MM v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2020 CFSRB 94

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MM

Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley

Date: November 3, 2020

Citation: 2020 CFSRB 94

Indexed As: MM v Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

(CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) pursuant to section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2The Application alleges the Respondent did not give reasons for decisions that affected the Applicant’s interests and refused to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint.

BACKGROUND

3The Applicant answered “yes” to question 9 (Has the concern you describe above been dealt with in Court) and question 10 (Is the concern you describe above currently before the Court).

4The Application includes the following statement:

Please let me know if this is not the right place to raise my voice. At the moment I am in the court process to get back the custody of my children.

5After filing the Application, the Applicant also sent the CFSRB documents from proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice (“OCJ”) and from legal proceedings in Iran.

THE LAW

6Section 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.

ANALYSIS

7Section 120(8)(a) of the Act bars the CFSRB from reviewing an Application where the issues in the Application have been decided by the court or are before the court.

8The documents provided by the Applicant demonstrate that his complaint is about the same issues that have already been decided by or are currently before the OCJ. For example, paragraph 1 of the Application alleges that the Respondent has accused him of mental health issues without proof. This allegation is also contained in paragraph 11 of his August 2018 Answer and Plan of Care in the OCJ proceedings. His allegations that the Respondent has unfairly preferred his wife’s “false accusations” are also contained in the OCJ documents.

9Given my findings regarding the OCJ documents, it is not necessary to determine the impact of the foreign legal proceedings on the eligibility of the Application.

10For these reasons, this Application is ineligible for review by the CFSRB.

ORDER

11The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

12Pursuant 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 on-line. 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.