KA v. Children’s Aid Society of Algoma, 2020 CFSRB 31

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

KA Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: April 06, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 31 Indexed As: KA v Children’s Aid Society of Algoma (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2This decision explains why the Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB.

The Law

3Section 120(8)(a) of the Act states:

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.

Background

4The Applicant complains that the Respondent has not let her see her children since October 2019.

5In answering Question 9 on the Application (Has the concern you describe above been dealt with in Court?), the Applicant states “Yes, but the judge and my lawyer did absolutely nothing”.

6In answering Question 10 on the Application (Is the concern you describe above currently before the Court?), the Applicant states “Yes, but courts shut down due to covid now I’m stuck in NFLD with no help”.

7The Respondent has provided the CFSRB with the October 16, 2019 decision of Justice Kwolek of the Ontario Court of Justice placing the children in the temporary care and custody of their father subject to interim supervision by the Respondent. Justice Kwolek’s decision also provided that the Applicant’s access to the children would be supervised in the discretion of the Respondent.

Analysis

8The 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).

9The Applicant’s concerns are about lack of access to her children. She acknowledges that this issue has been dealt with by the Court and is still before the Court. She criticizes her lawyer and the judge who dealt with her case.

10The Applicant’s dissatisfaction with her lawyer and with the judge who dealt with her case cannot be addressed by the CFSRB. The current COVID-19 pandemic does not change the CFSRB’s substantive jurisdiction. Issues of access remain within the jurisdiction of the Courts.

11For these reasons, I conclude that the subject matter of the Application is not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the Court. As a result, the CFSRB is barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Act from reviewing the Application.

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 online. 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.