CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
Applicant
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County
REASONS FOR DECISION: JURISDICTION
Indexed as: Applicant v. Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County (CFSA s.68)
[1]
Background
The 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 15, 2014 regarding a complaint made to the Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County (the “Society”).
2On December 31, 2014, 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 subsection 68.1 (4) 5 which relates to statutory compliance with the obligation to provide reasons for a decision that affects a complainant’s interests.
3The Applicant is a paternal grandmother who facilitates the father’s access by picking up and dropping off her grandchild, and by supervising the father’s visits. The grandmother and the father made two referrals to the Society arising from concerns about the child’s mother. On both occasions the Society investigated the referrals and closed the file at intake. Other than responding to the referrals, the Society has not been involved with the grandmother.
[4]
Jurisdiction
On February 6, 2015, the Board heard a jurisdiction motion brought by the Society, by way of teleconference, in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction to conduct a hearing.
5None of the parties asserted that the Applicant was a “parent”. For that reason, the application relates only to the right to reasons under s. 68.1(4)5 and not the right to be heard as a parent. In order to make a determination on the motion the Board considered the relevant provisions of the Act which apply to non-parents:
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
(5) Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
6The Board’s jurisdiction to hear complaints about individuals who do not fall within the definition of a parent in the Act is limited to individuals who have sought or received services from the Society. In this case the Applicant made a referral to the Society but did not seek or receive any services from the Society. The Board has previously determined that a referral to a Society about a grandchild’s care does not fall under the Board’s jurisdiction, as persons making referrals are seeking services for the child, not for themselves. See for example: J.C. & K.C. v. F & CS of the Waterloo Region (CFSA s. 68), 2010 CFSRB 47. For that reason, the Board has no jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s complaint.
[7]
Decision
The Application is hereby dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
[8]
Confidentiality Order
Pursuant 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, except with an order of the Court or the Board, as appropriate.
ANDREA HIMEL ______________________
Andrea Himel
Board Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 10th day of February, 2015.