SF v. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, 2023 CFSRB 63

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SF Applicant

-and-

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: July 14, 2023 Citation: 2023 CFSRB 63 Indexed As: SF v Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

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”).

2After having reviewed the Application, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application pursuant to sections 119 and 120 of the Act.

3The Applicant is a foster care provider who has been prohibited from providing foster care since July 1, 2023. The Applicant indicated that he did not complete the required training to continue to provide foster care services. The Applicant disagreed with the Respondent’s requirement that he provide access to his username and password. In addition, the Applicant indicated that the Respondent failed to provide him with its policy that requires him to provide this information. The Applicant also indicated that he has been unsuccessful in reaching people who can edit the PRIDE program. Finally, the Applicant indicated that his ICRP complaint has been refused as, as a foster parent he is not considered a person who is in receipt of services.

THE LAW

1Section 120(4)4 of the Act indicates that the following matters may be reviewed by the Board:

1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2)

2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation

3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2)

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests

6. Such other matters as may be prescribed

2Section 2(2) of the Act defines parent as:

a) The person who has lawful custody of the child; or

b) If more than one person has lawful custody of the child, all of the person who have lawful custody of the chid, excluding any person who is unavailable or unable to act, as the context requires

3Section 15(2) of the Act confirms that:

Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving

4Section 2(1) of the Act defines service as:

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 purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or

i) a prescribed service The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,

ANALYSIS

5The Applicant is former foster parent. In his Application, the Applicant indicated that the Respondent did not hear his concerns regarding his refusal to participate in the ongoing training requirement. Under normal circumstances, foster parents are unable to have their section 120 complaints reviewed by the CFSRB as they are not parents; and they are not considered service recipients.

6I find that the Applicant does not have a right to be heard pursuant to s. 120(4)4 as he is not a parent, nor is he a recipient of service in his role as a foster care provider.

7As such, the CFSRB is not eligible to review the Applicant’s Complaint pursuant to sections 120(4)4 of the Act.

8The Applicant did not identify a concern about not being provided reasons by the Respondent in his Application and therefore the provisions of section 120(4)5 of the Act have not been engaged.

DECISION

9The Application is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

10Pursuant 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.