SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
(DIVISONAL COURT)
RE: 836591 Ontario Ltd. o/a Mary Homes and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Director for the purposes of the Child and Family Services Act
BEFORE: Brockenshire, Platana and Crane JJ.
COUNSEL: Emilio S. Binavince, for the Appellant Katharine E. Renison, for the Respondent
E N D O R S E M E N T
1This is an appeal from an order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, upholding a decision of the Director of Child and Family Services to impose a requirement to provide audited financial statements as a condition for the renewal of licences for the children’s residences that serve the Children’s’ Aid Societies.
2The appellant’s counsel admits that s. 78 of the governing Regulation 70, permits exactly that which has been imposed. He agrees that there can be many bona fide reasons for the Director to seek such financial information. The appellant states that the express reason for the Director seeking such information is to use it to set per diem rates for services. The submission is that the Director lacks statutory authority to use the licensee’s audited financial statement for the purpose of setting the rates which C.A.S. will pay to the appellant. In support of the factual statement, the appellant points to letters of the Ministry of October 27, 2003, December 2, 2003, and April 2, 2004, indicating that intent.
3In our view, there is an obvious disconnect between the object of those letters, and the eventual decision of the Director, upheld by the Licence Appeal Tribunal. It may be that the appellant’s counsel has already succeeded in making his point. The letters sought specific financial information on line items in budget figures and expenditures of each group home, all to feed into a per diem rate. While the eventual decision of the Director was to order the production of audited financial statements, which of course would produce only general financial information.
4The position of the Director is that the Minister has clear authority to limit the amount that a C.A.S. can pay per diem for group home services, flowing from the obligation of the Ministry to fund the C.A.S., and its public duty to oversee and control C.A.S. expenditures. This statutory obligation is quite different from attempting to control what a service provider might seek for its services. The Ministry has many reasons, relating directly to its mandate of promoting the best interests of children, for seeking general financial information from care givers (the appellant).
5The issue before the Tribunal is whether the appellant can establish that the Ministry was attempting to exercise its admitted statutory authority for an unauthorized purpose. The Ministry at the hearing provided evidence of many reasons within its mandate for seeking general financial information from care providers. The allegations of the appellant, in the opinion of the Tribunal, were not established on the evidence presented. The Tribunal concluded that from the evidence before it, it could not find that the audited financial statements were being required for an unauthorized purpose.
6The standard of review was not argued before us. In our view, the standard in interpreting the law is correctness, and in making findings of fact, is reasonableness.
7We conclude that the Tribunal was correct in its interpretation of the Statute and Regulation, and reasonable in its factual conclusion, based on the evidence before it. This appeal is therefore dismissed. The Ministry does not seek costs.
Brockenshire J.
Platana J.
Crane J.
DATE: December 22, 2005
COURT FILE NO.: 04-DV-1061
DATE: 20051019
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO
(DIVISONAL COURT)
RE: 836591 Ontario Ltd. o/a Mary Homes and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Director for the purposes of the Child and Family Services Act
BEFORE: Brockenshire, Platana and Crane JJ.
COUNSEL: Emilio S. Binavince, for the Appellant Katharine E. Renison, for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
Brockenshire, Platana and Crane JJ.
DATE: December 22, 2005