C.Y. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 16

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

C.Y.

v.

Family and Children’s Services Niagara

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: April 25, 2012
Citation: 2012 CFSRB 16
Indexed as: C.Y. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara

(CFSA s.68)

WRITTEN REVIEW

1These are the reasons for decision in the written review of the application of C.Y. (Applicant). The application was found eligible under section 68.1(4) subsections 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) on March 27, 2012. The Board received a Summary Reply from the Family and Children’s Services Niagara (Society), respondent in the application on March 28, 2012. The Board’s process is now at the stage of determining whether it will proceed to an oral hearing in the matter or whether it has enough information to make a final decision. The Board has determined that it has sufficient information to conduct a written review and dismisses the application for the following reasons.

2The Applicant complains that the Society did not hear him when he raised concerns regarding the services he received from the Society, and that the Society did not hear him or provide an explanation when decisions were made that affect his interest. More specifically, the Applicant requested copies of his Society file, his wife’s file and his son’s file. He is dissatisfied with the Society’s response to his request.

3The Board must decide if the Society heard the Applicant when it made the decisions about whether and how to release information to him and if they heard his concerns about their approach and finally, if they provided him with explanations for what they decided to release and how.

4The Society has agreed to give the Applicant copies of his file if he provides photo identification to the Society. They have advised the Applicant that this is a policy of the Society.

5The Applicant has provided the Board with a copy of letters he received from the Society. In its February […], 2012 letter, the Society explained that its policy requires photo identification before giving access to a file and that it will need a signed letter of consent and photo identification from his wife in order to give the Applicant access to his wife’s file. A letter dated March […], 2012 to the Applicant from the Society was to the same effect. On March […], 2012, in another letter to the Applicant, the Society made very clear that its policy was to obtain photo identification before releasing a copy of the Applicant’s file and that a similar protocol would apply to his wife’s file. The letter refers to a telephone conversation between the Applicant and S.M., Service Director of Ongoing Services. These three letters were forwarded to the Board by the Applicant himself.

6The Board dismisses the application. First, the Board finds that the Society has met its obligation to hear the Applicant. The Society had conversations with the Applicant. They responded to and did not ignore his request for file disclosure. It appears from the letters that they considered his position but told him they could not deviate from their policy. Second, the Board finds that the Society provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision. Letters were sent to the Applicant, explaining that a policy was in place to ensure confidentiality of the individuals’ files. The letters provided enough information for the Applicant to understand why the Society required identification and regarding his wife, identification and consents.

7The Board has no jurisdiction to review if the Society’s decision, based on its policy is correct. The Board may only review whether the Society has taken into account the position of the Applicant in its decision to request the photo identification.

8For the above reasons, the Board has dismissed the application of [the Applicant].

Suzanne Gilbert

Suzanne Gilbert
Presiding Member