CL v. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, 2025 CFSRB 7

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CL Applicant

-and-

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan Date: January 22, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 7 Indexed As: CL v Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

CL, Applicant Self-represented

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, Respondent Arakua Lamptey, Counsel

OVERVIEW

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, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”). The CFSRB determined the Application was eligible to proceed under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

2In its Response, the Respondent submitted that the Application is ineligible for review by the CFSRB as the subject matter of the Applicant’s complaint is an issue that is currently before the Ontario Court of Justice (“Court”). The Respondent did not file any documents supporting its position.

3In its Case Management Direction dated December 12, 2024, the CFSRB directed the Respondent to file all relevant Court documents, including orders, as required by Rule 21.2 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, to support its position in the Response. The CFSRB also directed the Applicant to provide written submissions by January 3, 2025, on whether the issues in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. The CFSRB provided an opportunity for the Respondent to provide Reply submissions by January 10, 2025, if desired, to the Applicant’s written submissions.

4The Respondent filed several Court documents with the CFSRB on December 16, 2024. The Applicant did not provide written submissions as directed.

5On December 31, 2024, the Applicant copied the CFSRB, along with eight others not part of this Application, on a chain of correspondence between the Applicant and a Respondent Child Protection Worker on December 30 and 31 2024 (“Applicant’s December 31, 2024, Email”).

6The following decision includes a review of the Application, the Response, Court documents filed by the Respondent on December 12, 2024, and the Applicant’s December 31, 2024, Email.

ISSUE

7The issue is:

a. Are the Applicant’s complaints in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court?

RESULT

8The CFSRB finds that the Applicant’s complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. The Application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

9In the Application, the Applicant complains about actions taken (and not taken) by the Respondent relating his child, OL (the “Child”), after the Child was removed from the mother’s care in August 2024 and brought to a place of safety. Specifically, the Applicant describes concerns with the Respondent’s decisions relating to placement of the Child and access as between the Child and the Child’s mother, as well as the Respondent’s positions related to those decisions, including in the Court proceedings (e.g., the December 12, 2024, Court date). Excerpts from the Applicant’s narrative in the Application, include the following statements:

…My issue is that on dec 12th the position of CAS is going to be to put [child] back full time with his mother the neglectful parent and limit and supervise my visits because I apparently didn’t display and aggression or hostility when requesting she share custody of him…I would like to know why she gets several chances to end my sons life when I haven’t had any opportunity to prove myself to be an adequate care giver for my [child]…I’d like answers into how this is thought to be an acceptable form of security for our childrens safety and find it sexist to assume that since im a male that I don’t want him as much or deserve him as much as his neglectful mother does. I intend on using every platform of social media and news outlet to be heard until justice is served and my son is safely placed back in my care which was originally promised to me by CAS emergency support staff…

10In its Response to the Application, the Respondent submits that the Applicant’s complaints are not about services that the Applicant is or was receiving but instead about decisions made by the Respondent to unite the Child with the Child’s mother. The Respondent explains that it commenced a Child Protection Application in Court on the same date that the Child was removed from the Child’s mother’s care in August 2024. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s concerns about being heard about, and the reasons for, the Respondent’s decisions related to the Child’s placement and access to others has been and continues to be before the Court.

11In support of its position, the Respondent filed several Court documents between August and December 2024, in which the Applicant is listed as a party, that demonstrate that issues of the Child’s placement (with the mother, the Applicant, and others), as well as access as between the Child and the Child’s mother, and later, the Applicant, are all before the Court. The reasons for the Respondent’s decisions related to placement and access to the Child are part of these documents, including in the Affidavit of a Respondent Child Protection Worker, and remain issues before the Court. The Endorsement of the Honourable Justice K.S. Neill dated December 12, 2024, identifies that the matter will continue in January 2025 for an “update on pleadings and next steps”.

12I reviewed the Applicant’s December 31, 2024, Email, a correspondence chain of three separate email messages between the Applicant and a Respondent Child Protection Worker. It relates to the Applicant’s access schedule with the Child, and some concerns and requests made by the Applicant to the Child Protection Worker. The CFSRB was simply copied on this email, along with eight others not part of the CFSRB Application, including persons at the office of the Premier of Ontario, the Ombudsman, and the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. The Applicant’s December 31, 2024, Email did not contain submissions to the CFSRB as directed about whether the issues in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. Accordingly, I do not give this document any weight in reaching my decision.

Relevant Legislation and Case Law

13Subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act sets out that the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a section 120 complaint if the subject of the complaint “is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court”.

14The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441 held 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.

15After considering the Application, Response and Court documents filed by the Respondent, I find that the Applicant’s complaints relate to decisions made by the Respondent surrounding the placement of and access to the Child. As a party to the Court proceedings, the Applicant can raise his concerns about, and challenge, the Respondent’s decision making related to those issues within those proceedings. I do not find that there are any complaints in the Application that are separate and different from those before the Court.

16As I find that the complaints raised in the Application are issues are squarely before the Court, I therefore find they are outside of the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act.

17Finally, while I do not consider the Applicant’s December 31, 2024, Email relevant to my decision, I do note in that document the Applicant sets out a clear, articulated commitment to the Child and makes requests related to the Respondent’s future engagement with the Applicant. It is the hope of the CFSRB that the Respondent will strongly consider the Applicant’s December 31, 2024, Email in its provision of future services to the Applicant and the Child.

ORDER

18The Application is dismissed.

19Given the Applicant’s statements in his Application about using social media and news outlets to achieve “justice”, and the Applicant’s December 31, 2024, Email, on which the CFSRB was copied, the CFSRB orders the Applicant to strictly abide by the Confidentiality Order set out below with respect to his involvement with the CFSRB.

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.