CS v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2019 CFSRB 27

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CS

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Respondent

DECISION ON COMPLIANCE

Adjudicator: Brenda Bowlby

Date: May 28, 2019

Citation: 2019 CFSRB 27

Indexed As: CS v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

CS, Applicant

Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent

Karen Freed, Counsel

Introduction

1CS (“the Applicant”) filed an application under section 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched.1 against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (“the Respondent”). The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”) during a mediation held on January 10, 2019. The Agreement settled all issues raised by the Applicant in his application.

2The Agreement included a term that the Respondent would send to the Applicant a letter in the form set out in Schedule A to the Agreement (“the letter”). The letter was to be signed by a supervisor and the case worker who had been assigned the Applicant’s file.

3The Applicant forwarded to the CFSRB a copy of the letter he received from the Respondent. The content of this letter, which was dated January 14, 2019, was as set out in the Agreement with the exception that it was signed only by the supervisor and not the case worker.

background

4The Applicant forwarded his complaint of non-compliance to the CFSRB by e-mail dated February 18, 2019. He did not copy the Respondent on his email and was instructed to advise the Respondent of his complaint as required in the Pre-Hearing Report, dated January 21, 2019. In response to this direction, the Applicant sent an email advising of his complaint of non-compliance to the case worker who was to sign the letter to him. He forwarded a copy of this email to the CFSRB.

5Subsequently, a teleconference hearing was set up for May 24, 2019 to deal with the Applicant’s complaint of non-compliance. Both parties called in.

6The Respondent’s counsel advised at the outset of the teleconference hearing that she was unaware of the Applicant’s complaint of non-compliance until the CFSRB contacted her to set up the teleconference. Accordingly, she was also unaware of the Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Agreement by failing to have both the supervisor and the case worker sign the letter.

7When advised of the details of the Applicant’s complaint, Respondent’s counsel stated that the absence of the caseworker’s signature on the letter was an oversight.

8When asked whether the case worker could sign the letter, the Respondent’s counsel said that this could be done, but also advised that the case worker was currently on an extended leave and was not expected back until June 10th at the earliest.

9It would appear that the case worker was likely off work when the Applicant sent an email to her notifying her of his complaint of non-compliance, which would explain why the Respondent’s counsel was unaware of the Applicant’s allegation.

10At the outset of the call, the Respondent’s counsel noted the delay between the settlement and the compliance hearing and asked whether the complaint had been made after the compliance date.

11As a result of the Respondent’s query regarding the non-compliance date, I verified the non-compliance date and the date the complaint of non-compliance was submitted to the CFSRB. The Pre-Hearing Report and the Agreement both stipulated a non-compliance date of February 15, 2019. However, the date on which the Applicant filed his complaint was February 18, 2019.

12The Pre-Hearing Report and Agreement both state that if a party alleges that any of the terms of the Agreement was not complied with, the party must notify the CFSRB in writing of the non-compliance by February 15, 2019 and if the CFSRB had not heard from either party by the end of the business day on February 15, 2019, the file will be closed as settled.

analysis

13It is clear that the Respondent did not comply with the Agreement insofar as the letter which it sent to the Applicant was signed only by the supervisor rather than the supervisor and the caseworker. I accept that this was not done intentionally, but was a matter of oversight.

14It is also clear that the Applicant failed to advise the CFSRB about the non-compliance until after the final non-compliance date. In this circumstance, the allegation of non-compliance was made out of time and the CFSRB’s file must be closed in accordance with the Pre-Hearing Report and the Agreement between the parties.

15While the CFSRB will be closing its file, the fact is that the letter sent to the Applicant did not include the caseworker’s signature, as provided by the Agreement. The failure of the Applicant to bring his allegation of non-compliance within the time limit for doing so means that the CFSRB must close its file and cannot make any order respecting compliance. However, it would be a gesture of good faith for the Respondent to resend the letter, signed by both the supervisor and the case worker, to the Applicant once the case worker returns from her leave of absence.

order

16No allegation of non-compliance having been received by the final non-compliance date of February 15, 2019, the CFSRB will close its file.

confidentiality order

17Pursuant 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.