VH v. Ogwadeni-deo, 2021 CFSRB 1

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

VH

Applicant

-and-

Ogwadeni-deo

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judy Finlay

Date: January 08, 2021

Citation: 2021 CFSRB 1

Indexed As: VH v Ogwadeni-deo (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

VH, Applicant

Carol Burke, Acting Director

Ogwadeni-deo, Respondent

Maureen Bulbrook, Counsel

background

1A mediation took place by teleconference on November 6, 2020 between the Applicant and the Respondent facilitated by a Board member. The Applicant was seeking an explanation regarding financial reimbursement by the Respondent with regard her child and the tardiness in the Respondent’s response to her requests. A settlement agreement was reached which had an implementation dates of December 04, 2020 (for term 1,2,4) and January 15 (for term 5). The corresponding non-compliance dates were December 11, 2020 and January 22, 2021.

2Rule 8.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure gives discretion to the CFSRB to adjudicate allegations of non-compliance orally or in writing. Given the circumstances of this case, the Board proceeded with written submissions regarding noncompliance of the terms of the settlement agreement.

3On December 4 2020, the Applicant wrote to the CFSRB alleging that the Respondent was not compliant with the terms of the settlement agreement. The Respondent refuted this allegation of non-compliance on December 16, 2020. On December 21, 2020, The Applicant persisted to discredit the Respondent’s response.

analysis

4The Applicant stated that the respondent was not in compliance with terms of the settlement agreement (#1, 2, 4 and 5).

5Term #1: The Applicant will receive no later than December 4, 2020 a cheque for $2500.00 from the Respondent (OGD).

The Applicant signed a document stating that she received the cheque for $2500.00 on November 25, 2020. Her allegation is that the Respondent didn’t identify the purpose of the cheque. The respondent’s response to the allegation gave an explanation for the purpose of the cheque. The Board believes that all parties understood during the mediation process that the funds were to be used by the Applicant to pay the CRA tax debt.

The Board is satisfied that the receipt of the cheque by the Applicant fulfills the expectations of the agreement.

6Term #2: The Respondent will send in writing a letter of explanation outlining the reasons for the 8-month delay in their response to the Applicant regarding the disputed taxes owing as reported to the Applicant by the CRA. This letter will be received by the Applicant no later than December 4, 2020.

The Applicant alleges that the explanation provided to her on November 20, 2020 for the delayed response did not accurately reflect the reasons and contained falsehoods. She also expressed concerns about the Board receiving information related to CRA.

The Respondent provided a detailed explanation to the Applicant regarding the delay on November 20, 2020.

The Board believes that at the mediation all parties agreed that the Board would receive a copy of the letter of explanation written to the Applicant from the Respondent to ensure and confirm that the Applicant received the explanation. This offered another level of accountability regarding this term of the agreement. It was necessary for the Respondent to speak to the CRA to gain clarification and resolution to the issue identified in this term. All identifiable information was redacted from the CRA document.

The Board is satisfied that the letter of explanation met the expectations of term #2. The discrepancy identified by the Applicant regarding the validity of the explanations given by the Respondent were discussed in detail during the mediation. This led to the need for the written explanation.

7Term #4: The Respondent will provide to the Applicant documentation that confirms that OGD received the sum of $627.67 per month for child tax credits for the Applicant’s daughter for the period of December 2018 to February 2019. The Applicant will receive this documentation no later than December 4, 2020.

The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide evidence of receiving the child tax credit for her daughter in December 2018. The Respondent states that they were unable to find documentation to this effect. As the Respondent was in a process of establishing itself an independent agency at that time, they acknowledged that documents may still be retained by the former agency or misplaced altogether. The Respondent took responsibility for this oversight. Nonetheless, the Applicant received compensation for that amount in the cheque for $2500.00.

The Board is satisfied that the explanation provided by the Respondent is adequate to meet the expectations of this term.

8Term #5: The Respondent will provide to the Applicant the Judge’s court order regarding her daughter issued by the Court to the Brant F&CS. The Applicant will receive this documentation no later than January 15, 2021. The reason for the extended time to produce this document is because the court order was not issued to the Respondent directly.

The Applicant alleged that the date of the court order October 13, 2017 suggests that this order does not apply to the time period when her daughter was in her care from December 2018 to February 2019. The Respondent explained in its response that the Order extended throughout that time period and there was no motion to change that order so it remained in effect until the Applicant’s daughter’s 18th birthday. The Board is satisfied with this explanation.

9The goal of mediation and the role of the CFSRB in these types of complaints is not to alter, dispute or redirect the actions of the Society. Actions of the children’s aid societies are guided by legislation. The role of the CFSRB is to ensure that Applicants are given a thorough account of how decisions are made by the Society that produced outcomes in the lives of children and families and that this information is given in a manner that Applicants can understand. Its not expected that Applicants will always agree with the decisions made by children’s aid societies. Allegations of non compliance are not to be put forward to rehash what was discussed and understood through the mediation process. Opportunities to express allegations of non compliance are meant to offer parties the ability to demonstrate how the terms of settlement agreements are not met. These terms are usually related to explanations or agreed upon actions. It is not an opportunity to dispute decisions made in the context of policy or legislation.

Decision

10For these reasons, the Board is satisfied that the Respondent was in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement and the file is therefore closed.

confidentiality order

11Pursuant 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.