CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
C.C.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
REASONS FOR DECISION
WRITTEN REVIEW
Date: July 8, 2008
Citation: 2008 CFSRB 67
Indexed as: C.C. v. CAS of Toronto (CFSA s.68)
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from C.C1. (the “Applicant”) on March 7, 2008 regarding a complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”).
2After reviewing the application, the Board sent a letter dated March 14, 2008 to the Applicant requesting additional information in order to clarify her complaint. The Board received further information from the Applicant on April 9, 2008 and deemed her application to be eligible for review on April 18, 2008. The Board received the Society’s Summary Reply to the application on April 25, 2008. On May 13, 2008, the Board requested further information from the Society, which was received on May 26, 2008.
3The Board must determine whether the application can be decided based on its review of the written information provided by the parties or whether an oral hearing is required. In this case, an oral hearing is not required for the Board to make a decision on the application. Based on its review of the application, the additional submissions of the Applicant and the Society, and the Summary Reply, the Board dismisses the application.
BACKGROUND
4The Applicant is the biological mother of C.C2. (d.o.b. April […], 1997). He was removed from her care on March […], 2004 and found to be in need of protection on December […], 2004. The Applicant’s son was made a Crown Ward on March […], 2007, with access to his maternal grandmother and extended family members at the Society’s discretion.
5In her application, the Applicant makes the following complaints against the Society:
(a) Abuse by Society staff;
(b) Failure to provide a fair process in the Crown Wardship proceeding;
(c) Concerns regarding the medication given to her son; and
(d) Failure to follow through with the various programs that would reunite the Applicant with her son.
6At the heart of the application, is the Applicant’s belief that she was not treated fairly by the Society in the processes that led to her son being made a Crown Ward. She is requesting that her child be returned to her care.
7Prior to filing this complaint with the Board, the Applicant filed a similar complaint under the Society’s internal complaint process in February 2007 where she complained about the conduct of Society staff and asked that they be removed from her file. She also requested that her son be returned to her and asked the Society to stop giving him medication. Finally, the Applicant made a general complaint regarding the Society’s conduct in the court proceedings. Again, at the core of the Applicant’s internal complaint was her desire to be reunited with her son.
8The Applicant met with the Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (the “ICRP”) on March […], 2007. A summary of that meeting was provided to the Applicant on March […], 2007. In the summary, the ICRP dealt with the Applicant’s request for a change in the entire service team, her request for access, her request that the Society work towards a family reunification plan and her complaint regarding her son’s medication. The Applicant was also provided with information concerning her right to review the Society’s decision following the ICRP to the Board.
ANALYSIS
9The complaints set out in the application before the Board are essentially the same complaints made to the Society under its internal process. The legislation is clear that where a complaint is made internally to a children’s aid society and a decision is made on the complaint, the application to the Board is limited to a review of the ICRP procedure and the decision following completion of the internal process. The Applicant does not have the right to have the same complaint determined by both the ICRP and the Board in the hope that the Board will reach a different conclusion. In order for complaints to be heard directly by the Board, they must be substantively different from the complaints heard and determined by the ICRP. Because the Society released a decision on the same complaints in the internal process, the only application before the Board is a review of the Society’s internal process and decision under section 68(5) of the Act.
10In an application under section 68(5), the Board can review the decision made by the Society if the complaint relates to an alleged inaccuracy in the Society’s files or a matter described in section 68.1(4). The relevant provisions are set out below:
68(5) If a complaint relates to one of the following matters, the complainant may apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the complaint review procedure:
An alleged in accuracy in the society’s files or records regarding the complainant.
A matter described in subsection 68.1(4).
68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 68(1) as required under subsection 68(2).
Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a).
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
11The Board’s review under section 68(5) is limited to determining whether the ICRP failed to follow the procedures required by Regulation 494/06, failed to listen to the concerns set out in the complaint or failed to provide reasons for the decision following completion of the ICRP process. The Board’s role is to ensure that children’s aid societies meet the legislative requirements for internal complaints and provide complainants with meaningful processes whereby their complaints are heard and reasons are given. Under section 68(5), the Board’s mandate is to oversee the complaints process, not to determine the merits of the complaints themselves.
12In this application, the Applicant has made the same complaints to the Board that were heard and determined by the ICRP. As such, her application is limited to a review of the Society’s decision following completion of the ICRP process. The difficulty is the Applicant is not complaining about the ICRP process or its decision. Instead, she is attempting to have the Board determine the same complaints that were heard by the ICRP. The Board has no ability to do this.
13The application before the Board is under section 68(5). Because the complaints are not about the ICRP process, the Board cannot hear the application. For these reasons, the Board dismisses the application.
14The Board would like to take this opportunity to make one final comment. There is no question that at the root of the Applicant’s complaint is her desire to be reunited with her son. The legislation is clear that any decisions relating to the Crown Wardship status of the Applicant’s son can only be made by the Court. The Board has no statutory authority to review these decisions or to order the Society to reunite the Applicant with her son.
CONCLUSION
15The application of C.C1. filed pursuant to section 68(5) of the Act is hereby dismissed.
Jennifer Scott
Presiding Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 8th day of July, 2008.