DR v. Family and Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin County, 2025 ONCFSRB 48

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

DR Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: April 10, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 48 Indexed As: DR v Family and Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin County (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1On January 30, 2025, the Applicant made a written request to the Respondent for an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting (ICRP). On February 4, 2025, the Respondent sent a letter to the Applicant advising that the complaint was not eligible to proceed.

2This Application was filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched. 1 (the “Act”).

3The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)1, 120(4)2 and 120(4)3 of the Act on March 21, 2025, all of which pertain to the commencement, review and process of bringing a complaint to a society.

4The Respondent submitted its Response on April 1, 2025.

5Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure permits the CFRSB to decide an Application based on the Application and the Response. I find that I have sufficient information to make a decision. In addition to the Application and Response, I have before me email and letter correspondence between the parties and an Application, Response, and Pre-hearing Report from a previous CFSRB matter between the parties, file CA24-0183.

ISSUES

6The issues before me are whether the Respondent:

a. refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant as required under subsection 119(2) of the Act;

b. failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required; and

c. failed to comply with the complaint review process or with any other procedural requirements.

RESULT

7I find that the Respondent did not proceed with the complaint made by the Applicant as the complaint had already been brought to the CFSRB, making it inappropriate to hear it again; responded to the complaint within the required time; and did not fail to comply with any other process or procedural requirements.

ANALYSIS

8The Applicant contacted the Respondent on December 27, 2023, with a concern he had involving his stepdaughter. On January 4, 2024, a worker from the Respondent’s Central Intake Desk replied via email that the concern was received, and that privacy legislation prohibited the sharing of any further information.

9The Applicant alleges that he was subsequently made aware that the Respondent did not investigate the concern and did not open a file. In response, the Applicant filed an Application with the CFSRB on October 23, 2024, under section 120 of the Act (the “October Application”).

10At a November 26, 2024, Pre-hearing for the October Application, the parties agreed to mediate and reached a settlement (the “Agreement”) with a non-compliance date of January 27, 2025. Term 7 of the Agreement stated:

On or before December 19, 2024, the Respondent shall provide direction to the Applicant how to apply for an internal Complaints Review Process (“ICRP”) with the Respondent.

11Subsequent to the Pre-hearing, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB claiming that the Respondent had failed to comply with multiple terms of the Agreement, including Term 7. Specifically, the Applicant claimed that he had submitted the required documents to the Respondent to initiate the process but received a reply from the Respondent stating that it would not open a file for an ICRP.

12In a Decision dated March 6, 2025, the CFSRB found that the Respondent had complied with the disputed terms of the Agreement and closed the October Application as settled. With respect to Term 7, the Decision found at para 41 “Term 7 of the Agreement required that the Respondent provide information to the Applicant on how to apply for an ICRP. Despite some technical hiccups, I find the Respondent complied with this term”.

A) The Respondent refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant as required under [subsection 119(2)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html) but was prohibited from proceeding under subsection 119(11)(b).

13The Applicant alleges that the Respondent encouraged him during the Pre-hearing for the October Application to formally request an ICRP meeting, which it later refused to proceed with. At the very least, he argues that the Respondent should have assumed that he would be initiating an ICRP, given Term 7 of the settlement agreement. He submits that the Respondent has refused to proceed with his complaint as required under the Act, effectively denying him the opportunity to have an ICRP.

14The Respondent’s submission is three-fold: First, that it did not encourage the Applicant to formally request an ICRP and that it was the Respondent’s understanding at the pre-hearing that the information on the ICRP process was for future reference. Second, that the core issue that prompted the Application has already been dealt with in the October Application. At the time of the request for an ICRP, the matter was still considered an open file with the CFSRB, as such, it would not also hold an ICRP. Lastly, the Act indicates that typically the first step in commencing a complaint is to formally request an ICRP. If that result is unsatisfactory, an applicant may then file with the CFSRB. As the Applicant had already had their matter heard and decided by the CFSRB, an ICRP is no longer appropriate.

15The Applicant himself states clearly in his Application that the ICRP request pertained to the same complaint brought to the CFSRB in the October Application. There is little argument that the core issue that prompted the Application was the same as the one that was heard by and decided in the October Application.

16Section 119 of the Act states that a person may bring a complaint directly to the society. However, subsection 119(11)(b) states that a society shall not conduct a review of a complaint if the subject of the complaint is subject to another decision-making process under this Act.

17Section 120 of the Act provides that a complaint may be brought directly to the CFSRB, or where the complaint was first brought to the society, it can then be brought to the CFSRB. There is no reciprocal section that speaks to a complaint going to the society after it has been brought to or decided by the CFSRB. Not only would this contradict the reading of subsection 119(11)(b), but it would be a redundant exercise for the ICRP to hear a matter that has already been heard and decided by the CFSRB.

18I find that this Application pertains to the same issue, which was the subject of the October Application, was settled and decided to be closed by the CFSRB. As such, the subject matter of the complaint was subject to another decision-making process under the Act. It would have been redundant for the Respondent to proceed with the complaint and the Respondent would be prohibited under subsection 119(11)(b) from conducting a review.

19Further, I find that while the Applicant submits that the Respondent should have assumed he would be filing an ICRP request, the Respondent provided a reasonable alternative explanation for the Applicant’s request to know how to apply for an ICRP for future reference.

B) The Respondent responded to the Applicant’s complaint within the times lines required.

20Reg 156/18: General Matters Under the Authority of the Minister (the “Regulation”) outlines the required times for a children’s aid society to proceed with an internal complaint. It mandates that the Society shall determine eligibility within 7 days of receiving a complaint.

21The Applicant made a request for an ICRP on January 30, 2025. The Respondent replied on February 4, 2025, with its determination of eligibility. This is within the required times.

22I find that the Respondent complied with the required timeline to advise the Applicant of eligibility.

C) The Respondent did not fail to comply with the complaint review process or with any other procedural requirements.

23Section 120(4)3 of the Act provides the CFSRB jurisdiction to hear allegations that a society has failed to comply with its complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under the Act relating to the review of complaints. However, the CFSRB may only consider a complaint under this subsection if the complaint was made in accordance with the regulations (subsection 120(3) of the Act).

24Given the findings above, that the Respondent’s determination of ineligibility was done in accordance with relevant requirements, it is unnecessary to make a determination on this issue. There were no other complaint review procedures undertaken to assess.

CONCLUSION

25The Respondent:

a. refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant but doing so would have been redundant and in any event was prohibited from doing so by the Act;

b. responded to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required; and

c. did not fail to comply with the complaint review process or with any other procedural requirements.

ORDER

26The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

27Pursuant 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.