CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
K.P.
v.
Bruce Gray Child and Family Services
WRITTEN REVIEW
Indexed as: K.P. v. Bruce Gray Child and Family Services (CFSA s.68)
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application made under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.11, as amended, (the “Act”) from the Applicant on December 31, 2012 regarding a complaint made to the Bruce Gray Child & Family Services (the “Society”) and failure to provide him with reasons for a decision that affects the Applicant’s interests.
2The Board has determined that an oral hearing is not required in this case as the Board has sufficient information before it to make its decision based on the written material filed.
3On January 11, 2013, the Board determined that the Applicant’s application was eligible to proceed to the next stage of the Board’s process: the receipt of the Society’s Summary Reply. The application was found eligible under subsections 68.1 (4) 2, 3 and 5 which relate to statutory and regulatory compliance with the internal complaint process, and the right to reasons.
4The Board received the Society’s Summary Reply to the application on January 18, 2013. The Society challenged the Board’s jurisdiction to hear this matter, on the basis that it had met its obligations to the Applicant by offering an Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”), an offer that was declined by the Applicant. Following a request for further documentation, the Society provided a letter to the Applicant dated October [ ], 2012, and another dated November [ ], 2012.
5The Board must determine if it has jurisdiction to conduct this review and if so, whether the grounds for complaint are made out by the Applicant. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the s. 68.1 (4) 2 and 3 complaints about the Society’s failure to follow the complaint process, and it has jurisdiction to hear the 68.1(4) 5 relating to whether the Applicant was provided with reasons.
6On the merits of the s. 68.1(4) 2, 3 and 5 complaints, the Board finds that the Society has not complied with the legislative time lines and requirements for a complaint, nor has the Society complied with its obligation to provide the Applicant with reasons. The Board’s reasons and order follow.
BACKGROUND
7The Society commenced an investigation of the Applicant, who is a teacher, following an incident involving some students at the school. Following the investigation, the Society verified the concerns. On October [ ], 2012, the Society sent a letter to the Applicant making reference to a recent conversation and enclosing a document referred to as “the complaint brochure”. On October [ ], 2012, the Applicant sent a letter to the Society complaining about inconsistencies, namely that the verified concerns contained in the file were inconsistent with the allegation identified by the child protection worker, and were unsubstantiated. The Applicant requested that the complaint process be initiated by the Society.
8The Applicant subsequently met with the child protection worker who had conducted the investigation and the intake supervisor. The Society followed up with a letter to the Applicant dated November [ ], 2012. At the conclusion of this letter, the intake supervisor states that she has informed the Applicant as to the next steps he could take in order to address his grievance. The intake supervisor also invites the Applicant to contact her again if he has any further questions regarding their meeting.
9On December [ ], 2012, the Applicant wrote to the director of services reiterating his concerns about inconsistencies in the file. The letter also sets out the Applicant’s concern that he had not been given the opportunity to be heard where appropriate when decisions were made that affected his interests. The Applicant requested a meeting with director of services in order to resolve his concerns. The Board accepts that this letter was a complaint within the meaning of s. 68. As such, the response requirements and timelines set out in the Act were triggered on that day.
ANALYSIS
10There are two types of issues before the Board: one set relating to the complaints process flowing from the letter of complaint, and the second set relating to whether the Applicant was provided with reasons for a decision that affects his interests.
The complaints process: s 68.1 (4) 2 and 3.
11The Board has decided that it has jurisdiction in the matters relating to whether the Society complied with the complaints process. The Board has determined that the Society did not meet the timelines or follow the process. The relevant statutory provisions follow.
Sections 68(1) and (2) of the Act state that:
68 (1) A person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the Society in accordance with the regulations
68(2) Where a society receives a complaint under subsection (1) it shall deal with the complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation, subject to subsection 68.1(2)
Ontario Regulation 494/06 (the “Regulation”) states that:
Within seven days after receiving a complaint, the society shall determine whether the complaint is eligible for review under s. 68 of the Act.
If the complaint is not eligible for review, the society shall notify the complainant of its decision and the reasons for it in writing.
5.(1) If the complaint is eligible for review, the society shall notify the complainant in writing and shall establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel.
5.(2) The notice shall provide the complainant with a date and time for meeting with the ICRP.
68.1 (4) The following matters may be reviewed by the board under this section.
Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
12The Applicant’s position is that he made a formal written complaint and that the Society did not respond to the complaint dated December [ ], 2012, as required by the legislation, including a determination of eligibility and sending the matter to an ICRP, if eligible.
13The Society’s position is that the Applicant was offered the opportunity to participate in the Society’s ICRP process, and that he declined to do so. As such, the Society argues that the Board has no jurisdiction to review the complaint until the Society’s internal complaint review procedure has been completed. The Society failed to produce any documentation to support the position that the Applicant’s complaint was responded to by the Society, or the position that the Applicant was offered and declined the option of an ICRP hearing. Further, the Society failed to provide any evidence that they sent a letter to the Applicant dealing with whether or not his complaint was eligible, as required by sections 3 and 4 of the Regulation.
14The wording in section 68 (2) is mandatory. Where the Society receives a written complaint, as here, it shall deal with the complaint in accordance with the procedure established by the regulation.
15Pursuant to the Regulation the Society must determine within seven [7] days of receipt of a written complaint whether or not it is eligible for review. If it is not eligible, the Society must notify the complainant of its decision on eligibility with reasons in writing. If it is found eligible, the Society must establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) and must notify the Applicant that the complaint is eligible and of the date and time of the ICRP.
16The Board finds that the Society has failed to comply with s. 68 (2) of the Act and subsections 3 to 5 of Regulation 494/06. The Society did not respond to the Applicant’s complaint as required by the regulation. The Society did not engage in the eligibility decision as required and has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure under the Act. The Applicant’s complaints before the Board under subsections 68.1 (4) 2 and 3 have been made out.
Right to Reasons: s. 68.1(4)5
17The Board has decided that it has jurisdiction in the matters relating to the Applicant’s rights to reasons for a decision that affects his interests. The relevant statutory provisions follow.
68.1 (4) The following matters may be reviewed by the board under this section.
- Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
18The Applicant complains that he was not provided with reasons for the type of verification that was made by the Society. The Board has the jurisdiction to hear this complaint without the pre-condition of an ICRP. However, it is the Board’s recommendation that the Applicant direct this part of his complaint to the ICRP that is ordered below, to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings. If the Applicant advises, in writing, of his intention to proceed directly to the Board with this part of his complaint, the Board will proceed with this matter.
CONCLUSION
19The Board has jurisdiction to deal with and allows the Applicant’s application under sections 68.1(4) 2, 3 and 5.
20The Board orders the Society to comply immediately with the complaint review procedure established by Regulation 494/06 under the Child and Family Services Act, and orders the Society to proceed forthwith with an ICRP hearing to respond to the Applicant’s complaints.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
21Parties and their representatives must not use, share or disclose any documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including the media or on-line. Any documents or information shared by the parties must be used only for the purpose of the hearing of this application by the Board.
22Either party may, however share this decision with the Court on the motion if either party wishes to do so.
ANDREA HIMEL
Andrea Himel
Board Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 11th day of February, 2013.