CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

B.P.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: May 1, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 35

Indexed as: B.P. v. CAS of Toronto (CFSA s.68)

Related Decisions: Reasons for Decisions on Jurisdiction – B.P. v. CAS (CFSA s.68), 2007 CFSRB 38

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

1The Applicant, B.P., applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on May 28th, 2007 pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) to review his complaints that the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”) failed to listen to his complaints regarding the welfare of his children.

2From the Applicant’s complaint to the Board, four main issues were deemed eligible to be heard by the Board at the jurisdiction hearing held on August 14^th, 2007:

1. the Applicant’s right to be heard regarding the welfare of his children when he has concerns about services sought or received;

2. the Applicant’s right to be heard regarding the proposed medical treatment of his son given the Society’s knowledge of the Court order entitling him to medical information and the Society’s involvement in recommending this service to the family;

3. that the children’s cultural heritage was not taken into consideration during service provision and that the Society failed to provide the Applicant with the opportunity to be heard regarding this important aspect of his children’s welfare;

4. alleged inaccuracies in the Society’s file regarding the Applicant and his sons.

3Prior to complaining to the Board, the Applicant filed a different complaint with the Society on October […], 2006 where he outlined the following concerns regarding the Society’s services:

• Labelling of his son R. as mentally disturbed when he is not;

• Extreme and harmful bias throughout their conduct;

• Initiated services for his ex-wife K. at the expense of care for R.;

• Withheld information from the Applicant when he was central to their activities;

• Acted in violation of a Court order when they knew or should have known that this was the case;

• Participated in K.’s legal preparation in which she planned to seek a change of custody arrangements;

• Participated in the creation of a poisoned environment that affected the interaction of the Applicant’s son and other professionals;

• Accepted extreme characterization of the Applicant and promoted these characterizations without seeking corroboration of their accuracy.

4The Society held a meeting to review these concerns on March […], 2007 with an Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”). The findings of the ICRP are documented in a letter from H.G., Manager Client Services, dated March […], 2007 in which the Society says that the panel had conducted a detailed review of the Applicant’s complaints, as well as the case file.

5The complaint to the Board involves an allegation that the Society did not listen to his complaints requesting the investigation of harm to his children and instead proceeded on a course of action that endangered them.

6It is the position of the Society that the Applicant’s ex-wife, K., was the custodial parent of the children and that the focus of the Society’s services was for her and the children in her care and custody. The Society further states that efforts were made to involve the Applicant while he had ongoing access with the children in family therapy and counselling and in supporting the service plan for S. and R. and that the Society listened to his concerns regarding the welfare of his children.

7The issue in this case is whether the Society failed to comply with section 68.1(4)4 of the Act which requires the Society to listen to parents and their children when decisions are made affecting their interests or concerns are raised about the services they are receiving.

8The Act reads as follows:

68.1(4)4 The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section: Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a)

2(2)(a) of the Act states that: “Service providers shall ensure that children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate 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”.

BACKGROUND

Background

9The Applicant is the father of two children S., born April […], 1997, and R., born August […], 1998. K., his ex-wife, was awarded custody of the children by Justice Croll in 2002. A subsequent variation application initiated by the Applicant was held resulting in a judgement of Justice Rivard dated June […], 2004, confirming sole custody to K. The Applicant appealed this order and the appeal was eventually dismissed for delay. He subsequently brought a further proceeding seeking a variation of Justice Rivard’s order in 2006 and an order for disclosure. In the course of that proceeding, the Applicant’s access to his children was suspended on June […], 2006. The Applicant’s appeal from that order was dismissed on June […], 2006. The suspension of access was continued on December […], 2006 by Justice Backhouse.

10The Society’s involvement with the family commenced in December 2004 and ended in January, 2007.

ANALYSIS

1. The Applicant’s right to be heard regarding the welfare of his children when he has concerns about services sought or received.

Analysis

11On March […], 2008 C.A., a family friend of the Applicant, testified that they had met at a non-custodial support group in 2000/2001. The families had spent time together socially. C.A. gave evidence that he did not hear the Applicant trying to coach or convince the children to say anything against the CAS or their mother during the times that they were together. He related an incident which happened in March of 2006 while he was with the Applicant. He testified that R. telephoned his father and he heard the Applicant trying to calm the child down telling him to relax and it was clear to him that the Applicant was having trouble hearing R. and that the child was upset. After the conversation ended, the Applicant was concerned for the safety of R. C.A. advised him to call 911 for the police and ambulance to go to the maternal home to investigate the incident. He also suggested that the Applicant drive to the maternal home to ensure that the children were safe. On arrival they found that the children were safe and they met a neighbour I.H. who told them that there were ongoing issues in the house and that there was fighting, yelling and banging. The witness testified that he had been told that the children had been pushed and kicked at home. He further stated that the children loved spending time with their father. When asked by counsel if he had reported these allegations of abuse to the Society, as was his obligation in the course of his training as a fire fighter (now ex), C.A. replied that he had not done so as the Applicant had been present during these disclosures and he knew that the family was involved with the Society.

12The Applicant’s other witness, Dr. M.M., is qualified as an expert in child welfare, parenting capacity and guardianship capacity. She stated that she had given expert testimony in courts in Canada and the USA. Dr. M.M. testified that she had observed the Applicant with his children during which he exercised his parenting rights. She testified that S. and R. had indicated that they had been abused by their mother and that she saw no evidence that they were being coached by their father to say this. She reported this abuse to the Society and P.T., a Family Services Worker, did not respond as she would have hoped as she was informed that the children were coached by their father to lie. She was concerned because she thought that the abuse allegation was not thoroughly investigated.

13Dr. M.M. alleges that there was a bump on R.’s head and P.T had seen it and that he had not taken the child to the doctor. She further alleges that R.’s mother had done this. She testified that she never saw the Applicant abusing his children and that S. and R. were well behaved and listened to him and that they had a strong bond with him.

14The Applicant testified that the Society became involved with his family in 2004 after he made a complaint that the children were being physically abused by his ex-wife. He stated that he had liberal access to the children at that time and regularly visited them for five years. He did homework with them, participated in cultural activities at his temple and engaged them in activities with his large extended family. In December 2004 he reported to the Society that the children had bruises and the Society did not respond to his complaints. He had followed up several times with P.T., his Family Service Worker, but P.T did not inform him of the outcome.

15The Applicant testified that his ex-wife was unhappy with the custody arrangement because he had more weekend access than she did. He was aware that the children were experiencing difficulties at home from the reports that the children made to him but P.T did not advise him of any negative issues regarding the children and their mother. He further stated that he was investigated by P.T twice for alleged abuse of his children (reported by his ex-wife) and that P.T interviewed his thirteen (13) year old niece without consent on one of these occasions. The Applicant admitted that P.T did ask him to speak to R. regarding his conduct at home with his mother and that he did so.

16The Applicant said that he got no feedback regarding his complaints and thought that they seemed not to have been investigated. He further stated that R.’s teacher reported that the child was sleeping in the mornings and he felt that the Society should have been interviewing the children’s teachers. He testified that P.T mentioned in March 2006 that R. was having issues. The Applicant was concerned that P.T did not ask him how the child was doing when he stayed at his home. The Applicant testified that he investigated the situation and found that R. was being threatened with being taken to the police station by his grandmother in order to get him to go to school.

17The Applicant stated that he did not know there were serious issues until a March […], 2006 meeting with Society personnel at which time he learned of problems in the maternal home regarding control of the children. The cell phone of his eldest child was referred to as a stalking tool and the Applicant insisted that it was his right to speak to his children via the cell phone as per Justice Rivard’s Court order which states:

“the children shall be free to have daily telephone contact with a parent when in the care of the other parent”.

18The use of the cell phone seemed to lead to out of control behaviour by the children. However, the Applicant refused to communicate with them via the land line as requested by the Society in order to try and reduce tensions in the home.

19During the meeting on March […], 2006, he was also told about the involvement of a psychiatrist. He indicated that the children had mentioned the subject but the Society had not done so up to that point.

20K.H., Supervisor, has worked for the Society since 1991. She testified that the file was transferred in January 2005 to P.T. and that the original allegation by the Applicant of physical abuse by the mother had not been verified. The intake worker had made efforts to meet with the Applicant at that time because the risk of emotional harm to the children was verified. The meeting did not occur.

21During 2005 each parent reported a couple of abuse incidents, however, none was verified and it was a fairly quiet year. K.H. testified that P.T cautioned both parents regarding the negative impact of parental conflict on the children. The Society brought into evidence that the Applicant and P.T, his Society Worker, had 21 interactions over a period of 16 months - some in person and some over the phone.

22K.H. also indicated that the file had been opened in the mother’s name as she was the custodial parent and the primary caregiver and that the Applicant took issue with that.

23In 2006, K. started to have difficulties with the children. Dr. M.M. a family therapist from a children’s mental health centre, provided in-home support to assist K.

24There was an allegation that Dr. M.M abused one of the children, which was investigated and not verified.

25K.H. reported that Dr. M.M tried to contact the Applicant regarding the children’s care and that he was not responsive.

26The Society also stated that there was a past history of conflict between the Applicant and his ex-wife and that she wanted advocacy and support for herself and the children. She was cooperative with service providers where as he was not. P.T had been to each parent’s home and the children’s school and had seen the high conflict between the parents.

27The Applicant complained to the Society in a letter dated October […], 2006, which was received by the Society on December […], 2006, about the welfare of his children and a meeting was held on December […], 2006. It was the Applicant’s position that the Society did not listen to his complaints regarding the abuse of his children by his ex-wife.

28It was the Society’s position that all of the Applicant’s complaints regarding abuse in the maternal home were investigated but not verified.

29The Board must decide whether the Society failed to listen to the Applicant regarding abuse of his children by his ex-wife.

30The evidence before the Board shows that the Society did listen to the Applicant and did investigate the allegations of abuse reported by him.

31The allegations of abuse of the children by his ex-wife were not verified.

32The evidence before the Board shows that there were many interactions between the Society and the Applicant as evidenced by meetings, 21 contacts with his Society Worker, and ongoing correspondence between both parties.

33The evidence before the Board shows that the Society did listen to the Applicant and did investigate the allegations of abuse reported by him therefore the Board dismisses this complaint.

2. The right to be heard regarding the proposed medical treatment of his son.

The right to be heard regarding the proposed medical treatment of his son

34The Applicant testified that on or about May […], 2006, a children’s treatment centre, contacted him regarding services for the children. The Applicant stated that he was willing to participate however, he did not want to be a patient and wanted his own doctor.

35He attended the meeting at the children’s treatment centre to discuss the children’s medical situation and also brought along his support person S.M. and his own psychologist, Dr. M.M.

36It was the opinion of Dr. M.M., who had spoken to the children while they were in the Applicant’s care, that R. did not need help. The Applicant complains that he and Dr. M.M. were put into a separate room for a separate meeting.

37Dr. M.M. had proposed the removal of S. from his mother’s home and recommended that he be allowed to live with the Applicant until the situation was resolved.

38Dr. M.M. stated that her letters from page 41 to 51 of the Applicant’s document package are a continuing record written for the Applicant as she was concerned about the abuse of the children and that the Applicant had concerns regarding the children being mentally labelled.

39She stated that the Applicant was being blamed for the children’s abusive behaviour towards their mother and that the Applicant told her that the mother was the abuser.

40Dr. M.M. testified that the Applicant had asked her to observe the children during an access visit at his home. She had met them outside the home as well and had spent hours with them over several visits. She did not have her case notes available and admitted to receiving documents from a children’s centre from the Applicant.

41The Society indicated that the Court order of Justice Rivard stated that the:

“petitioner and respondent shall consult with one another with respect to non-emergency medical welfare” of the children.

42The Applicant testified that Dr. M.M. saw the children five times, without his ex-wife being consulted and without the consent of the children, and that these occasions were not for emergency care.

43The Applicant stated that he did not know Dr. M.M. and that she had attempted to make contact with him but they had played phone tag.

44Dr. M.M. had worked in the maternal home with the family and had referred R. to Dr. G., a psychiatrist at a children’s mental health centre.

45R. was seen on February […] and March […], 2006 for a consultation regarding his aggressive behaviour towards his mother, his school absenteeism and his ongoing interactions with his mother.

46The Applicant asserts that Dr. G. did not contact him regarding R.’s consultation, however R.V. from Dr. G.’s office did contact him and they had a conversation during which he did not make the connection that R.V. had anything to do with Dr. G. The Applicant received a copy of Dr. G.’s report the second week of March 2006.

47The Applicant testified that he attended a meeting with D., the Service Director from a children’s mental health centre and offered to participate if he got a plan in writing. He did not receive the plan and as a result he chose not to participate in counselling with R.

48All of the agencies/personnel that provided services for the Applicant’s children, specifically the children’s centre, a children’s mental health centre, Dr. M.M and the Society were rated negatively by the Applicant.

49K.H. testified that the Society recognized that R. was experiencing mental distress however, they did not believe it was beneficial to place the child in care for a residential placement, although it was discussed. The Applicant’s ex-wife requested a letter from the Society to give to the Court stating that R. should be placed in a residential treatment bed but the Society did not provide any written evidence for the Court, nor did the Society go to Court to change the Applicant’s access arrangements.

50K.H. stated that P.T’s notes indicated that the acrimony between the parents was putting the children at risk for emotional harm and that these issues were discussed with the Applicant.

51K.H. also testified that Dr. M.M. saw an escalation in R.’s behaviour. He was talking about killing his mother with a gun, which led Dr. M.M. to initiate the referral to a children’s mental health centre.

52K.H. stated that all of the mental health professionals had differing views:

Dr. M.M. proposed that R. reside with his father;

A children’s treatment centre proposed that the father’s access be discontinued;

Another treatment facility proposed residential care;

The children’s centre proposed restricted access for the father.

53Dr. G. reported that this was a high conflict family and that it would be advantageous for the children to have no access to the father.

54K.H. testified that the Applicant was a hands-on father, but that he would not participate in the mental health care of the children and that P.T had reported that he was not interested in any therapy.

55She also stated that there were no grounds for kinship protocols so they were not considered at that time, as K. was co-operative and the children were in a permanent, stable home.

56She further stated that the case was discussed monthly and that it was difficult, problematic and distressing as the workers worried about keeping the children safe.

57The Applicant was recognized by Society personnel for the positive things he did with the children like school work, however, he would not co-operate with service providers.

58The Board must decide whether the Society failed to listen to the Applicant regarding the proposed medical treatment of his son given the Society’s knowledge of the Court Order entitling him to medical information and the Society’s involvement in recommending this service to his family.

59The Applicant took the position that the Society was a health care provider and as such should have provided him with medical information regarding his children.

60The Society took the position that Justice Rivard ordered in the judgement of June […], 2004, that the Applicant:

“shall be entitled to receive information about the medical care of the children directly from the children’s physician or other health care professional who may be involved in treating the children”

and further, that the Society, by referring the children to health care providers, does not become a health care provider itself.

61The Board finds that the Applicant was informed about the medical care provided to his children by the children’s health care providers as required by order of Justice Rivard. The evidence shows that the Applicant’s health care provider Dr. M.M. proposed an alternative plan which was not accepted by the children’s custodial parent and that the Applicant did attend meetings with health care providers and chose not to be involved in the counselling of R. at a children’s mental health centre.

62The Society is not a physician or other health care professional involved in treating the children and as such, it did not have a responsibility to provide direct information to the Applicant about the medical care of the children as ordered by Justice Rivard.

63The Board finds that the Applicant was informed about the medical care of his children directly by the children’s health care providers as required by order of Justice Rivard and therefore dismisses this complaint.

3. The Applicant’s right to be heard regarding the cultural heritage of his children.

The Applicant’s right to be heard regarding the cultural heritage of his children

64The Applicant complained that the file was closed June […], 2006, which influenced the Court negatively, and that it was later reopened. He asserts that the Society was aware that he had access to the children for his […] religious holidays and […] cultural events. He took his children to temple and was very involved in badminton, swimming and skating with them.

65He was assigned a […] worker with the same cultural background whom he found un-cooperative and rude. The Applicant stated that his children had lost their religion, their large […] extended family and the physical and social benefits of sports.

66The Applicant testified that his children were the only “brown” children in their Catholic school which had children predominantly from a European heritage and the Society did nothing to ensure the continuation of their heritage once his access was removed.

67The Applicant stated that R. was being “picked on at school” and labelled black because he was darker than his peers and that he told P.T about this.

68K.H. confirmed that the file had been open continuously from December […], 2004 to January 2007, and that P.T tried to engage the Applicant and invited both his ex-wife and himself to the office to talk about the children’s welfare. The meeting did not go well as the couple did not work out their differences.

69She also reported that P.T spoke highly of the Applicant’s involvement in his temple and his extended family and that he was sorry that the children had lost that experience.

70The Applicant took the position that the Society did not engage anyone from his family or community to recommend culturally appropriate service providers to provide support to his children and did not serve the children in a way that reflected their bi-cultural heritage.

71The Society took the position that they appreciate the importance of extended families to children, and work with a wide variety of cultures, religions and races. The Society acknowledged that it is a loss for the children that they no longer have contact with relatives and community on their father’s side, but that is as a result of the Applicant’s loss of access to his children.

72The Board must decide whether the Society failed to take the children’s cultural heritage into consideration during service provision and provided the Applicant with the opportunity to be heard regarding this important aspect of his children’s welfare.

73The Board finds that the Society was aware of the Applicant’s cultural heritage and his right to be heard as the non-custodial parent during the provision of services. The Board heard evidence that P.T spoke highly of the Applicant’s community involvement and his efforts in this area with the children.

74The Board finds that the Society was aware of the Applicant’s cultural heritage, however, it was the Applicant’s loss of access to his children that resulted in the children losing access to their father’s cultural heritage, not the failure of the Society to listen to this concern. The Board therefore dismisses this complaint.

4. Alleged Inaccuracies regarding the Applicant and his children in the Society’s File.

Alleged Inaccuracies regarding the Applicant and his children in the Society’s File

75The Applicant had been granted file disclosure by Justice Rivard in June, 2004. He complained that the copy of the file he received was not complete and that he made several attempts to see the original file to compare it with his copy. He testified that the file:

1. inaccurately characterized him;

2. had information that was inaccurate and incomplete;

3. had characterizations of his children that were not accurate or complete.

76The Applicant asserts that the Society had removed third party correspondence relating to the medical care of the children because the file was not well organized as it was not in date order or sequential. He also states that materials for another client were included in his file.

77Michelle Cheung, Counsel for the Society, wrote the Applicant on June […], 2006 and stated “please be advised that the file has been vetted … and I understand is now being copied”.

78In his letter of July […], 2006 to the Society, the Applicant advises that he received four hundred and twenty pages of vetted material and requested the opportunity to review the original file.

79Ms. Cheung’s letter of July […], clarifies the vetted statement as:

“The only categories of documents not copied and provided are as follows:

1. Two case notes which are provided but portions are blacked out. The portions are notes referring to conversations which are not disclosed by virtue of solicitor and client privilege. The Society asserts privilege over that subject matter.

2. The Applicant’s 14B Notice of Motion returnable June […], 2006

3. Endorsement of Justice Klowak dated June […], 2006

4. Copy of entered and issued order of Justice Klowak dated June […], 2006

5. Copy of Judgement of Justice Rivard dated June […], 2004

6. The Applicant’s affidavit sworn on June […], 2006 (215 pages)

7. The Applicant’s factum dated June […], 2006.

Documents referred to in numbers 2-7 above are in the files but were not copied because these are documents that the respondent either produced themselves and therefore would have copies of in any event or are court generated documents, which should be in the possession of each parent ……… If you do want these documents, notwithstanding the above, kindly advise me immediately and I will arrange for the service team to have copies made for you”.

80In correspondence dated July […], 2006 to Michelle Cheung the Applicant complains that he is legally entitled to review the file prior to receiving the package.

81The Society’s reply of July […], 2006 asserts that:

“we have provided a copy of the Society file to each party, at their expense. Any document that has not been fully copied has been for reasons set out in my letter of July […], 2006. Our obligations pursuant to this order have now been discharged. We are unable to accommodate the Applicant’s request to view the original file unless we have the written consent of both parents which we do not have.”

82The Society referred to Justice Backhouse’s Endorsement of December […], 2006 (R1) which says, on page 5:

“the father’s motion for disclosure from third parties is not made in good faith. I do not find it appropriate to order as he requests that privileged communication be released, that he be able to attend in person with a witness to personally review files of service agencies………The Children’s Aid Society shall update its disclosure to both parents subsequent to the Order of Justice Klowak dated June […], 2006. Otherwise the disclosure motion is dismissed”.

83The Applicant believed that there was medical information regarding his children which was kept in the file and that third party correspondence relating to the medical care of the children had been removed from the file.

84K.H. testified that it was not the Society’s policy to receive personal medical information on children who were not Crown Wards.

85K.H. also testified that she was not aware of any inaccuracy in the file and that the Applicant had been given all of the material. She had reassured him of this fact and informed him that there were no videos, audio tapes etc. in the file.

86The Applicant took the position that the Society inaccurately characterized his children and himself and that the records are incomplete. He also testified that he had not raised any specific inaccuracy with the Society. He alleges that the children are being labelled mentally and that there are inaccuracies in the file regarding himself and his sons however, these inaccuracies were not brought into evidence.

87The Society took the position that the file was accurate and that it had been copied and that the Applicant could not review the original file without the consent of his ex-wife.

88The Board must decide whether the Society failed to act on the Applicant’s complaint alleging inaccuracies in the file.

89The Board finds further that the Applicant’s letter to the Society dated October […], 2006 includes the complaint that baseless allegations and assumptions are incorporated into the CAS records and that this issue was not addressed at the ICRP.

90The Board finds that the matter of file disclosure has been before the Court and is a matter which the Board cannot conduct a review of pursuant to 68.1(8) which reads:

The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint:

(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court;

91The Board orders that the Society convenes an ICRP to review the Applicant’s allegations of inaccuracies in the file. The ICRP of March […], 2007 did not address the matter of inaccuracies in the file and this complaint cannot be heard by the Board until the internal complaint review procedure of the Society has been engaged and the complaint has been processed internally by the Society.

CONCLUSION

1. The Applicant’s right to be heard regarding the welfare of his children when he had concerns about the services sought or received.

Conclusion

92The Applicant engaged in correspondence with the Society, attended meetings with the Society which included the convening of an ICRP to hear complaints he had filed with the Society as well as 21 contacts with his Society Worker over the course of 16 months. The Board concludes that the Society provided the opportunity for the Applicant to be heard regarding the welfare of his children.

93Therefore the Board dismisses this complaint.

2. The Applicant’s right to be heard regarding the proposed medical treatment of his son.

Conclusion on the Applicant’s right to be heard regarding the proposed medical treatment of his son

94The Applicant argued that the Society is a health care provider and as such should have provided him with medical information regarding his children. The Board finds that the Society is not a “physician” or “health care professional” and therefore it was not in a position to provide this information to the Applicant as ordered by Justice Rivard The Board further determined that the Applicant was in direct contact with the children’s health care providers and elected not to interact with some providers or to participate in recommended treatment.

95Therefore the Board dismisses this complaint.

3. The Applicant’s right to be heard regarding the cultural heritage of his children.

Conclusion on the Applicant’s right to be heard regarding the cultural heritage of his children

96The Applicant argued that the Society knew of his cultural heritage and the importance to him that his children participate in religious events, cultural events, as well as involvement with his extended family.

97The Board finds that the Society was informed regarding the Applicant’s cultural and religious activities with his children and acknowledged their importance. However, when the Applicant lost access to his children he was no longer able to involve the children in these activities.

98Therefore the Board dismisses this complaint.

4. Alleged inaccuracies regarding the Applicant in the Society’s file.

Conclusion on alleged inaccuracies regarding the Applicant in the Society’s file

99The Applicant alleges inaccuracies in the file i.e. that he has been inaccurately characterized, the file is incomplete and inaccurate and that the characterization of his children is not accurate. The Applicant did not support this argument with specific documentation to substantiate the allegations of error and inaccuracies.

100The Board finds that the Applicant must support this argument with specific documentation to the Society detailing the allegations of error and inaccuracies in the file. The Board orders that the Society convene an ICRP to review the alleged inaccuracies in the file as substantiated by the Applicant.

Wendell White

Presiding Member

Lorna King

Panel Member

Gail Gonda

Panel Member