SS v Jewish Family and Children Services of Greater Toronto, 2024 CFSRB 155

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SS

Applicant

-and-

Jewish Family and Children Services of Greater Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley

Date: December 20, 2024

Citation: 2024 CFSRB 155

Indexed As: SS v Jewish Family and Children Services of Greater Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

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 Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3In its Response dated November 12, 2024, the Respondent argued that the Application was not eligible to proceed because the matter has been and continues to be before the court.

4The Applicant replied to the Response on November 12, 2024, submitting that the complaints are within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction as they address procedural and service delivery issues.

5The Board issued a Case Management Direction dated November 13, 2024, asking the Applicant to provide further written submissions on how the issues in the Application before the Board were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court by November 20, 2024, if desired. The Respondent was to provide a Reply by November 27, 2024, if desired.

6The Applicant submitted a further Reply to the Response on November 18, 2024. The Respondent did not submit further written submissions.

ISSUE

7The issue is:

a. are the complaints in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the court?

RESULT

8I find that the complaints in the Application are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court or are otherwise, complaints that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review.

ANALYSIS

9Under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act, the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

10The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441, that the mere 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”.

11The Respondent commenced a Protection Application in child welfare court on October 7, 2020. There have been two subsequent Status Review Applications, and several temporary and final Orders granted. A final Order, dated May 3, 2024, remains in effect. The most recent Status Review Application issued on September 25, 2024, remains outstanding. The parties are set for a case conference before Justice Daudlin on January 15, 2025.

12The Public Guardian & Trustee (“PGT”) currently represents the Applicant in his court matters.

13In total, the Respondent has submitted 28 court documents from the continuing record on this matter. In addition, the parties have submitted numerous emails, letters, medical and psychiatric documentation for the Board’s review.

14After reviewing the evidence, I find that the Applicant’s complaints in the Application before the CFSRB are not separate and apart from the substantive issues that have been decided or are currently before the court or that the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to hear them.

A. The Applicant’s complaint related to providing “necessary disclosure” is not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.

15The Application submits a complaint that the Respondent has failed to provide “necessary disclosure” including the provision of medical and school records which the Applicant feels has impeded his ability to advocate for his child. The Applicant also submits that there have been unnecessary redactions made by the Respondent, many lengthy delays in the provision of documents and the possibility of documents being backdated or tampered with.

16The Applicant requests the CFSRB “issue a directive requiring [the Respondent] to fully disclose all requested documents relevant to my son’s education, health, and well-being a timely manner, including any records from external parties such as Dr. Davine, if within [the Respondent’s] authority”.

17The adequacy of the disclosure of information prepared for court hearings, and the validity of statements in the record and redactions to CPIN are all issues that must be dealt with in the court proceedings rather than by the CFSRB. The Board noted that the Respondent sent an email to the PGT on October 21, 2024, confirming that a disclosure request had been received directly from the Applicant and that it was being processed. No evidence has been presented by Applicant or the PGT that the PGT has taken issue with the Respondent’s email.

18The Applicant also requests that the Respondent provide him with the child’s medical and school records as well as information about the child’s mother. Much of this information is before the court as it relates to the ongoing proceedings. In any event, this is all personal information which the Respondent cannot provide to the Applicant without the consent of the individuals involved. Access to personal information collected under Part X of the Act is an issue that is outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction.

19For these reasons, I find that the CFSRB lacks the jurisdiction to deal with this complaint because the issues raised either fall solely within the jurisdiction of the ongoing court proceedings, are subject to the PGT or the required consents have not been obtained.

B. The Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent has not facilitated adequate mental health support for the child is not separate or different from that which is currently before the court.

20Facilitation of mental health supports for the child is on the forefront of the court’s concerns and is prevalent throughout the CFSRB file. In the May 3, 2024, Order of Justice Daudlin, the court received and heard evidence by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts which reviews many aspects relevant to the health and well-being of the child including emotional wellbeing, physical health, education, extra-curriculars and includes his views and preferences. Specifically with respect to mental health, the Agreed Statement of Facts outlined the work and considerations of the child working with therapists, scheduling and attending psychological assessments, and meeting with treatment providers at Sick Kids Hospital.

21Most recently, paragraphs 13 to 17 of the Status Review Application issued September 25, 2024, specifically addressed and contemplated mental health supports for the child. Thus the issues were live and continue to be so given that the Status Review Application remains outstanding. The parties appeared before Justice Daudlin on October 28, 2024, for a first appearance and are set to return for a case conference on January 15, 2025.

22Based on the above, I find that the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent has not facilitated adequate mental health supports for the child is active, live and currently before the court.

C. The Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent has conflicts of interests and has shown favouritism and biases in favour of the Applicant’s ex-wife has been before the court.

23The Application submits complaints of potential conflicts of interest arising from workers having “dual roles”. Specifically, the Applicant alleges that the following individuals involved with his matter have conflicts: a former lawyer of the Respondent who later represented the Applicant’s ex-wife; a former caseworker of the Respondent who later became part of the Respondent’s legal team.

24The Applicant submits that the Respondent shows favouritism and bias in favour of his ex-wife. He also submits that specific caseworkers have formed pre-conceived biases against him because of his own mental health concerns.

25This issue of favouritism and bias is long standing. The Respondent’s Affidavit of November 16, 2022 in relation to a motion for a Summary Judgement, reviewed at that time the relationship between the Respondent and Applicant, including the change of at least 3 workers on the file. Further, at paragraph 11 of the Affidavit, it was submitted “He has voiced that the Society is corrupt, works against the child’s best interests, and act prejudicially towards him, in response to any decisions the Society has made regarding his access.”

26In addition, the Applicant’s concern over alleged conflicts of interest has been before the court. An Affidavit in support of a Motion to vary an access Order, sworn on January 25, 2022, presented emails from the Applicant alleging corruption and conflicts of interest of the specific workers noted above.

27Based on the above, I find that the Applicant’s complaint of bias and conflicts of interest have also been addressed and resolved before court.

D. The Applicant’s complaint about the Respondent’s oversight and alleged imbalanced approach is not separate or different from what is currently before the court.

28In the Applicant’s Application, he complains that the Respondent’s lack of oversight and failure to ensure a balanced approach to parenting decisions has allowed his ex-wife to make unilateral parenting decisions about the child’s schooling and health care.

29The Board is satisfied that the Respondent’s oversight and decision making has been and continues to be an issue that is before the court. In the May 3, 2024, Order of Justice Daudlin, the court received and heard evidence by way of an Agreed Statement which outlined the oversight role and decisions the Respondent had made up to that point. The Agreed Statement of Fact further outlined an agreed upon Order which listed the roles, responsibilities and obligations of the Applicant, Respondent, and the Applicant’s ex-wife with respect to making decisions about the child.

30The parties appeared before Justice Daudlin on October 28, 2024, for a first appearance wherein an outline of the roles and responsibilities of the Applicant, Respondent, and the Applicant’s ex-wife, as well as an approach for the Applicant and the Applicant’s ex-wife to make joint decisions was submitted. The issue was live then and continues to form the basis of the matter that is set to return for a case conference before the court on January 15, 2025.

31Based on the above, the Respondent’s oversight and approach to how decisions will be made is squarely an issue before the court. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to consider this issue.

E. The Applicant’s allegations of infringements of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c H.19 and the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 are outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB

32The Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s staff have unfairly stereotyped his mental illness, impacting his treatment and fair access to services pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c H.19 and the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6.

33Whether the Respondent has violated the Ontario Human Rights Code or Canadian Human Rights Act is a question to be determined by the Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission respectively. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address this complaint.

CONCLUSION

34For the reasons set out above, I find that the Applicant’s complaints in his Application are not with the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review as they are not separate or different from issues that have been or currently before the court or they are otherwise, outside of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction.

ORDER

35The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

36Pursuant 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.