CH v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2020 CFSRB 36

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CH Applicant

-and-

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: April 17, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 36 Indexed As: CH v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (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 failed to protect her grandchildren (her son’s four children) and is not allowing her to see the children.

5The Applicant states that she was “initially excluded from my grandchildren’s lives by an interim order dated May 31, 2018, where I was not served with materials and did not appear in court”. She also refers to decisions by Justice Sherr and Justice Zisman finding the children in need of protection and awarding sole custody to the children’s mother.

6Both Justice Sherr and Justice Zisman denied the Applicant’s motions to be made a party to the proceedings involving her grandchildren.

7The Applicant is upset that Justice Zisman accepted the Respondent’s allegations that the Applicant had used inappropriate physical discipline with her grandchildren. She further states that Justice Zisman “misapprehended the evidence, made palpable and overriding errors of fact, and that it is against the principles of natural justice to prevent me from addressing Justice Zisman’s findings affecting me”.

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 the safety of her grandchildren while in the care of their mother, her lack of access to the children, the involvement of the Respondent in the Court proceedings and the decisions of the Court.

10The Applicant’s unhappiness with the Court’s findings about her behaviour and with the Court’s decisions cannot be addressed by the CFSRB. Nor can issues of access or the involvement of the Respondent in the Court proceedings. These issues are all within the jurisdiction of the Court.

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.