H.S. v. Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk, 2012 CFSRB 47

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

H.S.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: October 25, 2012

Citation: 2012 CFSRB 47

Indexed as: H.S. v. Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk

(CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1On July 5, 2012, H.S. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) against the Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand & Norfolk (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”). The application was found to be eligible for review under section 68.1(4) subsections 2, 3, 4 and 5 on July 12, 2012.

2A pre-hearing conference for the application was held on August 13, 2012. The Applicant alleged that the Society had not heard her service concerns or heard her when decisions were made and had not provided her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests regarding six matters that will be delineated in detail in subsequent sections of these reasons. The Applicant further alleged that the Society failed to respond to her May [ ], 2012 complaint within the regulatory timeframe and failed to comply with the complaint review procedure related to her complaints of February [ ], 2012 and May [ ], 2012.

3The Society disagreed with the allegations and felt that it had been compliant with all requirements as detailed in section 68.1(4) of the Act.

4The Applicant’s allegations were heard by the Board at an oral hearing held on September 28, 2012. No society staff attended the hearing to respond to the allegations. The Board reserved its decision at that time. The Board dismisses the Applicant’s complaints about the internal complaints process under subsections 68.1(4)2 and 3 of the Act. The Board finds for the Applicant on five of her six service complaints that relate to being heard and reasons under subsections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act.

BACKGROUND

5The Applicant is the mother of [ ] (the “Daughter”), who is a sixteen-year old Aboriginal Canadian. The Applicant described the relationship between her and the Daughter as one of normal parent-teenager conflict. On August [ ], 2011, following a heated discussion regarding the use of a cell phone, the Daughter stormed out of her room and was bumped into by the Applicant. She fled to a friend’s house (the “W House”) where she stayed overnight.

6The Daughter telephoned the Society and Child Protection Worker [ ] (the “Worker”) visited the Applicant on August [ ], 2011. He informed the Applicant that the Daughter was being placed in foster care as there were no family and/or friends who would accept her for temporary care. The Applicant was not informed how the Worker made that determination. Late in the evening of August [ ], 2011 the Applicant signed a “Temporary Care Agreement”.

7On August [ ], 2011 the Worker informed the Applicant that the foster care placement was not working out, that the family at W House was not willing to provide long-term care for the Daughter and that the Daughter would be coming home. She arrived home on August [ ], 2011 and remained there until January [ ], 2012.

8On August [ ], 2011 a meeting was held at the Applicant’s home involving herself, the Daughter, the Worker and a supervisor from the Society. All persons present except for the supervisor signed a Plan of Service Outcome List (the “Service Plan”) which was in effect from August [ ], 2011 to February [ ], 2012. The document‘s desired outcome was for the Applicant to provide a safe and secure home. The Service Plan contained four tasks to meet that outcome: 1. no use of physical discipline by the Applicant; 2. use a family member for respite as required; 3. the Daughter will follow the rules of the house; and 4. the Applicant and the Daughter will attend counselling. At this meeting the necessary papers were signed to terminate the Temporary Care Agreement of August [ ], 2011.

9The Applicant wanted regular meetings with the Society to assist her with the tasks. Some were held, but many were either postponed or cancelled by the Society. In November, 2011 the Society assigned [ ] (the “New Worker”) to the file. Prior to the Daughter’s second flight from the home the Applicant and the New Worker met once, on November [ ], 2011.

10On January [ ], 2012, alleging the threat of physical discipline by the Applicant, the Daughter once again fled the family home and went to the W House. The Applicant telephoned the New Worker to explain the situation and asked for both a meeting and for assistance in getting the Daughter returned home. The New Worker indicated she would speak with the Daughter. Shortly afterwards the New Worker called the Applicant to advise that she (the New Worker) had spoken with her supervisor. The Society’s position was to let the Applicant resolve the matter without the Society’s involvement.

11On February [ ], 2012 the Applicant wrote a letter to the Society’s Executive Director in which she outlined all of her service concerns to that point in time. On February [ ], 2012, four days after the Service Plan expired the Applicant attended a meeting at the Society offices. The meeting’s purpose was to discuss current and future planning for the Daughter, which the Applicant interpreted as resolving the issues of her residency at the W House. Participants in the meeting included the Applicant, her sister [ ] (the “Sister”), the Daughter, the New Worker, two or three society employees that the Applicant did not know, and the mother of the family at W House (“Caregiver W”).

12None of the Applicant’s concerns about having her daughter returned home were discussed at the meeting. Rather, the Society asked her to sign an alleged “Kinship Placement Agreement” (the “Agreement”) that would place the Daughter in the home of Caregiver W. The Daughter signed the Agreement; the Applicant did not. Nevertheless, the Daughter returned that day to the W House. Subsequent to the Daughter’s placement at W House the Applicant met once with the New Worker on March [ ], 2012. The Society notified her that her file was closed via a letter dated April [ ], 2012.

13The Daughter remained at W House until August, 2012 when the Society learned that Caregiver W was moving west. In August, 2012 the Society returned the Daughter to the Applicant’s home where she still resides.

ANALYSIS

Issue #1: Complaints related to Sections 68.1(4)2 and 68.1(4)3 of the Act

14With respect to the complaint under section 68.1(4)2 of the Act the Board must determine if the Society failed to respond to her May [ ], 2012 complaint within the regulatory timeframe. In regards to the complaint under section 68.1(4)3 of the Act the Board must determine if the Society failed to comply with the complaint review procedure related to her complaints of February [ ], 2012 and May [ ], 2012. These issues are inter-related and will be dealt with in these reasons as a single matter.

15The applicable legislation states as follows:

68.1(1) If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may,

(b) where the person first makes the complaint to the society under section 68, submit the complaint to the Board before the society’s complaint review procedure is completed.

68.1(2) If a person submits a complaint to the Board under clause 1(b) after having brought the complaint to the society under section 68, the Board shall give the society notice of that fact and the society may terminate or stay its review, as it considers appropriate.

68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

2. Allegations that the society failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.

3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.

16The applicable regulations are prescribed in Ontario Regulation 494/06.

2. A complaint to a society under subsection 68(1) of the Act must be made in writing.

3. Within seven days after receiving a complaint, the society shall determine whether the complaint is eligible for review under section 68 of the Act.

4. (1) If the complaint is eligible for review, the society shall notify the complainant in writing and shall establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel (the “ICRP”).

5. (2) The notice shall provide the complainant with a date and time for the meeting with the ICRP.

6. The meeting between the complainant and the ICRP shall be scheduled at a time mutually convenient for the complainant and the members of the ICRP and shall be held within 14 days after the date the written notice is sent to the complainant or at such later time as may be requested by the complainant.

17In accordance with the Regulations the Applicant’s original complaint to the Society was made via letter dated February [ ], 2012. The letter contains numerous complaints regarding services she had sought and/or received from the Society.

18None of Society’s staff contacted the Applicant regarding her letter. Legal counsel for the Society (“Counsel”) responded to the Applicant within the regulatory timeframe of seven days via letter dated February [ ], 2012. The letter states that the Applicant’s concerns would be an appropriate case to refer to the ICRP. The letter provided options for her on how to proceed; either by having her written submissions examined by the ICRP or by appearing in person to explain her concerns to the ICRP. The Applicant was requested to contact Society’s counsel to arrange her presentation to the ICRP.

19The Applicant met with representatives of the Society on two occasions after she wrote her letter of February [ ]. Those meetings were held on February [ ] and March [ ], 2012. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to the Board that she raised the issue of wanting an ICRP meeting at either of those meetings. Nor did the Applicant contact counsel for the Society, as requested, to indicate her preference for either an in-person meeting with the ICRP or have the ICRP panel proceed based on current and future written submissions.

20On April [ ], 2012 the Applicant submitted a second complaint letter to the Society. In this letter she referred to a telephone conversation held with Counsel on March [ ], 2012. The letter does not indicate whether the ICRP meeting was discussed during that telephone conversation, nor does it make any reference to the Society’s offer of an ICRP meeting that was included in its letter of February [ ], 2012. In fact, in the April [ ] letter the Applicant makes an alternative request. She asked for the Society to provide her with a letter to justify the Society’s alleged poor and inadequate service.

21Counsel responded to the April [ ], 2012 letter via letter dated May [ ], 2012. Bearing in mind that the April [ ] letter was a complaint letter, according to Ontario Regulation 494/06 s. 3, the Society should have responded in seven days not ten. In the Board’s opinion this brief delay, although not compliant with the regulations, will not result in an order of the Board.

22The Society’s May [ ], 2012 letter does not provide her with answers to her complaint. Rather it re-offers the Applicant the opportunity to appear before the Society’s ICRP. The letter requests the Applicant to confirm that she will appear in person and asks for dates that would be suitable for her.

23The Applicant responded to this letter via letter dated May [ ], 2012. She complained that the Society had not responded to her letters, noted that she would appear in person and requested that the ICRP meet on July [ ], [ ] or [ ] at 3:00 pm. Counsel replied via letter dated July [ ], 2012 confirming the ICRP meeting for July [ ]at 3:00 pm.

24The Regulations require that the ICRP meeting be held within 14 days of the notice to proceed. The Regulations also permit an applicant to request a longer delay. She did so on May [ ] and on July [ ], 2012 the Society confirmed the meeting would occur eight days later at the specified time on one of the dates she requested.

25The Regulations do not specify a time frame for sending a notice for an ICRP meeting when the dates provided by the complainant are seven weeks hence. The Board notes however that the delay in providing her with a firm date and time for the ICRP meeting exacerbated the Applicant’s overall frustration with the poor communications between herself and the Society.

26Five days prior to receiving the notice for the ICRP meeting the Applicant applied to the Board. Following receipt of notification of the application from the Board the Society opted to terminate the ICRP review as permitted by section 68.1(2) of the Act. The Society notified the Applicant of this decision in writing by letter dated July [ ], 2012. The Board finds that the Society acted in accordance with the legislation and dismisses the complaint in regards to the Society’s decision to cancel the July [ ], 2012 ICRP meeting.

27On July [ ], 2012, having received notification of the application, the Society, in compliance with the Board’s Rues of Procedure, submitted to the Board a Summary Reply. In that document the Society stated its willingness to convene the ICRP to address the Applicant’s concerns. During her testimony at the hearing the Applicant noted for the Board the direct conflict between the Society’s letter to her of July [ ], 2012 and the Summary Reply of July [ ], 2012. During closing arguments Counsel made no reference to this conflicting status of the ICRP vis-à-vis meeting with the Applicant.

28The Society has the option under the legislation of not holding an ICRP when an Applicant is coming directly to the Board. This prevents duplication of process where the Board deals directly with the Application as in this case. The Summary Reply is a response to a complaint and is not part of the complaint for consideration by the Board. It is like a pleading or response in a court case and is not evidence. It is possible that a summary reply contains an alternative position from the Society for the purposes of settlement, for example. The Board has found that the Society complied with the legislated complaints process and with the legislation in cancelling the ICRP because the matter was before the Board. Since the Board dealt with the Applicant’s substantive complaints directly, there is no need to look at what is offered in the Summary Reply.

29With regard to her complaint that the Society failed to comply with the complaint review procedure related to her complaints of February [ ], 2012 the Board finds that the Society did comply with the Regulations. Her first letter was replied to via letter within seven days. There was a delay regarding the May [ ], 2012 complaint with the response being in ten days. The Society did not comply but the Board will not make an order because the delay was a short one.

30Furthermore delays in scheduling the meeting within the 14 days guideline occurred due to the Applicant’s tardiness in making arrangements for the ICRP meeting. She telephoned the Society’s Legal Counsel on March [ ], four weeks after receiving the invitation to participate in the ICRP process. She did not write her letter, as requested during that conversation until April [ ], 2012, another delay of four weeks. Finally, there is no specified time frame for providing notification of the ICRP when the Applicant has consented to an extension and requested a meeting date beyond the 14 day limit as in this case where she requested a meeting seven weeks away. The Board finds that the Applicant was responsible for all of the delays in scheduling the ICRP meeting and dismisses this complaint.

Issue #2: Complaints Related to Being Heard/ Reasons Under Sections 68.1(4) 4 and 68.1(4)5 of the Act

31The Pre-hearing Report contains a summary list of six issues and/or concerns identified by the Applicant that relate to matters covered by subsections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act.. Each concern will be dealt with separately and specific orders will be included at the end of each subsection. The Applicant’s concerns are that the Society has not heard her service concerns or heard her when decisions were made and has not provided her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests regarding the following:

1. The health and safety concerns related to the home where the daughter is a resident,

2. The Society entered into a Service Plan on August [ ], 2011 which became an issue for the Applicant,

3. The implications of the Child Tax Credit,

4. The Society’s failure to respond to her crisis call of January [ ], 2012,

5. The Society’s suspension of counselling support provided by the [ ] program, and

6. The Society’s cancellation of meetings between September [ ], 2011 and January [ ], 2012.

32The applicable legislation states as follows:

68.1(4)

The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

4. Allegations that the society has 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.

Section 2 (2) (a):

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.

33With respect to all of the Applicant’s issues below, the Board is not looking at the response to the written complaints which is dealt with above. There is one exception to this regarding the understanding relating to the meeting discussed under “Health and Safety Concerns” below. Rather, the Board is looking at whether the Society heard the Applicant or gave her reasons regarding the decisions it made in its dealings with the Applicant including when she raised concerns about the care or placement of her Daughter or the impact on the Applicant or when she raised service concerns verbally.

Issue 2, #1: Health and Safety Concerns

34The Board finds that the Society did not meet the relevant obligations under the Act to the Applicant regarding health and safety concerns for the Daughter at W House.

35The health and safety concerns relate to the time period between January [ ], 2012 and mid-August 2012 when the Daughter was residing at the W House. The Applicant alleged that there were minimal rules, minimal supervision and few if any consequences for her daughter’s behaviour at the W House. The Applicant further alleged that she raised these issues with the Society at a meeting held on March [ ], 2012 and in her two letters to the Society dated February [ ] and April [ ], 2012 but received no responses or support. The Society continued to allow the Daughter to reside at the W House until it learned in August, 2012 that Caregiver W was moving away.

36The Applicant cited many examples of this overall lack of reasonable supervision for the Daughter at the W House, including, but not limited to the following items:

a) she had uncontrolled and unlimited use of her cell phone;

b) she had no established curfew to ensure she was safe at home at a reasonable hour;

c) she had no supervision for her school attendance which led to a suspension for truancy;

d) a 16th birthday party at the W House for her with more than 100 young people in attendance which required police intervention;

e) the unknown and unresolved issue of her Native Status Card and Health Card expiring while residing at the W House;

f) the Society had not proven to the Applicant that it had conducted an inspection of the W House in order to approve it for a placement;

g) the Applicant’s concern that the Society had an open file for the family residing at the W House prior to placing her in that home;

h) the Applicant’s concern that the Society established the placement as a “Kinship Placement” even though the family residing in the W House were complete strangers to the Applicant; and

i) the Society’s decision to have the Applicant’s name removed from the official contact list used by her daughter’s school when it needed to report events about her in-school activities.

37The Applicant testified that she thought the meeting scheduled at the Society office on February [ ], 2012 was being held to respond to the concerns raised in her letter of February [ ] and to deal with planning to have the Daughter return home. She testified that none of these matters were discussed at the meeting. The meeting dealt with the Society’s plan to place the Daughter in the “Kinship Placement” at the W House with strangers.

38The Act recognizes the unique and pre-existing role of kin including in the best interest considerations [s.37 (3) 6]. This enables family members who want to assist in caring for the child to do so and for parents to work with willing kin, usually relatives. The Applicant asserts that the family at W House are not kin and that the Society did not explain to her how it could make the determination that they were.

39Other than the written offer of an ICRP the Society adduced no evidence, either via testimony or documents to indicate that it had in any way either heard the Applicant regarding her safety concerns for the Daughter at W House or explained any of its decisions to her. In closing submissions counsel for the Society argued that the Society had listened to her complaints about W House, but as the Daughter wanted to live there and the Service Plan had expired, the Society needed to formalize the placement at W House during the February [ ], 2012 meeting.

40The Board finds that the Society did not comply with the requirements of subsections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act and orders the Society to provide the Applicant with a detailed written explanation about why it ignored her concerns as detailed in paragraph 36 a) to e) above and decided that the Daughter would remain at the W House, why it decided to place the daughter at W House in spite of her concerns as raised in paragraph 36 f), g) and h) above, why it removed the Applicants name from the school contact list (paragraph 36 i), and why and how it determined that the W House was a “Kinship Placement”.

Issue 2, #2: The Service Plan of August 24, 2012

41The Board finds that the Society did not meet the relevant obligations under the Act to the Applicant regarding the service plan.

42The Applicant outlines her concerns regarding the Service Plan with the Society in her letters of February [ ] and April [ ], 2012. She alleged that she was abiding by the terms of the plan, in particular #1 (no physical contact or discipline) and #4 (attend counselling). In her opinion when the Daughter opted to disobey the terms the Society supported her decisions and actions.

43This opting out by the Daughter was particularly true in matters regarding Term # 3 of the plan which stated that the Daughter will follow the rules of the house and curfew. The Applicant indicated that the Daughter did not obey these rules for many things including but not limited to cell phone use, turning off lights and the Applicant’s access to her daughter’s room. She had told the Society about the Daughter disobeying the “rules of the house” regarding cell phone use. Allegedly, the Worker told her the Daughter could make her own rules for cell phone use. In October, 2011 the Applicant, following the “rules of the house” went into the Daughter’s room. The Daughter complained to the Worker who telephoned the Applicant to inform her that she was to stay out of the Daughter’s room.

44Other than the written offer of an ICRP the Society adduced no further evidence, either via testimony or documents to indicate that it had in any way either heard her concerns regarding the Daughter’s disobedience of term #3 of the Service Plan or had explained its reasons for supporting this disobedience.

45The Society knew the Applicant had concerns about the Daughter disobeying house rules. It made decisions, without involving the Applicant, to allow the Daughter to basically make her own house rules. The Society may have listened to her but it did not “hear” her; there was no meaningful dialogue. The Board finds that the Society did not comply with the requirements of subsections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act and orders the Society to provide the Applicant with a detailed written explanation regarding its decisions to support the Daughter’s disobedience of the Service Plan.

Issue 2, #3: Implications of the Child Tax Credit

46The Board finds that the Society did not meet the relevant obligations under the Act to the Applicant regarding the suspension of payments of the Child Tax Credit to the Applicant.

47The Applicant testified that when she reviewed her bank statements on or about September [ ], 2011 she discovered her monthly Child Tax Credit allowance for September, 2011 had not been deposited as normal in the first week of the month. She telephoned Revenue Canada and was told that as she was no longer the care giver for the Daughter it had suspended the Applicant as the designated recipient of the benefit.

48The Applicant then called the Worker who allegedly stated that he knew nothing about this matter and did not know what she could do to recover the lost income. The Applicant explained to the Worker that her daughter had been out of her care for four days (August [ ], 2011) but she (the Applicant) lost one month of benefits. The Worker allegedly told the Applicant to access food banks and other community resources as it might take six months to get the benefit reinstated.

49The Applicant pursued the matter by calling both her MP and MPP. The MP contacted Revenue Canada to rectify the suspended benefit. The MPP called the Society and the next day, September [ ], 2011 the Worker attended at the Applicant’s home to deliver a cheque for $350, an amount that was approximately $21 less than the full amount of the benefit.

50The Applicant complained that the Worker alleged he did not know about the suspension of the benefit, that the Worker had not explained the financial ramifications to the Applicant for signing the temporary care agreement on August [ ], 2011, the Worker’s inability or unwillingness to assist in rectifying the situation, and why a cheque could be issued within 24 hours of her call on September 21 but only after the MPP contacted the Society.

51Other than the written offer of an ICRP the Society adduced no further evidence, either via testimony or documents to indicate that it had in any way either heard her regarding the Child Tax Credit or provided her with reasons for any of its decisions surrounding this matter.

52The Board finds that the Society did not comply with the requirements of subsections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act and orders the Society to provide the Applicant with a detailed written explanation about the decisions it made to take no action to resolve the situation with the suspension of the Child Tax Credit as described in paragraph [47] above and why it did not respond to her verbal service concerns regarding why she was not informed of the financial implications before signing the Temporary Care Agreement on August [ ], 2011 and why she was not informed of the suspension of the Child Tax Credit once she had signed that document.

Issue 2, #4: Society’s Response to the Crisis Call of January [ ], 2012

53The Board finds that the Society did not meet the relevant obligations under the Act to the Applicant regarding its response to the crisis call.

54On January [ ], 2012, alleging disobedience by the Applicant of Term #1 of the Service Plan (no physical contact) the Daughter fled the Applicant’s home and went to W House. The Applicant called the Society and spoke with the New Worker. She asked for a meeting and assistance to have the Daughter returned to the family home. She also informed the New Worker that she was in crisis and would need further counselling. The Applicant testified that the New Worker allegedly said she would visit the Daughter to clear things up.

55The Applicant testified that within five minutes the New Worker called the Applicant to tell her that she had spoken with her supervisor and that the Society was taking no action on the matter; that she would have to handle things on her own. On January [ ], 2012 the New Worker called the Applicant to find out how things had worked out. The Applicant stated that she refused to discuss matters with the New Worker as the New Worker had abandoned her on January [ ], 2012.

56Other than the written offer of an ICRP the Society adduced no evidence, either via testimony or documents to indicate that it had in any way either heard her service complaints regarding Society’s response to her crisis call or explained its decision to let her handle things on her own. In closing submissions counsel for the Society argued that the Society had listened to her complaints. The New Worker had received the call and listened to the Applicant’s concerns, had spoken with her supervisor, a decision had been made and that decision was immediately forwarded to the Applicant via a telephone call from the New Worker. Counsel argued that as much as the Applicant did not like Society’s response it had in fact heard her complaint.

57Hearing an applicant entails more than passive listening during a telephone conversation or seeking advice from a supervisor. “Hearing” requires active dialogue and discussions of possible courses of action and their outcomes. The Society may have listened but it did not engage the Applicant in the decision-making process as required by section 68.1(4)4 of the Act, nor did it explain to her the reasons for its decision to offer no assistance in helping the Applicant have the Daughter returned home as stipulated in section 68.1(4)5 of the Act.

58The Board finds that the Society did not comply with the requirements of subsections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act and orders the Society to provide the Applicant with a detailed written explanation about its reasons for the decisions to offer no assistance in helping the Applicant have the Daughter returned home and to offer no assistance to the Applicant at the time of crisis.

Issue 2, #5: Suspension of Counselling

59The Board finds that the Society did not meet the relevant obligations under the Act to the Applicant regarding the suspension of counselling services.

60The fourth term of the Service Plan required the Applicant and the Daughter to attend the [a program] provided by [the Agency]. The target date established for this task was “ongoing”. The Applicant testified that she interpreted this to mean until the Service Plan expired on February [ ], 2012.

61The Applicant testified that to comply with the Worker’s suggestion she and the Daughter attended the four sessions each in the autumn of 2011; three independently and one together. In her opinion she fulfilled her initial obligations.

62During the Applicant’s crisis call of January [ ], 2012 she informed the New Worker that she was in crisis and needed counselling. The New Worker said nothing during the call to respond to this need. The Applicant informed the Board that when the New Worker called her later that day the New Worker offered no service suggestions to the Applicant about receiving counselling. Within 2-3 days the Applicant contacted [the Agency] to set up an appointment. [The Agency] told her that it could not provide the service as the Society had cancelled financial support for its clients for the remainder of its fiscal year.

63The Applicant told the Board that the Society expected her to follow the Service Plan, that she had done so and would have continued do so until the plan expired on February [ ], 2012. She expected the Society would do likewise. When she called [the Agency] the Service Plan was still in effect but apparently the Society did not need to meet its obligations and had not notified her that it was abandoning its commitment to the Service Plan. The Applicant raised this concern in her letter to the Society of February [ ], 2012. Prior to the expiration date of the Service Plan the Society had not notified her that financial support for the ongoing counselling for its clients at [the Agency] had been cancelled. The Society did not consult with her prior to do doing so. There was no evidence of attempts to communicate with or involve the Applicant in this decision with regards to potential impacts or alternative counselling services.

64The Society adduced no evidence, either via testimony or documents to indicate that it had in any way either heard her service complaints regarding its decision to cancel the funding or had attempted to explain its decision to her. Ongoing counselling was included in the Service Plan and the Applicant has a right to know when and why the funding was cancelled and why the Society chose not to inform her of that decision.

65The Board finds that the Society did not comply with the requirements of subsections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act and orders the Society to provide the Applicant with a detailed written explanation for the timing and reasons surrounding its decision to abandon Term 4 of the Service Plan by cancelling the funding for ongoing counselling. The Board further orders the Society to provide the Applicant with reasons for its decision not to inform her of that cancellation and its reasons for offering her no other counselling options.

Issue 2, #6: Cancelled Meetings: September [ ], 2011 to January [ ], 2012

66The Board finds that the Society met its obligations under the Act to the Application except regarding one meeting which was not of significance in the circumstances.

67In her letter of February [ ], 2012 the Applicant outlined her complaint that many meetings scheduled between her and her two workers were unexpectedly cancelled. The Applicant testified that one meeting was cancelled in September, one in November, two in December and one in January, 2012. The Board must look at whether the Applicant was heard where appropriate and given reasons if and when meetings were cancelled.

68In her letter of February [ ], 2012 the Applicant reported that the Worker had scheduled a meeting for September [ ], 2011. The Worker cancelled the meeting and instead met with the Applicant on both September [ ] and [ ], 2011.

69In her letter of February [ ], 2012 the Applicant also reported that the Society notified her on November [ ], 2011 that the monthly meeting was cancelled due to a change in worker because her original worker was going on long-term leave due to illness. The New Worker scheduled and conducted a first meeting with Applicant and the Daughter at the Applicant’s home on November [ ], 2011.

70The letter also noted that the New Worker also scheduled, and she and/or other staff members subsequently cancelled, two meetings for December, 2011. The Applicant testified that she subsequently learned that the cancellations resulted from the death of the New Worker’s grandmother.

71The January, 2012 cancellation was described in the Applicant’s letter of February [ ], 2012. She reported that the New Worker had scheduled a meeting for January [ ], 2012. The New Worker called the Applicant on January [ ], 2012 to notify her that the meeting would be cancelled and provided a reason, that being that she (the New Worker) had a conflicting meeting on January [ ], 2012.

72The Applicant is complaining about one unexplained cancelled meeting, September [ ], 2011. The Applicant received notice and reasons from the Society for the other cancellations. The Board finds that although the Society failed to provide reasons for the September [ ] cancellation, given the short time frame between the two meetings (2 days), the Board will not treat this as a matter of concern. The Board finds that otherwise, the Society met its obligations to the Applicant regarding meetings.

73A breakdown in communication from the Society to the Applicant is at the heart of this application. At oral hearings that result from section 68 applications parties have the right to apply whatever strategies they wish when presenting their evidence to the Board. In this application the Society indicated in the Pre-hearing Report that it intended to call the New Worker as a witness but chose not to do so. In the Board’s opinion, under the circumstances of this application, the Society’s strategy is disrespectful of both the process as envisaged by the legislature and of the Applicant who was denied the opportunity to be truly “heard” by the Society.

ORDERS

74The specific orders as delineated in paragraphs 40, 45, 52, 58 and 65 above are to be delivered to the Applicant within 14 days of the rendering of this decision.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

75Parties 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.