Child and Family Services Review Board
C.C. v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Date: June 26, 2008 Citation: 2008 CFSRB 64 Indexed as: C.C. v. F&CS of the Waterloo Region (CFSA s. 68)
Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Jurisdiction: C.C. v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2007 CFSRB 61
INTRODUCTION
1C.C. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The Board was asked to review complaints about the Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the “Society”).
2The Society filed a preliminary motion seeking to dismiss the application claiming that the subject of the complaint is an issue that is currently before the Ontario Court of Justice and ineligible for review as set out in section 68.1(8) of the Act. The Board heard the motion and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the following three complaints under section 2(2)(a) of the Act:
- The Applicant alleges that he reported an incident of inappropriate sexual touching of his son, L.C., which he does not feel the Society investigated.
- The Applicant reported an incident of inappropriate physical discipline by his wife on July [...], 2006. The Society did not address this issue when the children were interviewed on July [...], 2006.
- The Applicant alleges that he provided puffers for his son, C. which the Society did not pick up and deliver to his son.
3The Applicant presented his oral testimony in a hearing held on March 28, 2008. The Society, in a letter dated May [...], 2008, stated that the Society believes that it has addressed repeatedly each of the issues with the Applicant and was involved in a lengthy trial over these issues. In order to resolve the issues, the Society offered to provide the Board and the Applicant with a written explanation of the steps taken to address each of the three complaints as set out in the remedies under section 68.1(7). The Applicant refused the offer. The Society then withdrew from the proceedings, choosing not to defend the application. The Applicant determined that he would continue to present his case without the participation of the Society. On June [...], 2008, the Applicant decided that he would accept the Society’s offer of a written explanation of the three issues.
THE FOLLOWING ORDER IS MADE ON CONSENT:
4The Board orders the Society to provide written reasons to the Applicant relating to the three issues listed above by July 7, 2008. The Society will submit a copy of the reasons to the Board by July 7, 2008. The Board will remain seized pending the receipt of the reasons.
Mary Wong Presiding Member
Deborah Simon Panel Member
Donald Butler Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 26th day of June, 2008.