AM v. Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions, 2020 CFSRB 108

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AM

Applicant

-and-

Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: December 10, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 108 Indexed As: AM v Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

AM, Applicant Self-Represented

Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions, Respondent Karen O’Keefe, Counsel

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2The Application was found eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. The allegation is that the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made, or a chance to be heard when she raised concerns about the services she is receiving. The Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affected her interests.

3The Applicant is the mother of a daughter (“Child”). The complaint alleged the following issues/concerns:

1. The Respondent was not honest in its documents presented to Court and filed the opinion of a worker who has never spoken to the Applicant;

2. The Respondent disregarded the letter from the Applicant’s psychiatrist indicating that the Applicant does not require medication;

3. The Respondent has failed to return the Child to her custody;

4. The Respondent disregarded the Applicant’s past history of no violence or problems with the law, and healthy living.

4The Respondent argued it its Summary Response to the Application that the Applicant is currently involved in a child protection matter before the Courts which addresses the temporary care and custody of the Child. The Application should only be reviewed by the CFSRB once the Protection Application has been resolved.

5In a Case Management Direction (CMD) dated November 16, 2020, the parties were directed to provide written submissions on the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint. They were asked to refer to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441.

6The Respondent provided copies of the Protection Application and Superior Court of Justice Family Court Endorsements along with its Summary Reply.

7In its Submissions, the Respondent argued that the complaint focused on the Child’s apprehension and issues of access.

8The Applicant provided the following submission: “I received an email today and am requesting a hearing a decitions [sic] were made for myself and my newborn without allowing me to be heard. This is written submission on the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear the Application. Kind Regards”.

9The Applicant sent a further e-mail to the CFSRB dated December 7, 2020 indicating that the protection application is a lie. Respondent staff are harassing her and making her jump through hoops. They want her to fail in order to force her to take medication. They have portrayed her as someone who she is not.

10The Applicant has sent the CFSRB many e-mails since her Application was filed on October 20, 2020. These e-mails dealt with access, custody, and other issues related to the merits of her claim or concerns with Respondent staff. They do not; however, address the issue of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the complaint.

THE LAW

11Section 120 (8)(a) 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

12The 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).

ANALYSIS

13In analysing the Application, I focused on whether the issues/concerns identified in the complaint had been or are currently before the Court.

14The Applicant has been involved in child protection proceedings since August 14, 2020. The Child was placed in the temporary custody of the Respondent (6 months) on August 14, 2020. Access with the Applicant was at the discretion of the Respondent. A Temporary Care and Custody Hearing was held on November 13, 2020.

15The Applicant’s concerns deal with the basis for the apprehension of the Child. These issues were placed squarely before the Court and continue to be addressed by the Court.

16I note that the Respondent has been given the responsibility for access at its discretion. The discretionary administration of access by a child protection agency is an issue that can fall outside the section 120(8) exemption. In this case; however, the Applicant has not included concerns with the implementation of access in her complaint.

17The Respondent’s Application to the Court dated August 13, 2020 outlined the history of the apprehension, including a report by the hospital indicating concerns regarding the Applicant’s mental health (schizophrenia and noncompliance with medication advice). The Child Protection Worker gathered information from nursing and social work staff at the hospital. The Applicant denied any mental health issues. The Application outlined the interaction between the Child Protection Worker and the Applicant, including the fact that the Applicant signed a Temporary Care Agreement which she later cancelled. The Child Protection Worker also gathered information about the Applicant and her past from the Applicant’s family members.

18Based on a review of the Child Protection Application, I find that issues of custody; the Applicant’s mental health and treatment; the interaction between the Applicant and Child Protection Workers; and the Applicant’s past history and lifestyle are issues that have been placed before the Court and or are currently before the Court. The Applicant is free to raise any concerns with these issues or the Respondent’s evidence in the Court proceedings.

19Based on a review of the submissions and the Protection Application, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s complaint given that the subject matter of the complaint are issues that have been and are currently before the Court and therefore fall outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction as per sections 120(4), 120(5), and 120(8) of the Act.

ORDER

20The Application is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

21Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 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.

Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of December, 2020.

Daniel McSweeney

_________________________________

Daniel McSweeney

Member