CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
KAC
Applicant
-and-
Durham Children’s Aid Society
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney
Indexed As: KAC v Durham Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
KAC
Applicant
Self-represented
Durham Children’s Aid Society, Respondent
Liza M. Lobo
Counsel
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”).
2The Complaint was found eligible for review under sections 120(4) 4 and 120(4) 5 of the Act: It is alleged that the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made, or a chance to be heard when she raised concerns about the services she is receiving; and it is alleged that the Society has failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected her interests.
3The Applicant is the mother of two children.
4In her Complaint dated August 16, 2023, the Applicant alleged the following:
The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons why it would not make corrections to what the Applicant alleges are inaccuracies in its records; and
The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for its refusal to participate in Court proceedings at which allegedly inaccurate records created by the Respondent were referenced.
5In its Response to the Application, the Respondent argued that the CFSRB did not have the jurisdiction to review a complaint dealing with record corrections pursuant to Part X of the Act. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has the jurisdiction to review any complaints regarding this issue.
6In addition, the Respondent indicated that it is unaware of any Court proceedings regarding the Applicant in which it is involved. The Respondent has not been named as a party in any Court proceedings involving the Applicant, and the Respondent has not initiated any proceedings involving the Applicant. The Respondent noted; however, that another child protection agency had been identified as a party in proceedings that involved the Applicant. The Respondent indicated that the Applicant might have been confusing the 2 different child protection agencies.
7On February 7, 2024, and after hearing the submissions from both parties, the Vice-Chair decided that it would be appropriate to hold the hearing in writing. The Vice-Chair found that this would be the most expeditious and efficient format for determining the issues. Rules 8.1 and 8.2 in the CFSRB Rules of Procedure provide the authority to decide the format of a hearing (writing, oral, or electronic) based on a variety of considerations including efficiency and expediency.
8The Applicant was provided with an opportunity to provide written submissions. On February 7, 2024, the Applicant provided submissions which focused on her concerns that the Respondent refused to update the provincial child protection system and correct inaccuracies in its files; and refused to provide her with satisfactory answers. The submissions also addressed the Applicant’s concerns with the Respondent’s investigation process, outcomes, records, and record keeping procedures; and the alleged stigma that the Respondent’s records has placed on her life.
THE LAW
9Section 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.
10The CFSRB Rules of Procedure provides the CFSRB with the ability to hold hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or videoconference. Subsection 8.1 of the Rules state:
In deciding the format of a hearing, the CFSRB will consider:
a) whether it is a fair and accessible process for the parties;
b) the costs and efficiency of the process;
c) the potential for a more expeditious resolution;
d) the convenience of the parties;
e) the consistency with the CFSRB’s mandate;
f) whether the facts or evidence may be agreed upon;
g) the estimated duration of the hearing;
h) whether the issues for hearing are predominantly legal issues;
i) whether oral testimony is likely to be needed;
j) any objections to the format of the hearing.
11Section 316(1) of the Act sets out the procedure for making a complaint which includes corrections to records. It states that:
“A person who has reasonable grounds to believe that another person has contravened or is about to contravene a provision of this Part or the regulations made for the purposes of this Part may make a complaint to the Commissioner.”
ANALYSIS
12Before considering the merits of the Complaint, I considered whether the CFSRB had the jurisdiction to address the two issues in the Complaint.
13Based on the documents and submissions before me, I find that the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review the Complaint.
14In reference to Issue 1 (Respondent’s refusal to make corrections) I find that Part X of the Act is clear that the responsibility to review allegations of inaccuracies in records falls with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) and not the CFSRB. The Applicant can raise her concerns with the IPC, and it is up to the IPC to assess the Respondent’s responses to the Applicant’s request.
15With respect to Issue 2 (Respondent’s refusal to participate in Court proceedings), I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address this issue. The Respondent indicated in its response that it has not been identified as a party in any Court proceedings involving the Applicant. The Applicant alleged that the Respondent failed to provide reasons as to why it refused to participate in Court proceedings. This concern does not relate to a service provided by the Respondent to the Applicant and/or her children. The CFSRB; therefore, does not have the jurisdiction to review this concern under s. 120 of the Act.
16In addition, the Respondent’s alleged failure to participate in Court proceedings is an issue that should be argued before the Court. The CFSRB has no jurisdiction to review the Respondent’s failure to provide reasons for its actions or inactions before the Court.
DECISION
17For the reasons identified above, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s Complaint. As such, there is no need to review and make findings on the merits of the Complaint.
18The Application is dismissed in its entirety.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
19Pursuant 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, March 07, 2024.
Daniel McSweeney
Daniel McSweeney
Member