KZ v Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services, 2024 CFSRB 5

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

KZ Applicant

-and-

Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: January 25, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 5 Indexed As: KZ v Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

KZ, Applicant Self-represented

Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services, Respondent Alicia Rogerson, Executive Director

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 CFSRB found the Complaint eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act: It is alleged that the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made, or a chance to be heard when he raised concerns about the services he is receiving; and it is alleged that the Society has failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected his interests.

3The Applicant is the father of a 9-year-old son (the “Child”). The Applicant raised the following Issues/Concerns in his Complaint:

1. The Applicant alleged that he was not provided with reasons for the removal of his son by Respondent staff;
2. The Applicant alleged that Respondent staff did not hear his concerns related to the Child’s fear of staff member and allegations of physical abuse and intimidation by Worker CC; and
3. The Applicant alleged that his concerns regarding connections between Respondent workers and those involved in his charges were not heard by Respondent staff.

4In its Summary Response, the Respondent argued that the allegations in the Complaint were substantially the same as matters that were before the Court. As such, the Complaint should be excluded from review as the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to address these issues. In the alternative, the Respondent argued that the Applicant was heard and provided reasons for the Respondent’s decisions.

5On December 11, 2023, the CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction directing the Respondent to provide the CFSRB and the Applicant with relevant Court documents, including Court orders. The Applicant was invited to provide written submissions on whether the issues in his Complaint were separate and different from issues before the Court.

6The Respondent submitted the following documents:

• Protection Application dated January 4, 2023
• Affidavit of Worker DH dated January 4, 2023
• Plan of Care dated January 26, 2023
• Answer and Plan of Care dated January 26, 2023
• Answer and Plan of Care dated February 23, 2023
• Temporary Orders dated January 10, 2023, and May 17, 2023, November 14, 2023; November 15, 2023
• Affidavit of Applicant dated December 10, 2023
• Affidavit of Worker CC dated December 11, 2023
• Affidavit of Foster Parent CN dated December 11, 2023
• Affidavit of Supervisor DD dated December 11, 2023
• Affidavit of Worker JSG dated December 11, 2023

7The Applicant provided written submissions along with 4 photos. The submissions included the Applicant’s denial of the allegations made against him; and his belief that his human rights were violated. The submissions did not address whether the issues the Complaint were issues that were separate and different than those before the Court.

THE LAW

8Section 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

9Rule 21.2 in the CFSRB Rules of Procedure indicates:

Where the society take the position that the CFSRB cannot conduct a review because the subject of the application is:

a. an issue that has been decided by the Court or is before the Court; or

b. subject to another decision-making process under the CYFSA, 2017 or the Labour Relations Act, 1995,

the Society must provide submissions in support of its position and attach all relevant documents and any Court orders to their response.

10The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled 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.

ANALYSIS

11I considered the Applicant’s submissions and the documents submitted by the Respondent.

12My reading of section 120(8) 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.

13I find that the reasons for the removal of the Child have been placed squarely before the Court in documents submitted by the Respondent and the Applicant during multiple proceedings. For example, the Protection Application at paragraphs f and h indicated that the Applicant was informed of the Respondent’s concerns regarding the Child’s safety as well as his status in Canada. The Affidavit of DH outlined the Respondent’s child protection concerns. At paragraph 6 of the Plan of Care, the Respondent identified its safety concerns for the Child. In addition, the Plan of Care identified that the Applicant was required to work on his parenting skills; anger management; and substance abuse to move toward reunification. In his Answer and Plan of Care, the Applicant addressed the allegations that Respondent Workers made against him.

14Given the contents of these documents, I find that the reasons for the removal of the Child have been placed squarely before the Court on several occasions. As such, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review Issue/Concern 1.

15The evidence before me confirmed that Worker CC’s allegations of alleged abuse of the Child were placed before the Court. The Affidavit of CC addressed the Applicant’s allegations that she has physically assaulted the Child (paragraph 29). The Foster Parent’s Affidavit at paragraph 13 indicated that the Child was told by his father to lie about CC. The Child told the Foster Parent that Christina was nice. The allegations of the Applicant’s coaching the Child regarding allegations of abuse by CC were included in the Affidavit of Supervisor DD. The Applicant referred to his not accepting the results of the investigation into allegations of abuse by Worker CC, and reaffirmed the Applicant’s belief that the Child had been abused by CC (paragraph 7). And finally, the Affidavit of Worker JSG confirmed that the allegations of abuse by Worker CC were not verified based on an independent investigation by another child protection agency.

16The documents before me confirm that the allegations of abuse against Worker CC were placed squarely before the Court. Therefore, the CFSRB cannot review Issue/Concern 2.

17With respect to Issue/Concern 3, I note that in paragraph 23(c) of the Affidavit of JSG, the Applicant mentions: “Ms. C got off easy and that it is Kenora specifically as we revolve around family relationships”. This referred to the Applicant’s concerns regarding the relationships between various professionals. Any concerns regarding collusion or the independence of evidence or witnesses in the child protection proceeds must be addressed in Court given the Court’s ability to cross-examine witnesses and their evidence. The issue of the connections between Respondent Workers and those involved in his charges was therefore a matter for the Courts, and was mentioned in the Affidavit of JSG. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address Issue/Concern 3.

DECISION

18For the reasons identified above, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review all the Issues/Concerns in the Complaint as they are issues that have been placed squarely before the Court. The CFSRB is prohibited from reviewing issues that have been or are currently before the Court pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act.

19The Application is therefore dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

20Pursuant 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.