C.K. v. Peel Children’s Aid Society, 2016 HRTO 92

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

C.K.

Applicant

-and-

Peel Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: January 20, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 92

Indexed as: C.K. v. Peel Children’s Aid Society

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

C.K., Applicant

Self-represented

Peel Children’s Aid Society, Applicant

Carole Jenkins, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).

Factual Background

2In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of race, colour and family status contrary to the Code. Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her in its conduct of a child protection investigation relating to her children and in recording certain identifying information in its database.

3In addition to filing this Application, the applicant also applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) for a review under 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (“CFSA”). Those provisions permit a person who sought or received services from a Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) to seek a review from the CFSRB if they believe the CAS has failed to ensure that they have an opportunity to be heard or failed to provide reasons for a decision. The parties entered into a settlement of the applicant’s application for review.

4I note that both parties filed materials to the Tribunal that appear to be subject to CFSRB confidentiality orders made under the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure. In this Interim Decision, it is not necessary for me to address whether any of these materials may be relied upon in the Application before the Tribunal, including as part of a request to dismiss under s. 45.1 of the Code. Instead, I base my decision on the relevant provisions of the CFSA that set out the limits of the review procedure accessed by the applicant and the limits on the CFSRB’s authority under that review procedure.

RESPONDENT’S REQUEST TO DISMISS

5The respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application under s. 45. 1 of the Code. It submits that the CFSRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

6The applicant opposes the respondent’s Request on the basis that the CFSRB proceeding did not deal with the applicant’s discrimination allegations but only with administrative procedures.

analysis re. [s. 45.1](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html#sec45.1_smooth) of the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html)

7Section 45.1 of the Code states:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

8I accept solely for the purposes of this Interim Decision that the settlement arrived at by the parties before the CFSRB amounted to a “proceeding” within the meaning of s. 45.1. However, I find that the settlement cannot be said to have appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

9The CFSRB’s authority under the relevant review provisions in s. 68.1 of the CFSA is to order a CAS to undertake certain steps to deal with any complaint that may have been filed with it, to respond to a complainant or to provide reasons for its decision. Therefore, the CFSRB’s authority is limited to ordering a CAS to undertake certain steps that are procedural in nature. The provisions applicable in this case do not provide the CFSRB with any power to hear and remedy violations of the Code. Accordingly, the settlement of the applicant’s complaint under s. 68.1 o the CFSA also would address the procedural matters that she was permitted to raise under that provision. There is no suggestion by the respondents that the settlement related to any discrimination allegations or any allegations other than those that the applicant was permitted to raise under s. 68.1 of the Code regarding not being properly heard and/or being provided inadequate reasons.

10For this reason, I find that the settlement arrived at in the context of the CFSRB proceeding did not appropriately deal with the substance of the Application within the meaning of s. 45.1 of the Code.

anonymization

11I have anonymized this Application (used initials) in order to ensure compliance with s. 45(8) of the CFSA which states:

No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.

ORDER

12The respondent’s Request to dismiss is denied. Since both parties have agreed to mediation, the Registrar will schedule a mediation in this file.

13The applicant’s name has been substituted with her initials, C.K., in the style of cause of this proceeding.