IK v. Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry, 2021 CFSRB 16

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

IK Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry Respondent

ERK-W Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry Respondent

VW Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: March 17, 2021 Citation: 2021 CFSRB 16 Indexed As: IK v Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry (CYFSA s.120) ERK-W v Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry (CYFSA s.120) VW v Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

IK, Applicant Self-represented

ERK-W, Applicant Self-represented

VW, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry, Respondent Melanie Verdone, Counsel

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1These are three Applications 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 Applications were filed by three family members: IK, the mother (CA21-0001), ERK-W, the daughter (CA21-0004) and VW, the father (CA21-0011). Their complaints are almost identical. All deal with the family’s experiences in Germany (where ERK-W was apprehended by the local authorities), the involvement of the Respondent in ERK-W’s return to Canada and the family’s interactions with the Respondent thereafter. The CFSRB joined the 3 applications as they dealt with the same set of facts with only minor variations and bearing in mind the efficient use of the Applicant’s and Respondent’s time, and the CFSRB’s resources.

3The CFSRB found all three Applications eligible under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act and directed the Respondent to address section 120(8)(a) of the Act in its Responses to the Applications.

4The Applicants’ complaints involving Ontario child welfare authorities included the following:

• The Respondent’s Ontario Court case was based on the hearsay statements (alleged child abuse; exposure to the child of drugs; illegal dealings by the parents; parents’ marital status; parents’ mental health; criminal record of the Father) of German child welfare authorities which were not in affidavit form, and for which no original documentation was presented;
• The Applicant was concerned with some of the documents presented at Court by the Respondent; and
• The Respondent has covered-up the crimes of German child welfare authorities.

5The Daughter’s complaint was accompanied with several Case Logs, a report from the Munich Higher Regional Court; and an affidavit of Service from the Superior Court of Justice.

6The Respondent filed Responses on January 27, 2021 (CA21-0001 and CA21-0004) and February 8, 2021 (CA21-0011). In these Responses, the Respondent challenged the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application on the basis that the complaints “do not relate to any matters under s.120(4) of the Act] that are reviewable by the Board” and due to s.120(8)(a) of the Act. In addition, the CFSRB cannot review the complaints pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Act as the complaints related to Court application 19-196.

7On January 28, 2021, the Applicants sent an email to the CFSRB commenting on the first two Responses and re-stating their allegations against the Respondent and disputing some of the content in the Respondent’s response. The Applicants’ responses acknowledge participation in Court processes associated with Case 19-196.

8In an Interim Decision dated February 12, 2021, the CFSRB found the following:

• All 3 Applications will be joined based on the similarity of the facts in each application and bearing in mind the efficient use of the CFSRB’s resources;
• All 3 Applicants were in receipt of services and therefore the complaints are eligible for review pursuant to sections 120(4)4 and 5;
• Further submissions were required regarding the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the complaint based on the provisions of section 120(8) of the Act. The Respondent was also directed to provide documentation in support of its argument that the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to review the complaint as per CSRB Rule 21.2.

9The Respondent’s submissions acknowledged that the Applicants were in receipt of services; however, their complaints related to third party service providers; decisions by Justice Desormeau; actions of various police forces, and child welfare officials in Germany. The Applicants’ concerns with evidence considered through the Court process should be subject to review through appeal and not re-adjudicated by the CFSRB. As such, the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to review the complaints.

10The Respondent provided the following documents along with the submissions:

• CAS Endorsement Sheet, June 10, 2019
• CAS Endorsement Sheet, July 31, 2019
• CAS Endorsement Sheet, October 30, 2019
• CAS Endorsement Sheet, November 15, 2019
• CAS Endorsement Sheet, November 27, 2019
• Temporary Order dated June 10, 2019
• Affidavit of Service, June 18, 2019
• Final Order, July 31, 2019
• Affidavit of Service, August 22, 2019
• Final Order, November 27, 2019
• Affidavit of Service, January 21, 2020

11The Applicants provided submissions and additional documents to the CFSRB dated March 8, 9, 12, 2021. These submissions did not relate to the order in the CMD to address the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear complaints that were before the Court or had been decided by the Court. The submissions related to a typographical error in the date the Respondent included in her submissions; disclosure and evidence issues at the various Court appearances; concerns with the evidence presented at Court by the Respondent; the background of the male applicant; concerns with the OCL lawyer; concerns with decisions by Justice Desormeau; allegations and treatment while in Europe; and concerns with Global Affairs Canada.

THE LAW

s.120(8)(a)

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.

Rule 21.2 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedures

Where the society takes the position that the CFSRB cannot conduct a review because the subject of the application is:

(a) An issue that has been decided by the Court or is before the Court;

… the society must provide submissions in support of its position and attach “all relevant documents and any Court orders”.

ANALYSIS

12I considered whether the Applicants’ concerns are before the Court or were before the Court and were therefore subject to exclusion pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act.

13The Applicants’ complaints alleged various wrongdoings by child welfare authorities and police in Germany. In addition, the complaints allege wrongdoing by Canadian Federal Officials, Ontario Court officials, and officers of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). The Applicants also were concerned with the actions of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s (OCL) Counsel. The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to address complaints about foreign or federal actors, Ontario Court officials, the OPP; and the OCL pursuant to section 120 of the Act. The CFSRB can only review the actions of child welfare authorities in Ontario.

14After reviewing the documents presented by the Respondent, I find that the issues outlined by the Applicants in their complaints have been clearly placed before the Court on multiple occasions.

15The Applicants participated in hearings before the Court during which temporary and final decisions were made which addressed the following issues: custody, access, and supervision; risks of harm for the daughter; the Court’s concerns for the well-being of the daughter; the daughter’s views; evidence from European authorities; the Respondent’s evidence; and service and safety planning. These issues reflected the totality of the concerns expressed by the Applicant in their applications.

16In addition, I note that the Applications and the various documents submitted by the Applicants comment on their Court appearances, evidence presented at Court, and decisions that were made by the Court which further confirms that the subject matter of their complaints were issues that were addressed by the Court.

17As such, I find that the issues in the Applicants’ complaints have been before the Court and therefore the CFSRB is precluded from reviewing these complaints pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act.

DECISION

18The 3 complaints are dismissed in their entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

19Pursuant 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 these Applications 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.