CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
I.B.
v.
Jewish Family and Child Service
WRITTEN REVIEW
REASONS FOR DECISION
Indexed as: I.B. v. Jewish Family and Child Service (CFSA s.68)
Related Decision: Reasons for Decision on Jurisdiction -I.B. v. Jewish Family & Child Service (CFSA s.68), 2009 CFSRB 48
INTRODUCTION
1I.B. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on May 6, 2009 pursuant to subsection 68.1(4) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) against the Jewish Family and Child Service (“JFCS”).
2In the application to the Board, the Applicant alleges that the JFCS has failed to comply with section 2 (2) (a) of the Act and to provide her with reasons for a decision that affects her interests. Essentially her application is about whether or not the Society listened to her concerns about wanting a specific worker in a Women Abuse program offered by JFCS and whether or not the Society provided her with reasons for its decision about assigning workers.
3The Board determined on May 12, 2009 that the application was eligible for review under section 68.1 (4) 4 and 5. This means that on its face, the application was appropriate to move on to the next stage of the process which is the submission of a summary reply from the JFCS. Consequently, the Board asked the JFCS to file a summary reply.
4The JFCS filed a summary reply on May 19, 2009 alleging that the services offered to the Applicant were not offered by a “Society” under the Act, but rather, by a community agency and therefore, the Board has no jurisdiction to deal with the application. In response to a request from the Board for further information, JFCS provided a further reply and its letters patent on June […], 2009.
5The Board finds that there is sufficient material before it to conduct a written review of the application pursuant to subsection 68.1(5) of the Act and section 13 of Ontario Regulation 494/06.
ISSUES
6The issue before the Board is whether it has jurisdiction to hear the application.
7The relevant sections of the Act are as follows:
68 (1) A person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from a society in accordance with the regulations.
68.1 (1) If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may,
(a) decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 68 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section.
3 (1) In this Act,
“service” means,
(a) a child development service
(b) a child treatment service
(c) a child welfare service
(d) a community support service, or
(e) a youth justice service
“society” means an approved agency designated as a children’s aid society under subsection 15(2) of Part I (Flexible Services)
15 (2) The Minister may designate an approved agency as a children’s aid society for a specified territorial jurisdiction and for any or all of the functions set out in subsection (3)…….
15(3) The functions of a children’s aid society are to,
(a) investigate allegations or evidence that children who are under the age of sixteen years or are in the society’s care or under its supervision may be in need of protection;
(b) protect, where necessary, children who are under the age of sixteen years or are in the society’s care or under its supervision;
(c) provide guidance, counselling and other services to families for protecting children or for the prevention of circumstances requiring the protection of children;
(d) provide care for children assigned or committed to its care under this Act;
(e) supervise children assigned to its supervision under this Act;
(f) place children for adoption under Part VII;
(g) perform any other duties given to it by this or any other Act.
8For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the service offered to the Applicant was not offered by a “society” within the meaning of the Act.
BACKGROUND
9The Applicant received services from the Woman Abuse program offered by JFCS beginning in 2006. She was assigned Ms. W. as a worker and felt that she benefited from her bi-weekly meetings. According to the Applicant, her sessions were cancelled in June of 2008 due to her worker’s illness. However, she sought further assistance in September of 2008 because she was under stress. She was told that she would be assigned another worker but because of staff changes, it took until December of 2008 to get a meeting. She subsequently learned that her original worker had returned and requested that she be re-assigned to Ms. W.. Her request was denied.
10The Applicant’s child did not receive services from the Woman Abuse program. It appears that there was no open child protection file or investigation relating to the Applicant and her child.
11JFCS was incorporated in 1966. It has a broad mandate, beyond the provision of child welfare services, including services to families and immigrants, community organization activities, research and the operation of nursing homes. The Woman Abuse Program is a community program for women who are or have been abused. It provides crisis intervention, assessment, individual and group counselling, counselling for children who have been exposed to abuse, a program for children and their mothers, short term housing and financial assistance and community outreach and referrals. According to JFCS, the program is not part of the children’s aid society that also exists under the umbrella of the JFCS.
ANALYSIS
12The Board finds that the JFCS is a unique agency that operates a variety of programs, not all of which fall within the rubric of the children’s aid society that it operates.
13While JFCS does not deny that its agency operates a children’s aid society under the Act, it is clear that it provides services that could not be encompassed by the Act and the functions of a “society” such as nursing homes and immigrant specific services. This supports JFCS’ position that it operates programs that are outside of the authority of the Act. The Woman Abuse Program is one such program.
14That is not to say that there could never be any intersection between the Woman Abuse program and the children’s aid society at JFCS. However, in this case, there is no evidence that the program was involved at the behest of or in concert with the child welfare part of the agency as a community support service or a service to prevent abuse and protect the child in the home.
15The Applicant has received a service, however, she has not received a service from a children’s aid society. She has received a service from an agency. For this reason, the Board finds that it does not have the authority under the Act to hear the Application. Because the service provider was not a “society”, it is not necessary in the circumstances to examine whether or not the service received fell within the meaning of “service” for the purposes of section 68 and 68.1 of the Act.
CONCLUSION
16The Board dismisses the application.
Sheena Scott
Presiding Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 23rd day of June 2009.