CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
BKB
Applicant
-and-
Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Caroline Sand
Date: May 16, 2024
Citation: 2024 CFSRB 59
Indexed As: BKB v Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region
(CYFSA s.120)
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, SO 2017, c.14, Sched. 1 (the “Act”).
BACKGROUND
2The Applicant and her family have had significant involvement with the Respondent in the past: BKB v. Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region, 2018 CFSRB 58; BKB v. Family & Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2019 CFSRB 80; BKB v. Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region, 2021 CFSRB 85; BKB v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region; 2022 CFSRB 39, BKB v. Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region, 2022 CFSRB 63.
3Most recently, the CFSRB released Decision BKB v. Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region, 2023 CFSRB 102. That Decision dismissed the Application as not eligible for review, because the Applicant was not complaining in respect to a service she herself had sought or received from the Respondent as defined in the Act.
The Application
4The Applicant alleges that the director of the Society denied her access to documents pertaining to “the functioning of the Board” that the Applicant alleged were public documents. The Applicant was specifically seeking “the accountability agreement between the Board and Ministry, and the Board’s governance policies and by-laws,” which the Applicant indicates she ultimately received through a Freedom of Information Request.
5In answer to Question 6 (“Tell us why you are applying to the CFSRB”), the Applicant alleges that the Respondent has not given her a chance to be heard when she raised her concerns and has not given her reasons for its decisions that affect her interests.
ANALYSIS
6This Application is similar to the previous Application filed by the Applicant, and found to be not eligible for review in BKB v. Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region, 2023 CFSRB 102.
7Subsection 120(1) of the Act limits the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to the review of complaints “in respect of a service sought or received from a society” in relation to matters “described in subsection 120 (4).”
7The Applicant is not complaining in respect to a service she herself has sought or received from the Respondent as defined in the Act.
8Neither the matters set out in subsection 120(4) of the Act nor the definition of service in section 2(1) of the Act include an individual’s right to have the society send them the documents they request, whether they are publicly available or not, if they are not related to a service being sought or received as has been defined by the Act. It is clear from the documents the Applicant listed, that the request was not related to a service the Applicant sought or received from the Respondent as defined by the Act. The CFSRB has no jurisdiction to undertake a review of the society’s denial of a request for documents in these circumstances. As such, this Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB.
ORDER
9The Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
10Pursuant 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, May 16, 2024.
Caroline Sand
Caroline Sand.
Vice-Chair