CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
V.D. and P.V.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION
Date: May 19, 2016
Citation: 2016 CFSRB 18
Indexed as: V.D. and P.V. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CFSA s.68)
1The Applicant (the “Mother”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the Board) on December 7, 2015 under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990 c.C24, as amended (the Act). The Application was found eligible under sub-sections 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 and a hearing was scheduled for April 1, 2016. On that date the father of the child (the “Father”) was present and added as an Applicant on consent of all the parties.
2On April 1, 2016 the Society brought a motion challenging the Board’s jurisdiction to hear the Application on the basis that four of the issues were before the court or have been decided by the court. This is the Board’s reasons for decision on the motion.
3The issues raised in this application, as defined at the pre-hearing are the following:
The Application consists of the following complaints under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 of the Act:
That the Society has not heard the Mother’s service concerns or heard her when decisions were made and has not provided her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests, regarding the following:
The request for a change in worker and supervisor;
The issue of the worker being not “licenced”;
The request to have the case transferred to the Catholic Children’s Aid Society;
The request for instructions and an application form for an I.C.R.P.;
The request for medical records of the Child;
The status of the O.C.L. lawyer vis-à-vis the Society.
4The Society conceded the Board has jurisdiction to hear issues 1 and 4. After hearing the parties’ arguments the Board has decided it does not have jurisdiction on the remaining issues and they are dismissed.
Background
5The Applicants are the parents of a child who has been in the care of the Society since May 16, 2011. The trial on the child protection application took place from September 24, 2013 to May 28, 2015 over 35 days. On July 29, 2015, Justice [W] made the child a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption. The Mother filed an appeal that was scheduled to be heard in April 2016.
Jurisdiction
6Pursuant to section 68.1(8) of the Act, the Board cannot hear a complaint if the issue raised in the complaint has been decided by the Court or is before the Court.
No review if matter within purview of court
(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;
Issue #2
Society’s workers not “licenced”
7The Society argued that the issue of the Society’s workers not being licensed was before the court. The Applicants had argued before Justice [W] who heard the Child Protection Application that the Society’s Protection Application was illegal as it was commenced by a non-registered social worker. The Applicants cross-examined the child service worker on this at some length on November 5, 2013.
8Justice [W] put the matter ‘to bed’ deciding that … “the Act specifically refers to child protection workers and says the way they get licences is under the authority of the director”.
9The Board does not have jurisdiction on issue 2 as it was decided by the court.
Issue # 3
The request to have the case transferred to the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS)
10During the Child Protection Application, the Applicants asked that the file be transferred to Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto.
11It is clear from the Justice [S]’s endorsement dated April 22, 2013 that the Court considered and dismissed the Applicants’ request to transfer the file.
12Consequently, the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear that issue as it was before and decided by the court.
Issue # 5
The request for the Child’s medical records
13The Mother filed a Form 20 (Request for Information) with the court, on November 16, 2015 seeking all the child’s medical information from May 16, 2011, date of the apprehension, to November 16, 2015, date of the request.
14A Form 20 request places the issue before the court as the court may order the party to provide the information sought. The Board concludes that this issue was before the court.
15Furthermore, on March 2, 2016, Justice [K] denied the Mother’s motion for, among other things, production of the child’s medical records in its entirety. The Board concludes that the issue of disclosure of medical records has been decided by the court.
Issue # 6
The status of the O.C.L. lawyer
16The O.C.L. assigned to represent the child in the Child Protection proceeding was at the same time representing the Society in another file. The Applicants consider this a conflict of interest.
17The Society explained that it is not uncommon that societies hire lawyers in private practice to represent societies. The Society argued that the Board does not have jurisdiction over that issue as it is not related to a service sought or received by the Applicants.
18The Board agrees that this is not an issue for the Board to determine. The legal representation of the child was ordered by the Court and is not a service provided by the Society. The Board may hear complaints involving a society only as related to services sought or received by applicants as stipulated in section 68.1(1) of the Act:
68.1 (1) If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may,
(a) decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 68 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section;
19This is not a question for the Child and Family Services Review Board. The Board concludes that this issue is not within its jurisdiction.
Conclusion
20The Board has no jurisdiction for the above reasons on the issues 2, 3, 5 and 6. The Board will continue the hearing on issues 1 and 4 on May 25, 2016.
Confidentiality Order
21Pursuant to Rules 30.1 and 30.2 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure parties 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, except with an order of the Court or the Board, as appropriate.
SUZANNE GILBERT _____________________
Suzanne Gilbert
Associate-Chair
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 19th day of May, 2016.