CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
C.B. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society
REASONS FOR DECISION
Date: December 6, 2013
Citation: 2013 CFSRB 65
Indexed as: C.B. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1On September 6, 2012, C. B. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) against the Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) pursuant to sections 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”). The application was determined eligible for review under s. 68.1(4)5 of the Act on September 13, 2013.
2A pre-hearing conference was held on October 16, 2013. The Applicant complained that the Society did not provide her with reasons for decisions affecting her interests in relation to requests for service with regard to the Applicant’s concerns respecting her daughter and her grandchild with whom the Society had contact.
3The Society took the position that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the application because the Applicant did not seek or receive a service from the Society. Pursuant to s. 68.1(4) 5, only a person who sought or received a service from a Society is eligible to make a complaint to the Board under s. 68.1(4) 5.
4The Applicant’s position is that she sought a service from the Society in wanting the Society to facilitate contact with her grandchild and to investigate her daughter’s current living arrangements.
5A jurisdiction hearing was held via teleconference on November 8, 2013. The Board heard the party’s submissions and took into account the written submissions in the file. The Board reserved its decision. The Board finds in favour of the Society on this motion and dismisses the Application for the reasons that follow.
BACKGROUND
6The Applicant’s daughter and grandchild relocated to [city] and moved in with the maternal grandfather. The Applicant contacted the Society to advise of her concerns about her daughter’s mental health. The Applicant advised the Society that prior to her daughter’s relocating to [city], she had involvement with other Children’s Aid Societies in the location of the daughter’s previous residences. The Applicant also contacted the Society regarding her desire to have access to her grandchild.
7The Society contacted the Applicant’s daughter and assigned a social worker to meet with her. The Society assessed the home of the maternal grandfather as a kinship home for the grandchild’s residence and satisfied itself that this residential arrangement posed no protection concerns. The Society arranged for the Applicant to have an access visit with the grandchild, with her daughter’s consent, on April 24, 2013, at the office of the Society. The Applicant, the daughter, the grandchild, a family cousin, a BSW intern and the Family Services worker attended at this access visit.
8Subsequently, in a separate proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice, the maternal grandfather obtained an order for custody of the grandchild. There is no order of access in favour of the Applicant.
JURISDICTION
9The Board’s authority to review matters is with respect to a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from the Society. The crux of the Board’s jurisdiction to review this matter rests on whether the Applicant sought or received a service. “Service” is a term defined in s. 3(1) of the CFSA, as follows:
3(1) In this Act,
“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;
“child welfare service” means
(a) a residential or non-residential service including a prevention service;
(b) a service provided under Part III (Child Protection);
(c) a service provided under Part VII (Adoption), or
(d) individual or family counselling;
10Under section 68.1 of the Act an applicant making a request to the Board must meet three requirements in order for the Board to have jurisdiction over the matter. The requirements are as follows: 1) the applicant must be a person who sought or received services from a Society; 2) the complaint must be in respect to the service sought or received; and, 3) the complaint must relate to one of the matters listed in subsection 68.1(4) of the Act.
11The Act provides five definitions of “service” including (c) a child welfare service. The Act further provides four definitions of a child welfare service including (b) a service provided under part III (Child Protection). Concerns about a child’s safety can fall under the child protection portion of a child welfare service. The service requirements for societies in this part of the Act refer to investigations of alleged abuse, protection measures for children and counselling programs for both children and their parents or legal guardians.
12However, the Applicant, at the time she contacted the Society, did not have custody or care of her grandchild. She did not seek or receive a child protection service as defined by the Act. The Applicant made a referral to the Society, alerting the Society to the presence of her daughter and grandchild in the Society`s jurisdictional area and expressing concerns respecting her daughter’s mental health. It has been held by the Board that persons making referrals are seeking services for the child or children, not for themselves. See J.C. and K.C. v. F&CS of the Waterloo Region, 2010 CFSRB 47 at para. 12.
13With respect to the Applicant’s referral raising child protection concerns respecting her grandchild, the Applicant did not seek a service that qualifies her as a complainant for purposes of the Board’s jurisdiction in 68.1. See J.C. and K.C. v. F&CS of the Waterloo Region, above, at para. 16.
14In the vernacular sense, the Applicant did receive a service from the Society as the Society did arrange for her to have access to her grandchild. This service has been concluded as the access visit was arranged and is complete. Even if the Board did find that this accommodation was a “service” within the meaning of the Act, there is no source of reviewable complaint in connection with this service advanced by the Applicant.
DECISION
15The Board grants the motion of the Society. The Board does not have jurisdiction and will not proceed to hear the Application.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
16Pursuant to Rules 30.1 and 30.2 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including through the media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board’s proceedings.
RICHARD LINLEY
_____________________ Richard J. Linley Presiding Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 6^th^ day of December, 2013.