KAC v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2023 CFSRB 42

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

KAC Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services Niagara Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Malcolm M. MacFarlane Date: May 12, 2023 Citation: 2023 CFSRB 42 Indexed As: KAC v Family and Children’s Services Niagara (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

KAC, Applicant Self-Represented

Family and Children’s Services Niagara, Respondent Paul Heinen, 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, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act: it is alleged that the Applicant was not heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made and was not heard when she had concerns about the services she was receiving; and the Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected her interests.

THE LAW

3Section 120(7) of the Act states:

After reviewing the complaint, the Board may…

(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.

BACKGROUND

4The Applicant is the mother of a daughter and son (the “Children”).

5In a February 27, 2003 Interim Decision, the CFSRB decided that only one of several issues in the Application would proceed to a hearing. That issue was:

The allegation that the Respondent has not heard the Applicant’s concerns or provided reasons for decisions made by the Respondent relating to the alleged fraudulent redirection of welfare payments from the Applicant to her children’s foster parents.

6In a Case Management Decision dated March 28, 2023, following submissions from the Applicant and the Respondent, the CFSRB directed that a hearing on this issue would proceed in writing. In the Case Management Directive, the CFSRB also ordered that if either party wishes the hearing adjudicator to consider any documents previously filed with the CFSRB, other than the Application and Response, they must refer specifically to those documents in their submissions.

7In response to the March 28, 2023 Case Management Directive, the Applicant made submissions dated April 4, 2023. The Respondent made submissions dated April 21, 2023. The Applicant submitted a Reply dated April 27, 2023.

8This Decision is based upon a review of the written submissions and Reply described in paragraph 9. Neither party referred specifically to previous documents filed with the CFSRB and previous documents were not considered in reaching this decision.

ANALYSIS

9In considering this matter, the key issue to be decided is whether the Applicant was heard by the Respondent regarding her allegations that the Respondent was fraudulently redirecting welfare payments to the foster parents; and whether the Applicant was given reasons for why any such payments were being redirected to the foster parents, if, in fact, such payments were being redirected as alleged.

10In considering this matter, it is not my role to make a finding regarding whether, in fact, welfare funds were being fraudulently redirected to the foster parents. My role is limited to determining whether the Applicant was heard and given reasons regarding this issue.

11I reviewed the Applicant’s April 4, 2023 submissions. In my review of this submission, I found that much of the submission repeated material regarding issues from the Applicant’s previous submissions that were determined in the Interim Decision dated February 27, 2023 to be outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction.

12The Applicant’s April 4, 2023 submissions did not include any documentation indicating that she had raised with the Respondent her concerns regarding the Respondent allegedly redirecting welfare payments to the Children’s foster parents prior to the Applicant’s December 10, 2022 Application. No correspondence to or from the Respondent regarding this issue was included in the Applicant’s submissions.

13I found in reviewing the Applicant’s April 4, 2023 submission that there was little information provided by the Applicant that was specific to, or relevant to, the issue of allegations of welfare payments being fraudulently redirected to the Children’s foster parents.

14In its submission, the Respondent included a March 15, 2023 letter that the Respondent wrote to the Applicant confirming to the Applicant that the Respondent has not redirected any social assistance payments to the Children’s foster parents.

15The text of this letter included references to, and quotations from, relevant sections of the Ontario Works Policy Directives, Section 3.9, and states that any such redirection of funds would be contrary to Ontario Works policy.

16The text of this letter also included references to and quotations from relevant sections of the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) Policy Directives, Section 2.2 and confirmed that no ODSP benefits have been redirected to the Children’s foster parents.

17With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency’s Canada Child Benefit, the Respondent confirms that this benefit has legally been redirected from the Applicant to the Respondent, but advises that this benefit is being appropriately used to support the Applicant’s Children while in the temporary care of the Respondent, and that this benefit is not being redirected to the Children’s foster parents.

18In reviewing the Applicant’s April 27, 2023 reply to the Respondent’s submissions, I found that this reply largely quoted from and repeated the text of her earlier April 4, 2023 submission. I found no additional information or documentation in the Applicant’s April 27, 2023 reply that was helpful or relevant to deciding the issue in dispute.

19In reviewing the Applicant’s and the Respondent’s submissions, I am unable to find any evidence or documentation to support the Applicant’s assertion that she raised her concerns about the redirection of various funds from her to the Respondent or the foster home prior to filing her Application on December 10, 2022.

20I am also not able to find any evidence that the Respondent replied to the Applicant’s concerns regarding this matter prior to their March 15, 2023 correspondence described above.

21As there is no evidence that the Applicant raised her concerns regarding redirection of funds prior to her December 10, 2022 Application, I find that the Applicant has not met her onus of establishing that the Respondent failed to meet its obligations to hear the Applicant under 120(4)4.

22Further, I find that as the Respondent was not aware of the Applicant’s concerns regarding redirection of funds until the Application was filed, the Respondent cannot be faulted for failing to provide reasons and thus has not breached 120(4)5.

23Despite this, I find that as of the March 15, 2023 correspondence, the Respondent has demonstrated that it has heard the Applicant’s concerns, and has provided reasons that meaningfully address the Applicant’s concerns.

ORDER

24For the reasons noted above, this application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

25Pursuant 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.