V.A. v. Toronto Children's Aid Society, 2012 CFSRB 31

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

V.A.

v.

TORONTO CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION

Date: August 20, 2012

Citation: 2012 CFSRB 31

Indexed as: V.A. v. Toronto Children’s Aid Society

(CFSA s.68)

SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION

1On July 17, 2012 the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) issued its Reasons for Decision (the “Decision”) on the above-noted proceeding. The proceeding was held pursuant to section 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) wherein V.A. (the “Applicant”) brought a complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”). The Board found that the Society did not follow the complaints review process as set out in the statute and the Society’s Internal Complaint Review Panel (the “ICRP”) did not hear the Applicant’s concerns as required by section 2(2)a of the Act or provide her with reasons for the response to those concerns as required by section 68.1(4)5 of the Act except regarding one of her issues.

2As a result the Board at paragraph 39 ordered

39. ……… that the ICRP reconvene within 30 days of this decision to review the Applicant's concerns as set out in her complaint letter and as discussed with the panel on June 17, 2010. Other than the Applicant’s complaint about the inaccuracies contained in her file, the panel is to address all of the applicant’s concerns set out in her complaint letter.

3The Board subsequently received a letter from the Society, dated July [ ], 2012 advising that the Applicant “was not prepared” to schedule a meeting within the timeframe set by the Board and that an ICRP meeting was scheduled for December [ ], 2012. The Society was concerned that in doing so it would not be in compliance with the Board’s order.

4The Applicant confirmed in a letter to the Board dated August [ ], 2012 that the meeting was scheduled for December 3, 2012 at her request. In her correspondence [the Applicant] raised two other considerations which the Board will address in this decision. These are specifically, that the Society had advised her that it would not be possible to review her complaint about past practices which formed a significant portion of her complaint and was dealt with in the decision. Further she was requesting that the confidentiality order at paragraph 42 of the decision be lifted. Paragraph 42 of the Decision reads:

42. Parties and their representatives must not use, share or disclose any documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including the media or on-line. Any documents or information shared by the parties must be used only for the purpose of the hearing of this application by the Board.

5The Board revises the Decision of July 17, 2012 to address these considerations.

6The order originally found at paragraph 39 of that decision is revised as follows:

The Board orders that the ICRP reconvene on December 3, 2012 or on any other date as agreed to by the Applicant. The ICRP is to review the Applicant’s concerns about past and present practices as set out in her complaint letter and as discussed with the ICRP on June 17, 2010.

7There is nothing in the Act which prohibits the ICRP from reviewing the complaints about past practices which predate the enactment of section 68. The Board understands that the Society’s workers who interacted with the Applicant during the period when she gave birth to her son may no longer be employed by the Society and it may be difficult to determine exactly what happened based on record-keeping requirements at that time. However, the Society would be able to acknowledge practices which may have been considered acceptable during the period in time of the late 1960’s when the Applicant gave birth, and how such practices would not be acceptable by today’s standards.

8The confidentiality order found at paragraph 42 is revised and is now as follows:

Parties and their representatives must not use, share or disclose any documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including the media or on-line. Any documents or information shared by the parties must be used only for the purpose of the hearing of this application by the Board and compliance with the decision of the Board. Therefore it is understood that the decision can be shared with Society personnel, the ICRP and the Applicant’s support person at any meetings or ICRP meeting.

9In the circumstances, the Board panel has and will remain seized of the implementation of its orders.

DENYSE DIAZ _____________________ Denyse Diaz Presiding Member

ALINA LAZOR _____________________ Alina Lazor Board Member

JOHN SPEKKENS _____________________ John Spekkens Board Member