AB v. Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, 2024 CFSRB 76

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AB Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk Date: July 02, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 76 Indexed As: AB v Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant filed an Application with the Child and Family Services (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 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.

3In its Response, the Respondent took the position that the Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB as the matter in relation to which the complaint is filed, is before the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court in Brockville, pursuant to a Child Protection Application initiated by the Respondent on February 8, 2024.

4The CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction dated May 4, 2024 requiring the Applicant to make written submissions on whether the issues in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court. The May 4, 2024 Case Management Direction further provided that the Respondent may, but was not required to, file a Reply on or before May 24, 2024.

5The Applicant did not provide written submissions as required by the Case Management Direction. The Applicant has not communicated with the CFSRB since May 4, 2024.

[6] The Respondent appended the following documents to its Response:

• Protection Application dated February 8, 2024
• Endorsement of Justice T. Waters dated May 1, 2024

ISSUES

7Is the CFSRB prohibited from reviewing this Application because the subject matter of the complaint has been decided by the court or is before the court ?

ANALYSIS

8I find that the issues raised by the Applicant in his Application are issues that relate to the subject matter of the child protection proceeding and that they are all issues that may be addressed by the court in the context of the child protection proceeding.

9The Applicant did not comply with the May 8, 2024 CFSRB Case Management Direction that he shall make written submissions on whether the issues in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

10In the absence of submissions by the Applicant, I have relied on the material that was filed by both parties and on jurisprudence. I have reviewed the Application, the response of the Respondent, the Protection Application dated February 8, 2024 and the May 1, 2024 Endorsement of Justice T. Waters. I am satisfied that I have sufficient information to determine the issues before me.

11My determination focuses on whether the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review this Application.

12The Applicant is the father of a son (“the child”) who, as of May 1, 2024 was in the care of his mother. The child’s mother is not a party to this Application.

13Section 120(8) of the Act provides that the CFSRB cannot conduct a review of a complaint if the subject matter of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

14The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441, that the mere existence of a child protection proceeding does not bar the CFSRB from reviewing complaints about the services from a children’s aid society if the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

15The Applicant’s explanation of his complaint in his Application indicates that the essence of the complaint/allegations is that the intervention of the Respondent with his family is unreasonable; the content of the documents and affidavits of the Response are false and discriminatory; he has not been afforded due process; and, the Respondent’s intervention with his family is counter to the principles of justice and fairness.

16The concerns raised by the Applicant in his Application are issues that relate to the subject matter of the child protection proceeding and are all issues that may be addressed by the court in the context of the child protection proceeding.

17As a party to the child protection proceeding, the Applicant is entitled to present his own evidence to support his claims including about bias by the Respondent, false affidavits and lack of due process. He will also have the opportunity to cross examine the Respondent’s witnesses, including the deponents of the affidavits he claims contain untruthful information, and to make submissions to the court. In other words, his issues are before the court and able to be decided by the court.

ORDER

18The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

19Pursuant 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.