PT v. Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex, 2020 CFSRB 88

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

PT

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: September 24, 2020

Citation: 2020 CFSRB 88

Indexed As: PT v Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

PT, Applicant

Self-Represented

Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex, Respondent

Denise Marshall, Counsel

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

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 Application was found eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act: the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made, or a chance to be heard when he raised concerns about the services he is receiving; the Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affected his interests.

3The Applicant is the father of SMA and MA (the “Children”). The Application outlined the following issues/concerns:

1. The Respondent did not hear and investigate child protection concerns about the Children’s mother raised by the Applicant;

2. The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with explanations regarding its child protection concerns;

3. The Respondent did not serve the Applicant with Court documents;

4. Respondent staff refused to accept cease and desist letters; and

5. The Respondent refused to acknowledge their actions.

4In its Summary Reply, the Respondent indicated that the issues identified in the Application are issues that are currently before the Court in custody/access proceedings. As such, the CFSRB is barred from reviewing the Application pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act.

5In addition, the Respondent denied the allegations made in the Application. The Respondent has not initiated a Protection Application regarding the Applicant or the Children’s mother and therefore there are no Court papers to serve. The Respondent argued that whether or not staff refused to accept a cease and desist letter is not within the review purview of a section 120 review. The Respondent also did not understand the Applicant’s allegation that it refused to sign any form of acknowledgement of its actions and argued that any such action would not be within the purview of the CFSRB.

6In a Case Management Direction dated August 31, 2020, the parties were directed to make written submissions on the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act. Parties were asked to refer to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441.

7The Applicant provided submissions in the form of comments added to the Respondent’s Summary Reply. The submissions restated his concerns and refuted the content of the Summary Reply but did not address the issue of jurisdiction. The Applicant also provided an e-mail which further challenged the Respondent’s statements in the Summary Reply, and alleged further wrongdoing on the part of Respondent staff.

8The Respondent did not provide further submissions.

THE LAW

9Section 120 (8)(a) 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

10The 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).

11Section 120 (1) 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.

12In section 2(1), the Act defines “service” as follows:

“service” includes,

a) a service for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family

b) a mental health service for a child or the child’s family,

c) a service related to residential care for a child,

d) a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family,

e) a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others,

f) counselling for a child or the child’s family

g) a service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community,

h) a service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or

i) a prescribed service; (“service”).

ANALYSIS

13In analyzing the claim, I focused on whether issue/concern 1 set out in the application had been or is currently before the Court. I then considered whether issue 3 related to a service received by the Applicant from the Respondent and therefore would be eligible for CFSRB review. Finally, I considered the Applicant’s request for the Respondent to acknowledge its actions, and his argument that he was not provided with an explanation for the Respondent’s actions (issues/concerns 2, 4, and 5).

14In question 10 of his Application, the Applicant indicated that his concerns were before the Court. The Respondent confirmed that there are current custody/access proceedings before the Court. It is reasonable to expect that the Applicant would raise any child protection concerns with the mother of the Children before the Court as part of his custody and access pleadings. The Court will then have an opportunity to assess the totality of the evidence regarding the best interests of the Children in its findings. As such, I find that the CFSRB is precluded from reviewing the child protection concerns expressed by the Applicant as these concerns will be addressed through ongoing Court proceedings.

15With respect to issue/concern 3, I note that the Respondent has not initiated child protection proceedings against the Applicant. As such, issues related to serving Court documents are outside the scope of a service as defined by section 2(1) of the Act in section 120 of the Act and is therefore excluded from review by the CFSRB.

16Similarly, whether the Applicant’s concerns regarding Respondent staff’s reception of a cease and desist letter does not relate to a particular service sought or provided by the Respondent. The cease and desist letter was initiated by the Applicant, and relates to legal issues between the Applicant and the Respondent. There is no provision in section 120 of the Act that would require a society to provide an explanation for its handling of a non-service action initiated by a parent. As such, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to address this issue pursuant to section 120 of the Act.

17The Applicant expressed a desire that the Respondent provide him with an acknowledgement related to its actions. The Respondent is required to provide an explanation for decisions it has made pursuant to section 120(5) of the Act. It is a reasonable expectation that a person in receipt of services by a society receive an explanation for a society’s decisions and/or actions.

18In this case, I find that the Respondent has provided an explanation for its actions. The Respondent provided the Applicant with a letter dated August 23, 2019 which explained that the society investigated child protection concerns. The letter indicated that Respondent staff discussed Applicant’s concerns on two occasions. The letter clearly identified the concerns and the requirement for ongoing services. While the Applicant may disagree with the Respondent’s conclusions or actions, he was provided with an explanation and the Respondent’s reasoning for opening the file and for the file to be monitored as an ongoing service as is required under section 120 of the Act.

19It is unclear what the Applicant means by “acknowledge their actions”. Nevertheless, section 120(4)(5) of the Act indicates that the CFSRB can review: “Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests”. The expectation of societies is to provide an explanation and not an acknowledgement as the Applicant wished.

20I find that the Applicant has been provided with a written explanation for the Respondent’s decisions and positions regarding child protection issues as is required in the Act.

ORDER

21The Application is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

22Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this Application with anyone including through the media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the Board, as appropriate.