MR v Children’s Aid Society of the Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry, 2022 CFSRB 17

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MR Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of the Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Malcolm M. MacFarlane Date: March 29, 2022 Citation: 2022 CFSRB 17 Indexed As: MR v Children’s Aid Society of the Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry(CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

MR, Applicant Edmond Saucier, Representative

Children’s Aid Society of the Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry, Respondent Melanie Verdone, Counsel

Introduction

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

the law

2The CFSRB found the Application to be eligible for review under section 120 of the Act. The Act outlines the rights of Applicants, the duties and obligations of Children’s Aid Societies, and the mandate of the CFSRB.

3Section 120(4) of the Act reads as follows:

The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2).

2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.

3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2).

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

6. Such other matters as may be prescribed.

4Subsection 120(7) indicates that: 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

5The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom or validity of a decision made by a Society in any given situation under review by the CFSRB and for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act.

6In an allegation of non-compliance, an Applicant’s statement of disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society does not negate or invalidate those reasons.

background

7The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 12(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act on January 11, 2022.

8A Pre-Hearing was scheduled for February 15, 2022. Prior to the Pre-Hearing the Applicant returned a signed copy of the CFSRB’s Participation Agreement.

9At the February 15, 2022, Pre-Hearing (held by teleconference), the parties reached a settlement through mediation.

10The Settlement Agreement required, in part, that the Respondent provide a letter to the Applicant by February 25, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. confirming that there are no current child protection concerns or current investigation or ongoing involvement in relation to the Applicant and her partner while in a caregiving role. The Respondent also agreed to provide a letter outlining reasons for its decisions by answering four questions in writing by March 8, 2022. Any allegation of non-compliance with the Settlement Agreement was to be provided to the CFSRB in writing by March 15, 2022.

11These terms were reviewed with the parties. The parties provided their verbal consent to these terms during the pre-hearing teleconference. These terms are the binding settlement agreement.

12On March 9, 2022, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB indicating that they had not received any correspondence from the Respondent. On March 10, 2022, the CFSRB sent an Acknowledgement of Non-Compliance to the Parties.

13On March 14, 2022, the Respondent emailed two letters to the Applicant and the CFSRB intended to meet the requirements of the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

14On March 14, 2022, the Applicant responded to the Respondent’s correspondence raising two issues with the CFSRB:

a. One letter contained a misspelling of the Applicant’s son’s name

b. One letter did not include the phrase “while in a caregiving role.”

15On March 16, 2022, the Parties were provided notice by CFSRB of a Compliance Hearing scheduled by teleconference for March 28, 2022.

16On March 28, 2022, a Compliance Hearing was held with the Parties.

17In the Compliance Hearing, the Respondent agreed to correct the error and omission described in paragraph 14 (a) and (b) above by providing two corrected letters to the Applicant by email by 5:00 p.m. March 28, 2022.

18The Applicant did raise concerns during the compliance hearing regarding the Respondent, in their written response as part of the Settlement Agreement, not considering a concern of one of the Applicant’s children not wearing a seat belt on one occasion while traveling with the Applicant’s ex-partner to be a child protection issue.

analysis

19As the correspondence required from the Respondent as part of the Settlement Agreement was not provided by either the February 25, 2022 date for the first letter described in paragraph 10 above, or by the compliance date of March 8, 2022 for the second letter described in paragraph 10 above, I find that the Respondent did not comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement by the compliance date of March 8, 2022.

20Since the Respondent did provide the correspondence agreed to in the Settlement Agreement on March 14, 2022, I find that the terms of the Settlement Agreement have now been met subject to minor corrections to the correspondence discussed and agreed to by both Parties as discussed in the following paragraph.

21The Respondent agrees to correct the spelling of the Applicant’s son’s name in one letter and add the phrase “while in a caregiving role” to the second letter and to email these corrected letters to the Applicant by 5:00 p.m. March 28, 2022.

22With regards to the Respondent decision that the Applicant’s child not wearing a seatbelt on one occasion while being transported by the Applicant’s ex-partner is not a child protection concern, I find that the reasons provided by the Respondent in their March 14, 2022, letter to the Applicant constitute a meaningful reason for the Respondent’s decision in this regard, and that this reason meets the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.

23No other substantive issues regarding the Respondent’s correspondence were raised by the Applicant in the course of the compliance hearing, and I find that the reasons provided by the Respondent in their correspondence fulfill the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

order

24I order that the Respondent shall provide the corrected correspondence to the Applicant as outlined in paragraph 21 above by 5:00 p.m. March 28, 2022. The file is closed in accordance with the February 15, 2022, Settlement Agreement.

confidentiality order

25Pursuant 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.