CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
P.M
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
REASONS FOR DECISION
Indexed as: P.M. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant originally brought his application under paragraph 4 of s.68.1(4) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.11 (“Act”). However, after review, the Board determined it was more properly brought under s.68.1(4)5 seeking review, in part, as follows:
There are three children involved in this case. All three children are siblings (…). It would be beneficial and in their best interests to have access to (…) (the Child who is a Crown ward who has been adopted).
2The Respondent Society filed its response and argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to proceed as the substance of the matters raised were addressed by the court when the Child was made a Crown Ward with no access for the purpose of adoption. The Child has subsequently been adopted. The Society’s position was that the Applicant had been heard not only by it, but by the courts dealing with the child protection matter at numerous levels, including the Supreme Court of Canada.
Jurisdiction
3The Board held a conference call with the parties on March 7, 2017 to hear submissions on the issue of the Board’s jurisdiction to proceed to hearing on this matter.
4The Board agrees that any substantive issues concerning sibling access to the Child are not properly before it, having been decided by the Court in the April 2014 order making the Child a crown ward, with no order for access, for the purposes of adoption. The narrower question of whether the Applicant was provided reasons by the Respondent Society for decisions made by it in respect of sibling access is, however, a matter within the Board’s jurisdiction. The Board directed the parties to address this issue by way of a written hearing.
DECISION
5The Board has reviewed the parties' written submissions. For the reasons that follow, I find the Society met its obligation to provide the Applicant with reasons with respect to his concerns about sibling access.
the law
6The relevant sections of the Act are as follows:
s. 2(2) Service providers shall ensure,
(a) that children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving; and
(b) that decisions affecting the interests and rights of children and their parents are made according to clear, consistent criteria and are subject to procedural safeguards.
s. 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; or
(b) where the person first makes the complaint to the society under section 68, submit the complaint to the Board before the society’s complaint review procedure is completed.
(2) If a person submits a complaint to the Board under clause (1) (b) after having brought the complaint to the society under section 68, the Board shall give the society notice of that fact and the society may terminate or stay its review, as it considers appropriate.
(3) A complaint to the Board under this section shall be made in accordance with the regulations.
(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
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).
Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
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.
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2 (2) (a).
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
Such other matters as may be prescribed.
(5) Upon receipt of a complaint under this section, the Board shall conduct a review of the matter.
(6) Subsections 68 (7), (8) and (9) apply with necessary modification to a review of a complaint made under this section.
(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,
(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;
(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;
(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;
(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;
(e) dismiss the complaint; or
(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.
ANALYSIS
7The “right to reasons” under the Act, means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8 at para. 8, the Board held that:
With respect to s. 68.1(4) 5, what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.
8In his written submissions, the Applicant continued to focus on the substance of the issue of sibling access. He stated that his concern remained that the Society took either no steps or that it took inadequate steps to ensure that the Child, who has since been adopted, had access to her siblings, one of whom is presently in the care of the Applicant and his partner (the child’s biological mother). He reiterates that it was, and continues to be, in the Child’s best interests to have access to her siblings.
9In its written submission, the Respondent Society laid out the history of the litigation relating to the Child and submitted an extensive outline of its progress through various levels of court, up to and including the Supreme Court of Canada. The historical outline makes it clear that the Applicant was present and fully engaged in the legal proceedings following the apprehension of the Child, leading to the Child being made a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption by the court and subsequent appeals of that decision.
10The Respondent outlined its primary position that once the Child was made a Crown ward with no access, it was not obliged to affect access with members of the biological family, including siblings, a position it made clear to the Applicant during the course of the litigation.
11Specifically, the Respondent pointed out that, following the order granting Crown wardship, the Applicant argued that access should be permitted during the appeal process. In response, the Applicant was provided reasons for the Society’s taking the position that continuing access would not be in the Child’s best interests because of child protection concerns that had been explained to the Applicant on several occasions.
12The Respondent also pointed out that once the Child was adopted, the Society retained no decision making role in the Child’s life and, as a result, is not in a position to take any steps relating to access between the siblings.
13Although the Applicant clearly does not agree with the reasons provided by the Respondent Society for its decisions as they relate to access between the siblings, there is ample evidence to establish reasons were provided that were meaningful, and which addressed the specific concerns that he has expressed.
14The courts having decided that the Child was to be made a Crown ward with no access, it was the Respondent Society’s position that it did not have an obligation to arrange for access between the Child and members of her biological family and that it made its position clear to the Applicant throughout the court proceedings.
conclusion
15The Board concludes that the Applicant was given reasons as required under sections 68.1(4)5 of the Act by the Society. Accordingly, the application is dismissed in accordance with s. 68.1(7)(e) of the Act.
confidentiality order
16Pursuant to Rules 30.1 and 30.2 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including through the media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board’s proceedings except with an order of the Court or the Board, as appropriate.
Jay Sengupta
___________________
Jay Sengupta
Vice-chair
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 15^th^ day of May, 2017.