JB v. Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County, 2021 CFSRB 39

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JB Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: June 02, 2021 Citation: 2021 CFSRB 39 Indexed As: JB v Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County, Respondent

Anaïs Lussier-Labelle, Counsel

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This is an Application (“Complaint”) filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2The Complaint was found eligible pursuant to sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. It is alleged that the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made, or a chance to be heard when he raised concerns about the services he received; and the Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected his interests.

3The Applicant is the father of one son (the “Child”).

4The Applicant identified 11 concerns/issues in the Complaint and approximately 25 documents appended to the Complaint:

1. The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent has not heard his concerns regarding access with the Child including in person and telephone access;

2. The Applicant was concerned that Respondent staff failed to encourage and make efforts to arrange access with the Child;

3. The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent disregarded the Applicant’s reports of abuse, and parental alienation by the Child’s mother, and failed to open a child abuse investigation;

4. The Applicant was concerned that Respondent staff failed to provide him with documentation regarding alleged missed access visits;

5. Respondent staff witnessed the Applicant’s former partner lying in Court regarding cancelled access visits;

6. The Applicant was concerned with the verification findings of an ongoing risk of emotional harm to the Child because of post-separation conflict; and the reasons for closing the file;

7. The Applicant was concerned with the access conditions imposed by the Respondent;

8. The Applicant was concerned that he was being discriminated by Respondent staff for the last 5 years and that Respondent staff was biased towards him; including Respondent allegations regarding the Applicant’s alleged mental health;

9. The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent disregard his inquiries regarding evidence of his son’s alleged “severe autism”, and his requests for documents regarding the Child’s diagnosis of “severe autism”.

10. The Applicant was concerned that Respondent staff failed to respond to his telephone calls and e-mails; and

11. The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent suspended his supervised access with the Child based on perceived harassment and his posting recordings and videos on social media.

5In an Interim Decision dated May 11, 2021, the CFSRB dismissed issues 1 – 9 for lack of jurisdiction as they were issues that are before the Court or had been before the Court and therefore the CFSRB was precluded from reviewing them pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act.

6The CFSRB found that Issues 10 and 11 were service-related issues which could proceed to a hearing.

7Parties were asked to provide written submissions regarding the format of the hearing; as well as on Issues 10 and 11. The Applicant did not provide submissions. The Respondent provided submissions on both issues.

8The Respondent argued that the hearing should be conducted in writing based on the substantial information provided by both parties which addressed the 2 remaining Issues. As such, viva voce evidence is unnecessary.

9In reference to Issue 10, the Respondent argued that it has done its best to return the Applicant’s calls and e-mails promptly. The Respondent indicated that, upon receipt of the file closing letter, the Applicant became agitated and began sending the worker and a Director multiple e-mails within a very short period of time, in addition to phone calls and voice mails. The issues in the communication were historical and had been addressed with the Applicant directly or through Court. If staff were unable to respond promptly, they informed the Applicant. Despite this, the Applicant responded with e-mails, phone calls and voicemails which contained aggressive and inappropriate tone and language.

10The Respondent reminded the Applicant of the procedure to follow if he was unhappy with the response he received; Respondent staff accepted numerous phone calls and e-mails from the Applicant; and the Applicant was instructed that Staff would not respond to communication that was inappropriate in language and tone.

11The Respondent investigated the Applicant’s complaint that one particular supervisor had not responded to him in a timely manner, and determined that, due to the volume of e-mails and calls, it was not always possible for the supervisor to respond in a timely manner. This finding was relayed back to the Applicant.

12The Respondent indicated that the Applicant’s file had been closed and therefore he was directed to send his e-mails to the general inquiries e-mail address rather than a specific staff member. The Applicant’s e-mails continue to be acknowledged and responded to by staff.

13In reference to Issue 11, the Respondent argued that the Applicant’s visits at the Supervised Access Centre were initially suspended because of the Applicant’s disregard of the policies regarding electronic communication during the second access visit as he brought his cell phone to the visit. When he was told that he could not use the cell phone during the visit, the Applicant became agitated and verbally aggressive towards the staff. In addition, the Applicant brought a large remote-control car to the visit which did not conform to the current COVID-10 protocols. Finally, the Applicant did not agree with the details of the agreement he signed with the Child’s mother and that the Supervised Access Centre was required to respect the agreement. No third party supervised access service providers were available in the area.

14The Applicant became increasingly disrespectful and aggressive to multiple staff when they were addressing the issues in paragraph 13. Staff were uncomfortable supervising visits between the Applicant and the Child. The Applicant was informed that his supervised access would be terminated on March 26, 2021 after unsuccessful attempts to problem-solve the issues with the Applicant. The Respondent maintained that the Applicant’s behaviour violated the Respondent’s policy regarding violence and harassment in the workplace and put Respondent staff members’ wellbeing in jeopardy. The Applicant was provided with a copy of the policies and advised that service recipients fall within the policies.

15Finally, the Respondent argued that access services for the Applicant do not fall within the purview of the CFSRB. The Applicant’s current access is court-ordered and is facilitated through the Supervised Access Program which operates under the Ministry of the Attorney General. Complaints regarding this service should be directed to the Attorney General

16The Respondent’s submissions also asked for the 25 documents that were submitted by the Applicant along with his Complaint. These documents consisted of e-mail communications with Respondent staff which Respondent staff were copied on. The majority of these communications were also attached to the Respondent’s original Summary Response to the Complaint.

THE LAW

17Section 120 of the Act provides that, if a person has “a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society [and the complaint] relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may decide” to make a complaint to either the society or the CFSRB.

18The right to be heard, as set out in sections 120(4)4 and 15(2) applies to “children and young persons and their parents”.

19The CFSRB Rules of Procedure provides the CFSRB with the ability to hold hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or videoconference. Subsection 8.1 of the Rules state:

In deciding the format of a hearing, the CFSRB will consider:

a) whether it is a fair and accessible process for the parties; b) the costs and efficiency of the process; c) the potential for a more expeditious resolution; d) the convenience of the parties; e) the consistency with the CFSRB’s mandate; f) whether the facts or evidence may be agreed upon; g) the estimated duration of the hearing; h) whether the issues for hearing are predominantly legal issues; i) whether oral testimony is likely to be needed; j) any objections to the format of the hearing.

ANALYSIS

Format of the Hearing

20The Applicant did not provide submissions on the format of the hearing. I considered the Respondent’s submissions as well as my review of the evidence provided related to the Application.

21The Applicant did not make submissions regarding the format of the hearing despite being asked to provide them. As such, I find that the Applicant is not objecting to the hearing proceeding in writing.

22In addition, I concur with the Respondent that the CFSRB has sufficient written documentation before it upon which to decide the two remaining issues in the Complaint. The issues are quite narrow and additional oral testimony is not required in order to decide them.

23Finally, as noted in the Respondent’s submissions, and in my review of the communication between the Applicant and the Respondent, the Applicant has become aggressive and his language has been abusive and inappropriate. Based on his track record, I am not confident that the Applicant would adhere to CFSRB Rule of Procedure A7 which directs all participants to act in a manner that is courteous and respectful.

24For example, in an e-mail dated March 19, 2021, the Applicant accused the Director of Service of being a tyrant and stated that he is a disgusting human being. The Applicant threatened to post pictures of staff on the internet. He has threatened to call the Ontario Provincial Police on staff. In an e-mail dated March 23, 2021 from the Applicant to the Director of Service the Applicant stated in his own words and spelling:

“I will be calling a lot until these blatant laws that are being broken by your staff are justified. Every day I will fill out a complaint form retarding every staff there if I have to…its my right. Now your reception being so rude and not even telling me her name cause she has an ego…yet she takes tax payers money for a salary…its my right and the law for her to tell the public her name when asked…she does get paid by public funds and a freedom of information request is an easy way to find out who she is. As she is now reported for ignoring, her rudeness, and not informing the public whom she is while tak g the publics money…You are truly a piece of garbage and I made it clear to the opp…even though the cop knows ya…that you are a horrible person…stealing tax payers money and you don’t not care about children at all. When you see your mother…slap her for raising an idiot.”

25Moving to an oral hearing would not be productive and may provide the Applicant with a further forum to verbally harass and abuse Respondent staff. The CFSRB will not place respondent staff and its own staff at risk of harassment and abuse in order to resolve a service complaint.

26For the reasons cited above, I have found that the Complaint will be decided in writing.

Communication Between Applicant and Respondent

27The Applicant was concerned that Respondent staff failed to respond to his telephone calls and e-mails.

28Both the Applicant and the Respondent have provided several e-mails acknowledging that the Applicant’s communications with the Respondent were heard and that staff have provided the Applicant with directions on how to address his concerns regarding the suspension of supervised access; approved topics of discussion at supervised access; and the Applicant’s concerns with communication with the Respondent.

29I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard, and the Respondent provided the Applicant with written responses to his concerns.

30For example, on March 15, 2021, the Director of Service sent an e-mail to the Applicant acknowledging the Applicant’s calls to the office and his concerns. The e-mail indicated that the Applicant had indicated that he did not want to talk to the worker or the Director of Service. The Applicant was informed that he could complain to the Executive Director and request an Internal Complaint Review Panel.

31The Director of Service sent the Applicant an e-mail on March 18, 2021 indicating that the Applicant had sent 6 e-mails during the day and 4 e-mails after the close of business on the previous day. He indicated that staff were trying their best to respond to all e-mails within 1 business day and that the e-mails will be answered as quickly as they could. The e-mail also recognized and provided a response to the Applicant’s concerns regarding cancelled supervised access visits; the Applicant’s reports of suspected abuse; and the Applicant’s concerns with supervised access.

32In an e-mail dated March 25, 2021, the Director of Services acknowledged the Applicant’s calls and e-mails and that staff were doing their best to respond; however, staff sometimes were not always immediately available to respond to the Applicant. Reception staff were directed to direct calls but were directed not speak to the Applicant if his tone or language was inappropriate.

33The Respondent sent an e-mail to the Applicant on March 25, 2021 acknowledging his concerns with reception staff as well as his concerns with Supervised Access. The Applicant was directed how to complain to the Attorney General’s Office or the internal complaints panel. The Applicant responded with his concerns about communication with Respondent staff.

34On March 29, 2021, the Executive Director sent the Applicant a letter indicating that the Respondent had responded as fully to the Applicant’s inquires and concerns and that it has no new information to share with the Applicant. The letter also outlined the Respondent’s duty to protect its employees from harassment and to protect their psychological safety. As such, the Respondent would no longer be answering the Applicant’s phone calls and his e-mails would be routed to a single e-mail address to be picked-up once a day. The Applicant was also informed of where he could appeal the decision.

35I find that the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to express his concerns with communication with the Respondent. These concerns were recognized, and the Respondent has implemented solutions to address the concerns. The Applicant was also provided with an opportunity to provide his responses to the Respondent’s decisions regarding communication, and he was invited to launch appeals with respect to the decisions. For these reasons, I find that the Respondent has heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding communication and has responded accordingly especially taking into account the Applicant’s track record of abusive and inappropriate treatment of staff. As such, Issue 10 is dismissed in its entirety.

Supervised Access

36The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent suspended his supervised access based on perceived harassment and his posting of recordings and videos on social media.

37I find that the Applicant was provided with the reasons for the suspension of his supervised access on several occasions.

38I considered the Respondent’s submissions that this issue was outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. I do not concur, given that the Respondent made the decision discontinue supervised access and communicated this to the Applicant in an e-mail from the Director of Service dated March 26, 2021. The Respondent also admitted in its submissions that it was tasked to implement the terms of an agreement signed with the Child’s mother. By the Respondent’s own actions, it has been involved in the provision of access services to the Applicant which were separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. As such, the CFSRB has the jurisdiction to address this issue as per Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441.

39The Applicant outlined his concerns with Supervised Access in an e-mail dated March 19, 2021.

40In an e-mail from the Director of Service dated March 19, 2021 the Applicant was informed that the conditions and details regarding the Applicant’s custody and access were made under the authority of the Court and the Supervised Access Program. If the Applicant wished to change the conditions, he must do so in Court. The Supervised Access Guidelines and Service Agreement are the same for all parents. The Applicant was informed that he could direct a complaint to the Attorney General if he was dissatisfied with access conditions. Finally, the Respondent was not in a position to continue to provide service to the Applicant if he did not agree to abide by the Supervised Access Program’s Guidelines, as well as the Workplace Safety Guidelines.

41The Applicant’s concerns with Supervised Access were acknowledged in an e-mail from the Director of Service dated March 25, 2021. The Director indicated that the complaints had been considered and the Applicant was informed of his right to complain to the Attorney General or to have his complaint heard by an Internal Complaints Review Panel.

42The Director of Services provided the Applicant with an excerpt from the Respondent’s Discrimination, Violence, Harassment and Sexual Harassment policy. The e-mail explained that the Applicant’s access was suspended given the Director’s concerns with the Applicant’s comments and behaviours towards staff. The Director reassured the Applicant that access would move forward until he is confident that everyone involved would be treated in a safe and fair manner. The Applicant was provided with the policies regarding electronic devices and the Access Centre’s duty to respect Court orders and mutual agreements.

43The Respondent provided the Applicant with an e-mail dated March 26, 2021 which indicated that the Applicant’s supervised access had been suspended as a result of the Applicant’s inappropriate language, verbal insults and threats. The e-mail indicated that the Respondent was searching out a service provider and that the Respondent will pay for this service.

44Given the e-mails provided by both parties, I find that the Applicant was informed of the reasons for the Respondent’s decisions to suspend supervised access. The reasons did not have to do with perceived harassment or the Applicant’s posting of videos and recordings on social media. The decision was based on the Applicant’s inappropriate personal behaviour and his failure to follow the established rules and guidelines at the Supervised Access Site. The Applicant was provided with the Respondent’s Discrimination, Violence, Harassment and Sexual Harassment Policy and the Supervised Access Service Agreement. The Applicant was provided with several avenues to appeal the decision. The Respondent’s rationale was clear and appropriately communicated to the Applicant.

45In addition, I find that, while the Applicant’s access at the Supervised Access site was suspended, the Respondent continued to work to locate and fund access between the Applicant and the Child at a private facility.

46In his Complaint, the Applicant disputes the Respondent’s rationale for discontinuing supervised access; however, this does not mean that the Respondent has not provided the Applicant with adequate reasons for its decisions.

47For these reasons, Issue 11 is dismissed.

SUMMARY

48In summary, I have dismissed Issues 1 – 9 as the CFSRB did not have the jurisdiction to address these issues pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act. Issue 10 was dismissed as I found that the Applicant’s concerns regarding communication with Respondent staff were heard; Respondent staff have attempted to work with the Applicant on mutually acceptable solutions to the communication issues; and the Respondent’s decisions regarding communication were communicated clearly to the Applicant. Finally, I dismissed Issue 11 as I found that the Respondent’s reasons for suspending the Applicant’s supervised access were clearly communicated to the Applicant through multiple communications and the decision was supported by documents provided to the Applicant.

49For these reasons, the Applicant’s Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

50Pursuant 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.