CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
T.I.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Brant
REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION
Date: August 28, 2008
Citation: 2008 CFSRB 85
Indexed as: T.I. v. CAS of Brant (CFSA s.68)
1T.I. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on May 30, 2008, with respect to her complaint that the Children’s Aid Society of Brant (the “Society”) had failed to listen to her concerns regarding the services provided by the Society and failed to provide her with reasons for a decision that effects her interest pursuant to section 68.1(4) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”).
2The Board determined that the application was eligible for review by the Board pursuant to sections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5 of the Act. A pre-hearing by tele-conference was held with the parties on July 2, 2008. At the pre-hearing, the Society advised that it wished to bring a motion before the Board with respect to the Board’s jurisdiction to hear these matters pursuant to section 68.1(8) of the Act. The Society argued that the Applicant’s complaints are currently before the Court.
3The Society’s jurisdiction motion was heard by the Board on July 31, 2008. The Board received into evidence the Society’s Plan of Care with respect to the Applicant’s three children, which was explained to the Applicant by L.B. on behalf of the Society on July […], 2007, and a statement of Agreed Facts, amended and signed by the Applicant on April […], 2008 and March […], 2008. The Board also received into evidence a letter signed by the Applicant and provided to the Society to the attention of several of the Society’s workers, including K.M., P.F., B.M., S.S. and B.B.. The Society acknowledged receipt of this letter and provided a copy of this letter from its files at the jurisdictional hearing.
BACKGROUND
4This matter comes to the Board from the context of a protection application concerning the Applicant’s three children, the details of which are described in the Agreed Statement of Facts. The matter has progressed in the Ontario Court of Justice to the point that the matter is on a trial readiness list in the Court and may be heard at the trial sittings of the Court in September 2008. The Society’s position is that all of the children be made Crown Wards without access.
JURISDICTION
5The Society submits that the complaints raised by the Applicant in her letter requesting a review by the Board are essentially matters pertaining to access and custody. The Board agrees with the Society that such matters are clearly issues that have been decided by the Court on a temporary basis and will, in the course of trial, be decided by the Court on a final basis. These are issues that are not within the jurisdiction of the Board to review pursuant to section68.1(8).
6At the hearing before the Board however, the Applicant complained that she really did not understand what was expected of herself and her partner, B.W., as to the steps that they should take to address the Society’s protection concerns as a couple, and as to what services she and her partner need to access to fully present a Plan of Care that addresses her desire to present a joint parenting plan with B.W.. The Society’s formal Plan of Care does not address this complaint. The Society’s expectations of the parents are not expressed at all from this perspective. The Applicant’s letter supporting her application states that her sister and her husband have offered to take her children, a fact which she maintains has been communicated to the Society on several occasions. The Society has not responded to the Applicant directly with respect to this request.
7The Board finds that with respect to these two complaints, namely, that the Applicant has not been informed as to what she and her partner need to do to respond to the Society’s Plan of Care as a couple; and that the Society has not responded to the Applicant’s request that her sister and her husband be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to their interest in parenting the children, are matters that, pursuant to section68.1(4)4, are within the jurisdiction of the Board. It is open to the Applicant to argue that she has not had an opportunity to be heard with respect to
these issues pursuant to section 2(2)(a) of the Act. The matter will proceed on these issues at a hearing to be scheduled at the earliest possible date that meets the mutual convenience of the parties.
Richard J. Linley
Presiding Member
Fizul Sima
Panel Member
Sheena Scott
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 28th day of August, 2008.