BKB v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2023 CFSRB 102

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

BKB

Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley

Date: December 11, 2023

Citation: 2023 CFSRB 102

Indexed As: BKB v Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

(CYFSA s.120)

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”).

background

2The Applicant and her family have had significant involvement with the Respondent in the past: BKB v. Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region, 2018 CFSRB 58; BKB v. Family & Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2019 CFSRB 80; BKB v. Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region, 2021 CFSRB 85; BKB v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region; 2022 CFSRB 39, BKB v. Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region, 2022 CFSRB 63.

The Application

3The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has not responded to her September 28, 2023 email regarding the presence of the Respondent’s former Executive Director (“former ED”) on the Respondent’s Board of Directors (“Respondent Board”). In that email, the Applicant states that the former ED’s presence on the Respondent Board is a conflict of interest.

4In answer to Question 4 (“Children Affected by this Application”), the Applicant lists her three children and states “specifically - apart from all the kids in the region.”

5In answer to Question 6 (“Tell us why you are applying to the CFSRB”), the Applicant alleges that the Respondent has not given her a chance to be heard when she raised her concerns and has not given her reasons for its decisions that affect her interests.

The Parties’ Submissions

6The CFSRB directed the parties to provide written submissions addressing the following questions:

• Is the Applicant seeking or receiving services from the Respondent?

• In what way does the decision in question (the appointment of the former Executive Director to the Respondent’s Board of Directors) affect her interests?

7The Applicant initially declined to provide submissions, saying she first required more information from the Respondent. After the CFSRB directed her to provide submissions and extended the deadline for doing so, both parties provided submissions.

8The Applicant’s submissions explain her concerns:

As a member of the public CAS of the Waterloo region serves and as a parent who was in the past involved with CAS over false child abuse accusations by CAS and is currently seeking corrections to our file via complaint processes with the Ombudsman and the IPC, I am concerned with the CAS’s overall lack of transparency as it pertains to the communication when questions about the Board are asked. Specifically, I had asked about the presence of the former executive director … who was in charge of CAS during our involvement, on the Board or the Foundation Board and the Board’s members and activity overall. When I received no answer from the Board, or anyone else, I initiated this complaint

9The Applicant also alleges that the Respondent is not transparent regarding the make up of the Respondent Board, the processes by which the Respondent Board holds the Respondent accountable, and whether the former ED was involved in those processes.

10The Respondent submits that Applicant is neither seeking nor currently receiving a service from the Respondent although she has done so in the past.

11The Respondent also states that the former ED is not and was not on its Board. It notes that the Act prohibits employees of children’s aid societies from sitting on those organization’s boards. The Respondent acknowledges that the former ED “did hold a position with the Foundation’s Board of Directors [a different but related organization], given she was also the Executive Director of the Foundation” but, having retired this summer, “no longer holds that position, nor does she sit on the Board of the Foundation.”

analysis

14The Applicant is concerned that the Respondent’s former ED is either on the Respondent’s Board or the Board of a related organization and that the website of the latter is not up to date. The Respondent has clarified that the former ED was not on the Respondent’s Board and is not currently on the related organization’s Board.

12Subsection 120(1) of the Act limits the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to the review of complaints “in respect of a service sought or received from a society” in relation to matters “described in subsection 120(4).”

13The Applicant is not complaining in respect to a service she herself has sought or received from the Respondent as defined in the Act.

14Neither the matters set out in subsection 120(4) of the Act nor the definition of service in section 2(1) of the Act include an individual’s disapproval of the internal structure and processes of a children’s aid society or related organization. The CFSRB has no jurisdiction to undertake a general review of the structure or processes of a children’s aid society or related organization. As such, this Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB.

order

15The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

16Pursuant 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, except as varied through this decision. 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.