NW v. Brant Family and Children’s Services, 2019 CFSRB 31

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

NW

Applicant

-and-

Brant Family and Children’s Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens

Date: June 13, 2019

Citation: 2019 CFSRB 31

Indexed As: NW v Brant Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

NW, Applicant

Self-represented

Brant Family and Children’s Services, Respondent

Marilee Sherry, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant and the Brant Family and Children’s Services (the “Society”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation held on March 1, 2019, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in the Application, filed on January 18, 2106 with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

2The Agreement contained three Terms, expressed as questions to the Society, which sought reasons and/or explanations from the Society for decisions it made. The parties agreed to a compliance date of March 29, 2019 and a non-compliance date of April 5, 2019.

3The Society sent a letter (the “Letter”), dated March 25, 2019, as its Response to the issues raised in the Agreement. The Letter was addressed to the Applicant, and was subsequently shared with the CFSRB.

4The Applicant sent an e-mail, dated April 2, 2019, to the CFSRB, advising that she is not satisfied with the Society’s response to the Settlement Agreement.

5In accordance with the CFSRB’s procedures, when there is an allegation of non-compliance, the CFSRB held a hearing by teleconference (the “Teleconference”) on May 29, 2019 to determine whether the Society had complied with the Agreement.

6During the Teleconference, the Applicant clarified that she was claiming non-compliance only with Term 1 of the Agreement. Therefore, only Term 1 was the focus of the Teleconference.

DECISION

7After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, and hearing their submissions, I find that the Society met its commitments and obligations as to Term 1 of the Agreement and as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”). The reasons for this finding are as follows.

ANALYSIS

The Law

8The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”) outlines the Society’s obligations and the mandate of the CFSRB. Section 120 reads as follows:

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

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

(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint

9The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom of a decision made by the Society in the given situation under review by the CFSRB and for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act. This limitation on the CFSRB mandate is explained to every applicant at mediation.

10In a situation of alleged non-compliance, an applicant’s statement of disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by a Respondent Society does not negate or invalidate reasons given by that Society as required by the Act.

Term 1 of the Agreement

Term 1 reads as follows: “Why did the Society not tell the Applicant in 2012 about the sexual abuse of her partner’s children who resided with the Applicant and her then-partner 50% of the time, given that the Applicant had two children of her own living under the same roof?”

11The Society’s letter to the Applicant gave the following answer to the Applicant with regard to Term 1:

The reason for this decision is that we cannot disclose confidential information about either of these children to someone who is not a parent. At that time, you were not named as a parent in the then existing Children’s Law Reform Act order regarding your then-partner’s children.

12During the verbal submissions by the parties, the Applicant suggested that, at the relevant times, she was functioning in the role of “parent” to the children of her then-partner, and that this would have entitled her to knowing information about any risks that his children did or could present to her own children. She stated that the Society was aware of past abuse of the then-partner’s children, and that it was clearly a risk factor to her own children. She did not suggest that she was entitled to anything and everything about these children, but that she should have been informed of this particular aspect of their background as she alleges that it did pose a risk to her children.

13In elaborating on the risk issue, the Applicant alleges that the risk was not a hypothetical risk, but a real risk which in effect became an actual incident where her own child was subjected to inappropriate behaviour by the other child. This was first revealed during an interaction at the police station in 2016.

14The Applicant suggests that this has led to numerous difficulties for her own child, and that he has been having behaviour and emotional challenges for a number of years.

15The Applicant stated that her child was sexually abused, in part because of the Society’s decision to not share the relevant information. She has gone to great expense in dealing with her child’s behaviour, and is seeking a remedy in the form of a payout to compensate for the results of the Society’s decision.

16From the Society’s perspective, it regrets the behaviours and problems that the Applicant alleges resulted from the Society’s decision that it could not share the information in question. The Society re-iterated its position that, at the relevant times, the provisions of the Children’s Law Reform Act prohibited the Society from sharing the information in question. The Society stated that it was limited by the legislation then in place with regards to the sharing of sensitive information.

17The mandate of the CFSRB is limited to actions it can take in response to a section 120 application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. Its mandate is to ensure that the Society gives reasons for its decisions. It does not prescribe different approaches for a Society to take in a given situation. I find the Society gave reasons for its decision by explaining that actions were regulated by existing legislation.

18The Applicant also requests compensation. Again, the reasons of the Society are adequate and, in any event, the CFSRB is not empowered to give the Applicant the compensation sought.

ORDER

19For the reasons given, I find that the Society met its obligation to provide the reason for its decisions in accordance with the Agreement and as required under the Act. Therefore, the allegation of non-compliance is dismissed, and the CFSRB's file is closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

20Pursuant 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 on-line. 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.