CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
WK
Applicant
-and-
Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society
Respondent
DECISION ON COMPLIANCE
Adjudicator: Brenda Bowlby
Indexed As: WK v Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
WK, Applicant
Self-represented
Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, Respondent
Barbara Tuer, Counsel
Introduction
[1]. WK (“the Applicant”) filed an application under section 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched.1 against the Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (“the Respondent”). The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”) during a mediation held on October 4, 2019.
[2]. The Agreement set an implementation date of October 18, 2019 and a non-compliance date of October 25, 2019.
[3]. The Applicant forwarded a complaint of non-compliance to the CFSRB by e-mail dated October 23, 2019.
[4]. The Respondent forwarded a response to the Applicant’s complaint of non-compliance by letter dated October 29, 2019.
[5]. Subsequently, a teleconference hearing was set up for November 26, 2019 to deal with the Applicant’s complaint of non-compliance. Both parties called in.
DECISION
[6]. After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, and hearing their submissions at the teleconference, I find that the Respondent met its commitments and obligations as set out in 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 my findings follow.
BACKGROUND
[7]. The Agreement included a term that the Respondent’s representatives would meet with the Applicant immediately following the signing of the Agreement and would advise him of the reasons why the mother of his children was permitted to meet with them unsupervised. The Agreement also included a term that the Respondent would provide a letter which included written confirmation of the reasons why the children’s mother was permitted to meet with them unsupervised.
[8]. The Applicant forwarded to the CFSRB a copy of the letter, dated October 7, 2019, which he received from the Respondent. The Respondent’s letter included the following statement:
“The Investigation Worker Andrea Thornton did decide in July 2019 that Ms. [M____]’s access to the children could be unsupervised. This was based on her presenting clean from substances and she was residing with her mother.
However, since Ongoing Worker Ashley Feltz was assigned on July 23, 2019, the children have not had contact with their mother. Based on your concerns, as well as the children’s reports, a reassessment of Ms. [M—-’]s access will have to be completed. Ms. Feltz advised the kinship home on October 4, 2019, that she will need to reassess Ms. [M____] prior to any future scheduled access to determine the level of supervision required. Ms. Feltz will be following up with you regarding the outcome of the reassessment.
[9]. The basis of the Applicant’s complaint is that the reasons provided by the Respondent are unsatisfactory. His letter of complaint states, in part:
….. I have found the reasons given to allow [M____] access to the children are unsatisfactory, to allow access on the basis of “she presented herself clean from substances” and is residing with her mom, does not prove anything. I feel that Andrea Thornton put my kids in harm’s way and in possible danger and should be held accountable.
[10]. I asked the Applicant whether he was saying that he did not like the reasons given by the Respondent. He confirmed that this was the case and indicated that he was “appalled” by the reason given.
analysis
[11]. The issue in this case is not whether the Respondent provided a reason for allowing the mother of the Applicant’s children to have unsupervised access to them but whether the Applicant believes that that reason provides a satisfactory explanation for the actions of the Respondent.
[12]. With respect to its jurisdiction, the CFSRB stated in AD v The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (CYFSA s.120), 2019 CFSRB 23 (at pp 7-9):
The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 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:
Allegations that the Society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2)
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
Subsection 15(2) reads as follows:
Service providers shall 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.
(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.
The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom or 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.
In an allegation of non-compliance, an applicant’s disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society in its response does not negate or invalidate the fact that the Society did give reasons for its decisions.
[13]. In this case, the fact is that the Respondent did provide to the Applicant the reason why the children’s mother was given unsupervised access for a period of time. The Applicant’s issue is not that he was not given the reason but that he is not satisfied that the reason he was given was a sound one. However, the Applicant’s disagreement with the soundness of the reason does not invalidate the fact that the reason was given to him.
[14]. I find that the Respondent did comply with the terms of the Agreement.
order
[15]. The Respondent having complied with the terms of the Agreement, the CFSRB will close its file.
confidentiality order
[16]. Pursuant 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 Decision 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.
Dated at Burlington, Ontario, on November 27, 2019.
Brenda Bowlby
Brenda Bowlby
Member