CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SM
Applicant
-and-
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley
Indexed As: SM v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
SM, Applicant
Self-represented
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, Respondent
Mona Anis, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
the law
2Section 120 of the Act provides that, if a person has “a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society [and the complaint] relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may decide” to make a complaint to either the society or the CFSRB.
3Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure permits the CFSRB to decide an Application on the basis of the Application and the Response.
background
4The CFSRB found the Application eligible to move to the next stage in the process, i.e., receipt of a Response from the Respondent.
5In its June 18, 2020 Response, the Respondent questioned whether the Applicant was an individual who had sought or received services from the Respondent.
6The CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction dated June 23, 2020 directing the Applicant to provide written submissions on or before July 10, 2020 “to explain why she agrees or disagrees with the Respondent’s position that she did not seek or receive services from the Respondent.”
7The Applicant did not provide written submissions or otherwise communicate with the CFSRB by July 10, 2020 or at any time up to the date of this Decision.
analysis
8The Applicant is the paternal grandmother of several children. She has concerns about the children’s wellbeing in the care of her son.
9The Respondent states that although it had discussions with the Applicant about her “potentially assuming a future caregiving role should the children need to be removed from their father’s care” the Applicant “was not assessed as a kinship caregiver and the children were assessed as safe in their father’s care”.
10The Applicant has not provided any submissions challenging the information provided by the Respondent.
11I find the Applicant’s complaints are not about services she herself has sought or received. Rather, they are about the Respondent’s actions and decisions regarding her grandchildren.
12As a result, this Application is outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.
order
13The Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
14Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this Application with anyone, including through the media or online. The CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.
Dated at Toronto, July 15, 2020.
Catherine Bickley
Catherine Bickley
Vice-Chair