CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
M.M.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
WRITTEN REVIEW
Indexed as: M.M. v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from the Applicant on December 20, 2012 regarding a complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1190, c. C.11, as amended (the “Act”).
2The Board has determined that an oral hearing is not required in this case as the Board has sufficient information before it to make its decision based on the written material filed. The issue for the Board is whether it has jurisdiction to hear the application.
3On January 25, 2013, the Board determined that the Applicant’s application was eligible to proceed to the next stage of the Board’s process: the receipt of the Society’s summary reply. The application was found eligible under section 68.1 (4) 4 which relates to the Applicant’s right to be heard by the Society and section 68. 1(4) 5 which relates to Applicant’s right to be given reasons for decisions that affect his interests.
4The complaints as set out by the Applicant relate to the Society allegedly not following court orders about the reintegration of and access to his children and that the crown wardship order was allegedly made on the basis of “lies given to the court”.
5The Board received the Society’s summary reply to the application on February 1, 2013. The Society also provided copies of two Court orders dated June [ ], 2012 and September [ ], 2009 and the mother’s notice of appeal of the June [ ], 2012 order.
6The Society’s position is that the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear the Application because the subject matter of the Applicant’s complaint relates to issues that have been decided by or are before the courts.
7Based on its review of the application, the Society’s summary reply and the Court documents, the Board has determined that it has no jurisdiction to hear the application. The reasons for this decision follow.
BACKGROUND
8The Applicant is the father of two children. In 2009, the Court made an order of society wardship that included a reintegration plan to be followed by supervision order. The Society put a hold on the reintegration plan and the children were placed with the mother. The children were later apprehended from the care of the mother. The children were made crown wards without access, for the purposes of adoption on June [ ], 2012. The mother (not the Applicant) appealed that decision and the appeal is before the Court.
ANALYSIS
9The Board has no jurisdiction to hear complaints if they involve matters that are before the Court or have been decided by the Court. Section 68.1(8)(a) of the Act provides that:
68.1 (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.
10In his Application, the Applicant challenges the actions of the Society as they relate to its putting the reintegration plan on hold and placing the children with the mother. According to the Applicant “this was not what the court ordered”. The Applicant refers to what may have been an interim order following the apprehension of the children from the mother. The Application reads: the “judge ruled that the father’s access should be increased”. According to the Applicant, access was reduced by the Society. Finally the Applicant refers to the June 2012 order in which the children were made crown wards without access as being based on “lies given by the child protection worker to the doctor who admitted on the stand in trial that he was “biased” toward the CAS.”
11The first part of the Applicant’s complaint is about the Society’s failure to follow the Court’s reintegration and access orders. The Board has no authority to enforce or interpret Court orders relating to the placement of or access to the children. These are matters that were solely before the Court.
12The second part of the Applicant’s complaint is about the actual trial and “lies” that were allegedly told to the judge. The Board has no authority over what information is given to or accepted by the Court. The credibility of a party before the Court is a matter that only the Court can deal with. The credibility of the worker was an issue that had to be and was decided by the Court when making its final decision in June of 2012.
13The Board concludes that the subject matter of the Applicant’s complaint relates to matters that were decided by the Court.
CONCLUSION
14The Board has no jurisdiction to hear this Application and it is dismissed.
SHEENA SCOTT __________________________
Sheena Scott
Vice Chair
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 26th day of February, 2013.