PME v. North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services, 2024 CFSRB 141

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

PME

Applicant

-and-

North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: November 25, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 141 Indexed As: PME v North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

PME, Applicant Self-represented

North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services, Respondent Sonia Migneault, 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”).

2After the CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under section 120(4)5 of the Act, the Respondent challenged the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application. It argued that the Applicant “was not a service recipient, and as such, is not authorized to bring an application as against the Society.”

3At the CFSRB’s direction, both parties made written submissions on the jurisdictional question and on the related question of whether the Applicant should be permitted to amend the Application.

ISSUES

4The issues are:

• Should the Applicant be permitted to amend the Application?
• Has the Applicant sought or received a service from the Respondent?

RESULT

5The Applicant should be permitted to amend the Application. The Applicant has sought or received a service from the Respondent.

ANALYSIS

6The Applicant and her spouse have legal custody of an 11 year old child, K. They consider K their grandchild because K’s father is a young man who lived with them as a member of their family after they fostered him. The Respondent also refers to K as the Applicant’s grandchild in its submissions. The Applicant alleges that she has repeatedly sought financial support and services from the Respondent to assist in caring for K and has been denied.

The Application is amended

7In her initial submissions on the jurisdictional issue, the Applicant included allegations that were not in the Application. Specifically, she alleged that she asked the Respondent to provide supports and services related to the child’s developmental and mental health issues. In its responding submissions, the Respondent stated that it would not be addressing this allegation “as this complaint falls outside the scope of the Application dated August 8, 2024.”

8The Applicant seeks to amend the Application. The Respondent opposes any amendment. It expresses concern that “endless new issues” will be added which will be difficult to respond to and will potentially delay the proceeding. If the amendment request is granted, the Respondent seeks time to respond to the amendment.

9It is always open to an Applicant to file a new Application which will start a new proceeding. In my view, it is more efficient and a better use of resources for all the issues related to the Applicant’s interactions with the Respondent to be considered through one proceeding. Accordingly, the Application is amended to include allegations that the Applicant sought support and services from the Respondent regarding K’s developmental and mental health issues.

The Applicant has sought or received services from the Respondent

10For a complaint to be eligible for review by the CFSRB under section 120 of the Act, an applicant must demonstrate that they have sought or received a service, as defined under the Act, from a children’s aid society.

11The term “service” is defined in section 2(1) of the Act. The definition includes services “for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family” and “a mental health service for a child or the child’s family.” In addition, the definition includes “a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others.”

12In my view, the Applicant’s allegations fall within the three definitions of service set out in paragraph 11. She alleges that she sought support and services from the Respondent in dealing with K’s developmental and mental health issues. Further, the Applicant asked the Respondent to provide her with financial support and guidance to assist in adopting K.

13My view that the Applicant was seeking or receiving services from the Respondent is strengthened by the Respondent’s acknowledgment that on the day K was born, “a referral was made for a kinship service file to open for the [Applicant] to care for the child upon the child’s discharge from hospital.”

14I reject the Respondent’s argument that a kinship out of care plan was the Applicant’s idea and therefore the Respondent was not providing a service to the Applicant. It is not material which party first proposed the idea that K reside with the Applicant and her spouse. As noted above, the Respondent opened “a kinship service file” at the time of K’s birth. Respondent staff also made multiple visits to the Applicant’s home after K was placed there. These actions arguably fall within the service definition of “a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family.”

15The Respondent also acknowledges that it provided the Applicant with letters to support her in receiving the Child Tax Benefit, Universal Credit and Temporary Allowance. It characterizes the provision of these letters and the purchase of items such as a crib and car seat as “financial support to the [Applicant] for the benefit of the child.”

16With respect to some of the Applicant’s allegations, the Respondent argues “it is under no obligation to pay for the legal fees of third parties.” That is not the question before the CFSRB. Rather, with respect to the various requests by the Applicant for financial support or services, the question to be decided at a hearing on the merits is whether the Respondent fulfilled its obligation under section 120(4)5 of the Act to provide the Applicant with meaningful reasons for the decisions it made in response to the Applicant’s requests.

17For these reasons, I conclude that the Applicant sought or received a service from the Respondent and the Application is therefore eligible to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

CONCLUSION

18For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the Applicant has sought or received services from the Respondent as defined in the Act. As a result, the Application will proceed. The next step will be for the Respondent to file an amended Response. The CFSRB will then schedule a Pre-Hearing at which the parties will have the opportunity to participate in mediation.

ORDER

19The Application is amended to include the Applicant’s allegations that she asked the Respondent to provide supports and services related to K’s developmental and mental health issues.

20The Respondent shall file an amended Response by no later than December 6, 2024.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

21Pursuant 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.