CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

C.L. & S.L.

v.

Durham Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION

Date: March 31, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 22

Indexed as: C.L. v. Durham CAS (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1On August 3, 2007, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from C.L. (the “Applicant”) regarding a complaint against the Durham Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). C.L. made a number of complaints including concerns about treatment her grandson J. received while in the care of the Society, the Society’s failure to respond to phone calls and the Society’s involvement with her granddaughter S..

2The Board made the decision to join C.L.’s complaint with a complaint made by her daughter S.L. (the “Applicant”). The Board received S.L.’s application on September 28, 2007 regarding a complaint against the same Society. S.L. made a number of complaints concerning how she was treated by the Society and how the Society treated her son J.. She also made the same complaints as those made by her mother.

3The Society conceded that the Board may have jurisdiction in the following matters and the Board will hear them:

For S.L.:

• She agreed to a psychological test performed on her son for school purposes; when C.B. took over her family file, she changed both the test and the doctor who would conduct the testing with no good reason; S.L. has no faith in the doctor who performed the test;

• The Society has an improper motive for having a “family” psychological test performed and she objects to a change in the doctor;

• Several phone calls to Ms. C.B. were not returned; she made these calls in order to propose arrangements regarding her son’s habit of contacting his mother while on the run;

• The group home staff did not provide protection for J., who was beaten and harassed at the group home; the Society was informed but did nothing about it.

4The Society argues that the Board did not have jurisdiction to hear the remaining complaints of S.L. and C.L. and brought a motion before the Board to dismiss the complaints.

5The Board denies the motion of the Society in part regarding the other complaints made by S.L. and C.L.. The Board finds that it does have jurisdiction to hear the following matters:

For S.L.:

The Society did not obtain her son’s informed consent to administer a powerful anti-depressant which it misled him into believing was a sleeping pill; she is not satisfied with the Society’s response on this point and wants assurance that no other children are prescribed this same kind of medicine;

G.M., intake worker, continues to be involved with the family’s file and she has concerns about consultations between Mr. G.M. and Ms. C.B. at the mall;

Society workers have appeared for home visits accompanied by other individuals without S.L.’s consent;

Ms. C.B. tried to mislead her into taking a hair follicle drug test, by stating it was Court ordered when it was not and Ms. C.B. tried to manipulate her son into persuading his mother to have this test and told him if he did so he could have a home visit for his birthday;

Society worker T. directed her son J.’s group home worker to charge him with breach of probation the day he skipped school shortly after his father’s death; S.L. believes this was insensitive of her and it led to J. running away and getting into further trouble;

The Society did not buy winter clothing for J. despite being funded to do so;

T. did not attend Court on a Saturday following a Friday night arrest of her son and he had to spend the weekend in jail; S.L. is not satisfied with the answer that the Society doesn’t work on Saturdays and T. refused to take the time to explain the situation to S.L. on the following Monday;

Ms. C.B. improperly approached S.L.’s daughter S. at school and embarrassed her in front of her friends.

For C.L.:

The Board finds that it does have jurisdiction to hear the following matters:

Her phone calls to a Society employee got no response;

A family services worker, C.B., claimed her daughter had missed an appointment when in fact the worker left before her daughter arrived;

Society workers suspected her of harboring her grandson when he had run away from his group home and she was offended by these suspicions;

A number of phone calls to C.B. were not returned.

Shared complaints:

6The Board finds that it does have jurisdiction to hear the following matters of complaint shared by C.L. and S.L.:

• J. should have been sent to a regular school and not a Society school;

• Overall, the treatment J. received from the Society was too harsh.

BACKGROUND

7C.L. is the mother of S.L. and the grandmother of J., D.O.B. April […], 1992 and S., D.O.B. May […], 1993. S.L. is J. and S.’s mother. The Society and other societies have a history of involvement with the family dating back to 1996. However, the complaints submitted by both C.L. and S.L. stem from their most recent involvement with the Society in June of 2006 after J. was charged with assault and endangering life for allegedly throwing a rock from an overpass in Oshawa which resulted in serious injuries to a driver.

8On June […], 2006, the Society filed a Protection Application seeking an order that both children be found to be in need of protection, an order that J. be made a Society Ward for a period of 12 months with limited supervised access to his mother and other family members, and an order that S. remain in her mother’s custody for a period of 12 months subject to supervision by the Society. The Court made temporary orders granting all of the Society’s applications on June […], 2006. On May […], 2007, the Society filed an Amended Protection Application seeking an order that the children be found in need of protection and an order that both children be made Society Wards for a period of six months, access to be fully supervised and to occur once per week for two hours. S. was not apprehended by the Society at that time. J. remained in the care of the Society. The Society indicated that its change in position was due to the Society’s heightened concerns arising from the outcome of a Parenting Capacity Assessment (“PCA”) in combination with S.L.’s ongoing poor level of cooperation with the Society and the supervision order related to S..

9On July […], 2007, the matter was before the Court for a Temporary Care and Custody Hearing at which time, the Court, on consent of the parties, made an order that S. would remain in the care and custody of her mother subject to the supervision of the Society and with the terms submitted and agreed to by the parties. The Court adjourned the matter, with J. remaining in the care of the Society so that the parties could proceed to a Settlement Conference. The Settlement Conference has been adjourned until April […], 2008 at the request of the Society because a new worker was recently assigned and the Society wished to hold an internal meeting to reconsider its position. C.L. has not been a party to any of the Court proceedings. However, the Court order of June […], 2006 provided for temporary access by C.L. as agreed between the Society, S.L. and J..

MOTION

10On February 29, 2008, the Board heard the Society’s motion in Oshawa for a determination as to whether the Board has jurisdiction to review this application. Miriam Yaacov, counsel, represented the Society, Allison MacGregor, the Society’s solicitor was present and C.L. and S.L. represented themselves. A.B., a friend of C.L. was present as an advisor. The Society argued that the Board is without jurisdiction because most of the complaints submitted by both Applicants are matters that are before the Court.

11The Society raised a number of preliminary issues. Since C.L. has not been a party to the Court proceedings, the Society was concerned about sharing submissions with her that included the children’s statements. The Society had endeavored to obtain J.’s consent for release through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. However, J.’s lawyer felt that seeking J.’s consent placed him in a conflict situation and had not yet done so. S.’s consent had been obtained. In addition, the Society had been unable to serve C.L. with the submission on jurisdiction. The package was returned to the Society as undeliverable. The Society provided C.L. with the package at the hearing. The Society was prepared to proceed on the issue of jurisdiction without J.’s consent. C.L. and S.L. were prepared to proceed even though C.L. had not reviewed the Society’s submission. The Board offered her time to review it but she indicated that she was familiar with the details of the case.

ANALYSIS

12The Society provided a summary of the family’s most recent involvement with the Society and the status of its involvement to date as outlined in the background section of this decision. The Society’s arguments against the Board’s jurisdiction are two pronged. On the one hand, the Society asserted that most of the matters under complaint are matters that have been decided by the Court or are before the Court. Furthermore, it asserted that the Court has assigned a judge to play the role of managing the relationship between the Society and S.L. and if there are any concerns regarding compliance with the orders, and terms and conditions which have been agreed to by the parties, either party can go to Court to address these concerns. Similarly, even though C.L. has not been a party to the Court proceedings, she can go to Court to request that she be a party in order to address the concerns she is raising in her complaint to the Board particularly since the Court has ruled on issues of access by family members other than the children’s mother. The Society contends that if S.L. doesn’t agree with how the Society is conducting itself, she can go to the Court since that is where recourse exists for the case managing judge to fix things. On the other hand, the Society contends that the remedies sought by the Applicants are not ones that the Board has the authority under the Act to grant and, on that basis, the complaints should be dismissed as outside of the Board’s jurisdiction. Both S.L. and C.L. did not respond to each of the arguments put forward by the Society for each of their complaints. S.L. expressed the view that she has tried to deal with the Society on her issues including speaking with Society supervisors and has been met with delays and excuses. She also indicated that she did not receive an adequate defense through the counsel she had initially engaged to deal with some of the legal issues. In her view, the incidents she complains about are things that have happened while the orders have been in place and are not matters regarding custody or access but rather the treatment she has received from the Society and the way the Society has treated her children. C.L. indicated that she understands that the Court makes the decisions about access however, in her view, the Society did not need to go to Court to deal with this issue. She also asserted that her work schedule doesn’t allow her to appear in Court if there are frequent appearances required however, she indicated that that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t care about her grandchildren.

S.L.’s COMPLAINTS

13The Society addressed each of the issues under complaint. It addressed the issues brought forward by S.L. first and the following is a summary of the Society’s position with respect to each of them as well as the Board’s view of each of them.

When the Society became involved with her family following her son J.’s criminal charges, it brought up old issues regarding S.L.’s fitness as a mother that had been resolved.

14The Society argued that S.L.’s history has been and continues to be a factor that the Court considers in making its orders. The Court is also in the best position to determine if the Society has used this information properly and S.L. has legal counsel during the Court proceedings to challenge the Society on this point. Section 68.1(8)(a) of the Act reads as follows:

The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the Court or is before the Court.

The Board agrees that this matter is before the Court since her case is still before the Court and the complaint is about evidence that has been previously submitted to and considered by the Court. S.L.’s counsel is also in a position to rebut the Society’s position on this point with recent, relevant information when the matter comes before the Court at a future date.

The Society did not obtain her son’s informed consent to administer a powerful anti-depressant which it misled him into believing was a sleeping pill; she is not satisfied with the Society’s response on this point and wants assurance that no other children are prescribed this same kind of medicine.

15The Society argued that the Court has decided this matter since the Court ordered that J. be placed under the temporary care of the Society. In effect, this gives the Society parental decision-making powers regarding his care. The Board recognizes the role of the Society as being responsible for J.. Section 68.1(4) of the Act outlines the matters that may be reviewed by the Board which include:

s.68.1(4)4 allegations that the Society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a) which states that service providers shall ensure that children and their parents have an opportunity to be heard where appropriate 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 and s.68.1(4)5 allegations that the Society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

16The Board believes that S.L. has the right to have an opportunity to be heard regarding the care J. is receiving including medical care and the right to have reasons provided to her for the decisions made regarding medication. Therefore the Board does have the jurisdiction to hear this matter.

S.L. agreed to a psychological test performed on her son for school purposes; when C.B. took over her family file, she changed both the test and the doctor who would conduct the testing with no good reason; S.L. has no faith in the doctor who performed the test.

17The Society concedes that the Board may have jurisdiction to hear this matter and therefore the matter will be heard on its merits.

The Society has an improper motive for having a “family” psychological test performed and she objects to a change in the doctor.

18The Society concedes that the Board may have jurisdiction to hear this matter and therefore the matter will be heard on its merits.

G.M., intake worker, continues to be involved with the family’s file and she has concerns about consultations between Mr. G.M. and Ms. C.B. at the mall.

19The Society did not put forward a detailed argument on this matter. Although the Society provided an explanation regarding this matter in its Summary Reply, S.L. believes that the Society has not heard her concerns on this issue nor provided her with reasons for its decisions as required under sections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5. The Board concurs with S.L. and will hear the matter.

Society workers have appeared for home visits accompanied by other individuals without S.L.’s consent.

20The Society did not put forward a detailed argument on this matter at the hearing. In its Summary Reply, the Society noted that it determines when safety concerns will warrant the need for staff to attend at a client’s home and that workers are employees of the Society and have all signed confidentiality agreements. This explanation does not speak to how the Society dealt with the concerns that S.L. has made about this matter. The Board believes that the Society has not heard her concerns on this issue nor provided her with reasons for its decisions as required under sections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5. Therefore, the Board does have jurisdiction of this matter and will hear it.

Ms. C.B. tried to mislead her into taking a hair follicle drug test by stating it was Court ordered when it was not; furthermore, Ms. C.B. tried to manipulate her son into persuading his mother to have this test and told him if he did so he could have a home visit for his birthday.

21The Society argued that this matter was agreed to by the parties and is one of the terms and conditions that form part of the current Court order. Furthermore, S.L. has attended for the test and it should no longer be an issue. S.L. argued that the Society was making this demand of her before it became part of the Court order. In addition, she is complaining that the Society tried to manipulate her son to serve its own interests rather than his best interests. She believes that she has not been given an opportunity to be heard by the Society regarding both matters as required under section 68.1(4)4. The Board concurs with S.L. and will hear the matter.

Society worker T. directed her son J.’s group home worker to charge him with breach of probation the day he skipped school shortly after his father’s death; S.L. believes this was insensitive of her and it led to J. running away and getting into further trouble.

22The Society did not put forward a detailed argument on this matter. It does provide a detailed submission in its Summary Reply explaining the events around the time of J.’s father’s death and J.’s actions at that time including T.’s involvement. The Society makes the point that T. has an obligation to report breaches of J.’s probation order to his probation officer and is not in a position to charge him herself. This would be the responsibility of the group home worker. However, it does not describe any actions it took with respect to explaining these details to S.L. in order to ensure that her concerns were heard and reasons given for its actions as contemplated under sections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5. Therefore, the Board will hear this matter.

She wants an explanation as to why the Society asked the Court for a no access order against her.

She wants an explanation as to why the Society asked the Court for an order for supervised visits at the mall as opposed to at her mother C.L.’s house.

23The Society argued that both of these complaints are complaints about access, the reasons that the Society made its recommendations in its applications to the Court and the orders regarding access. The Board concurs that these are matters that have been put before the Court in the Society’s applications that formed the basis of the Court’s decisions. S.L. has had access to the Society’s applications and has heard the Society’s reasons for its recommendations at the time of the Court proceedings. The Board agrees that it does not have jurisdiction to hear these complaints pursuant to section 68.1(8)(a) of the Act.

Several phone calls to Ms. C.B. were not returned; she made these calls in order to propose arrangements regarding her son’s habit of contacting his mother while on the run.

24The Society concedes that the Board may have jurisdiction to hear this matter and therefore the matter will be heard on its merits.

The Society did not buy winter clothing for J. despite being funded to do so.

25The Society did not provide a detailed argument in the hearing on this matter. It does argue in its Summary Reply that it did authorize funding for clothing for J.. However, S.L.’s complaint is with regard to the purchase of clothing for J. and the failure of the Society to listen to her concerns when it did not do so. Therefore, the Board will hear the matter pursuant to section 68.1(4)4.

The group home staff did not provide protection for J., who was beaten and harassed at the group home; the Society was informed but did nothing about it.

26The Society concedes that the Board may have jurisdiction to hear this matter and therefore the matter will be heard on its merits.

T. did not attend Court on a Saturday following a Friday night arrest of her son and he had to spend the weekend in jail; S.L. is not satisfied with the answer that the Society doesn’t work on Saturdays and T. refused to take the time to explain the situation to S.L. on the following Monday.

27The Society did not provide a detailed argument on this matter in the hearing. The Board does not view this as a matter that is before the Court or one that has been decided by the Court and will hear the matter pursuant to section 68.1(4)5 as suggested by the wording of S.L.’s complaint, that being the failure of the Society to provide reasons for its decision not to attend Court following the Friday night arrest of J..

Ms. C.B. improperly approached S.L.’s daughter S. at school and embarrassed her in front of her friends.

28The Society argued that the terms and conditions outlined in the Court order permits the Society visits with S. in the presence of her mother and in private. S.L.’s complaint is about why the Society decided to visit S. at school and not about the worker’s right to visit S.. Therefore, the Board will hear this matter pursuant to section 68.1(4)5.

The Society is trying to get custody of S. and S.L. fears that if they do, S. will end up running away as J. has done.

29The Society argued that this matter is clearly a matter of custody and one that is before the Court over which the Board has no jurisdiction. The Board concurs that it does not have the jurisdiction to decide issues of custody pursuant to section 68.1(8)(a) and therefore cannot hear such a matter. However, the Board is of the view that this complaint is an expression of S.L.’s anxieties about the possible loss of her daughter to the Society’s care as well as an expression of concerns about the well-being and safety of J. since he has been in care. It is understandable that any parent might experience such feelings.

The Society is now requiring C.L. and A.B. to undergo criminal reference checks, i.e., CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) or they will not be allowed to host visits with J.; S.L. believes that this is being done in retaliation for C.L.’s complaint to the Board.

30The Society argues that its policy requires it to obtain a CPIC check on any person who will have access to the children and that access is determined by the Court. It also explained in its Summary Reply that its failure to obtain the CPIC check for C.L. and A.B. at an earlier date was an oversight that once discovered by them had to be addressed to be in compliance with Society policy. S.L. expressed the view that access visits had been happening for over a year and the Society made this demand only after C.L. submitted her complaint to the Board as a form of retaliation. The Board finds it reasonable for the Society to require a CPIC check in the interests of protecting children and it is both concerning and regrettable that the CPIC check was not obtained before any access visits were permitted as required by policy. However, the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear a complaint of retaliation under section 68.1 of the Act. Therefore, the Board will not hear the matter on its merits.

C.L’s COMPLAINTS

31C.L.’s complaints are as follows:

Home visits with her grandson J. were taken away;

Her phone calls to a Society employee got not response;

A family services worker, C.B., claimed her daughter had missed an appointment when in fact the worker left before her daughter arrived;

Her grandson J. was refused a home visit on his birthday for an improper reason;

Her grandson was improperly punished for refusing to go to school after the death of his father;

Society workers suspected her of harboring her grandson when he had run away from his group home and she was offended by these suspicions;

A number of phone calls to C.B. were not returned;

The Society treated her grandson too harshly in prohibiting him from contact with his mother after his father died;

Her grandson should have been sent to a regular school and not a Society school;

Overall, the treatment her grandson received from the Society was too harsh;

The Society improperly attempted to get custody of her granddaughter, S.; and,

The Society visited S. at school and embarrassed her.

32The Society recognizes that C.L. is a person seeking or receiving services from the Society (access to J.) as required by sections 68(1) and 68.1(1) of the Act. Accordingly, she is eligible to make a complaint only with respect to services sought or received by her. Since the service sought or received by her is access and since access is a matter decided by the Court, most of her complaints are not eligible to be heard by the Board.

• Home visits with her grandson J. were taken away;

• The Society treated her grandson too harshly in prohibiting him from contact with his mother after his father died; and

• The Society improperly attempted to get custody of her granddaughter, S..

33The Board has determined that these complaints are about matters related to the terms and conditions attached to access which is a matter that has been decided by the Court and as such are matters that the Board cannot hear pursuant to section 68.1(8)(a) of the Act.

• Her phone calls to a Society employee got not response;

• A family services worker, C.B., claimed her daughter had missed an appointment when in fact the worker left before her daughter arrived;

• Society workers suspected her of harboring her grandson when he had run away from his group home and she was offended by these suspicions; and

• A number of phone calls to C.B. were not returned.

34These four complaints are matters that are specific to the treatment that C.L. received and presented in her own application. In the Board’s view, all four complaints are with regard to how the Society has treated her and therefore are matters which the Board has jurisdiction to hear pursuant to section 68.1(4)5. The Board will determine whether complaint number 2 and complaint number 7 are the same complaint before proceeding to hear their merits. Furthermore, complaint number 3 is a matter that the Society in its Summary Reply has acknowledged that the Board may have the jurisdiction to hear.

SHARED COMPLAINTS

35S.L. indicated that she shared the complaints submitted to the Board by her mother. Some of these complaints pertain to C.L. specifically and have been dealt with in the previous section. Some of these complaints are similar to those submitted by S.L. and were dealt with in an earlier section of this decision. And some of these complaints are addressed specifically with respect S.L. as J.’s mother and in light of sections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5 of the Act as applied to S.L..

• J. was refused a home visit on his birthday for an improper reason;

• J. should have been sent to a regular school and not a Society school;

• J. was improperly punished for refusing to go to school after the death of his father;

• Overall, the treatment J. received from the Society was too harsh; and

• The Society visited S. at school and embarrassed her.

36These five complaints are complaints of both C.L. and S.L. and the Board has already made the determination that it has jurisdiction to hear these complaints as complaints submitted by S.L. pursuant to sections 68.1(4)4 and/or 68.4(5).

• J. was refused a home visit on his birthday for an improper reason;

• The Society visited S. at school and embarrassed her; and

• J. was improperly punished for refusing to go to school after the death of his father.

37The first complaint is the same issue included in S.L.’s own complaint: Ms. C.B. tried to mislead her into taking a hair follicle drug test by stating it was Court ordered when it was not; furthermore, Ms. C.B. tried to manipulate her son into persuading his mother to have this test and told him if he did so he could have a home visit for his birthday. The Board has determined that it does have jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to section 68.1(4)4. The second complaint is the same issue included in S.L.’s own complaint: Ms. C.B. improperly approached S.L.’s daughter S. at school and embarrassed her in front of her friends and the Board has determined that it does have jurisdiction to hear this complaint pursuant to section 68.1(4)5. And similarly, the third complaint is the same issue included in S.L.’s complaint: Society worker T. directed her son J.’s group home worker to charge him with breach of probation the day he skipped school shortly after his father’s death; S.L. believes this was insensitive of her and it led to J. running away and getting into further trouble and the Board has determined that it does have jurisdiction to hear this complaint pursuant to sections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5.

J. should have been sent to a regular school and not a Society school.

38The Society argued that the decision regarding what school a youth attends is a decision to be determined by the group home and the Board of Education and therefore complaint number 9 is a matter that the Board should not hear. The Board recognizes that policies may exist within a young offender setting that ultimately determine what school a youth must attend. However, the Board believes that S.L. as J.’s mother has a right to have an opportunity to be heard regarding this matter pursuant to section 68.1(4)4 and to be given reasons for the decision regarding J.’s school program pursuant to section 68.1(4)5. The Board therefore determines that it does have jurisdiction to hear this matter.

Overall, the treatment J. received from the Society was too harsh.

39The Society did not provide a specific argument as to why the Board could not hear this complaint. This matter concerns a complaint regarding the services J. has received and the reasons for decisions related to those services. S.L. is J.’s mother and has a right to have an opportunity to be heard regarding this matter pursuant to section 68.1(4)4 and to be given reasons for the decision regarding J.’s school program pursuant to section 68.1(4)5. The Board therefore determines that it does have jurisdiction to hear this matter.

40The Society also argued that the remedies sought by the Applicants are not ones that the Board has the authority under the Act to grant and on that basis the complaints should be dismissed as outside of the Board’s jurisdiction. The Board finds that the remedy requested is not determinative of its jurisdiction. Applicants before this Board are often, as in this case, unrepresented and unfamiliar with legal concepts such as “jurisdiction” and “remedy”. When the Board hears a complaint on the merits, it makes findings and orders independently of what was requested by an Applicant, and in accordance with its powers.

CONCLUSION

41The Board denies the motion of the Society in part regarding the complaints made by S.L. and C.L.. The Board determines that it does have jurisdiction to hear the following matters:

S.L.’s complaints:

42The Society conceded that the Board may have jurisdiction in the following matters and the Board will hear them:

She agreed to a psychological test performed on her son for school purposes; when C.B. took over her family file, she changed both the test and the doctor who would conduct the testing with no good reason; S.L. has no faith in the doctor who performed the test;

The Society has an improper motive for having a “family” psychological test performed and she objects to a change in the doctor;

The group home staff did not provide protection for J., who was beaten and harassed at the group home; the Society was informed but did nothing about it;

Several phone calls to Ms. C.B. were not returned; she made these calls in order to propose arrangements regarding her son’s habit of contacting his mother while on the run.

The Board finds that it does have jurisdiction to hear the following complaints:

The Society did not obtain her son’s informed consent to administer a powerful anti- depressant which it misled him into believing was a sleeping pill; she is not satisfied with the Society’s response on this point and wants assurance that no other children are prescribed this same kind of medicine;

G.M., intake worker, continues to be involved with the family’s file and she has concerns about consultations between Mr. G.M. and Ms. C.B. at the mall;

Society workers have appeared for home visits accompanied by other individuals with S.L.’s consent;

Ms. C.B. tried to mislead her into taking a hair follicle drug test, by stating it was Court ordered, when it was not and Ms. C.B. tried to manipulate her son into persuading his mother to have this test and told him if he did so he could have a home visit for his birthday;

Society worker T. directed her son J.’s group home worker to charge him with breach of probation the day he skipped school shortly after his father’s death; S.L. believes this was insensitive of her and it led to J. running away and getting into further trouble;

The Society did not buy winter clothing for J. despite being funded to do so;

T. did not attend Court on a Saturday following a Friday night arrest of her son and he had to spend the weekend in jail; S.L. is not satisfied with the answer that the Society doesn’t work on Saturdays and T. refused to take the time to explain the situation to S.L. on the following Monday;

Ms. C.B. improperly approached S.L.’s daughter S. at school and embarrassed her in front of her friends.

C.L.’s complaints:

43The Board finds that it does have jurisdiction to hear the following matters of complaint submitted by C.L. that are specific to the treatment she received from the Society:

Her phone calls to a Society employee got not response;

A family services worker, C.B., claimed her daughter had missed an appointment when in fact the worker left before her daughter arrived;

Society workers suspected her of harboring her grandson when he had run away from his group home and she was offended by these suspicions;

A number of phone calls to C.B. were not returned.

Shared complaints:

44The Board finds that it does have jurisdiction to hear the following matters of complaint submitted by C.L. and shared by S.L.:

J. should have been sent to a regular school and not a Society school;

Overall, the treatment J. received from the Society was too harsh.

Mary Wong Presiding Member

Gail Gonda Board Member

Donald Butler Board Member