IM v. Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, 2019 CFSRB 58

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

IM Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: September 30, 2019 Citation: 2019 CFSRB 58 Indexed As: IM v Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION

1On July 18, 2019, the Applicant filed this Application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) pursuant to section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

BACKGROUND

2In her application, the Applicant alleged that she and her children were not provided with an opportunity to be heard in relation to the placement of her two children in extended care of the Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (FCS). She also indicated that she wanted to have contact with her children.

THE LAW

3Section 120 of the Act provides that, if a person has “a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society [and the complaint] relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may decide” to make a complaint to either the society or the CFSRB.

4Subsection 120 (8) of the Act states that:

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; or b) is subject to another decision-making process under this Act or the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

ANALYSIS

5For a complaint to be eligible for review under section 120 of the Act, an applicant must be seeking or receiving services or have received services from a society and the complaint must relate to those services. The Applicant’s complaint deals with issues associated with the decision to place her children in extended society care and with access issues, and therefore relate to services the Applicant received from the FCS.

6Despite being in receipt of services from FCS, the CFSRB cannot deal with any part of the Application which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the court as per Section 120(8)(a) of the Act outlined in paragraph 4 (above).

7The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441, that the mere existence of a child protection proceeding does not automatically bar the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint about the services an individual has received from a children’s aid society. In DD the Court found that complaints about how the children’s aid society had handled the temporary placement of the applicant’s children could proceed before the CFSRB. Those complaints “were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court” (para 35).

8On July 30, 2019, the Applicant was directed to provide submissions on whether there were any areas of the complaint that did not relate to the matters that were decided by the Court. The Applicant was given until August 20, 2019 to provide submissions on this matter. The Case Processing Officer confirmed that the Case Management Direction requesting submissions was sent to the Applicant by mail and that it was not returned. The CFSRB Rules of Procedure (Rule 4.2) states that a document is considered delivered on the fifth day after it is mailed. To date, the CFSRB has not received submissions from the Applicant as directed on July 30, 2019.

9In the absence of submissions by the Applicant, I carefully reviewed the Application and supporting documents provided by the FCS. I find that the Application deals solely with custody and access matters which have been dealt with by the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court (the Court).

10The FCS documents confirm that the Applicant signed an Answer and Plan of Care on January 11, 2019 which indicated that she agreed that her children should be adopted. The Applicant signed a Statement of Agreed Facts on March 1, 2019 which was filed at the Court on March 6, 2019 in which the Applicant consented to her 2 children being placed in the extended care of FCS. Finally, on March 18, 2019, Justice Robertson made an access order in relation to the Applicant’s two children. The Applicant was represented by counsel throughout the extended care process and Court proceedings.

11Given that FCS has provided sufficient, credible and trustworthy evidence to support its argument that all matters in the Application (custody, access) were dealt with by the Court; and given the provisions of s. 120(8)(a) above, I find that the Application is ineligible for review by the CFSRB.

ORDER

12The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

13Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB 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 CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.