CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
DDF
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley
Indexed As: DDF v Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
DDF, Applicant
Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin, Respondent
Dawn V. Dubois, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2This decision explains why the CFSRB is dismissing the Application.
the law
s.120(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 119 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section; or
(b) where the person first makes the complaint to the society under section 119, submit the complaint to the Board before the society’s complaint review procedure is completed.
s.120(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.
120(8)(a)
The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,
(a) Is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.
background
3The Application includes a statement that the Applicant “requested a kinship home study and was not contacted.” Attached to the Application are several pages detailing concerns of the child’s father and mother about the services they and their child have received from the Respondent.
4In its June 15, 2020 Response, the Respondent questioned the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application, stating:
Ms. Di Filippo is not a client in receipt of services from the Society. Ms. Di Filippo’s complaint is in regards to the delivery of services to her grandchild and her grandchild’s parents. That matter is before the Court. Ms. Di Filippo is not a party to the child protection court proceeding involving her grandchild that is referenced in her materials.
5In a June 17, 2020 Case Management Direction (“CMD”), the CFSRB directed the parties as follows:
By no later than June 24, 2020, the Respondent is directed to confirm whether or not the Applicant requested a kinship home study and, if so, what steps were taken in response. If the Applicant requested a kinship home study, the Respondent may also address whether doing so amounts to seeking a service under the Act.
By no later than July 2, 2020, the Applicant is directed to provide a written response to the June 15, 2020 letter and to the submissions directed in [the preceding] paragraph.
6In its June 24, 2020 submissions, the Respondent states that a request for the Applicant’s “participation in a kinship assessment was made by counsel for [the Applicant’s] grandchild’s mother” as an alternate plan of care in child protection proceedings to which the Applicant is not a party. The Respondent states it did not receive a “formal request” for a kinship assessment directly from the Applicant and that “[i]ssues relating to the Society’s decision not to proceed with Ms. DF’s kinship assessment are before the Courts”.
7The Respondent’s June 24, 2020 submissions also include several paragraphs detailing reasons why it did not consider the Applicant an appropriate kinship placement for her grandchild. The Respondent states it provided these reasons to the Applicant and her family in December 2019
8The Applicant made no submissions by the July 2, 2020 deadline in the CMD or at any time up to the date of this decision. The Case Processing Officer left a telephone message for the Applicant in July 2020 but received no response.
analysis
9In order for an application under section 120 of the Act to be eligible for review by the CFSRB, an applicant must be seeking or receiving services from a children’s aid society.
10In this case, it is not clear whether the Applicant made a request to be assessed as a kinship provider. The Respondent’s use of the term “formal request” leaves open the possibility that the Applicant may have made such a request.
11Whether or not the Applicant made a request to be assessed as a kinship provider and whether such a request amounts to seeking a service, the issues regarding a kinship assessment are being dealt with in a Court proceeding. As a result, section 120(8)(a) of the Act bars the CFSRB from reviewing the Application.
12If the CFSRB had jurisdiction to review the Application, the detailed explanation by the Respondent in its June 24, 2020 submissions for not considering the Applicant an appropriate kinship placement for her grandchild would, in my view, meet any obligation on the Respondent under section 120(4)5 of the Act to provide reasons for a decision which affects the Applicant’s interests.
13For these reasons, the Application cannot proceed further in the CFSRB’s process.
order
14The Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
15Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this Application with anyone, including through the media or online. The CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.
Dated at Toronto, August 28, 2020.
Catherine Bickley
Catherine Bickley
Vice-Chair