CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
J.V.
v.
The Children’s Aid Society of the County of Simcoe
REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION
Indexed as: J.V. v. The CAS of the County of Simcoe (CFSA s.68)
1This is an application by J.V. (the “Applicant”) under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). J.V.’s application was received by the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on January 30, 2008 and was deemed eligible for review on February 11, 2008.
2The Board was asked to review complaints made by the Applicant about the Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County (the “Society”). The Applicant specifically complains that the Society failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a) of the Act in that he was not given an opportunity to be heard when a decision was made that affected his interests. The Society took the position that the complaint is ineligible for review by the Board pursuant to section 68.1(8)(a) of the Act as the issues raised by the complainant relate to matters which have been decided by the Court on a temporary basis and continue to be before the Court.
BACKGROUND
3The Society became involved with the V. family on or about October […], 2007 following receipt of a police report of an altercation on October […], 2007 at the Applicant’s residence between himself and his former partner R.F. Following the incident of October […], R.F. and the couple’s three children moved into a women’s shelter. J.V. was arrested and held in custody for approximately one week. He was released into his own surety with no charges being laid.
4The Society attended at the shelter and determined that the children were safe in their mother’s care. The Society had difficulty establishing contact with J.V. for approximately two weeks as he was in jail and then required to reside in […]. On November […], 2007, J.V. telephoned the Society. He informed the Society of his allegation that R.F. had attacked him and that she had a history of assaultive behaviour and substance abuse and thus he feared for the safety of his three children. Later that same day the Society telephoned J.V. to update him on the status of the children and he learned that they were okay. During this second telephone call he reiterated his concerns about the safety of his children.
5R.F. first applied to the Court on November […], 2008. The Court issued three orders and determined that R.F.’s motion would be heard on November […], 2007. The Society closed the file after the issuance of the Court orders made on November […], 2007.
6R.F. and J.V. appeared in Superior Court of Justice Family Court in […], Ontario on November […], 2007. The Honourable Justice F. Graham issued several orders relating to access visits and information about the children. Unheard motions were adjourned to February […], 2008 and then subsequently adjourned to a Case Conference scheduled for June […], 2008.
7J.V. contacted the Society on or about December […], 2007 to further express his concerns about the children’s safety. The Society felt that he was reiterating the issues he had raised in November and, without any new evidence, there was no need to re-open the file.
JURISDICTION
8The Society proceeded first with jurisdiction arguments and the Applicant responded. The Society took the position that all issues raised by the Applicant had been decided by the Court or were before the Court and that the entire application should be dismissed based upon subsection 8(a) of section 68.1 which provides as follows:
(8) 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.
9The Court order of November […], 2007 permitted supervised access visits for J.V. at the […] Centre in […]. The parties, R.F. and J.V., were responsible for arranging these visits and were ordered to complete the Centre’s intake procedures forthwith. Furthermore, the Court ordered that J.V. would have the right to consult with and obtain information directly from the children’s teachers, doctors or other professionals about the health, education and general welfare of the children. The Society indicated to the Board that it (the Society) did not have any implementation responsibilities for these orders. The Society further argued that the provisions of section 72(1) and (2) of the Act, “Duty to Report”, make it incumbent on the Court to contact the Society if the Court learned of any harm and/or risk of harm to the Applicant’s children inflicted by the person having charge of the children. No such report has been received by the Society.
10The Society also informed the Board that the Applicant had appeared in Court, with counsel, when these orders were issued and that he had signed the Minutes of Settlement for those orders. The Society maintained that the Applicant had the opportunity before the Court to make his case about his safety concerns for his children and his difficulties in attending supervised access visits in […]. The Society further argued that the Applicant had the opportunity in Court to ascertain the requisite information that would enable his access to education and medical information about his children.
11J.V. responded by opining that the Society did not complete a full investigation of the family situation before the access matter was heard in Court. He believed that the Society’s intake worker erred in her judgment of his parenting capabilities because he was in custody following the incident of October […], 2007. He claimed that the Society should have done some follow-up in November, 2007 so that he could have kept track of his children. J.V. stated that his lawyer did not want to read to the Court the defense statement that he (J.V.) had prepared. J.V. has since dismissed his lawyer and is seeking new counsel.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
12The Society was involved with this family for approximately one month during October and November, 2007 while it ascertained that the children were safe in the care of their mother. Having fulfilled this obligation, the Society determined that it did not need to prepare an application for Temporary Care and Custody. After hearing submissions from both R.F. and J.V. on November […], 2007 the Court also determined that the children were safe in the care and custody of their mother. A Case Conference before the Court is scheduled for June […], 2008. The Board finds that J.V.’s main concern regarding the safety of his children has been and continues to be before the Court.
13J.V.’s complaints about not having seen his children for five months and not knowing anything about the children’s health and education are matters for which the Society has no obligation. The Court ordered that J.V. and R.F. make any necessary arrangements for supervised visits and access to information regarding the children. The Board finds that these matters have been before the Court.
DECISION
14Having reviewed all of the evidence and having heard submissions from both parties, it is the decision of the Board that the Applicant’s complaints have been or continue to be before the Courts. Accordingly, under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Act, the Board grants the motion of the Society and it will not proceed to hear the complaint.
Heather Gibbs Presiding Member
Fizul Sima Panel Member
John Gates Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 30th day of May, 2008.