CITATION: R.M. v. Child and Family Services Review Board, 2011 ONSC 3802
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 10-DV-1688
DATE: June 17, 2011
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
IN A MATTER UNDER THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT
CUNNINGHAM A.C.J., VALIN and ARRELL JJ.
BETWEEN:
R.M.
Applicant
– and –
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
Respondent
Joshua Cohen, for the Applicant
Jennifer Scott, for the Respondent
HEARD: June 16, 2011
ENDORSEMENT
BY THE COURT
[1] This appears to be an application for judicial review of a decision of the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) dated September 1, 2010 reporting a complaint by the Applicant (R.M.) against the Ottawa Children’s Aid Society (CAS).
[2] R.M., in May 2010, in a fax request by his friend Joshua Cohen (Mr. Cohen), asked the CAS to review its records and to change the characterization of him as a pedophile. His concern was that this was an inaccurate description which had adversely affected not only him but those who were his friends. He also asked for reunification or access to his children who had, in 1992 and 1995, been made Crown Wards without access.
[3] The CAS did not respond and offered no explanation as to why they could not facilitate access or reuification.
[4] The Applicant complained to the CFSRB which on September 1, 2010, after reviewing the material before it, found that the CAS had failed to comply with section 68(2) of the Child Family Services Act. It ordered the CAS to comply with the complaint review procedures in the regulations and to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint, pursuant to the legislation.
[5] Following receipt of this decision, the CAS complied and provided its eligibility decision to R.M. and an explanation regarding access, all in a letter dated September 22, 2010. It is this response that R.M. now takes issue with. Following receipt of this information, R.M. went to the CFSRB to complain further. The CFSRB having issued its final decision had closed its file.
[6] R.M. is now asking us to have the Board reopen its file to address his complaint about the inaccurate information in the CAS file.
[7] Two questions seem to be raised:
Did the Board act in a procedurally unfair manner when it closed its file, and
Does the Board, after issuing its final report, have jurisdiction to deal with R.M.’s complaint further.
(R.M., in his Review Application does not raise the issue of the explanation of the CAS as to why he cannot have access.)
[8] We conclude that the Board did not act unfairly when it closed its file. Once an administrative tribunal has issued its decision, the tribunal is funtus officio and has no authority to take further steps. (See Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, 1989 41 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848).
[9] The Board here is limited by the legislation under which it is established. (Ontario Reg. 494/06). The Board in this case considered the merits of the complaint, found against the CAS and issued its decision. In our view, the Board was correct in its decision that it had no jurisdiction to hear further complaint from R.M. in respect of the matter then before it.
[10] The Application is dismissed. No costs.
Cunningham ACJ
Valin J.
Arrell J.
Released: June 17, 2011
CITATION: R.M. v. Child and Family Services Review Board, 2011 ONSC 3802
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 10-DV-1688
DATE: June 17, 2011
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
CUNNINGHAM A.C.J., VALIN and ARRELL JJ.
IN A MATTER UNDER
THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT
BETWEEN:
R.M.
Applicant
-and-
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
By the Court
Released: June 17, 2011