SB v. Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2024 CFSRB 95

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SB Applicant

-and-

Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: September 12, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 95 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 Pert, Counsel

Overview

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 CFSRB has concluded that the following allegations are eligible to proceed:

• The Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interest were made, or a chance to be heard when they raised concerns about the services they are receiving.

• The Society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects their interests.

3The Respondent argues that the above issues are before the courts or have been dealt with by the courts and are therefore outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.

ISSUES

4A Case Management Direction dated May 27, 2024, identified the follow issue:

• Are the issues in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the court?

Result

5I find that there is a complaint identified in the Application that is a separate and different issue from those that have been or are before the court. The CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear that complaint.

analysis

6Section 120(8) of the Act states:

The Board 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

7The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society 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.

8The Respondent provided written submissions stating that a status review proceeding pursuant to s 113(2)(a) of the Act had been initiated to review and terminate the April 3, 2024 order made by Vickerd J. A court date of June 10, 2024, was set. The Respondent argued that the issues in the Application would be a part of that status review. The order and confirmation of the status review proceeding was provided. In response to a further Case Management Direction dated August 20, 2024, the Applicant provided the actual status review application. It is noted that an order or endorsement resulting from the June 10, 2024, status review proceeding was not provided.

9The Applicant and his ex-partner’s compliance of the terms in the April 3, 2024, order as well as issues relating to the safety and care of the child while in his mother’s care and in the presence of her current partner are subject of the status review application. Paragraphs 6(ee) – 6(gg) of the status review application addresses the consideration of a change in worker and the assigning of an Indigenous team member to assist the Applicant and child. Paragraphs 6(k) and 6(y) provides consideration to the use of an approved third-party parenting application. The complaints in the Application that deal with these issues have been put before the court.

10Not all the Applicant’s complaints relate to the status review proceeding. One complaint relates to the lack of reasons for a cancelled meeting which would not have been considered in the status review proceeding.

11I find that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear the following complaint raised:

• the Respondent has not provided written reasons for why a scheduled meeting between the Applicant and other parties scheduled for April 23, 2024, was cancelled.

order

12The Application will proceed on the issue identified above.

confidentiality order

13Pursuant 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.