WC v. North Eastern Family and Children’s Services, 2024 ONCFSRB 132

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

WC Applicant

-and-

North Eastern Family and Children’s Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: November 14, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 132 Indexed As: WC v North Eastern Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

WC, Applicant Self-represented

North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services, Respondent Sonia Migneault, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application 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 CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The Respondent submits that the Application “cannot be reviewed” by the CFSRB because “at all material times, the matter has been subject to Child Protection proceedings before the Family Court of the Ontario Court of Justice.”

4In a September 17, 2024 Case Management Direction (“CMD”), the CFSRB directed the Respondent to provide all relevant court documents. It has done so. The CMD also directed the Applicant to provide written submissions on whether the issues in the Application were separate and different than the substantive issues that are or were before the court.” He has not done so. As a result, my decision is based on the Application, the Response, and the court documents provided by the Respondent.

Issue

5Are the issues in the Application separate and different than the substantive issues before the Superior Court of Justice (“the court”) in a current child protection proceeding?

Result

6The issues in the Application are not separate and different than the substantive issues before the Court. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application and it must be dismissed.

Background

7The Applicant is the parent of three children. Between April 6, 2023 and November 7, 2023, the children were in the care of the Respondent and were living in foster care. Since November 7, 2023, the children have been living with the Applicant under the supervision of the Respondent. The children’s mother has specified access with the children.

Analysis

8The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D, 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. For the following reasons, I find that the issues raised by the Applicant in his CFSRB Application are before the court.

9In the absence of submissions from the Applicant, I do not have his perspective on what, if any, issues raised in the Application are different than the substantive issues before the court. The Application itself focuses primarily on the Applicant’s concerns about the safety of the children while in the care of their mother and his perception that the Respondent has not taken those concerns seriously.

10The safety of the children in the care of their mother is a central issue in the court proceedings. The court documents demonstrate that the Respondent has had concerns about both parents’ parenting abilities and has put those concerns before the court. For example, the Respondent’s May 2023 and June 2023 Applications for Child Protection address the children’s mother’s substance abuse and mental health issues in addition to documenting some concerns about the Applicant’s parenting.

11The Applicant has been an active participant in the court proceedings including filing an Answer and Plan of Care in June 2023 which detail his concerns regarding the children’s mother’s ability to parent. Thus, the Applicant’s concerns about the children’s safety in the care of their mother have been placed before the court. The court has considered these issues and has placed the children in the Applicant’s care under the supervision of the Respondent.

Conclusion

12For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the issues in the Application are not separate and different than the substantive issues before the Court. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application and it must be dismissed.

Order

13The Application is dismissed.

Confidentiality Order

14Pursuant 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.