Williams v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 830

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Roshika Williams

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Roshika Williams

Applicant

-and-

Alliance Youth Services Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: April 28, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 830

Indexed as: Williams v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

1This Interim Decision follows the Tribunal’s decision on liability in this matter dated February 8, 2011, 2011 HRTO 265. As the hearing in this matter was bifurcated and liability on some aspects of the Applications was found, the Tribunal is proceeding to determine the appropriate remedy. The parties have consented to mediation/adjudication on the issue of remedy, which is scheduled to proceed on May 3, 2011.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Order dated March 17, 2011, seeking disclosure from the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (“CAST”) of “any and all information relating to [its] internal complaint review procedures under s. 68 of the Child and Family Services Act”.

3Section 68 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (“CFSA”), sets out a procedure where a person may make a complaint to a children’s aid society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the society. Section 68 goes on to state that such complaints are to be dealt with in accordance with a complaint review procedure established by regulation.

4I am aware that the applicant, as a foster parent, attempted to initiate such a complaint in the context of the matters giving rise to this proceeding. I also am aware that the Child and Family Services Review Board determined by decision dated March 21, 2007, that the applicant, as a foster parent, had not sought or received a service from CAST, but rather was providing a service, and that her request to be considered as a foster parent to CAST was not a request for a service under the CFSA but rather was a request to be a provider of a service. Accordingly, the Board determined that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s complaint.

5It is not my role as a Vice-chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to overturn or dispute the decisions of another statutory tribunal; rather, I accept the determination made by the Child and Family Services Review Board that it had no jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s complaint under s. 68 of the CFSA. As a result, as the applicant is not a person who has status to bring a complaint under s. 68 of the CFSA, I have no basis to award any remedy to her relating to the internal review procedures adopted by CAST for such complaints. Accordingly, any internal review procedures for such complaints adopted by CAST are not arguably relevant to any remedy within my jurisdiction to consider.

6As a result, the applicant’s Request is denied.