LS v. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, 2021 CFSRB 68

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

LS

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: September 29, 2021

Citation: 2021 CFSRB 68

Indexed As: LS v Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This is a Complaint filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) pursuant to section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2The Applicant is the former foster parent to the Child “M”. She has put forward a plan to the Respondent to adopt M.

3The Complaint consisted of the Applicant’s allegations that the Respondent did not follow its timelines in relation to finalizing M's adoption.

4In her response to question 6 in the Complaint, the Applicant checked off the box applying to: “The Society did not follow its complaint review process or timelines”. The Applicant emphasized the word “timelines” by circling it and writing in: “child in care almost 3 years after CW order”.

THE LAW

5Section 120 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.

6Ontario Regulation 156/18 under the Act addresses complaints to a society under subsection 119(1) of the Act. Subsections 57 and 61 and 63 of the Regulation address timelines associated with determinizing the eligibility of complaints; scheduling an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP); and providing an applicant with a written summary of the ICRP meeting.

ANALYSIS

7For a complaint to be eligible for review under section 120 of the Act, an applicant must be seeking or receiving services or have received services from a society and the complaint must relate to those services. Unfortunately, the Applicant’s complaint does not focus on a service she sought or received. Rather, the Applicant is concerned that the Respondent has not followed its timelines regarding permanency planning for “M”.

8The timelines cited in Question 6 in the Complaint Application relate to a society not following the timelines set out in sections 57, 61, and 63 of Regulation 156/18 which relate to a complaint to a society pursuant to subsection 119(1) of the Act. The timelines in the Regulations and which are referred to in Question 6 of the Compliant Application do not relate to the Applicant’s concern regarding the Respondent’s timelines to seek permanency for “M”.

9For these reasons, I find the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Complaint pursuant to section 120 of the Act.

10The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

11Pursuant 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 on-line. 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.