JSR v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2021 CFSRB 2

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JSR

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: January 15, 2021

Citation: 2021 CFSRB 2

Indexed As: JSR v Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

JSR, Applicant

Self-Represented

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Respondent

Juliet Kim, 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 of the Act. The allegation is that the Applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made, or a chance to be heard when she raised concerns about the services she is receiving.

3The Applicant is the mother of two daughters (“Children”). The complaint alleged the following issues/concerns:

1. The Children were apprehended without investigation by the Respondent;

2. The Respondent did not explore any less intrusive measures other than placing the Children in extended society care;

3. The Respondent ignored evidence that would have supported the Applicant’s position; e.g. “allegations by the mother will be taken with a grain of salt due to her history”;

4. The Respondent did not work to reunify the family;

5. The Respondent failed to appreciate the impact that placing the Children with a known abuser had on her given her history of abuse;

6. The Respondent failed to hear the recommendations and requests by the Applicant that she be provided a new worker based on her history of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and anxiety; and did not provide a reason for denying the request; disregarding the Applicant’s human rights as a disabled person;

7. The Respondent improperly disclosed the name of a client;

8. The Respondent made assumptions about the Applicant’s mental health and attempted to diagnose her;

9. The Applicant did not appreciate the overall tone and alleged bias among Respondent staff in their dealings with her;

10. The Family Court Assessor failed to properly identify and diagnose that the Applicant suffers from PTSD and anxiety;

11. The Children’s Jewish cultural and religious needs have not been considered and accommodated;

12. The Applicant was not provided with information and was not involved in access decisions, and decision-making and care planning for the Children;

13. The Respondent did not follow-up on an offer to consult with the Applicant’s psychotherapist;

14. The Respondent did not follow-up on an offer for kinship; and

15. The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns that the Children had been exposed to adult conflict in the foster home.

4The Respondent argued in its Summary Response that the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to review the complaint as the issues in the complaint were part of ongoing child protection proceedings before the Court. As such, the CFSRB is barred from reviewing the complaint pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act. The Applicant’s complaints were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. In addition, allegations of a breach of privacy fell outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. The CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to provide the remedies sought by the Applicant (change the worker; reverse the court order; revisit apprehension issues).

5Finally, the Respondent indicated that the Final Order placing the Children in extended society care with access is currently before the Court by way of an Appeal brought by the Applicant.

6In a Case Management Direction (CMD) dated November 25, 2020, the Applicant was directed to provide written submissions on the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear the complaint as per section 120(8) of the Act. The Applicant was asked to refer to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441.

7In an e-mail dated August 20, 2020, the Applicant indicated that issues in her complaint were not addressed by the Courts.

8In response to a reminder e-mail to make submissions sent to the Applicant on December 17, 2020, the Applicant indicated that she did not know what documents the CFSRB was referring to and she was not given a deadline of December 5, 2020. The Case Processing Officer then forwarded the Applicant the direction from the Case Management Direction dated November 25, 2020 which gave the Applicant until December 7, 2020 to provide submissions.

9Despite her failure to provide