JC v. Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, 2019 CFSRB 17

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JC Applicant

-and-

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens Date: April 09, 2019 Citation: 2019 CFSRB 17 Indexed As: JC v Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

JC, Applicant Self-represented

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, Respondent Karen O’Keefe, Counsel

Introduction

1On December 17, 2018, the Applicant filed an Application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2The Application focusses on the involvement since 2012 of the Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (“the Society”) with the Applicant and his son, born in October 2001.

BACKGROUND

3In 2012, the Child was placed in a group home by the Society. There is an allegation that he was sexually assaulted during that placement.

4The Applicant reports that the child has a diagnosis of autism, specifically Asperger’s syndrome disorder (“ASD”). He believes the group home was not an appropriate placement for his son with an ASD diagnosis.

5Subsequently, the Child was moved to a second placement, where the programming was specifically for youth with ASD.

6The Society sent a letter to the Applicant and to the CFSRB dated January 7, 2019, with two previous letters as attachments. These letters dealt with information relating to various issues raised in the Application. The first attached letter, dated December 6, 2017, gave detailed information relating to the main complaint of the Applicant about the incident that is alleged to have occurred in late 2012. The second attached letter, dated October 12, 2018, also addressed to the Applicant, dealt with the Applicant’s request for a monetary settlement relating to the 2012 incident.

7The Applicant holds the Society responsible for what he describes as having “[…] lost my son for 4.5 years”. In his Application, he refers to seeking a large financial settlement. As well, he verbalizes that he wants the Society held accountable for what happened to his son, that he wants the Society fined for its behaviour, and that he wants the Society to be put out of existence.

the law

8The Act defines the rights of Applicants, the duties and obligations of the Society, and the mandate of the CFSRB.

9On December 19, 2018, the CFSRB found that the Application was eligible to proceed under sections 120(4) 4 and 5 of the Act.

10Subsection 120(4) 4 and 5 of the Act state:

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

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15 (2).

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

11Subsection 15(2) of the Act states:

(2) Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity 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.

12The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom or the validity of a decision made by the Society in the situation under review by the CFSRB and for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act.

analysis

13The CFSRB held a pre-hearing mediation with the parties on February 7, 2019. The Pre-Hearing Mediation Report, dated February 11, 2019, listed the issues raised in this Application as follows:

• [The Applicant] feels he was not advised that his son may have been sexually assaulter by another youth (as indicated by charges being laid in 2012).

• [The Applicant] does not feel he has been provided with information as to whether his son was provided with counselling related to sexuality.

• [The Applicant] does not feel the concerns he raised about his son’s placements have been heard by the Society.

• [The Applicant] does not feel his concerns related to the need to obtain a new psychoeducational assessment for his son have been heard by the Society.

• [The Applicant] does not feel the Society has provided him with reasons for why they will not meet with him to discuss financial compensation.

14The mediation process was ended when the Applicant abruptly left the mediation session.

15Given that mediation was not successful, the CFSRB prepared to hold a hearing on this Application. A Pre-Hearing teleconference was set for March 6, 2019 at 1:30 pm. Both parties were duly notified in writing about the teleconference date and time, and were supplied with the call-in telephone numbers. The Applicant did not call in to this teleconference. After a fifteen minute wait the session was closed.

16To give the Applicant another opportunity to pursue his Application, another Pre-Hearing teleconference was set for March 26, 2019 at 11:00 am. Both parties were duly notified in writing about the teleconference date and time, and were supplied with the call-in telephone numbers. I presided over this session. The Society joined the teleconference at 11:00. The Applicant did not call in. After a 12-minute wait, I requested staff to call the Applicant. He did answer the call, and gave no reason for not having called in on time. He told staff that he would call in, which he did a few minutes later.

17The normal practice in a Pre-Hearing teleconference is to explain to the parties the purpose of the call, namely to prepare for a hearing, and to outline briefly how we will proceed to achieve that purpose. The Applicant was disruptive from the time he joined the call, with no interest in hearing any of the preliminary instructions. Instead, the Applicant’s angry and disrespectful tone and demeanour, and his accusations and offensive language, resulted in no progress being made in the teleconference.

18Among the points made by the Applicant were accusations that the Society has done nothing in good faith, that they have ignored his son’s special needs, and that the Society staff are “full of cp”. In an angry and shouting manner, he stated that he wants the Society “held accountable for what they did to my son”, that the Society needs to be disciplined and fined for its actions, that the Society should not be in existence, and again that the Society is “full of cp”. Negative comments were also made about medical staff at the local hospital. Many of these comments were made repeatedly in the form of tirades. He indicated that he has been in touch with elected politicians to have them deal with the Society and its behaviours.

19At 11:37, after an angry tirade, the Applicant hung up.

20I waited approximately 10 minutes to give the Applicant the opportunity to call back and rejoin the teleconference. There was no call-back from the Applicant.

21At 11:45, I closed the teleconference.

22Since the teleconference of March 26, the CFSRB has received no telephone call from the Applicant, nor has the CFSRB received any written communication from him.

FINDINGS

23This case has had numerous attempts at resolution. However, the Applicant walked away from the mediation session of February 7, the Applicant was absent from the March 6 rescheduled teleconference without any explanation, the Applicant did not respond to the March 8, 2019 letter sent to him after the March 6 scheduled teleconference, and it took the intervention of a staff phone call to get him to call in, late, on March 26 to the teleconference scheduled for that date.

24The demeanour of the Applicant at the March 26, 2019 teleconference was one of angry and uncontrolled outbursts. His behaviour lacked in civility and openness to follow the teleconference process. His talking over others during his involvement in the March 26 teleconference and his disruptive behaviour resulted in the March 26 teleconference being ended when he hung up.

25The Applicant has failed to make any verbal or written contact with the CFSRB subsequent to his abrupt departure from the March 26 teleconference.

26I find that the three scheduled contacts were ended prematurely by the actions of the Applicant. As a result, his Application has not moved forward.

27I find that the above constitute for all practical purposes an abandonment by the Applicant of this Application.

order

28For the above reasons, the Application is deemed abandoned, and I therefore dismiss the Application. This dismissal is without prejudice. The CFSRB file on this Application is now closed.

confidentiality order

29Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this Application with anyone, including through the media or online. The CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.