CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
G.S.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Owen Sound and the County of Grey
REASONS FOR DECISION
WRITTEN REVIEW
Date: November 25, 2008
Citation: 2008 CFSRB 95
Indexed as: G.S. v. CAS of Owen Sound and the County of Grey (CFSA s.124)
1Mr. G.S., the Applicant, brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board (“Board”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”), complaining about services he received from the Children’s Aid Society of Owen Sound and the County of Grey (the “Society”).
2After reviewing the application, the Board, by letter dated September 5, 2008, requested further information from Mr. G.S.. The Board did not receive a response to this letter, so another letter dated September 16, 2008 was sent to Mr. G.S.. Mr. G.S.’s response, dated September 17, 2008, was received by the Board on September 22, 2008 and on September 29, 2008, the Board deemed the application was eligible for review pursuant to section 68.1(4)5 of the Act. The Board received the Society’s summary reply on October 1, 2008.
3The Society, in its Summary Reply dated October 1, 2008, argues that the Board does not have jurisdiction to review Mr. G.S.’s complaint under section 68.1(4)5 of the Act because the Society has provided him with reasons for a decision that affects his interest.
4The Board finds that it has jurisdiction to review Mr. G.S.’s complaint and make a determination as to whether the Society explained its decision. The Board’s jurisdiction to commence a review process comes from Mr. G.S.’s application only. His application was deemed eligible to proceed to the next stage of the complaint process, i.e. a requirement that the Society provide a Summary Reply. Upon receipt of the Summary Reply, the Board then determines whether the application can be decided based on its review of the written information provided by the parties or whether an oral hearing is required. In this case, an oral hearing is not required for the Board to make a decision on the application. Based on a review of the application, Mr. G.S. September 17, 2008 letter and the Society’s Summary Reply, the Board dismisses the application.
BACKGROUND
5G.S. and his spouse, J.S., are the parents of a child born June […], 2008 at the [hospital]. The parents did not provide their names when they arrived at the hospital and the staff at the hospital contacted the Society.
6The Society assigned a Child Protection Worker, J.H., to the file. The hospital was unwilling to release the newborn until the Society had completed its investigation. The newborn was discharged from hospital on June […], 2008 after the Society verified that there were no child protection concerns. The Society, by letter dated June […], 2008, advised the S. family that the protection concerns were not verified and their file had been closed.
7Mr. G.S.’s primary concern is that his fundamental rights were violated because he was forced to associate with the Society after the birth of his child.
ANALYSIS
8The Applicant is alleging that the Society did not provide him with reasons for intervening with his family at the time that his daughter was born. As such, the application was deemed eligible for review pursuant to section 68.1(4)5 of the Act, which reads as follows:
68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
……..
Allegations that the society failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
9After Mr. G.S. was advised by the Society in its June […], 2008 letter that his family’s file was closed, G.S. wrote to Ms. S.M., Executive Director of the Society, on June […], 2008. In this letter, Mr. G.S. raised several issues, including his belief that the Society’s intervention with his family was a breach of their fundamental rights and that he was seeking certain remedies. The Society responded by letter dated June […], 2008.
10In its June […], 2008 response, the Society explained that it has a statutory obligation to investigate allegations that a child is in need of protection. The Society in this letter also explained that when conducting investigations, it has to follow certain procedures which are set out in Regulations under the Act and the Child Protection Standards of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services.
11The Society in its response also explained that its actions did not breach the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as alleged by the Applicant. The Society indicated that the Courts have found the actions of societies “to be lawful when conducted in accordance with the terms of the various provincial Child Protection legislation (i.e. the CFSA in Ontario)”.
12Mr. G.S. wrote another letter to the Society on July […], 2008 expressing his continued belief that the Society’s actions breached his fundamental rights through its intervention with his family. The Society responded to this letter on August […], 2008 by reiterating that its intervention with his family occurred because there was a concern that his reluctance to disclose any personal information to the Society was for “some other purpose than protecting your privacy”.
13In light of the information provided to Mr. G.S. by the Society in correspondence dated June […], 2008 and August […], 2008, it is apparent that Mr. G.S. was given reasons for the Society’s intervention with his family. The Society was concerned that Mr. G.S.’s reluctance to disclose his name was for a purpose other than protecting his privacy, which may have an impact on the safety of his child and therefore it’s intervention was required by law. The Board therefore finds that Mr. G.S. was given meaningful reasons for a decision which was made.
CONCLUSION
14The application of G.S. pursuant to section 68.1(4)5 of the Act, that he was not provided with reasons for the Society’s decision to intervene with his family, is dismissed.
Denyse Diaz
Vice Chair
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 25^th^ day of November 2008