CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
S.R., J.R., M.R. & I.G.
v.
Peel Children’s Aid Society
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Date: June 23, 2008
CA08-0009 CA08-0010 CA08-0013
Citation: 2008 CFSRB 61
Indexed as: S.R., J.R., M.R. & I.G. v. Peel CAS (CFSA s.68)
Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Jurisdiction – S.R., J.R., M.R. & I.G. v. Peel CAS (CFSA s.68), 2008 CFSRB 36
INTRODUCTION
1These are the reasons of the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) in respect of complaints filed by S.R., J.R., M.R. and I.G. against the Peel Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”).
2All four applications attached the same complaint letter, dated January […], 2008, from Ms. R. to P.Z., Executive Director of the Society. The Applicants complained about the Society’s decision to terminate services to S.R. when she turned 18, and in particular its decision to cut off funding for her residential placement at the “[…]” program in Kitchener, Ontario. The Applicants complain that the decision to remove her from [...] program was a “change in plans”, for which they received inadequate notice, no reasons, and which included no transitional planning.
3The Board deemed all four Applicants eligible to apply for review under s.68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5 of the Act. In a decision dated May 1, 2008, the Board denied a motion of the Society and found it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints of all four Applicants.
4The Board held a hearing on May 7, 8, and 20, 2008 in Mississauga.
5All four Applicants were present at the hearing. Appearing for the Services were Robin McDonald, Chief Counsel, and B.W., Director of Children’s Services.
6The Applicants complain that:
the Society failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a) of the Act which states, “Service providers shall ensure that children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving”; and
the Society failed to provide the Applicants with reasons for a decision that affects their interests.
7The Applicants in this case chose not to refer their complaint to an internal complaint review panel (“ICRP”) of the Society, but to proceed directly to the Board under s.68.1(1). Therefore, the Board must determine whether the Society failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a) of the Act, and whether the Society failed to provide the Applicants with reasons for a decision that affects their interests.
BACKGROUND
8The background to this matter is more fully described in the Board’s decision on jurisdiction in this matter, dated May 1, 2008.
9S.R. was made a Ward of the Crown by order of the Court on April […], 2006. She was placed in the care and custody of the Society. She remained in this status until midnight on January […], 2008, when she turned 18.
10Approximately five months prior to her birthday, in late August 2007, S.R. was moved from a Peel group home on […] to the [...] program in Kitchener, a residence which also provides educational, counseling and psychiatric support for youth with mental health issues.
11On January […], 2008, S.R. and