CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
WZ
Applicant
-and-
Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christine Staley
Indexed As: WZ v Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services (CYFSA s.120)
Introduction
1This is an Application filed 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 section 120(4)4 Act.
3In its Response dated February 19, 2025, the Respondent submitted that the Application was not eligible to proceed because the matter was before the Court.
4A Case Management Direction dated February 26, 2025, directed the Applicant to make written submissions by March 10, 2025, on whether the issues in the Application were separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. The Respondent was to provide a Reply by March 17, 2025, if desired.
5Neither the Applicant nor Respondent submitted written submissions.
ISSUES
6The issue before me is: are the issues in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court?
RESULT
7Having reviewed the submissions and documents presented, I find that the issues in the Application are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application and it must be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
8The Applicant is the father of three children (the Children) who have been the subject of child protection proceedings.
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 Respondent provided a Child Protection Application dated January 11, 2024, and an endorsement dated January 12, 2024 which found the Children in need of protection and placing them with the mother. The Respondent also provided an Amended Order dated May 27, 2024 which placed the Children with the paternal grandparents; the Applicant’s Answer and Plan of Care dated August 26, 2024; and an Order dated October 31, 2024 of Justice Kwolek finding the Children in continued need of protection and ordering that the Children remain with the paternal grandparents with supervised access to the Applicant.
12The Applicant’s complaint relates to the conduct of the investigation which resulted in the Child Protection Application in January 2024 and the proceeding Order. He further complains that a Respondent worker lied in a document when they said he had “agreed that because I cannot care for my children they will be placed with my parents”. He submits that he did not say this as he believes that the best place for the Children is with him.
13The Child Protection Application relies on affidavit evidence of the Respondent’s worker which outlines the investigation and observations in great detail. Further, the Amended Order dated May 27, 2024, and the Order dated October 31, 2024 of Justice Kwolek clearly contemplated whether to place the children with the Applicant or the paternal grandparents. It should be noted that the Applicant had legal counsel throughout the child protection proceedings.
14The issues in the Applicant’s complaints are not separate or different than what was before the court. The Court remains seized with the child protection proceedings, including the placement of the Children and the Applicant’s access to them. As such, I find that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to hear the Application.
15CONCLUSION
16For the reasons set out above, I find that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the matter.
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 Mississauga, April 14, 2025.
Christine Staley
Christine Staley
Member