jurisdiction of the Courts, and clearly has been throughout the entirety of the Child Protection proceedings, culminating in a Final Order on August 21, 2024 which terminated a Final order of supervision made by Justice Johnston on February 21, 2023.

22The Respondent acknowledges that the Applicant made a complaint on September 23, 2024, after the above noted Final Order. The Respondent also acknowledges that it made a decision based on the Applicant’s complaint on September 23, 2024, to interview the children and the Applicant, and submits that they provided an explanation to the Applicant about their response.

23The decisions of the Respondent and alleged explanations given to the Applicant would not have been issues before the court as they occurred after August 21, 2024.

24I find that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent allegedly did not hear his concerns on September 23, 2024, or provide reasons for its decisions in relation to the Applicant’s concerns.

C. The Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent’s workers made errors and failed to follow its complaint procedure is outside of the issues deemed eligible to proceed by the CFSRB

25The Applicant complains that the Respondent’s employees have made errors, including not adhering to its established complaint review process or timelines.

26Section 120(4)3 of the Act provides the CFSRB jurisdiction to hear allegations that a society has failed to comply with its complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under the Act relating to the review of complaints. However, the CFSRB may only consider a complaint under this subsection if the complaint was made in accordance with the regulations (subsection 120(3) of the Act).

27Ontario Regulation 156/18: General Matters Under the Authority of the Minister (the “Regulation”) outlines the procedure and timelines for the complaint review process to a children’s aid society. Section 56 of the Regulation states that a complaint to a society must be made using a prescribed form entitled “Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP)”.

28At paragraph 7 of his Application, the Applicant identifies that he has not complained to the Respondent in writing and there is no evidence that he completed a formal complaint in the prescribed form. Accordingly, in its determination on eligibility, the CFSRB did not find the Application eligible under section 120(4)3 as there was no evidence that the Applicant had followed the formal complaint process.

29There is no further information provided by the Applicant about any other alleged errors or failures to adhere to procedure in the Application or submissions.

30The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed only under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act on November 19, 2024.

31Based on the above, this complaint is not eligible to proceed.

D. The Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent did not hear his concern that it breached his confidentiality is separate and different than the issues before the Court

32The Applicant complains that the Respondent has failed to maintain his confidentiality. Specifically, the Applicant alleges that a worker of the Respondent disclosed personal information to the children’s mother. No further information has been provided by the Applicant or Respondent related to this alleged breach.

33The issue of whether the Respondent’s worker breached confidentiality was not an issue that was before the court in determining the best interests of the children during the Child Protection proceedings. Based on the information before me, there is no evidence that this complaint has been before the court.

34In accordance with the eligibility determination, I find that the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent did not hear his concern that it breached his confidentiality is eligible to proceed.

CONCLUSION

35For the reasons set out above, I find that the following complaints in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court and within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review:

a. that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concern of bias against him as it relates to the Applicant’s September 23, 2024 complaint;

b. that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concern on September 23, 2024 about protecting the children from harm or provide reasons for its actions following the expressed concerns; and

c. that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concern about an alleged breach of his confidentiality.

NEXT STEPS

36The CFSRB will schedule a full-day pre-hearing videoconference during which the parties will be offered the opportunity to participate in mediation facilitated by a CFSRB member. If mediation is declined, the pre-hearing will be used to prepare for a hearing.

ORDER

37The Application is upheld in part and will proceed to a hearing on the issues set out in paragraph 35. The remainder of the Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

38Pursuant 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.