GV v York Region Children’s Aid Society, 2020 CFSRB 4

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

GV Applicant

-and-

York Region Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: January 07, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 4 Indexed As: GV v York Region Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

GV, Applicant GV, Self-represented

York Region Children’s Aid Society Josephine Kang, Counsel

Introduction

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 Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) found that the Application was eligible to proceed under section 120(4)(5) of the Act.

BACKGROUND

3The Applicant alleged that:

• The Respondent has made it impossible to get information about his daughter
• He has not been provided satisfactory updates about his daughter while he was engaged in the court process
• The Society treated him unfairly by not responding to his calls
• The Society treated him unfairly because he is on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)
• His daughter’s mother has not followed the Court Order to register with the Family Wizard Program so that he could communicate with his daughter and the Respondent has failed to inform him of the status of the Family Wizard Program
• His Charter rights were violated

4In its November 26, 2019 Summary Response, the Respondent asserted that the complaint should be dismissed as all the issues included in the complaint were addressed before the Court. Court Orders have been issued which deal with access and address ongoing communication via OurFamilyWizard.

5In a Case Management Direction of December 6, 2019, the Applicant and Respondent were directed to provide submissions regarding the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear the Application based on s. 120(8) of the Act and the Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441 Decision (see below).

6The Respondent provided submissions on December 16, 2019 and the Applicant provided submissions on December 25, 2019.

7The Applicant’s submissions reiterated most of the concerns in his complaint and indicated that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear the complaint as the issues are no longer before the Court. The Applicant also highlighted what he alleged were failings in his representation and in his treatment before the Court.

8The Respondent’s submissions provided supporting documentation to its Summary Reply, and reiterated that the complaint should be dismissed as the matters have been decided by the Court.

the law

9Section 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.

10Subsection 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.

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. 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

12For 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 is the father of a child who has received services from the Respondent and the Applicant has received services from the Respondent in relation to access visits with his daughter. Therefore, I find that the Applicant received services from the Respondent.

13I then turned my mind to whether the subject matter of the Applicant’s complaint were issues that are currently before the Court or have been decided by the Court as per section 120(8) of the Act.

14The Respondent provided an Order from the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court which included the following:

• Custody provisions
• Supervised access of 2 hours on alternating Saturdays at a Supervised Access Centre until the Applicant provides a letter from a psychiatrist confirming that the Applicant is able to have access to the child without supervision and the lack of supervision will not pose a safety risk to the child
• All communications regarding access and the child’s well-being shall take place through legal counsel or through OurFamilyWizard
• Any changes to the terms of the custody access order will be brought to the attention of the Respondent

15In addition, the Respondent provided a copy of a Restraining Order from the same Court which precludes communication, contact, or physical proximity between the Applicant and the mother of his child except in the presence of counsel or through OurFamilyWizard.

16I note that conditions of and decisions related to access and custody were placed squarely before the Court on multiple occasions. The Court issued final access and custody orders on April 18, 2019. As such, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address these issues.

17In his complaint, the Applicant argued that the Respondent has made it impossible to get information about his daughter. The Summary Response from the Respondent outlines a litany of aberrant behaviour by the Applicant against Respondent staff. This behaviour has culminated in several Court Orders limiting the Applicant’s communication with the Respondent as well as with the mother of his child. The March 3, 2015 Court Order indicated that medical issues will be communicated with the Applicant via (redacted name). The Respondent also brokered an arrangement that the child’s mother would provide written updates through her lawyer every 3 months which occurred while the matter was at Court.

18I also note that, based on an order dated October 13, 2016, the Applicant was ordered not to contact other parties by telephone unless in a response to a call initiated by them, and then only one call in response. In addition, the Order continued a previous order from March 24, 2016 prohibiting attendance by the Applicant at the Respondent’s office unless arranged in advance.

19The Respondent sought and was successful in addressing communication issues through Court Orders, including communication regarding the status of his daughter. For these reasons, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s complaint in relation to these communication issues as they were decided by the Court.

20The Applicant alleged that his daughter’s mother has not followed the Court Order to register with the OurFamilyWizard program so that he could communicate with his daughter. In addition, the Applicant alleged that the Respondent has failed to inform him about whether his daughter’s mother has registered with the OurFamilyWizard Program. The final Court Order (April 18, 2019) directed that: “all communication regarding access and the child’s wellbeing shall take place through legal counsel or through OurFamilyWizard”. The order does not specify a role for the Respondent in ensuring communication between the two parents, including the issue of OurFamilyWizard. I note that the Respondent closed the Family’s file in September of 2019. Should the Applicant feel that his child’s mother is not adhering to this term in the Order, the remedy available to him is to return to Court who issued the original order. This CFSRB cannot consider a remedy for the Appellant when the most appropriate remedy falls within the purview of the Court.

21Based on the above, I find the issues of ongoing communication between the Applicant; his daughter’s mother; and the Respondent were decided by the Court and therefore are subject to the prohibition in section 120(8).

22The Applicant alleged that he was treated unfairly and judged because of his personality and character, as well as his being in receipt of ODSP. I note that the communication restrictions and challenges between the Applicant and the Respondent were addressed above, and were subject to a Court order based on the Applicant’s behaviour. As such, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to address this aspect of the complaint.

23The Respondent cites the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“the Charter”) in his complaint. He alleged a link between his receipt of ODSP and discrimination based on disability; however, he has not provided enough specificity for the CFSRB to address this aspect of his complaint.

24For the reasons cited above, I find that the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to address the Applicant’s complaint as the issues in the complaint were decided by various Court Orders over the years. In addition, the Applicant has not provided sufficient detail for the CFSRB to address a Charter violation on the part of the Respondent.

ORDER

25The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

26Pursuant 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.