CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
JB
Applicant
-and-
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney
Indexed As: JB v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (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 father of two children.
4The Complaint focused on the Applicant’s concerns regarding a document submitted to the Court by a member of the Respondent’s staff. The Applicant alleged that the document was misleading and biased against him and negatively affected the outcome at Court. The Applicant also indicated that the staff member’s actions and conduct raised questions of professionalism, training, and adherence to Catholic doctrine which needed to be investigated.
THE LAW
1Section 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
2Section 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
3Section 120(8) of the Act states that the:
The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,
a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court
ANALYSIS
4I considered several issues in the analysis of whether the CFSRB had jurisdiction to address the issues in the Complaint.
5Firstly, I note that the Complaint identified the Applicant’s concerns regarding a letter submitted by a staff member to the Court. As noted above, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review issues that have been or are currently before the Court pursuant to s. 120(8) of the Act. In this case, the Applicant’s concern regarding the truthfulness and content of any document presented to the Court needs to be raised at Court. The Court has the authority to assess the credibility and reliability of evidence before it and to determine the weight of any evidence in relation to its decisions.
6Secondly, I find that the Applicant’s Complaint involves his concerns with the professionalism, training, and bias related to a particular employee. As noted above, s. 120 of the Act provides the CFSRB with the jurisdiction to review whether the Applicant was heard and whether he was provided with reasons for decisions that affected his interests. The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review or comment on human resource issues nor does it have any remedies to address staffing or human resource issues based on s. 120(7).
7Finally, I find that the Complaint does not allege that the Respondent has failed to hear the Applicant’s concerns, nor does it allege that the Respondent failed to provide reasons for a decision that affected the Applicant’s interests. As such, the Complaint falls outside the jurisdiction of sections 120(4) and 120(4)5.
8For the reasons outlined above, I find that the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review the Complaint.
9From the documents appended to the Complaint, I note that the Applicant has shared his concerns with the Catholic Church, as well as another child protection agency. The Applicant is reminded that the Complaint and the CFSRB’s response to this Complaint are covered by the Confidentiality Order cited below.
DECISION
10The Complaint is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
11Pursuant 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 14, 2024.
Daniel McSweeney
Daniel McSweeney
Member