CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
G.B.
v.
Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region
REASONS FOR DISSENTING DECISION
Date: June 17, 2008
Citation: 2008 CFSRB 60
Indexed as: G.B. v. F&CS of the Waterloo Region (CFSA s.68)
Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Merits - G.B. v. F&CS of the Waterloo Region (CFSA s.68), 2008 CFSRB 39
1This is an application by G.B. under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) was asked to review complaints made by G.B. (the “Applicant”) about the Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the “Society”). The Applicant specifically complains that the Society failed to respond to his complaint made the […] day of September, 2007 within the timeframe required by regulation. As well, the Applicant generally complains that he was not given the opportunity to be heard or to obtain reasons in respect of decisions made by the Society that affected his interests.
BACKGROUND
2To avoid repetition, the facts written in the Background, Jurisdiction and Hearing of the majority decision are agreed upon by all members of the panel, however, the undersigned arrived at a different conclusion as to what the appropriate disposition should be.
CONCLUSION
3The Applicant should be given the opportunity to file and serve the four relevant summonses within a specified period and the hearing should be reconvened to consider issues two, three and four of his Application. At the reconvened hearing, the Applicant should also be given the opportunity to make submissions on the appropriate remedy to issue one, which has been conceded by the Society. It is the Applicant’s recollection that he was given incorrect information from Board staff regarding service of the summonses. The Board can not determine what information was provided or how it was interpreted and understood by the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant should be provided written information on the summons process and the hearing reconvened at the earliest possible date.
ANALYSIS
4The Society conceded the first complaint at the opening of the hearing - that it did not respond to the complaint made by the Applicant on September […], 2007 within the timeframe required by regulation.
5Regulation 494/06 (the “Regulation”) requires the Society to determine whether the complaint is eligible for review under section 68.1 of the Act. Section 4 of the Regulation requires the Society to notify the Applicant if the complaint is not eligible for review with reasons in writing and section 5 requires the Society to notify the Applicant in writing if the complaint is eligible and to establish an internal complaints review panel (“ICRP”), and to also provide the Applicant with a date and time for a meeting with the ICRP. The Applicant should have been notified by the Society of its decision within seven days of receiving the complaint and the ICRP meeting should have been scheduled within fourteen days after the first notice was sent to the Applicant, as required by section 7 of the Regulation. The relevant sections of the Regulation are as follows:
Within seven days after receiving a complaint, the society shall determine whether the complaint is eligible for review under section 68 of the Act.
If the complaint is not eligible for review, the society shall notify the complainant of its decision and the reasons for it in writing.
5(1) If the complaint is eligible for review, the society shall notify the complainant in writing and shall establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel.
(2) The notice shall provide the complainant with a date and time for meeting with the ICRP.
7(1) The meeting between the complainant and the ICRP shall be scheduled at a time that is mutually convenient for the complainant and the members of the ICRP and shall be held within 14 days after the date the written notice is sent to the complainant or at such later time as may be requested by the complainant.
6None of these regulatory requirements were met by the Society in this case. The written response from the Executive Director, P.R., dated January […], 2008 does not constitute compliance with the statutory requirements. Furthermore, it is not the only remedy available to the Applicant under section 68.1(7) for a failure to follow the processes required under the Regulation. For example, the Board, upon hearing the merits of the complaint, could order the Society to provide written reasons to the Applicant explaining the reasons for the delay in responding to his complaint dated September 28, 2007.
7The Applicant is entitled to a hearing on the merits of all his complaints and should be given the opportunity to make submissions on the remedy he is requesting, including on the complaint that has been conceded by the Society. The benefit of the doubt concerning the information provided to the Applicant regarding service of the summonses should be resolved in his favour and he should be given the opportunity to proceed with his hearing if he so chooses.
8This dissenting decision is with respect to disposition by Deborah Simon with respect to the decision made by a majority of the panel, being John Gates and Gregory Price.
Deborah Simon
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 17th day of June, 2008.