CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SB
Applicant
-and-
Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley
Indexed As: SB v Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
SB, Applicant
Self-represented
Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, Respondent
Natalia Peart, Counsel
Introduction
1The Applicant has filed two Applications against the Respondent 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”).
2On September 13, 2024, the CFSRB found that all issues except one in the first Application (CA24-0067) were outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction as those issues were before the court.
3This decision considers whether the CFSRB has the jurisdiction to review the second Application (CA24-0137).
issueS
4The CFSRB directed the parties to make written submissions on the following issues:
a. Are the issues raised in application CA24-0137 substantially the same issues raised in CA24-0067, and if not, what are the new issues raised in CA24-0137?
b. Are the issues raised in application CA24-0137 issues that are before the courts, and does the CFSRB have jurisdiction to hear these issues?
c. Do the issues raised in application CA24-0137 pertain to privacy matters under Part X of the Act, and if so, does the CFSRB have the jurisdiction to hear those issues?
RESULT
5I find that although the issues in CA24-0137 are substantially the same as those raised in CA24-0067 at least some of the issues are with respect to a different time frame. These issues, however, are outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction because they are before the court or are covered by Part X of the Act. Thus, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application and it must be dismissed.
analysis
6The Applicant is the father of a young child. He is concerned about the child’s safety while in the care of the child’s mother and in the presence of the mother’s current partner.
7There is an ongoing child protection proceeding with a hearing into the Respondent’s June 2024 Status Review Application (“the SRA”) scheduled for early November 2024.
8The September 13, 2024 Interim Decision detailed the issues that were outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction because they had been put before the court:
the Applicant and his ex-partner’s compliance with an April 3, 2024 court order;
the safety and care of the Applicant’s child in the child’s mother’s care and in the presence of the mother’s current partner;
the Applicant’s request for a change of worker, including his request for the assignment of an indigenous worker; and
the use of an approved third-party parenting application.
Some issues raised in CA24-0137 occurred after the filing of CA24-0067
9The Applicant filed CA24-0067 on April 17, 2024 and filed CA24-0137 on August 13, 2024. In CA24-0137, the Applicant refers to decisions and actions of the Respondent and to events on April 5, April 29, June 28, and between July 7 and July 12, 2024.
10The substance of the issues in both Applications is the same: a focus on the safety of the Applicant’s child and on the alleged failure of the Respondent to protect the child. Nonetheless, as some of the matters referred to in CA24-0137 occurred after the filing of CA24-0067, it would be appropriate for the CFSRB to review those issues if they fell within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. For the reasons set out below, however, I find that all the issues raised in CA24-0137 are either before the court or fall outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction due to Part X of the Act.
The issues in the Application are before the court
11Section 120(8)(a) of the Act bars the CFSRB from reviewing complaints where the subject of the complaint is “an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.” The Court of Appeal for Ontario explained in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441 that the existence of child protection proceedings does not bar the CFSRB from reviewing complaints about services received from a children’s aid society if the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.
12In the case before me, the Applicant has structured his written submissions on the jurisdictional issues by reference to the SRA which sets out the issues currently before the court. His submissions include a detailed analysis of the SRA. He requests “clarification and the supporting evidence” for statements in specific SRA paragraphs and challenges the validity of the information in the SRA. He alleges that the Respondent has misled the court.
13A further example of the Applicant’s focus on issues that are before the court is his statement that he wants certain information from the Respondent because it is “relevant to witness list for trial.” Further, he complains that statements in the SRA are based on hearsay. He also complains that the Respondent has disobeyed a court order.
14The disclosure of information needed to prepare for trial, the validity of statements in the SRA, and the Respondent’s compliance with a court order are all issues that must be dealt with in the court proceeding rather than by the CFSRB.
15In addition, the Applicant seeks reasons why the Respondent “refuses to remove the child from the mother’s care.” This is the very issue before the court in the child protection proceeding.
16For these reasons, I find that the CFSRB is barred from dealing with the issues raised in CA24-0137 as they are not separate and different from the issues before the court.
Access to personal information collected under Part X of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html) is outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction
17The Applicant also requests that the Respondent provide him with information about the child’s mother and her current partner such as their participation in parenting programs and the mother’s mental health status. Much of this information is before the court. In any event, this is all personal information which the Respondent cannot provide to the Applicant without the consent of the individuals involved. It does not have that consent.
18Access to personal information collected under Part X of the Act is an issue that is outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. As of January 1, 2020, the Information and Privacy Commissioner rather than the CFSRB has jurisdiction over such issues.
19For these reasons, I find that the CFSRB lacks the jurisdiction to deal with these issues.
conclusion
20I conclude that some of the issues raised in CA24-0137 are different than those raised in CA24-0067 because they deal with later events. These issues, however, are not separate and different than those before the court. In particular, the issue of the child’s safety in the care of the child’s mother and presence of the mother’s current partner is a central issue in the child protection proceedings. Finally, the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to review issues about personal information collected under Part X of the Act. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application and the Application must be dismissed.
order
21The Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
22Pursuant 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.
Dated at Toronto, October 30, 2024.
Catherine Bickley
Vice-Chair