DR v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2019 CFSRB 59

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

DR

Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services Niagara

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: October 3, 2019 Citation: 2019 CFSRB 59 Indexed As: DR v Family and Children’s Services Niagara (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION

1On June 11, 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 his application, the Applicant alleged that Family and Children’s Services Niagara (FCSN) failed to provide him with an opportunity to be heard regarding the health and safety of his children, as well as with custody and access issues. The Applicant also alleged that FCSN did not provide him with reasons for their decisions relating to custody, access, FCSN findings related to his mental health status, sharing of his personal information, and changing expectations on the part of FCSN.

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 his children in extended FCSN care, with his child welfare concerns regarding his ex-partner, with issues of access, and with information sharing among parties. I therefore find that the Applicant’s concerns relate to services he received from the FCSN.

6Despite being in receipt of services from FCSN, 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).

8The CFSRB Rules Rule 4.1 (Rules of Procedure) states that a document may be delivered by e-mail if the person receiving it has consented to service by e-mail. The Applicant provided an e-mail along with his application and provided an updated e-mail verbally to a CFSRB member. The Application indicates that: “Providing your email address means you agree the CFSRB can e-mail you instead of using mail or fax”. Rule 4.2 states that a document that is sent by e-mail is considered delivered on the day that it is sent. To date, the CFSRB has not received submissions from the Applicant as directed on August 8, 2019.

9The Applicant provided an updated e-mail during a Case Management Teleconference on August 7, 2019. In a August 8, 2019, Case Management Direction (CMD), the Applicant was directed in writing 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 September 6, 2019 to provide submissions on this matter. The Case Processing Officer confirmed that the CMD requesting submissions was e-mailed to the Applicant at the updated e-mail address. The e-mail was not returned as undeliverable. As such, there is no evidence before me that the CMD was not received by the Applicant.

10In the absence of submissions by the Applicant, I carefully reviewed the Application and supporting documents provided by the FCSN. I find that the contents of the Application deal solely with child welfare, custody, access matters, disclosure, and FCSN decision-making matters which have been dealt with by the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court (the Court).

11Given that FCSN has provided sufficient, credible and trustworthy evidence to support its argument that all matters in the Application 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.