JC v. Children’s Aid Society London and Middlesex, 2025 CFSRB 50

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JC Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society London and Middlesex Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: April 11, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 50 Indexed As: JC v Children’s Aid Society London and Middlesex (CYFSA s.120)

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”). The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

2This decision decides a jurisdictional issue raised by the Respondent.

background

3The Respondent submits that “at least some of the issues and points of dispute” are before the court and thus ineligible for review by the CFSRB.

4The Respondent has provided court documents from a child protection proceeding involving LC, one of the Applicant’s children, in the Superior Court of Justice (“the court”). LC is also subject to a non-contact order with the Applicant due to criminal charges against LC arising from a physical altercation with the Applicant.

5After a period in residential care, LC was placed by the court in the care of his mother under the supervision of the Respondent.

issue

6Are the issues in the Application, as expanded at a February 18, 2025 pre-hearing, separate and different than the substantive issues that have been decided by the court or are currently before the court?

RESULT

7The original issue set out in the Application is separate and different than the issues decided by the court or currently before the court. It will proceed to a hearing. One of the additional issues identified at the February 18, 2025 pre-hearing requires clarification prior to the hearing. The remaining issues are dismissed.

analysis

8The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D, 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.

9In the Application, the Applicant complains that the Respondent has provided him with only limited and unverified information about his child’s wellbeing. At a February 18, 2025 pre-hearing, the Applicant also alleged that the Respondent did not hear his concerns or provide reasons regarding the following:

• Steps taken to ensure LC’s safety in the care of his mother;

• Failure to ensure LC’s access and involvement with therapy supports and school attendance; and,

• Failure to encourage a relationship between LC and his siblings and with the Applicant.

10I find that the original issue identified in the Application is within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. The first two additional issues identified at the pre-hearing are not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction as they are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court. It is unclear whether the third additional issue is within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction.

11The Applicant’s concerns regarding LC’s safety in his mother’s care cannot be separated from the issues in the child protection proceedings. The safety of LC in each parent’s care was an issue before the court and the court decided that it was in LC’s best interests to be placed in his mother’s care. This issue is thus outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction.

12The August 30, 2024 court order which placed LC with his mother also gave direction regarding LC’s medical, therapeutic and school appointments and required LC’s mother to follow through with recommended medical treatment. Any concern that the court order is not being complied with must be dealt with in the court proceeding. Therefore, I find that the issue of the Respondent’s actions or inactions in relation to “therapy supports and school attendance” is outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.

13I find, however, that the Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent has not heard his concerns and provided him with reasons for the alleged poor level and quality of information it has given him about LC, including information about medical appointments, assessments and school attendance, falls within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. The issue of the amount and quality of information provided is separate and different than the issue of whether the Respondent has done enough to ensure LC’s attendance at school and therapy. The former falls within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction while the latter does not.

14The Applicant alleges the Respondent has not heard his concerns or provided reasons for why it has not encouraged a relationship between LC and his sisters as well as with the Applicant. On the information before me, it is unclear whether this issue is separate and different than the substantive issues before the court. To the extent that the Applicant is concerned about the level of access between LC and family members, that issue is clearly one that was before the court and thus outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB. To the extent that the Applicant is referring to other actions (or inactions) on the part of the Respondent, this issue may be within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. As the Application proceeds further in the CFSRB’s process, the Applicant will need to clarify this allegation.

15For these reasons, I conclude that the issue of the alleged poor level and quality of information provided by the Respondent to the Applicant about LC’s wellbeing is within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction and will proceed to a hearing to determine whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided reasons with respect to the issue. The Applicant must clarify his allegations about the Respondent’s alleged failure to encourage a relationship between LC and family members before the CFSRB can determine whether it has jurisdiction over that issue. Finally, I conclude that the remaining issues are not separate and different that the substantive issues before the court and therefore must be dismissed.

order

16The issue of whether the Respondent has heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided him with reasons for allegedly providing him with limited and unverified information about LC’s wellbeing will proceed to a hearing. Prior to the hearing, the Applicant shall clarify his allegations regarding the Respondent’s alleged failure to encourage a relationship between LC and his sisters as well as the Applicant. The remaining issues are dismissed.

confidentiality order

17Pursuant 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.