CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
D.P.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton
INTERIM ORDER
Indexed as: D.P. v. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant commenced an Application pursuant to section 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act ( the “Act”), because he was dissatisfied with the outcome of an Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”) hearing that took place at the Society’s offices on November [ ], 2012. The matter was heard before the Board on May 14, 2013, and focussed on the Applicant’s two complaints, which are as follows. First, the Applicant complained that there were many inaccuracies in the file, which the Society failed to address at the ICRP hearing. Second, the Applicant complained that the Society refused to address any of the service concerns that he raised at the ICRP hearing, as the Society refused to provide reasons or explanations for decisions that were made that affected his interests.
2At the conclusion of the hearing the Board reserved its decision on the issue of alleged inaccuracies in the Society’s file. Reasons for that determination will be provided in the Board’s final decision, which will be released at a later date.
3With respect to the Applicant’s service concerns, the Board ordered the Society to provide the Applicant with reasons in response to four of seventeen questions that he had presented at the ICRP hearing, and which remain unanswered. The Board has re-worded the four questions in order to accurately reflect the information sought by the Applicant. Reasons for the determination regarding the Applicant’s services concerns raised at the ICRP will be released with the decision on the issue of inaccuracies in the Society’s file.
Question Number 4.
4What is the basis for the observations made by the child protection worker, that the mother “seemed terrified of the father” (as reported in the minutes of the initial ICRP held on May [ ], 2012)? Why did the Society decide not to follow-up with the mother to see if she was terrified?
Question Number 6.
5The Society takes the position that the child protection worker’s statement, “I don’t know what you’re talking about” was taken out of context by the Applicant. How was it taken out of context? What was the true context for the statement?
Question Number 8.
6The Applicant raised concerns with the Society regarding the mother of his child, and the maternal family. On what date does this report first appear in the child protection worker’s case notes? What were the specific concerns raised by the Applicant in his report? Why did Society close the first investigation involving the Applicant without taking any steps to investigate his concerns?
Question Number 9.
7With regards to the Applicant’s report referred to in paragraph six, why did the Applicant need to re-raise his concerns in January 2013, before the Society would agree to proceed with an investigation?
Orders
8The Board orders the Society to provide a letter that includes thorough and meaningful answers to all of the above questions. The letter will be sent to the Applicant via regular mail and to the Board via facsimile within fourteen (14) days of the rendering of this order (no later than 5:00 pm on May 30, 2013). The Society’s letter will provide the information necessary to understand why the Society made the decisions it did.
9If the Applicant believes that one or more of the Society’s response(s) are not meaningful, then the Applicant may raise this matter with the Board. In this scenario, the Applicant must file his reply with the Board, and copy the Society, within fourteen (14) days of receiving the Society’s letter (no later than 5:00 pm on June 13, 2013). The reply must set out the Applicant’s concerns as to why he does not understand the response(s) provided by the Society.
10In the event that the Applicant files a reply to the Society’s letter, the Board will assess if the hearing must be reconvened or if the file will be closed. The panel will remain seized on this application until the file is closed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
11Parties 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.
ANDREA HIMEL
_____________________
Andrea Himel
Presiding Member
SUZANNE GILBERT
_____________________
Suzanne Gilbert
Panel Member
JOHN GATES
_____________________
John Gates
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 16^th^ day of May, 2013.