LM v Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto, 2020 CFSRB 104

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

LM

Applicant

-and-

Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: November 30, 2020

Citation: 2020 CFSRB 104

Indexed As: LM v Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

LM, Applicant

Self-Represented

Jewish Family and Child Services of Greater Toronto, Respondent

Lorne Glass, Counsel

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2The Application was found eligible to proceed under section 120(4)5 of the Act: The Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affected her interests and under section 120(4)(5) of the Act; and the Society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects her interests.

3The Applicant is the mother of a daughter (“Child”) who attended a home daycare that was investigated by the Respondent. The Application outlined the following issues/concerns:

1. The Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with sufficient information regarding its concerns with the daycare so that the Applicant could make an informed decision regarding continued attendance at the day care until the investigation was completed;

2. The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent was not taking measures to protect the children in the daycare while the investigation was ongoing; and

3. The Applicant found it difficult to contact the social worker assigned to the file as well as her manager.

4In its Summary Reply, the Respondent argued that the Applicant never sought or received services from the Respondent. The Applicant is a parent of a child who attended a daycare which was being investigated by the Respondent. The Applicant was not a referent, and her child was not the subject of an investigation. The investigation focused on a community caregiver in an institutional, out-of-home setting. As such, the Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB.

5In a Case Management Direction (CMD) dated November 25, 2020, the Applicant was directed to make written submissions on the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear the Application, and, in particular address whether she has sought or received services from the Respondent.

6The Applicant submitted that all of the children attending the day care are the Respondent’s clients. The children’s parents have a duty to protect their children and therefore deserve full disclosure so that they can decide what is best for their children. The Applicant indicated that the allegations against the daycare were verified by the Respondent. The remainder of the submissions reiterated the concerns in the Application and did not address the issue of whether the Applicant was in receipt of services from the Respondent.

THE LAW

7Section 120 (1) of the Act provides that, if a person has “a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society [and the complaint] relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may decide” to make a complaint to either the society or the CFSRB.

8The Act defines “service” as follows:

a) a service for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family

b) a mental health service for a child or the child’s family,

c) a service related to residential care for a child,

d) a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family,

e) a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others,

f) counselling for a child or the child’s family,

g) a service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community,

h) a service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purpose of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or

i) a prescribed service; (‘service’).

ANALYSIS

9In analyzing this complaint, I focused on whether the CFSRB had the jurisdiction to review the Application pursuant to section 120(1) of the Act: whether the Applicant was in receipt of services.

10The Respondent clearly indicated that the investigation focused on the daycare as an institution, and not on a parent or child at the daycare. The contact between Respondent staff and the Applicant related to: a) the Applicant providing information on the daycare and her child; b) the Applicant requesting information regarding the investigation; c) the Applicant requesting information on the outcome of the investigation; and d) the Applicant expressing her displeasure with the investigation process implemented by the Applicant.

11A review of the documents provided and submissions, reveals that the Applicant, nor her daughter were never the subject of the investigation nor did they receive any services from the Respondent at any time. The Applicant did not request services from the Respondent as per paragraph 8 above.

12I also considered the exceptions in H.L.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s. 68) 2012 CFSRB 4 in relation to the complaint and find that they do not apply to the Applicant’s situation.

13As such, the CFSRB is precluded from reviewing the complaint pursuant to section 120(1) of the Act.

ORDER

14For the reasons outlined above, the Application is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

15Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 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.