Child and Family Services Review Board
D.B.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County and Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County
REASONS FOR DECISION
Indexed as: D.B. v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County and Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1This application is about the service obligations owed by the Oxford CAS and the Guelph CAS to the Applicant in respect of their joint investigation of the Applicant as a foster mother, and about their investigation of Applicant’s daughters. In light of certain comments and actions of two Oxford workers, the Applicant, who identifies as an African Canadian, believed that her race was a factor in her not being heard or given reasons by either Society. The Applicant believes that when she raised this concern, Guelph’s response made matters worse, shutting down communications.
2In conducting its analysis of the issues raised in the Application the Board has considered the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended, (“the Code”) and the values expressed in it as required by Tranchemontagne v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 513, 2006 SCC 14.
3The questions for the Board under s. 68. 1(4) 4 and 5 of the Act relating to the investigation which involved the condition of the home, general parenting and allegations against the Applicant’s daughters was whether she was heard when decisions were made or concerns were raised and whether she was provided with reasons for the decision verifying among other things, that her older daughter had assaulted a foster child.
4The Applicant was not heard about the allegations about the condition of the home and general parenting, with the exception of allegations about locks on food, screaming, showers and lack of pillows. The Board finds that the Applicant was not provided with sufficient reasons for decisions relating to the outcome of the other allegations against her relating to the condition of the home and lack of supervision. The Board finds that the Applicant was not heard relating to the investigation involving the allegations against her daughters. The