CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
G.A.
v.
Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region
REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION
Date: June 18, 2007
Citation: 2007 CFSRB 24
Indexed as: G.A. v. F&CS of the Waterloo Region (CFSA s.68)
Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Merits – G.A. v. F&CS of the Waterloo Region, (CFSA s.68), 2007 CFSRB 65
ORDER ON MOTION
1In response to the Board’s Order dated the 4th day of April, 2007, the Board has received the submissions of the parties both with respect to particulars and the jurisdiction of the Child and Family Services Review Board to hear this matter pursuant to Section 68(1) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The Applicant has replied to the Order requesting particulars with two letters submitted to the Board, one dated March 29, 2007 before being served with the written order of the board, and a second letter dated May 2, 2007, sent after the Applicant was served with the Board’s Order requesting particulars of Applicant’s complaint. The Board has received a reply from counsel for the Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Randel L. Hamel, dated the 4th of May 2007. The Board makes the following orders with respect to the Motion for particulars and the jurisdiction of the Board to proceed under Section 68(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.
2The Board orders that the matter shall proceed to a hearing under Section 68.1(1) of the Child and Family Services Act. The Board finds that the Applicant’s written submissions to the Board with respect to particulars discloses allegations that the Society has failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affects the Applicant’s interest pursuant to Section 68.1(4) with respect to the following decisions of the Society:
i. The decision by the Society to place the Applicant’s name on the Ontario Child Abuse Register as set out in the letter of the Society to the Applicant dated August […], 2005 under the signature of P.K., Intake Worker, and L.B., Intake Supervisor.
ii. The decision by the Society to remove the Applicant’s name from the Child Abuse Register as set out in the letter from the Society to the Applicant dated the […] of December 2006 under the signature of R.M., Senior Manager Regional Intake.
iii. The Applicant’s allegation that his file with the Society concerning the incident giving rise to the submission of the Applicant’s name to the Child Abuse Register remains open.
3With respect to the jurisdiction issue, the Board notes that the Society’s letter regarding removal of the Applicant’s name from the Child Abuse Register is dated December […], 2006 a date subsequent to December 1, 2006 the date on which the Board received its jurisdiction to hear these matters. The Applicant’s allegation that the Society has failed to provide him with reasons for the decision to keep his file open is current. The Board accordingly finds that these allegations are within the jurisdiction of the Board for purposes of review.
4The Board acknowledges that the Society’s decision to place the Applicant’s name on the Child Abuse Register as notified by letter dated August […], 2005 occurs in time before December 1, 2006 the date on which the Board had jurisdiction to proceed with matters under Section 68(1) of the Child and Family Services Act. The Board rules that it has jurisdiction to review the complaint respecting this letter notwithstanding the date of the letter. It is the Board’s belief that this decision is consistent with the rules of procedural fairness and the rules of natural justice which are to be observed in the proceedings before the Board. As of the date on which the Applicant was advised that his name was being submitted to the Child Abuse Register, he had been charged with a criminal offence arising out of the incident. At that date the Applicant was not practically in a position to respond to the Society’s letter as the substance of the matter was then before the criminal courts. There is some jeopardy to the Respondent inherent in participating in an open complaint process before the criminal trial proceeds. In the absence of a prior complaint the Applicant can proceed directly to the Board with his complaint. The Board has determined that it has jurisdiction to review the decision to remove the Applicant’s name from the Child Abuse Register. Procedural fairness demands that the decision to remove the Applicant’s name from the Child Abuse Register must be reviewed in conjunction with the decision to place his name on the Register.
5The Board’s jurisdiction upon receipt of a complaint under Section 68.1 is to conduct a review of the matter. The Board orders that a hearing date be set at the convenience of the parties for this review. The Board will hear evidence from the Applicant as to what reasons were provided to him for the decisions under review and how those decisions affect his interests. The Board will not hear any of the evidence tendered at the Applicant’s criminal trial. The Board does note for the record that the Applicant has been acquitted of the criminal charge arising from the incident for which his name was entered on the Child Abuse Register.
Richard J. Linley Presiding Member
Deborah Simon Panel Member
Lorna King Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 18th day of June, 2007.