CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
C.L1., C.M., C.L2. & D.L.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
REASONS FOR DECISION
WRITTEN REVIEW
Indexed as: C.L1., C.M., C.L2. & D.L. v. CAS of Ottawa (CFSA s. 68)
INTRODUCTION
1C.L1., C.M., C.L2. and D.L. filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on December 23, 2008 pursuant to subsection 68.1(1) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) against the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (the “Society”).
2The application to the Board alleges that the Society has failed to comply with complaint review procedures, that it failed to comply with subsection 2(2)(a) of the Act, and that it failed to provide the signatories to the application with reasons for a decision that affects their interests.
3The Board determined on December 31, 2008 that the application was eligible for review, meaning the application was eligible to proceed to the next step in the Board’s process.
4The Society filed a summary reply on January 9, 2009. The Board finds that the material before it is sufficient 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 “Complaints to a Society and Reviews by the Child and Family Services Review Board” (“O.Reg 494/06”).
BACKGROUND
5C.L1. is the mother of three children, two of whom are relevant to this complaint: S. (aged 9) and J. (aged 10). C.M. is C.L1.’s current partner; C.L2. and D.L. are C.L1.’s parents.
6On August […], 2007, as a result of Society intervention, C.L1. and C.M. (“the Applicants”) consented to have S. and J. stay with their father, K.S., on a temporary basis until C.L1. and C.M. could resolve certain parenting issues. By August […], the Applicants were no longer in agreement that the children be placed with Mr. K.S. and asked that they be placed with their maternal grandparents, D.L. and C.L2. (“the grandparents”). The Society undertook an assessment of that placement possibility.
7The Society started a protection application before the court on August […], 2007. The children remained in Mr. K.S.’s care by way of court order until March […], 2008, when they were returned to the Applicants under a 6-month supervision order. The supervision order was terminated on September […], 2008.
8The Applicants and the grandparents met with the Society on October […], 2008 with respect to complaints they voiced. According to the Society’s Summary Reply dated January 9, 2009, the Society agreed to do a complete file review as a result of the meeting.
9The Society sent a letter to the Applicants on November […], 2008 following its file review. It appears the letter was eventually received by the Applicants on November […], 2008.
10The Applicants filed a written complaint with the Society dated November […], 2008. The Society asked for clarification of the complaint from the Applicants by letter dated November […], 2008, but none was received.
11The Applicants sent a further letter of complaint dated December […], 2008, directed to P.V., Director of Professional Standards, reiterating their complaints.
12The Society responded to the November […] and December […] letters, with a letter dated December […], 2008, which was delivered on January […], 2009.
13In the meantime, the Applicants filed an application with this Board on December 23, 2008. In their application to the Board, the Applicants complain that:
the Society “took the children away”;
the Society allowed their father, K.S., who has “never been there physically or financially”, to move them to another school and that the Society ignored correspondence from the Applicants on this issue;
they were generally misled, ignored and treated without respect.
14The Applicants concluded with a request to the Board to “review the documents and answer how and why the children were taken away”.
15The Applicants also attached to the Application the December […], 2008 complaint letter addressed to Mr. P.V.. In the letter, the Applicants make the same complaints as those in their application, as well as the allegations that:
the Society “acted as legal counsel” for K.S.;
the Society gave no reason for the decision to separate the children and ignored the Applicants’ concerns in this regard;
the Society ignored S.’s stated desire to return to the Applicant’s home on August […], 2008;
various statements in “additional documents” are untrue, including one comment allegedly made by a worker, D.T., which she later denied.
16The Society forwarded a Summary Reply on January 9, 2009 to the Board. In it, the Society argues that the complaints are outside the jurisdiction of the Board, in part, because some of the signatories to the complaint did not “seek or receive” services from the Society and in part, because other issues have been dealt with by the Court. It also argues that even if the Board has jurisdiction to hear the complaints, the Society proceeded with the complaints as required, provided the complainants with reasons for its decisions, and provided an opportunity for them to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests were being made.
ISSUES
17The issues for the Board to determine are (i) whether the Board has jurisdiction to hear the complaint; (ii) whether the Society provided the Applicants with an opportunity for their concerns to be heard; and (iii) whether the Society refused to proceed with the complaint.
ANALYSIS
(i) Jurisdiction
18As a statutory tribunal, the Board may only hear complaints as defined by sections 68 and 68.1 of the Act.
19The Society makes two arguments on this ground. The first is that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the application made by C.L2. and D.L.. C.L2. and D.L. are grandparents and therefore did not “seek or receive” child protection services from the Society as required under sections 68(5) and 68.1(1). Only C.L1. and C.M., it argues, may make an application to this Board.
20The Board agrees. The grandparents were only provided with the service of an evaluation as possible alternative caregivers when the children were removed from the care of their mother and Mr. C.M.. Since their application to this Board does not complain about this service, the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the application from C.L2. and D.L..
21The Board has proceeded to consider the application made by C.L1. and C.M..
[22] Secondly, the Society argues that the subject matter of the application is a matter that has been before a Court, as per section 68.1(8)(a), which states:
The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the Court or is before the Court.
23On the basis of the Court documents forwarded to the Board, we find that issues 1, 4, 5 and part of issue 6 are matters that have been before a Court and as a result, the Board does not have jurisdiction over them. Issue 2 does not relate to a service sought or received from the Society and as such, the Board has no jurisdiction to hear it. The Board does not have jurisdiction over issue 7 as it must be considered first by an internal complaint panel of the Society. The Board’s reasons for these findings are set out below:
Issue no. 1: The Society “took the children away”
24The Society apprehended the children pursuant to a Court order. A consent order has been provided to the Board. This was clearly the subject of a Court decision and the Board has no jurisdiction.
Issue no. 2: the Society allowed K.S. to move the children to another school
25The Society argues that this is a parental right which is outside the power of the Society. It could not legally have stopped the children’s father from sending them to a school of his choice.
26The Board finds that, as this was outside the jurisdiction of the Society, so was it a decision outside the jurisdiction of this Board to review. A decision by the children’s father relating to their schooling does not relate to a service sought or received by the Society.
Issue no. 3: the Applicants were generally misled, ignored and treated without respect
27This complaint deals directly with the Society’s treatment of the Applicants, as recipients of services by the Society. The manner in which a Society treats its clients is not a matter before the Court, and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the Board.
Issue no. 4: the Society “acted as legal counsel” for K.S.
28The complaint appears to infer that the Society was biased in its treatment of the children’s father, as compared to the mother and her family. The “legal counsel” reference relates to a decision of the Court on the placement of the children. Any allegations of Society bias in this regard would have appropriately been raised before the Court in making its placement decision. The Board has no jurisdiction.
Issue no. 5: decision to separate the children
29The placement of the children was a decision of the Court. As such, the Board has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The Applicants participated in the Court proceedings and reasons would have been given in the context of those proceedings.
Issue no. 6: Failure to listen to S.’s desire to return home
30When and under what conditions S. could return to the Applicants’ home is decision of the Court and outside the jurisdiction of this Board. There is specific mention of Court proceedings relating to S. returning home in the Statement of Agreed Facts filed with the Court, attached to the Summary Reply.
31Nonetheless, the Board may receive complaints dealing with a failure of the Society to listen to the Applicants about this, as with any other service-related issue. The Board has jurisdiction over this portion of the issue.
Issue no. 7: various statements in “additional documents” are untrue
32The Applicants allege in their application that Society and its workers have made a number of untrue statements, including a comment allegedly made, and later denied by, D.T..
33Section 68(5) of the Act provides that a complaint regarding inaccurate file information may only be made to the Board after it has been considered internally first by the Society. In this case, there has been no internal complaints review panel struck to deal with this complaint. As a result, this complaint is premature and we do not have jurisdiction to hear it at this time. The Applicants have the right to make this complaint in writing to the Society and for it to be heard in accordance with the regulations.
34The other issues all deal with, or contain aspects that touch upon, the treatment of the Applicants by the Society and their complaint procedure. As such, their “subject matter” is not before the Court and the Board has jurisdiction to hear them.
(ii) whether the Society provided the Applicants with an opportunity for their concerns to be heard (issues 3 and 6)
35It emerges from a reading of this application, and is clear from the remedy requested by the Applicants, that the subject matter of this complaint is essentially that the children were apprehended by the Society and the impact that had on them.
36It must be stated that the role of this Board is to review whether the Society heard the Applicants’ concerns, and gave reasons for decisions affecting the Applicants’ interests. The Board’s role is not to determine whether a Society was right or wrong in its actions that form the basis of the complaint. To determine the question of whether the Applicants were heard about concerns and given reasons, the Board must consider the discussions and meetings that took place and letters that were exchanged, in an effort to address the Applicants’ concerns.
37The Board is satisfied through its review of the Summary Reply that all the complaints raised in the application to the Board were raised previously with the Society and the Applicants were heard by the Society in relation to these complaints.
Issue no. 3: the Applicants felt “misled, ignored, and treated without respect”
38This issue was first raised with the Society orally. The Society met with the Applicants and the grandparents on October […], 2008. According to the Summary Reply, the subject-matter of the meeting was the same as that raised in the complaints to this Board; i.e. the removal of the children from the Applicants’ home and the location of their placement and the fact their father changed schools. The Applicants expressed that they were upset with these events. The Society then followed-up the meeting with a file review and a letter dated November […], 2008.
39The Society’s letter of December […], 2008 deals specifically with the Applicants’ complaint that they felt the November […], 2008 letter did not “treat their concerns with seriousness and respect”. The evidence indicates that the Society was responsive to the Applicants’ concerns. The response letter was timely and took each of the Applicants’ issues seriously by addressing each one. While it is clear that the Applicants believe there were negative impacts on the children from their time away from their mother and grandparents and that the Society did not act to remediate those affects, there is nonetheless nothing to indicate that the Applicants were misled, ignored or disrespected regarding their complaints to the Society.
40The Board dismisses this complaint.
Issue no. 6: Failure to listen to the Applicants regarding S.’s desire to return home
41The correspondence on file indicates that the Society has met with the Applicants on a number of occasions and received concerns from them in writing. The Court documents filed indicate that the Society took the position before the Court in March 2008 that S. should return to the Applicants’ home with supervision. This would indicate that the Society did indeed receive information that S. wished to return home. It would appear that the Applicants believe the Society did not act on this information quickly enough. Nonetheless, the Board finds there is insufficient evidence that the Society failed to provide the Applicants with their 2(2)(a) rights (i.e. right to be heard where decisions are made that affect their interests).
42The Board finds the Society has been responsive to the Applicants’ complaints and provided them with the opportunity to be heard regarding concerns about the service they were receiving. The Board therefore dismisses the application.
(iii) whether the Society refused to proceed with the complaint
43The Applicants met with a manager and a supervisor from the Society on October […], 2008, as a result of concerns raised verbally by Mr. D.L.. The Society undertook a file review and sent the Applicants a letter in response, on November […], 2008.
44Also on November […], 2008, the Applicants sent a complaint letter to the Society. Six days later, the Society responded, asking for further information so they could make a determination about the eligibility of the complaint under the complaint review requirements established by regulation. The Applicants did not provide any further detail.
45The Applicants sent a second letter of complaint to the Society on December […], 2008. The Society characterizes this letter as containing the same issues as those contained in the November […], 2008 letter, without any further clarification. The Society responded by letter dated December […], 2008 (delivered January […], 2009), signed by P.V., Director Professional Standards. That letter is attached to the Summary Reply, and indicates that the Society found the Applicants’ complaint not to be eligible for an internal complaint review procedure. It reasons were the same as those argued in the Summary Reply, arguing that the Board is without jurisdiction to receive the complaints.
46The Board has found that there are aspects of the complaint (specifically issue 3 and part of issue 6) that are within its jurisdiction, and consequently would also be eligible for an internal complaint review panel (“ICRP”) under the regulations. Thus, although the Society failed to deal with those complaints as required, no further order will be made as the Board has dealt with the complaints directly.
CONCLUSION
47For all of the above-noted reasons, the Board dismisses the application.
Heather Gibbs
Presiding Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 9^th^ day of February, 2009.