CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
DR
Applicant
-and-
Weechi-it-te-win Family Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney
Indexed As: DR v Weechi-it-te-win Family Services (CYFSA s.120)
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1This is an Application (Complaint) 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”).
2After having reviewed the Complaint, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Complaint pursuant to sections 119 and 120 of the Act.
3The Applicant is the foster care provider to 2 children (the “Children”). The Applicant alleged that the Children would be subject to physical and sexual assaults if they were moved to the proposed placement. The Applicant alleged that a sibling in the home had sexually assaulted one of the Children in the past.
4The Applicant alleged that she was not heard when she raised concerns about the Children’s placement; she was not provided with reasons for the Respondent’s decision; and the Respondent failed to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint and follow its review process or timelines.
THE LAW
5Section 120(4)4 of the Act indicates that the following matters may be reviewed by the Board:
Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(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 subsection 15(2)
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
6Section 2(2) of the Act defines parent as:
a) The person who has lawful custody of the child; or
b) If more than one person has lawful custody of the child, all of the person who have lawful custody of the chid, excluding any person who is unavailable or unable to act, as the context requires
7Section 15(2) of the Act confirms that:
Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity 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
8Section 2(1) of the Act defines service as:
a) a service for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family
b) a mental health service for a child or the child’s family
c) a service related to residential care for a child
d) a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family
e) a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others
f) counselling for a child or the child’s family
g) a service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community
h) a service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or
i) a prescribed service The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint.
9H.L.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s. 68), 2012 CFSRB 4 (para. 51) examines the issue of who is in receipt of services.
Looking at the statute, the Society’s obligation to provide reasons in section 68.1 (4) 5 is not confined to “parents”. If that were the case, the obligation would be associated with section 2(2) (a) of the Act, like the right to be heard. The right to reasons for decisions that affect one’s interests is broad and recognizes that there may be persons other than parents who are involved with children under the Act and whose lives may be impacted by Society decisions. For example, the Board has held that foster parents or teachers who are the subject of an investigation by a society are receiving a service and are entitled to reasons relating to the decisions made in the investigation. The Board has also held that grandparents who have sought access to their grandchildren from a society that controls access have a right to reasons.
ANALYSIS
10The Applicant’s allegations deal with her role as foster parent.
11Under normal circumstances, foster parents are unable to have their section 120 complaints reviewed by the CFSRB as they are not parents; and they are not considered service recipients as they provide services to child protection agencies.
12The CFSRB has found that applications from foster parents can be eligible for review when, for example, they have been subject to an investigation and are seeking reasons for an investigation decision under section 120(4)5. In this case; however, the Applicant has not indicated in her Complaint that she has been subject to an investigation by the Respondent.
13The Applicant disagrees with the placement decision by the Respondent. As a non-parent, she does not have the right to be heard pursuant to s. 120(4)4 of the Act. In addition, as someone who has not received services from the Respondent in relation to her role as foster provider (e.g. been subject to an investigation), the Applicant does not have the right to receive reasons for the Respondent’s decisions in relation to the Children. As such, the CFSRB is not eligible to review the Applicant’s Complaint pursuant to sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
DECISION
14The Application is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
15Pursuant 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, December 19, 2023.
Dated at Toronto, December 19, 2023.
Daniel McSweeney
Daniel McSweeney
Member