CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
A.P.
v.
Dilico Anishinabek Family Care
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Date: September 9, 2011
Citation: 2011 CFSRB 30
Indexed as: A.P. v. Dilico Anishinabek Family Care (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1A.P. (“Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“Board”) pursuant to subsection 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act (“Act”) against Dilico Anishinabek Family Care (“Society”) on February 24, 2011.
2In her application to the Board, the Applicant alleged that the Society failed to hear her concerns or provide her with reasons for decisions that affect her interests.
Her complaint relates to a letter written by her son on September […], 2010 in which he alleged that he and his brother had been subject to abuse while in foster care. This letter was addressed to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) and was copied to a number of other recipients but not to the Society. The Applicant alleged that she sent the same letter to the Society and the Society failed to respond to it.
3The Society wrote to the Board on March […], 2011. It referenced a complaint made by the Applicant to the Board on September […], 2007 which was dismissed by the Board in a written decision dated August 6, 2008. The Society stated that it had not received any new information related to the Applicant’s complaint to which it could respond. The Society reiterated the same position in a letter dated March […], 2011.
4The parties participated in a teleconference on April 27, 2011 and pre-hearing teleconferences on June 9 and June 17, 2011. The issues as determined by the Board were:
Whether the Society heard the Applicant with respect to concerns arising out of the letter of her son to the OCL dated September […], 2010 (section 68.1(4) 4 CFSA).
Whether the Society provided the Applicant with reasons for its response or lack of a response to the concerns arising out of the September […], 2010 letter (section 68.1(4) 5 CFSA).
5At the pre-hearing, the Board identified a preliminary issue to be dealt with at the hearing. The preliminary issue was whether the Society received a copy of the letter. The Society’s position was that it did not get the letter until April 2011 as part of the proceedings related to the complaint to the Board. Further, the letter was addressed to the OCL and not the Society.
6At the hearing on August 25, 2011, the Board dealt with the preliminary issue. The Applicant stated she had faxed a copy of the letter dated September […], 2010 from the offices of the [Organization A] on the same day to the Society’s executive director. The Applicant did not provide any witnesses or documentary evidence from [Organization A] or otherwise to attest to the fact that the letter had been faxed from their offices. The Applicant stated that she confirmed that the Society received the letter in a phone conversation with an unnamed receptionist at the Society on the same day. The Applicant did not provide any evidence that the receptionist had received a copy of the letter. Finally, the Applicant stated that she did not make any follow-up contact with the Society between the date she alleged that she sent the letter and the date of her complaint to the Board in February 2011.
7The Society stated that it had no record of receiving the letter until April 2011 when it received a copy as a result of the Board’s proceedings. The Society stated that all written and faxed correspondence to the Society is logged and a search of the logs for the time period in question revealed no evidence that a copy of the letter had been received. Furthermore, the Society stated that it was not copied on the original letter and the Applicant did not make any follow-up contact with the Society to determine its response. The Society’s position was that if the issue had been important to the Applicant she should have followed up and that it can’t respond to a concern if it has no knowledge of it. Furthermore, it is not the Society’s responsibility to respond on behalf of the OCL.
8The onus is on the Applicant to provide sufficient grounds for a complaint in order for the Board to proceed. The Applicant did not provide any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate that she had sent a copy of the letter dated September […], 2010 to the Society or that it had been received. The Board determined that it could not proceed to hear the complaint regarding the Society’s failure to respond to the letter in the absence of evidence that the letter had been sent and received. The Board dismissed the complaint for these reasons.
Gail Gonda Presiding Member
Ruth Ann Schedlich
Board Member
Frances Sanderson
Board Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 9th day of September, 2011.