KV v. Brant Family and Children’s Services, 2021 CFSRB 32

BETWEEN:

KV Applicant

-and-

Brant Family and Children’s Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Silvia Novak
Date: May 11, 2021
Citation: 2021 CFSRB 32
Indexed As: KV v Brant Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

KV, Applicant
Self-Represented

Brant Family and Children’s Services, Respondent
Carole Jenkins, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2The CFSRB found the Application eligible under 120(4)5 of the Act.

3In reaching my decision I have reviewed the Application dated March 19th, 2021, the Respondent’s Summary Reply dated April 6, 2021 and enclosures, as well as the Applicant’s April 15th, 2021 Response to the Respondent’s submissions and enclosures.

4For the reasons set out below, I find that the Respondent did not meet its obligations under section 120(4)5 of the Act.

the law

5The relevant provisions of the Act are:

s.120(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section: (...)

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

s.120(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may:

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

(e) dismiss the complaint.

background

6This Application was made by the adult sister/aunt of 5 children in care, all of whom she identifies as her siblings. She is seeking in person access to the 5 siblings. In her Application she noted that up until March 2nd 2021 she was allowed to attend her parents’ in person supervised access with the 5 children and then later began to attend the Centre’s exterior so she could spend 5 minutes with them before they left. As of March 18th, 2021, she is no longer permitted on the property.

7The Respondent’s position is that the Applicant has been given reasons for decisions made with respect to access with her siblings and noted she continues to have virtual supervised access

8The Respondent advised as a general rule only parents and children can have regular in person access due to COVID related precautions. They confirmed an exception to this protocol had been made for the Applicant, allowing her to attend the access arranged for her parents and the 5 children however it “did not work out well” and so the Applicant’s in person access to her siblings was stopped. “Information” about this was given to the Applicant’s father to share with the family.

9In the Reply the Respondent explains that the visits were difficult to supervise because of various reasons, including that “many…. family members would attend and come and go” which required one of two access supervisors to leave the room. The Society felt supervision was inadequate during those times as only one worker was left in the room.

10On March 19, 2021 the Applicant sent a letter to the Respondent requesting that she and her 16-year-old sister be allowed to take the 5 children for 2 hours to a park without supervision. In their March 23rd 2021 response letter, the Respondent outlined that due to limited building space and limited times to accommodate families with numerous people, as well as COVID related restrictions they have limited capacity to provide in person access and instead invited her to attend the virtual access.

11After reviewing the Respondent’s Summary reply, the Applicant acknowledged her father had shared information with her but did not elaborate as to what specifically he shared. She reiterated her belief that the Society’s refusal to allow her to attend in person access is not due to COVID related restrictions and also questioned whether the Society had a responsibility to accommodate larger families.

analysis

12The “right to reasons” under the Act, is a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013, CFSRB 8, at para. 8, the Board held that:

……must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

13I find that Respondent did not provide the Applicant with meaningful reasons for its decision to no longer allow her to attend in person access despite previously making an exception to their COVID related restrictions and to their decision to not accommodate her request for outdoor unsupervised