I.B. v. Jewish Family and Child Service, 2009 CFSRB 48

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

I.B.

v.

Jewish Family and Child Service

REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION

Date: September 1, 2009

Citation: 2009 CFSRB 48

Indexed as: I.B. v. Jewish Family and Child Service (CFSA s.68)

Related Decision: Written Review - Reasons for Decision - I.B. v. Jewish Family & Child Service (CFSA s.68), 2009 CFSRB 30

INTRODUCTION

1This is the decision of the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on the question of the Board’s jurisdiction regarding the application of I.B. (the “Applicant”) pursuant to section 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”).

BACKGROUND

2The background to this application is described in written reasons for a decision by the Board dated June 23, 2009 (CA09-0080). Briefly, the Applicant brought a complaint against the Jewish Family and Child Service (the “JF&CS”) to the Board in her application received on May 6, 2009. After receiving the JF&CS’s summary reply of May 19, 2009, and additional information on June 8, 2009, a single member of the Board conducted a written review. The Board issued a decision on June 23, 2009 dismissing the application due to a lack of jurisdiction. Member Scott found that the services offered to the Applicant were not offered by a “Society” within the meaning of the Act, but rather, by a community agency which does not fall under Board’s mandate.

3The Applicant forwarded further information on June 25, 2009 which had not been before the Board at the time of its decision. She requested that the file be re-opened and that an oral hearing take place to consider the question of the Board’s jurisdiction. The Board granted her request on July 13, 2009 and an oral hearing on jurisdiction was held on August 13, 2009.

4The Applicant is not seeking to overturn the Board’s finding that it does not have jurisdiction over non-children’s aid functions of the JF&CS, a unique agency offering a variety of programs. Rather, her additional information raises the issue of which arm of the JF&CS she was receiving services from: a Children’s Aid Society under the Child and Family Services Act or a community agency.

5For the reasons that follow, the Board does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Applicant’s complaint.

ANALYSIS

6The Applicant acknowledges that she primarily received counseling from the Women Abuse program. However, she also received child protection services from the JF&CS.

7The position of the Applicant is that the Board cannot take a restrictive and literal interpretation of the Act in this matter. She argues that the two arms of the JF&CS are not two separate entities and they must work in conjunction with one another. The Applicant argues she was offered an integration of services and that in reality, it is difficult to separate out “abused women counseling” versus counseling to improve parental coping skills with the goal of preventing child protection issues. Rather, there is a dynamic and ongoing intersection between the Society and the Agency.

8The Applicant referenced paragraph 14 of Ms. Scott’s decision in which she wrote:

That is not to say that there never could be any intersection between the Woman Abuse program and the children’s aid society at JF&CS. 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.

9According to the Applicant’s testimony, Ms. W., her Woman Abuse Program counselor, notified the child protection arm of JF&CS as a result of a disclosure she made during counseling. The Applicant filed into evidence a letter dated March […], 2009 in which E.B., Family Service Worker, confirms that the Applicant’s “file has been closed in our child protective services”. Further, she writes that “your involvement with the Jewish Family and Child Service will continue through the support that you are receiving from the Woman Abuse Team.”

10The Applicant agreed that her complaint relates to the Woman Abuse Program counselor she has been assigned by the JF&CS.

11The position of the Society is that the Board had no jurisdiction because the subject of the complaint is the service offered to the Applicant under the Abused Women arm of JF&CS, rather than the child-protection arm. The Board, it argues, only has jurisdiction to hear applications relating to complaints against services offered under the Children’s Aid Society arm of the JF&CS.

12W.W., Director of Family and Community Services, testified that the JF&CS contains two very separate arms. Each of the arms has a separate Director. Funding for the JF&CS’ child welfare services comes from the Ministry of Child and Youth Services, while funding for the Women Abuse program comes from the United Way, the United Jewish Appeal Federation and the Ministry of Community Services.

13The issue of whether the JF&CS has a community service arm which is outside the jurisdiction of the Board was decided by Ms. Scott in her June 23, 2009 decision. We find that the subject matter of the Applicant’s complaint deals squarely with her desire for a particular Abused Woman counselor, and whether she was provided with reasons for not being assigned to that counselor. The complaint raised in the application to the Board does not relate to a service the Applicant received from a Children’s Aid Society.

14An administrative tribunal is a creature of statute and only has the power to decide issues empowered to it under an act of the legislature. Unlike a court, it has no “inherent jurisdiction” to determine issues not specifically within its powers. The Board’s jurisdiction under section 68.1 of the Act is limited to complaints regarding services sought or received from a Children’s Aid Society. It has no jurisdiction to hear complaints relating to community services.

15We find the service provider was not a “Society” within the meaning of the Act.

CONCLUSION

16The Board has no jurisdiction to deal with the Applicant’s complaint and dismisses the application.

Heather Gibbs

Presiding Member

Lorna King

Panel Member

Nycole Roy

Panel Member