CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
J.L. and G.P.
v.
Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County
REASONS FOR DECISION: WRITTEN REVIEW
Indexed as: J.L. and G.P v. Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received two applications on June 17, 2013 regarding a complaint against Family and Children’s Services of the County of Renfrew (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, as amended (the “Act”). Both applications relate to the same facts and stated the same complaints and were therefore dealt with together.
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 applications.
3On July 2, 2013, the Board determined that the applications were eligible to proceed under section 68.1 (4) 4 which relates to the Applicants’ right to be heard by the Society and section 68. 1(4) 5 which relates to Applicants’ right to be given reasons for decisions that affect their interests.
4The Board received the Society’s reply to the applications on July 25, 2013. The Society also provided copies of materials contained in the Child Protection Continuing Record including various affidavits, plans of care and endorsements on August 1, 2013.
5The Society’s position is that the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear the applications because the subject matter of the Applicants’ complaint relates to issues that have been decided by or are before the courts.
6Based on its review of the applications, the Society’s reply and the Court documents, the Board has determined that it has no jurisdiction to hear the applications. The reasons for this decision follow.
BACKGROUND
7The Applicants are the mother and father of one child. The Society initiated a Child Protection Application and, on March [], 2013, an interim order was made where the Applicant father was to have no contact with the child unless approved by the Society. He was not to reside in the home with the child and was only to have contact with the child when supervised by a worker of the Society.
8On May 29, 2013, the Society removed the child from the Applicant mother’s care. Part of the Society’s case included pictures taken from the Applicant mother’s [social media site] which are alleged to disclose a contravention of the interim order. The Applicants dispute this. The Applicants complain that the Society worker made a false statement to the Court regarding the [social media site]pictures. These issues will be determined at an upcoming Care and Custody Hearing 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.
10Upon review of the Court materials the Board concludes that the subject matter of the Applicants’ complaints relates to matters that are directly before the Court. Therefore, the Board has no authority to hear the applications.
CONCLUSION
11The Board has no jurisdiction to hear this Application and it is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
12Parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including through the media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board’s proceedings.
NATHALIE FORTIER _________________
Nathalie Fortier
Vice Chair
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 12^th^ day of August, 2013.