CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
S.F. & Q.H. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Date: March 25, 2008
Citation: 2008 CFSRB 21
Indexed as: S.F. & Q.H. v. CAS of Toronto (CFSA s.68)
1S.F. and Q.H., (the “Applicants”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on August 25, 2007, pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”), against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”).
BACKGROUND
2A Pre-Hearing conference was held on October 22, 2007, in which the Applicants enumerated their concerns in the way the Society dealt with them and their newborn daughter. These complaints could be summarized under three broad categories: the Applicants’ dissatisfaction with the services the mother received subsequent to giving birth to her daughter; the Applicants’ wish that one of the employees be “punished” for her “rude, insensitive and discriminatory behaviour”; and the Applicant’s request that serious inaccuracies in their file be corrected.
3The Society responded that a meeting with the Internal Complaints Review Panel had been scheduled for July […], 2007. That meeting could not take place because of the illness of its external member. The Applicants agreed to meet with members of the Service Team, and it seemed to the Society, as they indicated in their letter of July […], 2007, that the issues under consideration had been resolved (Book of Documents of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, tab 10). However, the Applicants did not, at that stage, feel that the Society handled their interaction with their worker to their satisfaction (Applicants’ letter of August […], 2007, tab 12), and they proceeded with a complaint to the Board.
ANALYSIS
4Both at the pre-hearing conference and at the hearing, the Society submitted that the issue of investigating and “penalizing” one of their employees was not a matter reviewable by the Board since this complaint falls within the purview of subsection 68.1(8)(b) and “is subject to another decision-making process under this Act or the Labour Relations Act.” The Society also noted that the issue of inaccuracies in the Applicants’ file had not been dealt with as it had not been part of the initial complaint to its Review Panel. The Society further informed the Applicants in their letter of September 6 that they were ready to place the Applicants’ letter of August […], 2007, in which they recorded their disagreement, as well as any additional information, in their file. The Society also offered to meet once more with the Applicants. They, however, declined that offer, and filed their application with the Board. The matter was thus referred to the Board for a full hearing, which took place on January 28, 2008.
5Even though the Applicants’ file at the Society had been closed on June […], 2007, after it had initially been opened on November […], 2006, the Applicants felt strongly at what they perceived was an insensitive handling by some of its staff of a new mother who had also recently arrived in Canada.
6As noted above, the Society submitted that it had addressed the Applicants’ issues, albeit in a less formal setting and that they seemed to be satisfied. A letter dated July […], 2007, summarizes the results of that meeting, (Book of Documents of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, tab 10). In that letter, the Society agreed also to provide the Applicants with a copy of their file. The Society suggested that the only other recourse that remained would be for the matter to be returned to the Society, for it to re-open the file, and to re-convene the Internal Complaints Review Panel. The Applicants conceded that their complaints regarding the services that they received from the Society had been resolved.
7The Applicants, however, were quite adamant about still wanting to see one of the Society’s employees “punished” for what they perceived to be unnecessarily harsh behaviour towards them, and which led them to ask themselves whether she was discriminating against them because of their ethnic origin and religion. The Board clarified to the Applicants that it had no punitive jurisdiction over the employees of the Society. The Board then asked Counsel for the Society to explain their internal process regarding complaints against an employee. Counsel for the Society stated that complaints against employees are taken very seriously, and that there existed an internal process to deal with them. Counsel added that Society employees were subject to a collective agreement which governed the procedure in employee and employer disputes, as well as in disciplinary issues. The Board thus concurs with the Society that it does not have jurisdiction over the internal disciplinary process regarding employees of the Society as these fall under the provisions of the Labour Relations Act. The Board can only ascertain whether the Society has listened to the Applicants’ concerns regarding the Society worker. In this instance, the Board is satisfied that the Society has done so.
8The Applicants further stated that when they requested the records of their file following their meeting of July […], 2007 in order to correct any inaccuracies, the Society agreed, in their letter of July […], 2007, to provide them with a copy of their file. In their letter of August […], 2007, the Applicants took issue with comments made in a report headed “Investigation of Allegations /Concerns” (tab 13), which stated on page 8 that the female Applicant’s first husband “was involved in terrorist activity and that she felt extremely unsafe in his presence. Ms. S.F. described having to flee this situation and that she can not [sic] contact her family out of fear for her life.”
9In their letter of August […], 2007, included in tab 13, the Applicants wrote the following in paragraph 12:
“The person Ms. S.F. married to [sic] was not involved in any terrorist activities. Is this some kind of discrimination that every Muslim is attached to the group and label of being a terrorist. How can such a big thing-word of terrorist is added [sic] in Ms. S.F’s file. What made the worker think terrorist. Does the worker have any proof of this statement.”
10Ms. S.F. was adamant that she never used the word “terrorist.” The worker in question, however, was not present at the hearing to testify. The panel agreed with the Applicants that the use of the word “terrorist” was extremely charged nowadays. The panel further noted that this word did not have the same connotation as the phrase “being terrorised” by someone, a phrase that may often occur in family abuse situations. The Board, however, could not come to a determination whether the word “terrorist” was erroneously used by the worker or not. The Society recognised the dilemma that could arise from the use of such a politically charged word. They explained that while texts cannot be changed in the records of their clients, they would, however, re-open the file and append a Notice of Disagreement. The Society further undertook to verify the wording of the Notice with the Applicants before adding it to their file. The Applicants agreed to the proposal of the Society.
CONCLUSION
11Although the Society did not follow the internal process required under the Regulation it had the Applicants’ agreement to hold an informal meeting during which some disagreements were resolved. The Society also listened to the Applicants for concerns regarding the staff member during the informal process. Furthermore, the Society agreed to file a Notice of Disagreement in the Applicants’ file. As such, no further remedial order will be made by the Board.
Heather Gibbs Presiding Member
Aida Graff Panel Member
Donald Butler Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 25th day of March, 2008.