CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
NB
Applicant
-and-
Child and Family Services for York Region
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney
Indexed As: NB v Child and Family Services for York Region (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
NB, Applicant
Self-Represented
Children and Family Services for York Region, Respondent
Alison Moonsie-Mohan,
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 section 120(4) 4 of the Act: It is alleged that the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made, or a chance to be heard when he raised concerns about the services he is receiving.
3The Applicant is father of one son. The Applicant’s partner is the sister of a young person (the “Youth”). The Youth was living with the Applicant and his partner in a community under the jurisdiction of Grey Bruce Child and Family Services. The Youth received voluntary services from the Respondent agency in York Region.
4On March 14, 2024, the Youth reported to her Worker her concerns regarding fighting in the home between the Applicant and his partner. The Youth was worried about the impact of the fighting on the young child in the home. The Respondent Worker made a referral to Grey Bruce Child and Family Services as the Respondent did not have jurisdiction to investigate any reported concerns in the Applicant’s home community.
5On the next day, while on the telephone with the Youth, the Worker overheard what sounded like a physical altercation in the home. Police were called and the Youth was removed from the home. The Respondent Worker followed-up with Bruce Grey Children’s Aid Society about the concerns and her contact with the police.
6In its Summary Response the Respondent argued that the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to review the Application as the Applicant was not a person who sought or received services from the Respondent.
7After having received the Summary Response, the Applicant provided his Answer. He conceded that he was not directly in receipt of services from the Respondent; however, he had a vested interest in the situation leading up to and including the alleged false allegations made by the Worker. The interest is based on the fact that he allowed the Youth to live in his home. The Applicant argued that the Worker did not have reasonable grounds to report to Grey Bruce Child and Family Services.
8The Applicant asked that the CFSRB investigate and hold the Worker accountable for her actions.
THE LAW
9Section 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
10Section 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
11Section 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
12Section 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,
13H.L.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s. 68), 2012 CFSRB 4 (2012-02-01) (para. 51) as follows:
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
14As noted above, children, young persons and parents have the right to be heard in relation to services they are receiving.
15First, in this case, the Applicant is not a parent of the Youth. The Youth was not in a kinship arrangement with the Applicant and his partner, and the Applicant and his partner were not foster parents. As such, the Applicant is ineligible to have any aspects of his Complaint related to the Youth heard as he was not a parent to her. Under s. 15(2) of the Act, the Respondent does not owe the Applicant the duty to be heard about any issue related to the Youth.
16The Applicant is the father to a young son. The Applicant and his family were the subject of a report by the Respondent Worker to Grey Bruce Child and Family Services. In its Summary Reply, the Respondent conceded that its Worker was a referent regarding concerns related to allegations of domestic violence within the home. In this case, the Applicant received service in the form of a brief investigation through Grey Bruce Child and Family Services. The Applicant did not seek or receive service from the Respondent. As such, the Applicant is not entitled to be heard by the Respondent as he did not receive services from the Respondent.
17Furthermore, I note that in his Answer the Applicant clearly conceded that he was not a person who received services. He argued that he was a person with a vested interest in the situation. Sections 119 and 120 of the Act makes no provision for individuals who have a vested interest in a situation. These sections apply to recipients of service.
18I considered the application of H.L.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services to the facts in the Complaint. In this case, the Respondent did not perform an investigation related to the allegations. The investigation was performed by Grey Bruce Child and Family Services. The Respondent did not make any decisions regarding the Applicant and his family. The Respondent Worker acted in the capacity of referent and not as an investigator. As such, the Respondent does not owe the Applicant reasons for its actions pursuant to H.L.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services.
19Given the Applicant is not a person who sought or received services by the Respondent, I find that he does not have a right to have his concerns heard under s. 15(2), and s. 120(4)4 of the Act.
DECISION
20The Complaint is therefore dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
21Pursuant 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, April 16, 2024.
Daniel McSweeney
Daniel McSweeney
Member