L.G. v. Children's Aid Society of Toronto, 2008 CFSRB 34

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

L.G.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION

Date: April 29, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 34

Indexed as: L.G. v. CAS of Toronto (CFSA s.68)

1L.G. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) regarding a complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C11 (the “Act”). The Applicant complained that under subsection 68.1(4)4 the Society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a) and that under subsection 68.1(4)5 the Society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests. The Applicant provided a list of fifteen specific complaints within these broad categories.

2The Society brought a motion to challenge the jurisdiction of the Board to hear three of these complaints under subsection 68.1(8) which reads as follows:

68.1(8) The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,

(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

3The issue before the Board is to determine whether the three complaints have been decided by the Court or are before the Court.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: A number of visits with Ms. L.G.’s son were cancelled and the Society did not meet its commitment to reschedule them despite speaking with supervisors about this.

Issue 2: Ms. L.G.’s new worker, C.C., terminated a visit she was having with her son without giving any reasons for doing so and without the opportunity to discuss her concerns.

4For the first two issues the Society argues that there is currently a Status Review Application before the Court seeking a continuation of the current order which orders access at the discretion of the Society. The issue of access is, therefore, an issue that remains before the Court. In the view of the Society, should Ms. L.G. wish to vary the order, the proper remedy is to bring this before the Court. The position of the Society is that the Board cannot hear these issues.

5The Applicant’s counsel, Eric Del Junco, argues that the Applicant is not complaining about access, but about the process and how she was treated by the Society. She has two basic complaints, that she was not heard by the Society and that she was not given reasons for decisions. He argues that the Board has jurisdiction to hear these issues under subsections 68.1 (4)4 and 5 of the Act.

6The Board finds that it has jurisdiction to hear issues 1 and 2. The Board recognizes that access visits are before the Court. However, the Applicant is complaining about the process, the communications, and how she is treated by the Society in the context of the access that has been ordered by the Court. These issues are not before the Court. In issue 1, the Applicant wanted to reschedule her access visits and spoke to two supervisors. Her complaint is that her concerns were not heard nor reasons given for why access visits were not rescheduled. In issue 2, when the Applicant’s access visit was terminated, she was not given an opportunity to discuss her concerns and reasons were not given as to why her access visit was terminated. The Board finds that it has jurisdiction to hear these complaints under 68.1(4)4 and 5.

Issue 3: At a scheduled Plan of Care meeting on November […], 2007, Ms. L.G. was told by D.B. that her son had “mental problems” and that he didn’t want to see her; Ms. L.G. was not provided with the evidence to support this even though she provided her e-mail address to Ms. D.B. and Ms. D.B. agreed to send her the information.

7The Society concedes that the Board has jurisdiction to hear the first part of the complaint regarding the Society worker saying her son has “mental problems”. The Society states that the second part of the complaint with regards to the disclosure of evidence has been resolved in Court. A letter was provided to the Applicant in Court and the file is available to her lawyer. The Society argues that this issue has also been before the Court.

8The Applicant clarified the first part of the complaint. She alleges that the Society worker said her son was “mental”. The Applicant also states that she did not receive a letter. The Applicant’s counsel argues that even if disclosure was given, the delay is an issue of concern. He states that all the complaints relate to two issues, that the Applicant was not heard or given reasons for decisions. In his view, all the complaints fall under the jurisdiction of the Board.

9The Board finds it has the jurisdiction to hear issue 3 as it relates to subsection 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act. The Applicant is complaining about the process and how she is treated by Society workers. The Applicant is not complaining about disclosure of evidence which has been before the Court. She is complaining that the Society worker said her son was “mental” and promised to send her information to back up that claim. Even though the Applicant gave the worker her email address, the worker did not respond to her concerns. In this incident she was not heard and reasons were not given for why the worker said her son had psychological problems.

DECISION

10The Board dismisses the motion of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society.

Richard Linley Presiding Member

Mary Wong Board Member

Deborah Simon Board Member