A.A. v. Family and Children Services of the Waterloo Region, 2008 CFSRB 71

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

A.A.

v.

Family and Children Services of the Waterloo Region

REASONS FOR DECISION

WRITTEN REVIEW

Date: July 17, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 71

Indexed as: A.A. v. F&CS of the Waterloo Region (CFSA s.68)

1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from A.A. (the “Applicant”) on June 11, 2008 regarding a complaint against the Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1(4)1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The Board received the Society’s summary reply to the application on June 24, 2008. The Applicant complains that the Society failed to proceed with his complaint regarding inaccuracies in his file.

2The 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 and the Society’s summary reply, the Board orders the Society to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation.

BACKGROUND

3The Applicant is the biological father of three children: R.A., J.A. and L.A. The Society investigated an incident between the Applicant and his ex-wife on February […], 2008 in order to determine whether their children were at risk of harm. The Society asked the Peel Children’s Aid Society to speak with the Applicant and his partner about the care provided to the children in their home. The Society released the results of the investigation to the Applicant by letter dated May […], 2008. On June […], 2008, the Applicant wrote to Pat Gillies, the Director of the Society, to complain about inaccuracies in the May […] letter and asked to be directed to the Society’s Internal Complaint Review Procedure (the “ICRP”) if the Director was unable to assist him.

4On June 11, 2008, the Applicant filed his application with the Board. He complained about inaccuracies in the Society’s letter of May […], 2008 and the Society’s failure to deal with his complaint. The Applicant requested that the May […] letter be revised to reflect the true outcome of the investigation into the care provided to his children in his home.

5The Society filed its summary reply on June […], 2008. The Society took the position that it was premature for the application to go the Board. The Society provided no evidence that it commenced the ICRP process to deal with the Applicant’s complaint or that the complaint was resolved by the Director.

ANALYSIS

6In order for the Board to review a complaint regarding inaccuracies in the Applicant’s file, the Applicant must have his complaint reviewed by the Society’s internal complaints process first. Upon completion of that process, the Board can review both the internal process and the Society’s decision following the process. The relevant statutory 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:

1. An alleged in accuracy in the society’s files or records regarding the complainant.

2. A matter described in subsection 68.1(4).

68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

1. 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).

2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.

3. 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.

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a).

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

7The Board’s review under section 68(5) is limited to determining whether the ICRP followed the procedures required by Regulation 494/06, listened to the concerns set out in the complaint and provided 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.

8In this application, the Applicant has complained about inaccuracies in the letter dated May […], 2008. This complaint must go through the Society’s internal complaints process before it can be reviewed by the Board. The Applicant’s letter to the Society on June […], 2008 was a clear request that his complaint be sent to the ICRP if it could not be resolved with the Director. There is no evidence before the Board that the complaint was resolved or forwarded to the ICRP by the Director. It must now proceed to the ICRP.

CONCLUSION

9The Society is ordered to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint in accordance with the procedure established by Regulation 494/06 pursuant to section 68.1(7)(a) of the Act. The Society must hold a meeting between the Applicant and the ICRP within fourteen days of the date of this decision.

Jennifer Scott

Board Member