AR v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2020 ONCFSRB 39

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AR Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Andrea Himel Date: April 22, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 39 Indexed As: AR v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

AR, Applicant Angela Salvatore, Counsel

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Yvonne Fiamengo, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an application under s. 120(4) 4 and 5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1, proclaimed in force on April 30, 2018, (“Act”).

2The Applicant alleges that the Society did not hear his concerns regarding the welfare of his daughter (“the Child”), when she experienced bullying at her elementary school, (the “Private School”). The Application consists of the following:

Has the Society heard the Applicant’s service concerns or heard him when decisions were made and has the Society provided reasons for decisions that affected his interests following the Applicant’s reports that his daughter had been bullied by a classmate at school and his request for the Society to conduct an investigation.

The Applicant’s complaints relate to the following decisions made by the Society:

(1) To decline to conduct a child protection investigation.

(2) To decline to take any further steps to ensure the protection, safety and well-being of his daughter.

(3) To decline to interview the Applicant or his daughter.

3During a pre-hearing teleconference on January 29, 2020, the Applicant advised of his intention to call Dr. Debra Peplar, a psychologist with expertise on bullying, as a witness in this matter. The Respondent objected on the basis that Dr. Peplar may not be an expert in child protection proceedings.

4In a follow-up pre-hearing teleconference on April 3, 2020, the Applicant advised that he had served and filed an expert report from Dr. Peplar relating to bullying at the Private School and how the Child was treated. The Applicant also advised that he had served and filed an expert report from Dr. Simon Williams, also a psychologist, which focussed on child Q, the identified bully. The Applicant takes the position that both of these witnesses would provide relevant testimony to this hearing.

5The Respondent objects to both witnesses on the basis that their evidence is not relevant to this matter.

6I requested that the Applicant re-send the expert reports to the CFSRB, and I advised that I would address this issue. I received the reports on April 17, 2020.

7I have now reviewed both experts’ reports. I note the following:

a. Neither proposed expert has met the Child or child Q.

b. Each expert was retained by the Applicant to provide evidence in a civil case that he has commenced against the Private School. Dr. Peplar’s report is dated December 13, 2019 and Dr. Williams’ report is dated February 6, 2020.

c. The Society’s communications with the Applicant took place in the form of telephone calls and emails commencing on October 3, 2019 and resulting in this Application which is dated November 21, 2019. Neither of the above reports were available to the Respondent as they were created after the Society closed its file.

d. The reports were created for an entirely different purpose, being civil litigation and education law issues. Neither report was created to address the child protection system, the CFSRB’s complaints process or any other part of the Act.

8As stated in the interim decision dated April 14, 2020, “the decision as to whether or not to conduct an investigation and take any further steps falls within the Society’s jurisdiction and is based on an assessment utilizing relevant tools such as: the eligibility spectrum, standards, and other applicable policies and protocols.”

9This hearing is about the Society’s obligation is to hear the Applicant and to provide reasons for the its decision to decline to investigate or interview the Child and to decline to take steps to address the bullying. The CFSRB does not sit in review of a Society’s decision.

10The focus of this hearing is on the timeframe of the Society’s involvement with the Applicant, being October and November 2020.

11The Applicant intends to testify at the hearing and the Respondent has agreed that the intake screener and/or the intake supervisor will also provide testimony. Each witness can testify to the concerns raised by the Applicant, whether he was appropriately heard, the reasons for the decisions that were made and how this information was conveyed to the Applicant.

12For the reasons set out above testimony from Dr. Peplar and Dr. Williams does not meet the test of relevancy and necessity, and as such they may not be called as witnesses at the hearing.

13The hearing will proceed in Toronto on June 16, 2020, unless the state of emergency continues. In light of the reduced number of witnesses, a further pre-hearing will be convened if the state of emergency continues past May 13, 2020, in order to address whether the matter can be heard remotely using Zoom technology on June 16, 2020.