NL v. Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, 2020 ONCFSRB 37

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

NL Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: April 21, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 37 Indexed As: NL v Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

NL, Applicant Self-represented

Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, Respondent Tony Circelli, Counsel

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”).

2The CFSRB found the Application eligible under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)(5) of the Act.

3In its March 25, 2020 Response, the Respondent requested the Application be dismissed on the basis that the Applicant “is not satisfied with the outcome of the [Court] proceeding and is using the CFSRB process as an indirect route to achieve the outcome she wants”.

the law

4Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure states that after determining eligibility the CFSRB will either:

a. make its decision based on the application and the response; or

b. decide to hold a hearing.

5Section 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

6The Applicant is the mother of one child.

7On December 13, 2019, the Ontario Court of Justice ordered the Applicant’s child be placed in the temporary care of the child’s father subject to supervision by the Respondent. The Court also ordered the Applicant have access with the child in the discretion of the Respondent and in consultation with the father.

8The remedies the Applicant seeks in her CFSRB Application include “my child be returned to me immediately”.

analysis

9Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure permits the CFSRB to decide an Application on the basis of the Application and the Response. I have concluded that this is an appropriate case in which to do so given the materials submitted by the parties. I have before me the December 13, 2019 Court Order and an excerpt from the Court’s reasons for decision submitted by the Applicant.

10The Court Order is clear that the Applicant’s access with her child is subject to the discretion of the Respondent with the father’s views also being taken into account. The excerpt from the reasons refers to criminal charges against the Applicant and concludes the Applicant “by her poor judgment, poses a risk to herself and by extension, presents a risk to the physical and emotional development of [the child].” The Court also comments “I am assuming that all access to mother will be fair and reasonable under the circumstances”.

11The 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 if the complaints are “separate and different from the substantive issues before the court” (para 35).

12It is clear from the Application that the Applicant does not consider her access “fair and reasonable”. That, however, is an issue within the jurisdiction of the Court and not the CFSRB.

13I find the issues in the Application are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. Rather, the Applicant’s complaints are about the Respondent’s actions during the Court proceedings and the Respondent’s implementation of the Court Order.

14As I have concluded that the subject matter of the Application is not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the Court the CFSRB is barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Act from reviewing the Application.

order

15The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

16Pursuant 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.