CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
W.T.
v.
Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County
REASONS FOR DECISION: WRITTEN REVIEW
Indexed as: W.T. v. Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from the Applicant on June 5, 2014 regarding a complaint against the Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (the “Society”) under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, as amended (the “Act”).
2On June 11, 2014, 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 Response. The application was found eligible under subsection 68.1(4) 4 and 5, which relate to statutory compliance with the obligations to provide an opportunity to be heard and to provide reasons for decisions to applicants. As another application had previously been filed by the Applicant, this application was found eligible only in relation to the issue related to unsupervised access being offered to a third party.
3The Board received the Society’s Response to the application on June 19, 2014 and additional documentation on June 20, 2014.
4The 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.
5It is the Applicant’s position that he was not heard about his concerns with the Society providing unsupervised access to the children’s mother and her partner.
6It is the Society’s position that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the application as this matter is before the Court.
7In support of its position, the Society provided the Board with a copy of the temporary order made January 21, 2014 in the child protection matter. On that day, the Applicant was present in court when the presiding Justice granted the mother and her partner unsupervised specific access to the children.
8As the issue raised by the Applicant was decided by the Court and is still before the court for further determinations, the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the Application.
CONCLUSION
9The Board dismisses the Applicant’s application.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
10Pursuant to Rules 30.1 and 30.2 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representatives must not use, share or disclose any documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including the media or on-line. Any documents or information shared by the parties must be used only for the purpose of the hearing of this application by the Board.
NATHALIE FORTIER ______________________
Nathalie Fortier
Vice Chair
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 4th day of July, 2014.