CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
G.H.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of the County of Simcoe
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Indexed as: G.H. v. CAS of the County of Simcoe (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1On April 9, 2008, G.H. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) against the Children’s Aid Society of the County of Simcoe (the “Society”) pursuant to sections 68 and 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The application was deemed eligible for review on April 16, 2008.
2At a pre-hearing conference held on May 21, 2008 the Applicant’s complaints were summarized into four main issues as follows: that the Society did not conduct a protection investigation as requested on January […], 2008; that the Society’s letter of March […], 2008 was damaging to him; that the Society included comments in a letter of April […], 2008 that he believed were not made by his children; and that the Society failed to establish an Internal Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”) following his request of March […], 2008.
3The Board conducted settlement negotiations for the parties as part of the May 21, 2008 pre-hearing conference. The parties agreed on the terms of a settlement and established a compliance deadline of June 30, 2008. On June 25, 2008, the Applicant alleged non-compliance by the Society. A hearing on the merits of his application was held in Barrie, Ontario on August 14, 2008.
BACKGROUND
4The Applicant and his spouse are currently involved in divorce proceedings. Their two children, J., aged 7, and V., aged 12, reside with their mother but are permitted regular visits to their father’s residence. In late January 2008, the Applicant received a copy of a Trial Management Conference Brief from the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court Branch, [ ], Ontario. The document provided information that his son was undergoing a psychiatric assessment as a result of his disturbing behaviours, namely self-mutilation and violent behaviour. The brief was dated January […], 2008. On January […], 2008, the Applicant wrote to the Society requesting a child protection investigation because of the information disclosed in the family court proceedings about his son.
5The Society responded on February […], 2008 indicating that it would not investigate. The Society reasoned that the child’s mother was addressing the concerns by engaging in a psychiatric assessment and that the Applicant had not provided sufficient information for a protection investigation. The Society informed the Applicant that the file was closed.
6The Applicant replied to the Society via a letter on February […], 2008. He expressed his displeasure with the Society’s response to his initial letter, he reiterated his concerns about his children and he urged the Society to reconsider its decision not to conduct an investigation.
7The Society and the Ontario Provincial Police (the “OPP”) received complaints in February 2008 concerning allegations of sexual impropriety on the part of the Applicant towards his children. As part of the investigation into these allegations, the Applicant was informed via a letter dated March […], 2008 that a meeting was scheduled for March […], 2008 at the Applicant’s residence. The Society and the OPP wanted to discuss the Applicant’s plans that would ensure the safety of the children during future visits with him. The allegations against the Applicant were subsequently determined to be unfounded and a safety plan was not required.
8The Applicant’s concerns for the welfare of his children in their mother’s home did not subside. On March […], 2008, he requested, in writing, that the Society proceed immediately with an ICRP to hear his original complaint, namely the refusal of the Society to conduct a child protection investigation. Receiving no reply for four weeks, the Applicant submitted his application to the Board.
9After receiving the request for an ICRP, the Society investigated the Applicant’s concerns regarding the welfare of his son. For part of its investigation the Society relied on the findings of Dr. R., the psychiatrist that conducted the assessment. The mother of the Applicant’s son was given the opportunity to meet directly with Dr. R. to discuss the results of his assessment. The Applicant was not given that opportunity. The Society’s findings and the findings of Dr. R. were communicated to the Applicant by the Society in two letters dated April […], 2008.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
10The Board has considered the following legislative provisions in arriving at a decision:
68(5). Application for review by Board
If a complaint relates to one of the following matters, the complainant may apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the complaint review procedure:
(1) An alleged inaccuracy in the society’s files or records regarding the complainant.
68.1(4). Matters for Board review
The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
(1) Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 68(1) as required under subsection 68(2);
(4) Allegations that the society failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a);
(5) Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
2(2). Duties of Service Providers
Service providers shall ensure,
(a) 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.
ANALYSIS
Issue #1: The Society did not conduct a protection investigation, as requested by the Applicant on January […], 2008.
11The Board must determine whether the Society heard the Applicant’s child protection concerns arising from the information contained in the Trial Management Conference Brief and must decide whether the Society gave the Applicant reasons for its decision to deny a protection investigation at that time. The Applicant provided what he alleged was new information to the Society on January […], 2008, about details regarding his son’s behaviour and requested an investigation. Two weeks later the Society replied in writing that his son was currently being assessed by a psychiatrist and that it was satisfied the child’s problems were being adequately dealt with by his mother. The Society concluded that an investigation was not warranted.
12Subsections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act compel a society to listen to parental concerns about a service provided by a society and to provide reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests. Based on the evidence provided at the hearing, the Board finds that the Society fulfilled its obligations. The Society heard the Applicant’s concerns and acted on those concerns when it determined an investigation was unwarranted because an assessment was in the process of being conducted and the mother was taking the behaviour seriously. The Society communicated its reason for not conducting an investigation at that time to the Applicant by letter dated February […], 2008.
Issue 2: The Society letter of March […], 2008 was damaging to the Applicant.
13The Applicant raised this issue for the first time at the pre-hearing conference on May 21, 2008. It was not contained in his original application submitted to the Board on April 9, 2008.
14The Applicant complained about a letter he received from the Society dated March […], 2008 that contained a statement about the Society’s safety concerns for his children when visiting his residence. The Applicant alleged that this statement was damaging to him. He was also concerned that, even though the allegations that led to the need for a meeting were false, the safety planning meeting was held as scheduled. The Applicant stated that no safety discussions took place at that meeting on March […], 2008.
15The issue before the Board is whether the Applicant was provided with reasons for the Society’s decision to schedule a meeting to discuss a safety plan and its decision to abandon the need for a safety plan following the March […], 2008 meeting.
16Because this issue was raised for the first time at the pre-hearing, the Society was not able to explain its actions until the hearing on August 14, 2008. At the hearing, S.M., Family Service Supervisor, testified that it was standard protocol for the Society to schedule a safety meeting during any investigation. By the time of the safety meeting of March […], 2008 the Society had determined that the allegations against the Applicant were unfounded. Thus, there was no need for any discussion about safety for the children at the meeting nor was there any need for a safety plan.
17The Board finds that the Society, at its first opportunity, adequately explained to the Applicant both the reason for the letter it sent to him on March […], 2008 and the necessity of including language to express its desire to ensure the safety of the children when visiting him. The Board is satisfied that the Applicant has been provided with reasons for a decision made by the Society. Although explanations given by a society during the litigation process do not typically satisfy the statutory obligations of societies to provide reasons, they do in this case because the allegation was raised for the first time at the pre-hearing conference.
Issue#3: The Society, in a letter of April […], 2008, included comments that the Applicant believes were not made by his children.
18The Society alleged that the children described the discipline used by their mother as age-appropriate; that the Applicant had referred to the mother as a “cow”; and that he had asked the children to maintain secrecy about the use of an ATV on the farm from their mother. The Applicant believes that his children never made any of those comments. He stated that if the statements are in the Society’s files, then the files are inaccurate.
19An allegation of inaccuracies in the Society’s files is a complaint that, according to subsection 68(5)1 of the Act, must be heard by the Society’s ICRP before the complaint can be brought before the Board. Accordingly, the Board finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
Issue #4: The Society failed to conduct an ICRP following the Applicant’s request of March […], 2008.
20The Applicant applied for an ICRP on March […], 2008. The cover page for the request was entitled “Attention: Internal Complaint Review Board”. The top of the first page of the complaint contained the title “Complaint and Request for Review of the Children’s Aid Society of the County of Simcoe”. There can be no dispute about his request for an ICRP. The basis of his request was that the Society had not conducted a protection investigation following his request for an investigation in January 2008. He was very concerned for the welfare of his son in the mother’s home.
21The Society conducted a meeting with the Applicant and the OPP in the Applicant’s home on March […], 2008. The Society admitted that it did not establish an ICRP following the Applicant’s request and suggested that there was perhaps some confusion about the outcome from that meeting.
22The Board finds that the Society failed to meet its obligations to properly respond to the Applicant’s request on March […], 2008 for an ICRP.
23After the Applicant’s request for an ICRP, the Society communicated the results of two separate protection investigations, conducted in February and March 2008, by two verification letters dated April […], 2008. One letter contained the results of those protection investigations. The second letter contained the results of the assessment of the Applicant’s son by Dr. Dr. R., paediatric psychiatrist. The Applicant has not had an opportunity to raise his concerns and questions about these results with the Society.
DECISION
24For issue #1 the Board concludes that the Applicant did receive reasons for the decision made by the Society to deny a protection investigation and, accordingly, under subsection 68.1 (7)(e) of the Act, dismisses the complaint.
25For issue #2 the Board finds that the Society has not failed to provide reasons for a decision as the hearing on August 14, 2008 afforded the Society its first opportunity to respond to this complaint. The Board concludes that the Applicant has now heard the explanation, thus the complaint is without basis. The Board dismisses this complaint.
26Issue #3 involves alleged inaccuracies in the Society’s files regarding the complainant. As explained above, the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
27For issue #4 the Board finds that the Society did not hold an ICRP for the Applicant when requested on March […], 2008. Subsection 68.1(7)(a) of the Act provides authority for the Board to order the Society to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure. Therefore, the Board orders that the Society arrange an ICRP for the Applicant within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of this decision. Because the Society investigated the Applicant’s concerns and provided the results of its investigation by two verification letters dated April […], 2008, the ICRP will be limited to hearing the Applicant’s concerns and questions regarding the results of the investigation as set out in the April […], 2008 letters. If the Applicant does not attend the ICRP on the scheduled date, the Board will deem the Society to be in compliance with this order.
Jennifer Scott
Presiding Member
Heather Hunter
Panel Member
John Gates
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 28th day of August, 2008.