CY v. Bruce Grey Child and Family Services, 2020 CFSRB 82

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CY

Applicant

-and-

Bruce Grey Child and Family Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: September 08, 2020

Citation: 2020 CFSRB 82

Indexed As: CY v Bruce Grey Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

CY, Applicant

Self-represented

Bruce Grey Child and Family Services

Charmaine Pette, Supervisor

Introduction

1On August 28, 2019 an Application was 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 the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The Application identified the following concerns:

1. Navnett Gill and Donna Broga fabricated information about the Applicant
2. Navnett Gill and Donna Broga did not properly investigate allegations of emotional abuse of his daughter by the Applicant’s ex-partner
3. The Respondent did not follow-up on new information
4. An Amber Alert was issued against the Applicant without justification
5. Navnett Gill and Donna Broga received information protected under the Privacy Act
6. The Respondent did not provide a response regarding issues of interference in the court order, drinking, and concerns with his ex-partner’s family
7. The Applicant’s ex-partner lied to courts and involved his daughter in misleading the court
8. Concerns that someone was reporting to police and to the courts
9. Respondent comments regarding the Applicant’s mental health were not supported or verified

4On September 23, 2019, Bruce Grey Child and Family Services (the Respondent) submitted a letter to the CFSRB requesting that the Application be dismissed as it amounted to a relitigation of issues in the Applicant’s previous Application dated February 18, 2017.

5In a Case Management Direction, the CFSRB directed the Applicant to make written submissions to address the following two questions:

1. Have the issues in the current Application already been dealt with by the CFSRB in CA17-0059?
2. Would it be an abuse of process for the CFSRB to permit the current Application to proceed?

6After consideration of all the evidence before it, I dismissed concerns 1- 9 and allowed concern 10 (unverified comments by Respondent staff regarding the Applicant’s mental health status) to proceed to a Pre-Hearing/Mediation Teleconference.

the law

7Subsection 120(8) 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

8A Pre-Hearing Mediation Teleconference was held on May 29, 2020. During the Pre-Hearing, the Applicant agreed to provide the CFSRB with copies of 3 letters which allegedly were authored by the Respondent staff which commented on his mental health (August 5, 2005 letter signed by Ms. Broga and Ms. Gill; May 27, 2014 letter not presented to Court; March 15, 2017 letter authored by the CAS and presented in Court by the Applicant’s ex-partner). During the Pre-Hearing, the Respondent agreed to access the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) record to ascertain whether these proceedings addressed the Respondent’s comments on the Applicant’s mental health. Both parties were asked to provide submissions on whether issues related to the Applicant’s mental health were before the Court pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act.

9In an e-mail dated June 18, 2020, the Applicant indicated that he sent the CFSRB 3 letters which included one original letter. The CFSRB implemented a search for the letters; however, they could not be located. In a Case Management Direction (CMD) dated June 24, 2020, the Applicant was asked to re-send copies of the 2 letters to the CFSRB; and provide the CFSRB more details on the May 27, 2014 letter such as who authored it and to whom it was sent to assist the Respondent in locating the letter in its record systems. In addition, the Respondent was asked to search its record and located the 2 letters authored by Respondent staff which were identified at the pre-hearing mediation. The deadlines for providing these documents and submissions were extended until July 31 for the Respondent and August 28, 2020 for the Applicant.

10In communication with the CFSRB, the Applicant attributed negligence on the part of the CFRSB with regard to the missing letters. I note that the CMD of May 29, 2020 clearly indicates that the Applicant should forward “copies” of the 3 letters. The decision to send an original letter by regular mail was solely the Applicant’s. The CFSRB cannot take responsibility for the Applicant’s actions, especially when other options were available to him to disclose the documents to the CFSRB.

11Subsequent to a voluntary search of its records, the Respondent disclosed copies of the August 5, 2005 letter and the May 27, 2014 letter to the Applicant as part of its submissions on July 30, 2020. The Respondent was unable to locate a letter dated March 15, 2007 in its records.

12I also note that between the Pre-Hearing Mediation session and writing this decision, the Applicant sent several e-mails to the CFSRB demanding disclosure of documents from the Respondent which he alleged went to the merits of his Application. In a CMD dated June 12, 2020, I clarified that I was not at the point where I was considering the merits of the Application. I must consider whether or not the Respondent’s comments or statements regarding the Applicant’s mental health were issues that were dealt with by the Court. If such comments were placed before the Court, the CFSRB would not have jurisdiction to review this aspect of the Application. The CMD reiterated that submissions and disclosure due at the end of August 2020 should focus on the issue of jurisdiction and would not go to the merits of the claim.

13The Respondent provided its submission on July 30, 2020. In its submissions, the Respondent indicated that the August 5, 2005 letter referred to by the Applicant had been included as Exhibit A and referred to in an affidavit authored by the Applicant’s former partner as part of Court File 135/15. The affidavit referred to custody and access arrangements for the child in proceedings which resulted in a final order made on May 31, 2010 granting the Applicant’s ex-partner sole custody of the child. The Respondent argued that the Court considered the Applicant’s mental health in respect to access issues.

14The Respondent could not locate a letter dated March 15, 2007 and suggested that there were insufficient particulars about this letter to enable the CFSRB to make a finding in relation to the letter. It suggested that the CFSRB dismiss this aspect of the Applicant’s complaint.

15A review of the August 5, 2005 letter signed by Navneet Gill and Donna Broga from the Respondent comments on the Applicant’s mental health. It recommended supervised access and indicated that the Applicant should: “attend and follow through on assessment and treatment for his mental health” as a condition for more open access. This letter was appended to the Applicant’s ex-partner’s affidavit dated September 6, 2005 which was placed before the Court. It was also referred to in paragraph 5 of the Applicant’s ex-partner’s affidavit dated September 6, 2005.

16The Applicant’s ex-partner’s opening statement in Court File 135/15 indicated that the Applicant “exhibits all the attributes of a sociopath; he is manipulative, charming, bizarre, and dishonest with a lengthy record of criminal behaviour. He has no remorse or any empathy for his victims”. It further links the Applicant’s lawsuits against the ex-spouse and her parents as an indication of his mental instability.

17The letter of May 27, 2014 identified that the Respondent had concerns regarding the Applicant’s mental health. This letter did not appear to have been presented to the Courts.

18The Applicant reiterated his concerns with the Respondent’s staff’s unverified statements regarding his mental health in his submissions. He indicated that the CFSRB should hold a hearing to provide him and his witnesses the opportunity to refute the Respondent’s claims and alleged falsehoods regarding his mental health. A hearing would provide the Applicant with a chance to clear his name and protect himself and his daughter from future false child welfare actions.

ANALYSIS

19In analyzing the issue of jurisdiction, I focused on whether issues related to the Applicant’s mental health, and statements by Respondent staff were before the Court.

20The evidence before me clearly indicates that the August 5, 2005 letter by the Respondent which mentions the Applicant’s mental health concerns was before the Court in that it was cited in the Applicant’s ex-partner’s affidavit and was included as an attachment to the affidavit. The letter clearly indicates that the Applicant was required to follow through on an assessment and treatment for his mental health as a condition for unsupervised access.

21If the Applicant had concerns with the Respondent’s statements regarding his mental health status, it was incumbent on him and/or his counsel to challenge these concerns at the Court.

22There is no evidence that the May 27, 2014 letter from the Respondent was before the Court; however, the test is whether the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the Court or is before the Court. This letter indicated: “The Society has concerns with your mental health”. It does not provide further details of these concerns. I find that the opinions of the Respondent’s staff on the Applicant’s mental health was clearly before the Court in its own correspondence (August 5, 2007) as well as was cited by the Applicant’s former partner in her affidavit in access and custody proceedings before the Court. There is nothing in the May 27, 2014 letter that is different from the contents of the August 5, 2007 letter. As such, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address statement related to the Respondent’s mental health concerns in the May 27, 2014 letter as issues related to the Applicant’s mental health were squarely before the Court.

23I reflected on the March 15, 2007 letter. The Applicant alleged that he sent the original of this letter to the CFSRB; however, it did not arrive at our offices. This letter is not before me. As such, I cannot comment on its contents and whether or not the CFSRB has jurisdiction to address this.

SUMMARY

24I find that the issues in the Applicant’s complaint (Respondent comments about the Applicant’s mental health) are not separate and distinct from the substantive issues presented to the Court in the access and custody proceedings. As such, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the aspects of the Applicant’s complaint that deal with statements regarding his mental health.

25As noted above, issues 1 – 8 of the complaint were dismissed in an Interim Decision dated November 27, 2019.

order

26The Respondent’s Application is dismissed in its entirety.

confidentiality order

27Pursuant 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.