J.R. v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2012 CFSRB 3

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

J.R.

v.

Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

REASONS FOR DECISION

WRITTEN REVIEW

Date: January 11, 2012

Citation: 2012 CFSRB 3

Indexed as: J.R. v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

(CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1J.R (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on December 9, 2011 pursuant to section 68.1(4) of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) against the Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region (“Society”).

2In the application to the Board, the Applicant raises concerns about the Society including information about her in its affidavit to the Court, with respect to child custody proceedings that her brother-in-law, S.R., and his estranged spouse are involved in.

3The Board determined on December 16, 2011 that the application was eligible for review under section 68.1 (4) 4 and 5. This means that on its face, the application was appropriate to move on to the next stage of the process which is the submission of a summary reply from the Society.

4The Society filed a summary reply on December 22, 2011, in which it set out its position, that is it has never provided a “service” to either the Applicant or any child of hers, and as a result, her application cannot qualify as a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society, as required by section 68.1 of the Act.

5The Board finds that there is sufficient material before it to conduct a written review of the application.

6The issue before the Board is whether the Society has provided a service to the Applicant.

7For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that it has no authority to proceed with this application.

8The relevant sections of the Act are as follows:

3. (1)

“service” means,

(a) a child development service,

(b) a child treatment service,

(c) a child welfare service,

(d) a community support service, or

(e) a youth justice service; (“service”)

68.1 (1) If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may

(a) decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 68 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section...

68.1 (4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2 (2) (a).

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests

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…

BACKGROUND

9The Applicant is the sister-in-law of [the father]. According to the Society’s Summary Reply letter of December 22, 2011, [the father] is the parent of a child currently involved in a Protection Application brought by the Society. Neither the Applicant nor any child of hers has ever been subject of a referral to, investigation by, or open file with the Society.

10The background is described in the Society’s Summary Reply as follows:

[The Applicant] was mentioned in an OCL report completed during prior custody and access proceedings between [the father] and his estranged spouse, [estranged spouse]. At the time, [the father] and his son had lived in the same home as [the Applicant] and she was proposed as a caregiver. Information related to that report was included in the Protection Application and Affidavit filed by the Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo related to the son of [the father] and [estranged spouse]. The Society felt the information was relevant as it pertained to [the father’s] judgement, and choice of caregivers. In the end the decision as to whether this information is admissible in the court proceeding will be made by the court.

11The Applicant complains that the Society has no right to use her personal and private information in “the file at the court hearing”.

ANALYSIS

12Section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act gives the Board authority to review a society’s actions in limited circumstances. Section 68.1(4)4 provides that the Board may review whether a society has given an opportunity to be heard to “children and their parents”. In this case, as the Applicant is not the parent of the child receiving services from the Society, she has no right to be heard under that section of the Act.

13Section 68.1(4)5 provides that the Board may consider whether a society provided a complainant with reasons for a decision, but only where the complaint is “in respect of a service sought or received from a society”.

14“Service” is defined in section 3 of the Act, to mean a child development service, a child treatment service, a child welfare service, a community support service, or a youth justice service. The Act then goes on to define each of those terms.

15In this case, the complaint is related to the Society’s decision to make reference, in an affidavit before the Court, to information about the Applicant which is included in a report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. There is no suggestion that any kin assessment was undertaken by the Society.

16The Board finds that the inclusion of this information in an affidavit before the Court in the context of a child protection application, and coming from an OCL report rather than a Society kin assessment, does not qualify as a service by the Society, as defined by the Act. The Board therefore has no authority to hear the complaint.

17In addition, the reference to which the Applicant objects is currently before the Court. The issue for the Applicant is the propriety of using the information in court. The Court alone has the authority to determine what is relevant and permissible in its proceedings. Section 68.1 (8) provides that the Board has no jurisdiction over matters that are before the Court.

CONCLUSION

18Since the Applicant has not received a service by the Society, and since the propriety of the use of the information objected to by the Applicant is an issue before the Court, the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear this application and will not do so.