CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
Applicants
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk
WRITTEN REVIEW: REASONS FOR DECISION
Indexed as: Applicants v. Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk (CFSA s. 68)
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to subsection 68.1(4) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.11 as amended (the “Act”) against the Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk (the “Society”).
2In the application to the Board, the Applicants allege that the Society failed to provide them with reasons for decisions that affect their interests relating to a young woman who was residing with them and that it had inaccurate documents in their file.
3The Society’s position is that the Applicants are not persons who sought or received a service for themselves from the Society but rather, that the young woman, who was over 18 was the person receiving services. Further, the Society submits that the Applicants have commenced a law suit dealing with the situation with the young woman and thus the matter is before the Court and beyond the Board’s authority.
4The Board determined on March 4, 2014 that the application was eligible for review under section 68.1(4)5 regarding the young woman. This means that on its face, the application was appropriate to move to the next stage of the process which is the submission of a response from the Society.
5The eligibility letter was not clear because it stated that the matter was eligible relating to the Applicants’ request to remove documents from the file but later states that the Board proceed to deal with inaccuracies in the file and that the Applicants must first conduct an ICRP before applying to the Board. The Board will resolve any confusion in this regard below.
6The Society filed a response dated March 11, 2014 in which it sets out its position that the Applicants, who let the young woman stay with them, were not seeking or in receipt of a service.
7The Board finds that there is sufficient material before it to conduct a written review of the application pursuant to subsection 68.1(5) of the Act.
8The issue before the Board is whether or not the Board has jurisdiction to deal with the complaints. The Board finds that it has no authority to proceed with the application.
BACKGROUND
9The Applicants are past foster parents who had their foster home closed. They have since adopted two foster children. They have been unable to become a foster home again and therefore take women and children into their home privately, to assist them. The Applicants were involved with another Society and the Society faxed 57 pages of information about another family to that Society which has been put in the Applicants’ file. The Applicants want to avoid this information going in the provincial database.
10The Applicants housed a young woman for a shelter. She moved into their home but when the Society found out and become involved, she left their home. The young woman had a relationship with the Society under an extended care and maintenance agreement. The Applicants did not like the way the Society handled the situation and allege it removed the young woman from their home and lied to her.
11The Applicants filed their application with the Board on March 3, 2014.
ANALYSIS
12The Board must first clarify the nature of the complaint relating to the documents. The response did not deal with the documents because the Society interpreted the eligibility letter from the Board as saying the Board would not deal with that issue. The Applicants have 57 pages of documents in their file that belong to someone else and want the Society to remove those pages. The Board is not clear which file the Applicants are speaking to: a file regarding their application to be foster parents or a file about their family. However, the Board does characterize this complaint as being about inaccuracies in the file and as such, the Applicants are required to follow the Society’s internal complaints process. In their application to the Board, they checked off the section of the complaint dealing with inaccuracies in the file. According to the Applicants, the Society refused to remove the pages. The next step in the process would be for the Applicants to file a complaint with the Society about this issue, requesting a meeting with the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP). Only at the conclusion of that process, once a decision is made through the Society’s internal process, can the Applicants bring a new application to the Board on this issue. This is so because section 68 (5) of the Act states:
If the complaint relates to one of the following matters, the complainant may apply to the Board in accordance with the regulation for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the complaint review procedure:
- An alleged inaccuracy in the society’s files or records regarding the complainant.
13The Board will not proceed with this aspect of the application.
14With respect to the young woman who resided with the Applicants, the relevant sections of the Act are as follows:
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
- Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
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.
15Section 3 (2) of the Act defines “parent” by birth or custodial relationship and the protection sections of the Act provide further definitions of parent that are not relevant to this matter. Parents and children have a right to be heard under s. 2(2)(a) of the Act and where they allege that this right was breached, they can bring a complaint about services sought or received to the Board under s. 68.1(4)4 of the Act. A “child” in the Act means a person under the age of 18. It is not clear whether someone over the age of 18 would be precluded from bringing a service complaint related to s. 2(2)(a) which refers to “parents and their children”. However, as someone who was receiving a service under an extended care and maintenance agreement, an individual over 18 could complain that he or she had not been provided with reasons under s. 68.1(4)5.
16The Applicants are not the parents of the young woman in question. They are individuals who provided housing to her. The Applicants are not in any type of relationship with the Society relating to their own children and have not sought or received a service for their own children that can in any way be connected to their housing of the young woman. While the young woman is a client of the Society and receives services from it, this is completely separate and apart from the Applicants who have no parental relationship with her. They tried to advocate for her as members of the community, but this does not mean that they sought or received a service for their family; rather, they were seeking services for a third party adult. The person who could be entitled to be heard and is entitled to reasons under the Act is the young woman who was receiving services from the Society for herself. It would be open to her but not the Applicants to complain under s. 68.1(4)5 of the Act. The Board will not proceed with the complaint on this basis.
17In addition, the Board is precluded from conducting reviews of complaints where the issue is before the Court [s. 68.1(8)]. The Applicants have commenced civil proceedings about the alleged removal of the young woman from their home. However, because the Applicants were not seeking or receiving a service, there is no need for the Board to address the existence of the civil proceedings any further.
CONCLUSION
18The Board has no jurisdiction to hear this matter. The Board will not hear the application.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
19Pursuant 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.
SHEENA SCOTT
Sheena Scott
Presiding Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 25th day of March, 2014.