LH and DH v. Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, 2022 CFSRB 7

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

LH and DH Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: February 08, 2022 Citation: 2022 CFSRB 7 Indexed As: LH and DH v Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

LH & DH, Applicants Unrepresented

Family & Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, Respondent Olivia Rebeiro, Counsel

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This is an Application (“Complaint”) 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 Complaint was found eligible pursuant to sections 120(4)5 of the Act. It is alleged that the Society has failed to provide the Applicants with reasons for a decision that affected their interests.

3The Applicants are the parents of three boys. The female Applicant is also the mother of a girl, and the male Applicant is her stepfather. The children will be referred to as “the Children” in this decision.

4The Applicants identified the following Issues/Concerns in their Complaint:

1. The Applicants were concerned that information about their case was disclosed to others without their consent; and
2. The Applicants alleged that they were not provided with reasons as to why Respondent staff decided that the male Applicant must leave the home; and why someone was required to check-in on the female Applicant while she was in a caregiving capacity.

5In its Reply to the Application, the Respondent argued that the Applicant’s concerns were before the Ontario Court of Justice as a result of active Child, Youth, and Family Services Act proceedings. Therefore, the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to review the matter pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act.

6In a Case Management Direction (CMD) dated January 26, 2022, parties were directed to provide submissions on the issue of jurisdiction and the Respondent was directed to provide documents in support of their argument that the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction.

7In its response to the CMD, the Respondent reiterated their earlier submissions as well as provided several Court Documents in support of its position.

8The Applicants’ submissions addressed the substantive issues associated with their Complaint including their concerns with the investigation and the behaviour of Respondent Worker JG. The Applicants argued that their Complaint involved their initial worker JG who is no longer involved in their case. As such, the issues in the Applicant’s complaint are not before the Court and therefore, the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review the Complaint.

THE LAW

9Section 120(8) of the Act states that the:

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).

ANALYSIS

11I considered the jurisdictional issues associated with the Complaint.

12I note that the Applicants included concerns regarding a breach of their personal privacy in the Complaint. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address this issue. The Applicants are free to raise this issue with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner who can investigate and make findings regarding privacy breaches. In addition, I note that the female Applicant’s affidavit addressed the alleged breach of her privacy and therefore these issues were before the Court and are excluded from review by the CFSRB.

13With regard to the issue of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction, [s]ection120(8) of the Act directs that the CFSRB cannot conduct a review of a complaint if: “the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court”.

14My reading of this section of the Act confirms that the concept of “subject of the complaint” is a broad category that encompasses more than the content of any specific issue raised by a party before the Court. As such, a specific issue may not have been raised in Court proceedings; however, the proceedings may have addressed the broader subject matter included in a complaint.

15I had before me the following documents provided by the Respondent:

• Affidavit from female Applicant dated January 14, 2022
• Affidavit from male Applicant dated January 13, 2022
• Respondent father’s factum dated January 25, 222

16The Applicants included a series of CPIN notes with their submissions which did not address whether the issues in the Complaint are or had been before the Court.

17The female Applicant’s Affidavit referred to all the issues in the Complaint to the CFSRB including: the Respondent’s concerns with her parenting and the health and safety of the Children in the Protection Application; the placement of the Children in the care of their maternal grandparents; the Court Order that the female Applicant reside with her parents; the order for the male Applicant to reside outside the home; the Applicants’ involvement with the police; the care and health of the Children while living with the Applicants; the involvement of extended family in the child welfare process and the Respondent’s decision-making; the female Applicant’s concerns with her parents as caregivers; the Respondent’s involvement of family members in the case; supervised access requirements; and finally, the Respondent’s requirement for someone to monitor her home or call on a daily basis.

18The male Applicant’s factum addressed the reasons for the Protection Application; issues of access; a plan to have the male Applicant live in a separate household; requirement of establishing a support network; concerns regarding alleged bias in statements used against the Applicants; and arguments regarding the best interests of the Children.

19The male Applicant’s Affidavit addressed the Respondent’s concerns with the Applicants’ parenting; his agreement to live in a separate house; and his concerns regarding the evidence used by the Respondent in the Protection Application.

20Based on the documents before me, it is clear that all the issues in the Applicants’ Complaint have been placed squarely before the Court. I cannot find any issues/concerns in the Applicants’ Complaint that were separate or distinct from the issues/concerns discussed at Court. The Applicants have had the opportunity and will have the opportunity to raise concerns with the Respondent as well as what they believe is in the Children’s best interests with the Court. It will be up to the Presiding Judge to review the evidence and make a decision that reflects the best interests of the Children. Given this, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address issues that are before or have been before a judge.

21For the reasons identified above, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address all the issues outlined in the Complaint.

22The Application is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

23Pursuant 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.