CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
Applicant
v.
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
REASONS FOR DECISION
Date: November 27, 2014
Citation: 2014 CFSRB 68
Indexed as: Applicant v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CFSA s.68)
1The Applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on September 4, 2014. Her application is made under section 68.1 (4) 4 & 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 as amended (the “Act”).
2She complained that the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto has not heard her service concerns or heard her concerns when decisions were made and that she was not provided with explanations when decisions affecting her interest were made. More specifically, her application relates to the fact that the Society did not respond to her faxed letter dated July 23, 2014.
3After conducting a hearing, the Board determined that the Society did not comply with its obligations under section 68.1(4) 4 & 5.
Background
4The Society received a referral concerning the Applicant on June 21, 2014 and attempted to proceed to an investigation. The Child Protection Worker (“CPW”) wrote to the Applicant on July 9, 2014 asking to meet with her and her children. The Applicant responded by letter July 11, 2014 informing the CPW that she had forwarded her correspondence to her lawyer and that she did not want to meet with the CPW, asking her to close the file and to confirm this in writing.
5The CPW wrote another letter on July 18, 2014 explaining the reasons why she needed to meet with her and her children and informing her that considering the Society’s past involvement and her refusal to meet with her, she might consider “legal action”. She also indicated in the letter that she would be on vacation until August 11, 2014 and that the Applicant should contact one of her colleagues, giving the name and how to reach her, by July 28, 2014 to schedule a meeting.
6On July 23, 2014, the Applicant faxed to the Society her letter and received no response. In her letter the Applicant stated that she had serious concerns regarding the issues raised in the July 18, 2014 Society’s letter. She explained her position, that she now has a restraining order against her husband, that he is no longer living with her and that she had secured services from agencies other than the children’s aid society. She stated that she wanted to resolve her issues by herself. She again requested that the Society close her file and stated that she was not interested in meeting with the CPW.
7The Society received the letter on July 24, 2014. The CPW was away on vacation from July 24 to August 11, 2014. However, the letter was addressed to the Society. The CPW confirmed in her testimony that her colleague acting for her in her absence received the Applicant’s letter and that she herself found it in her mail box when she came back from holiday on August 11, 2014. No response was prepared by her colleague or by her. There was no contact between the CPW and the Applicant between August 11, 2014 and August 28, 2014, the date when a Protection Application was served on the Applicant’s lawyer.
8The CPW consulted with the legal department before July 18, 2014 because she had not heard from the Applicant and she started to prepare the protection application upon her return from holidays even after she was informed of the content of the Applicant’s letter of July 23, 2014. She testified that the reason why she did not respond to the letter was because the decision had been made to go to Court.
9The next time the Applicant heard from the Society was when the Protection Application was served on her lawyer on August 28, 2014.
Analysis
10From the Applicant’s perspective, she had provided a response to the Society’s concerns. She did not call the CPW replacement to schedule a meeting as requested because her position was that she was taking care of the situation herself. When she was informed that a protection application had commenced, the Applicant could have felt that her response and position shared in her letter of July 23, 2014 were not taken into consideration. This is understandable. A response from the Society advising her that her letter had been received and that a follow-up would be given upon return of the CPW would have helped her to understand how the file was unfolding. A subsequent letter or phone call could have also provided the information that a Child Protection Application was being prepared. The CPW explained the reason why no response was prepared by saying that at the time, the decision had been made to proceed with a Child Protection Application before the Court. I asked the CPW what the Society’s standard for timelines was for responding to a client’s letter and she did not know.
11I find that the Society did not respect its obligation to hear the Applicant and to take into consideration her concerns when it did not respond to her July 23, 2014 letter. The fact that the CPW was away is not an excuse. The letter could have been reviewed by a supervisor or the colleague who had been assigned to look after the case and a response prepared. The commencement of a Child Protection Application does not relieve the Society from their obligation to provide services and to continue to respect their obligation under section 2(2) a. There is no language in the Act to suggest that the obligation to hear a parent or to provide reasons for decisions affecting a Society client’s interests stop when a protection application is made. The communications cannot stop.
12In P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33, at paras. 13-14, the Board described the purpose of s.68.1 (4) and (5) and addressed s. 68.1 (4) 4 as follows:
The obligations under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 reflect the importance of active participation for parents, providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. This is facilitated through genuine communication, giving applicants the opportunity to have input into decision making and to have enough information to make informed responses to, or accept decisions.
To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.
13The “right to reasons” under the Act, means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (CA12-0140, para 13) the Board held that:
With respect to this section of the Act, what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A complainant must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.
CONCLUSION
14The day before the hearing the Applicant received a letter from the Society, apologizing for having neglected to respond to her letter of July 23, 2014. The letter also provided some explanation regarding their decision not to close her file. As the letter was sent after the Application was filed it cannot remedy the non-respect of the Society’s obligation. However, I will issue no order as the letter provides reasons for the non-closure of the file and because the Applicant heard the evidence at the hearing on why the Society did not respond to her letter.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
15Pursuant to Rules 30.1 and 30.2 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including through the media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the Board, as appropriate.
SUZANNE GILBERT
_____________________
Suzanne Gilbert
Associate-Chair
Dated in Toronto, Ontario on this 27th day of November, 2014.