CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
C.L.
v.
Family & Children’s Services of Renfrew County
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Indexed as: C.L. v. F&CS of Renfrew County (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1C.L. (the “Applicant”) made a complaint to the Board on February 19, 2008 alleging that Family & Children’s Services of Renfrew County (the “Society”) had portrayed him in its records as a risk to his own children and a child abuser.
2The Board heard his complaint on April 30, 2008 and concludes that he has not been given the opportunity to be heard regarding the allegations as required under section 2(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”).
3Therefore, pursuant to section 68.1(7)(a) of the Act, the Board orders the Society to conduct an Internal Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”) meeting in accordance with Regulation 494/06. The ICRP meeting is to be held within 14 days (or on a date to which the parties agree) of the Decision Notice that was faxed to the parties on July 18, 2008.
BACKGROUND
4C.L. is the father of two young children, S. and M.. He made a complaint to the Board on February 19, 2008 alleging that the Society had portrayed him in its records as a risk to his own children and a child abuser. Mr. C.L. indicated that no investigation about him had taken place nor had he ever been interviewed by anyone from the Society. He had obtained the information about these allegations from an off-duty employee of the Society. Mr. C.L. had attempted to determine what actions the Society had taken regarding these allegations, which had originally been made by his ex-wife, and to have these statements about him removed from any of the Society’s records.
Preliminary Issues
5At the pre-hearing in this matter held on April 9, 2008, Richard Dickinson, counsel for the Society, advised that he would not attend a hearing if it were held. The Applicant requested a hearing and the Board confirmed, after canvassing dates with the parties, that a hearing date would be set. The hearing was subsequently set for April 30, 2008. The Pre-Hearing Report states that at the hearing the Society would present motions regarding jurisdiction and the Board would rule on such motions before hearing the application on its merits. The Board sent a Notice of Hearing to the parties on April 18, 2008. At the hearing on April 30, 2008, no one from the Society appeared. Before commencing the hearing on that date, the Board contacted the Society and was advised that the Society would not be appearing. The Society did not ask for a postponement. The Society did not submit a formal motion on the issue of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Board finds that there is no motion on jurisdiction before the Board to consider and that the Society has abandoned its intention to argue jurisdiction.
ANALYSIS
6The Applicant’s complaint was that he had been told informally through a third party that the Society had “branded me a danger to children”, that he was “coded as a danger to children” by the Society, and that the Society had verified an allegation of child abuse made against him by his wife with respect to an incident involving the Applicant’s daughter occurring on August […], 2005. No person was called by the Applicant to confirm this information. The Applicant was upset by this report particularly because the Society had taken no steps to hear from him.
7In the course of other legal proceedings, the Applicant received from the Society a copy of a case note dated August […], 2005 made by M.C., an employee of the Society, concerning the Applicant’s estranged wife’s complaint of child abuse. This was received as an attachment to a letter from the Society to the Applicant’s legal counsel dated May […], 2006. The Society has otherwise refused to put itself in contact with the Applicant. This case note is the only document from the Society in evidence at this hearing. Accordingly, the Board has no other knowledge of any of the Society’s internal processes or recordings in which the Applicant is described or identified in any way. The Society does have a file on the incident reported on August […], 2005 that contains the case note made by M.C..
8In a letter to the Board dated March 14, 2008 concerning this matter, Mr. Dickinson stated, “the prescribed method of dealing with this is to order that a “Notice of Disagreement” be added to the file”. The letter further stated, “I doubt we would have a problem with noting this disagreement”.
9Mr. C.L. has complained to the Board in accordance with section 68.1(4) of the Act. On the basis of Mr. C.L.’s evidence, the Board concludes that he has not been given the opportunity to be heard regarding the allegations portraying him as a risk to his children or a child abuser as required under section 2(2)(a) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 68.1(7)(a) of the Act, the Board orders the Society to conduct an ICRP meeting in accordance with Regulation 494/06. A Decision Notice of this order was sent to the parties on July 18, 2008. The ICRP meeting is to be held within 14 days (or on a date to which the parties agree) of the Decision Notice. The purpose of the ICRP is to provide an opportunity for the Applicant to be heard regarding his complaint that the Society’s records portray him as a risk to his children and a child abuser.
CONCLUSION
10The Board orders the Society to conduct an ICRP meeting within 14 days (or on a date to which the parties agree) of the Decision Notice that was faxed to the parties on July 18, 2008.
Gail Gonda
Presiding Member
Richard Linley
Panel Member
Donald Butler
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 15th day of August, 2008.