CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
BKB
Applicant
-and-
Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan
Indexed As: BKB v Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
BKB, Applicant
Self-represented
Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, Respondent
Aisha Ghafoor, Legal 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”).
2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)1 and 120(4)4 of the Act.
3This is the Applicant’s fifth application to the CFSRB relating to events stemming from her and her family’s interactions with the Respondent since December 2017. Her four (4) previous CFSRB applications include CA18-0188, CA19-0106, CA21-0071 and CA21-0075. CFSRB applications CA21-0071 and CA21-0075, filed one week apart, were consolidated at the pre-hearing stage. CFSRB application CA19-0106 was settled through mediation. The Applicant’s other three applications were adjudicated to a final decision.
4The Applicant is the mother of three children, TK, AK and EK. AK and EK are twins and the younger siblings of TK. PK is the father of the children.
5The Applicant’s complaints are outlined in a letter to the Respondent dated April 11, 2022 that she attached to her Application. In that letter, the Applicant listed 20 main concerns for which she requested a review or explanations by an Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”). The Applicant’s concerns and allegations in these requests are summarized as follows:
Concerns about the apprehension of the Applicant’s children, including that the least intrusive actions were not taken, and about the circumstances surrounding the apprehension;
Concerns surrounding the way in which a Society Worker, PM, handled a statement made by the child, TK, about PK “squeezing” the Applicant’s youngest children (AK and EK);
Concerns about the Respondent not providing the Applicant with a Plan of Care within the first few weeks after her children were apprehended;
Concerns that the Respondent did not offer the Applicant a Signs of Safety meeting until requested by the Applicant;
Concerns that the Respondent withheld medical records about the Applicant’s infant children from the Applicant until May 2018, and a request for a review about the Respondent’s general practice concerning the disclosure of medical records to parents;
Concerns about the way in which the Applicant’s child, TK, was interviewed on December 4, 2017 by Society Worker, AR, and a review of AR’s interviewing standards;
Concerns about the Respondent restricting the Applicant’s contact with her child, EK, when he was no longer in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, including Society Workers AR and HH making the Applicant’s visits conditional upon the Applicant attending a police interview;
Concerns about: (a) Society Worker AR’s alleged testimony during the criminal trial of PK in 2021, that AR did not recall reading the Applicant’s 2018 CFSRB complaint, suggests that the Respondent has not taken steps to address AR’s failure to hear the Applicant’s earlier concerns in CFSRB application 18-0188; and (b) the “common practice” of the Respondent related to complaints against its workers;
Concerns that interpreters were not used by Society Worker, AR, when she conducted interviews with the Applicant’s extended family members that do not speak English as a first language and the Respondent’s practices about interviewing family members generally who do not speak English as a first language;
Request for notes taken by Society Worker, AR, relating to her January 2018 meeting at a hospital with a doctor;
Concerns about: (a) discrepancies in the Respondent’s documents relating to the Applicant’s youngest children and the “verified concerns” regarding the twins; and (b) the Respondent’s failure to inform the Applicant and the court about radiological findings by Dr. EM;
Concerns about how expert findings “are generally handled” by the Respondent and shared with parents and the Court;
Concerns about the length of supervision orders sought by the Respondent, including how concerns about the Applicant leaving Canada may have factored into these;
Concerns that the Respondent “invited themselves” to become involved again with the Applicant after the child protection file was closed and the Respondent’s general practices about becoming involved with families after a protection file is closed;
Concerns about the suggestion by Society worker, AG, during a Zoom call that PK take a course, “Caring Dads”;
Concerns that the Respondent’s contact of EK’s paediatrician in 2021 without the Applicant’s knowledge or consent was an overreach of its authority;
Request that the Respondent update and correct its records as requested by the Applicant in June 2021;
Requests for evidence if the Respondent refuses to correct its records related to its initial assessment and verified concerns from December 2017;
Concerns that the Respondent’s workers are not registered with the College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers;
Concerns about a contract between the Respondent and the child advocacy team at McMaster hospital.
LEGAL ISSUE AND BACKGROUND
6The question before me is whether the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review the Application. This question arises because in the May 25, 2022 Response to the Application (“Response”), Counsel for the Respondent challenged the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application on the basis that the concerns raised by the Applicant have, “i) been fully decided by the Court, ii) been adjudicated by the CFSRB or iii) the concerns are presently before the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner” (“OIPC”). Counsel for the Respondent also submitted that some of the relief being sought by the Applicant is otherwise outside of the jurisdiction and scope of the CFSRB’s mandate.
7Counsel for the Respondent filed several documents with the Response in support of the Respondent’s position, including: a Statement of Agreed Facts dated August 15, 2019, signed by the parties and filed with the Court in relation to the child protection matter in the Superior Court of Justice in Kitchener, Ontario (“2019 SAF”); the March 30, 2021 Endorsement and reasons for the decision in the criminal trial involving PK related to charges of aggravated assault against EK (“Criminal Trial Endorsement”); a letter dated April 16, 2022 from the Respondent’s Executive Director to the Applicant responding to the Applicant’s April 11, 2022 request for an ICRP (“Respondent’s April 2022 Letter”); and documentation related to earlier Applications brought by the Applicant to the CFSRB.
8The 2019 SAF sets out several facts related to this matter including that:
On December 1, 2017 police reported that then two-month old EK had been hospitalized and the hospital was concerned that the injuries he sustained had been inflicted;
On December 1, 2017, another child protection agency apprehended EK from the hospital on the Respondent’s behalf, and the Respondent apprehended the Applicant’s other two children and placed them in a kinship home as a place of safety;
When interviewed, [TK] told the worker that when [PK] got frustrated with the twins he squeezed them and yelled at them, “Stop crying, stop crying, stop crying”.
On January 16, 2018, PK was arrested and charged with aggravated assault with no contact terms with his children;
On May 15, 2018, on consent, the children were placed with the Applicant subject to a 9-month supervision order;
On May 15, 2019, the Applicant and PK participated in a Signs of Safety Meeting and on July 17, 2019 in a follow up Signs of Safety Meeting;
PK’s no contact order with his children remained in place pending his criminal trial scheduled for April 2020;
As of the date of the 2019 SAF, “[n]o new child protection concerns [had] been identified regarding the care and well being of the children while in the care of the mother, and the relationship between the family and the Society remains acrimonious with no identified possibility of [PK] resuming contact with the children as per criminal term. The Society is seeking termination of court proceedings and the involvement with the family with the understanding that the Society will be notified by the [Applicant’s] Family and by the office of the Crown Attorney should the terms of contact between the father and children be changed’; and The termination of the May 15, 2018 supervision order was being sought.
9In a Case Management Decision dated June 21, 2022 (“CMD”), the CFSRB directed the Applicant to make written submissions explaining which, if any, part of the Application is not before the Court, previously adjudicated by the CFSRB or before the OIPC.
10The CMD informed the parties of the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441 and information on how to access that decision online.
11Further to the CMD, the Applicant made written submissions and filed numerous documents in support of those submissions. In her submissions, the Applicant also included some information, questions and concerns not detailed in her Application and to which the Respondent has not had an opportunity to respond. This Decision will only address the Applicant’s concerns outlined in the Application and the Applicant’s submissions in response to the CMD and as they address which parts of the Application are within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.
12For the reasons set out below, I find that the CFSRB has jurisdiction only on the following two (2) issues:
The Applicant’s concerns about the Respondent’s failure to inform the Applicant and the Court about radiological findings by Dr. EM;
The Applicant’s concerns about the suggestion by Society worker AG, during a Zoom call, that PK take a course, “Caring Dads”.
13All other allegations in the Application must be dismissed as they are issues that have been decided by the Court, previously adjudicated by the CFSRB, before or within the purview of the OIPC, or otherwise not matters within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.
the law
14Subsection 15(2) of the Act states:
Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.
15Subsection 101(3) of the Act states:
The court shall not make an order removing the child from the care of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part unless the court is satisfied that alternatives that are less disruptive to the child, including non-residential care and the assistance referred to in subsection (2) would be inadequate to protect the child.
16Subsection 120(4)4 of the Act states:
The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section …
- Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2).
17Subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act states
The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,
(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court; or
(b) is subject to another decision-making process under this Act or the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
18Rule 21.2 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure states:
Where the society takes the position that the CFSRB cannot conduct a review because the subject of the application is:
a. an issue that has been decided by the Court or is before the Court; or
b. subject to another decision-making process under the [Act] or the Labour Relations Act, 1995,
the society must provide submissions in support of its position and attach all relevant documents and any Court orders to this response.
analysis
19The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441, that the mere existence of a child protection proceeding does not automatically bar the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint about the services an individual has received from a children’s aid society. In DD, the Court found that complaints about how the children’s aid society had handled the temporary placement of the applicant’s children could proceed before the CFSRB. Those complaints “were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court” (para.35).
20As part of her submissions, the Applicant states generally that at the time of bringing previous issues to the CFSRB, PK’s criminal trial had not concluded, she “did not have disclosure from numerous sources”, and that she is “asking distinctly different questions now”. However, with the exception of two issues as described below, the Applicant has not demonstrated how these factors have any bearing upon the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review her present complaints.
Issues Previously Adjudicated by the CFSRB and/or before the Court
Issue 1
21The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 1 relate to the apprehension of her children, including allegations that the least intrusive actions were not taken, and circumstances surrounding that apprehension.
22As evidenced by the 2019 SAF, there is no dispute among the parties that on December 1, 2017, another child protection agency apprehended EK from the hospital on the Respondent’s behalf, and the Respondent apprehended the Applicant’s other two children.
23In the Respondent’s April 2022 Letter, in response to Issue 1 the Respondent states that the “apprehension of the children is a matter that was before the Court. The Court had oversight of the Agency’s decision-making”.
24As part of an apprehension under the Act, while a Society is required to file materials to support its actions in removing children to a place of safety, it is the Court under section 101(3) of the Act that must inquire about the efforts made by the society or another person before intervention and consider whether there are less disruptive alternatives before making an order. Those issues are squarely before the Court.
25In the Applicant’s first application before the CFSRB in CA18-0188, the Applicant’s concerns related to “[t]he circumstances of the apprehension of the three children on December 1, 2017” were specifically reviewed. The related decision in that application, BKB v Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region, 2018 CFSRB 58 (“CFSRB’s 2018 Decision”), outlines the adjudication of the issue under that heading. The Applicant had the opportunity to address her concerns related to the apprehension of her children during CFSRB application CA18-0188.
26I find that the Applicant’s concerns in Issue 1 have been before the Court or previously adjudicated by the CFSRB, and therefore, not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review.
Issue 2
27The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 2 relate to the way in which a worker handled a statement made by the child, TK, about PK “squeezing” the Applicant’s youngest children. This was a statement made by TK while in a car being driven by Society Worker PM, and is distinguished from a later joint interview of TK by police and another Society Worker, AR (the subject of Issue 6).
28In its Response, the Respondent relies on the 2019 SAF as documentation to support that some of the Applicant’s complaints have been before the Court. The Respondent also states that the Applicant’s complaints relating to the Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant between the timeframe of December 2017 and August 2019 “were also previously heard during a CFSRB hearing in 2018”. However, there is nothing in the 2019 SAF specifically related to TK’s “squeezing” statement to Society Worker PM (only to the interview with Society Worker AR) and TK’s statement to Society Worker PM was not raised in CFSRB application CA18-0018.
29However, the Applicant in describing her concerns in Issue 2 in this Application, states that Society Worker PM, “continued to present the alleged ‘squeezing’ statement as a fact in further court proceedings. [TK] subsequently refuted that alleged statement several times, with another worker, AR, and at trial.”
30As the Applicant concedes that TK’s “squeezing” statement was before the Court as part of the Respondent’s evidence in the proceedings between the Applicant and the Respondent, the Applicant would have had an opportunity to test that evidence as part of the Court process, including the circumstances surrounding the taking of the “squeezing” statement by Society Worker PM.
31Accordingly, I find that Issue 2 has been before the Court and is not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.
Issues 3 and 4
32The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 3 relate to the Respondent not providing her with a written plan of care within the first weeks after her children were apprehended. The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 4 relate to the Respondent not offering the Applicant a particular type of safety planning meeting until the Applicant requested one. These concerns relate to safety planning and the planning for the return of the Applicant’s children to her care.
33The Applicant’s concerns related to safety planning and plans for the return of her children were before the CFSRB in application CA18-0188. The CFSRB’s 2018 Decision summarizes the adjudication of these issues, including at paragraphs 48-50 as follows:
48It is clear that the Applicant was frustrated at the slow pace of returning the children to her care and the lack of information about how soon this would occur. It is also clear that she strongly feels that, at the very least, the children should have been returned much earlier. However, this is not an issue over which the CFSRB has any jurisdiction.
49While the Applicant testified that she did not know ‘what was going on’, this very general statement was not supported by testimony specifying the nature or number of her meetings with the Respondent’s representatives. She gave no evidence that any questions she asked about when her children would be returned were ignored and the evidence from her husband, set out above, supports the conclusion that the Respondent did have meetings with the Applicant about the return of her children, provided an opportunity for input and answer questions about what was happening. The fact the first meeting to discuss this did not occur until a month and a half after the apprehension of the children and that plans to return the children were not presented until January 16, 2018 is not an issue over which the CFSRB has jurisdiction.
50The evidence provided on this issue does not establish that the Applicant was denied an opportunity to voice her concerns to or to be heard by the Respondent on decisions regarding a safety plan/the return of her children to her.
34I find that the substance of the concerns in Issues 3 and 4, related to plans of care and safety planning, was addressed in CFSRB application CA18-0188 and the Applicant had the opportunity to ask questions related to those issues during the hearing of that application.
35Moreover, as set out in the 2019 SAF, it is undisputed that the Applicant and Respondent engaged in Signs of Safety meetings on May 15 and July 17, 2019 and it is not within the CFSRB’s purview to review the timing of these meetings.
36Accordingly, I find that Issues 3 and 4 relate to the concerns of safety planning and planning for the return of the Applicant’s children that that were previously before the CFSRB and therefore, are not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review as part of this Application.
Issue 5
37The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 5 relate to the Respondent’s withholding of medical records related to her children until May 2018 and the Respondent’s practices related to the disclosure of medical records more generally.
38The Applicant’s specific concerns relating to the Respondent’s withholding of medical records related to her children were reviewed in CFSRB application CA18-0018, as one of 11 issues identified during the pre-hearing and through to the CFSRB’s 2018 Decision under the heading, “[t]he Applicant’s access to the medical records”.
39With respect to the Applicant’s concerns in Issue 5 about the general practices of the Respondent, the CFSRB’s jurisdiction does not include hearing allegations related to a society’s general practices, including about the disclosure of records. An Application deemed eligible under section 120(4)4 of the Act is limited to reviewing whether an Applicant has had an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they are concerned about services they are receiving, as per section 15(2) of the Act. Concerns about a society’s general practices are not ones contemplated by the Act.
40Accordingly, I find that the Applicant’s specific concerns in Issue 5 have previously been before the CFSRB and her general concerns about the Respondent’s practices are not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.
Issue 6
41The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 6 relate to the way in which TK was interviewed on December 4, 2017 by Society Worker AR, and AR’s interviewing standards.
42As set out in the 2019 SAF, the interview of TK by Society Worker AR was before the Court. The 2019 SAF included a statement of that evidence, “[w]hen interviewed, [TK] told the worker that when [PK] got frustrated with the twins he squeezed them and yelled at them, “Stop crying, stop crying, stop crying”. The Applicant would have had the opportunity to challenge that evidence before the Court, including the nature of the circumstances surrounding that statement.
43Moreover, in CFSRB application CA18-0188 received by the CFSRB on August 30, 2018, the Applicant raised as a concern for review, the “interrogation of my older son” including concerns related to Society Worker AR’s interview of TK. The Applicant notes, “[f]ull description of this interview has not been given to my husband’s lawyer to review till today. I cannot be sure suggestive questions were not used”. At the pre-hearing in that application, “the circumstances of the Society’s interview with [TK]” was identified as one of 11 issues and it remained one of the issues at the hearing on November 20 and 21, 2018. Accordingly, the Applicant had the opportunity to raise her concerns related to the interview of TK by Society Worker AR in CFSRB application CA18-0188, including the nature of questioning she may have discerned from the interview transcript her husband obtained several weeks before the hearing of that application.
44In Issue 6, as in Issue 5 above, the Applicant also seeks general information related to the Respondent’s practices, in this case interviewing standards. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review allegations related to a society’s general interviewing standards or practices.
45Accordingly, I find that the Applicant’s specific concerns in Issue 6 have been before the Court and adjudicated previously by the CFSRB, and the Applicant’s concerns about the Respondent’s general practices are not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.
Issue 7
46The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 7 relate to the Respondent restricting the Applicant’s contact with her child, EK, when he was no longer in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, including Society Workers AR and HH making the Applicant’s visits conditional upon the Applicant attending a police interview.
47In CFSRB application CA18-0188, under the heading, “[n]o access to [EK] in the hospital”, the Applicant sets out several concerns relating to her access to EK. She included the following statement as part of her concerns in that application:
…[AR] called me again to say that I would not be able to stay at [EK]’s bedside after all if I did not agree to being interviewed by the police. I had not been asked to be interviewed by the police and had not refused it. However, I found it to be a form of professional misbehaviour to present me with yet another condition after an agreement was made just a day prior. I consider this another instance of blackmail. I consulted my lawyer …and she advised me to say at the beginning of the interview that it is given under duress, which I did.
48In the CFSRB’s 2018 Decision, “[t]he restriction placed on access by the Applicant to [EK] in the hospital” was one of the issues reviewed and the Applicant had the opportunity to address her concerns as set out in her 2018 application.
49I find that Issue 7 has previously been before the CFSRB.
50I do note that the Respondent, in its April 2022 Letter, determined that part of Issue 7 was eligible for review by an ICRP. However, the Respondent’s decision in this regard has no bearing on my finding.
Issue 9
51The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 9 relate to the Respondent not providing interpreters when Society Worker AR conducted interviews with the Applicant’s extended family members that do not speak English as a first language, and the Respondent’s practices relating to interviewing family members who do not speak English as a first language.
52In CFSRB application CA18-0188, “[t]he availability of interpretation services” was one of the issues raised by the Applicant and adjudicated by the CFSRB, including under that heading in the CFSRB’s 2018 Decision.
53As set out in Issue 5, the Respondent’s general practices, in this case related to the provision of interpretation services to families, are not issues which the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review.
54I find that the Applicant’s specific concerns in Issue 9 about the provision of interpreters to her family members has been previously reviewed by the CFSRB in application CA18-0188 and that the Applicant’s concerns about the Respondent’s practices in the provision of interpretation services generally are not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review.
Issue 13
55The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 13 relate to the length of supervision orders sought by the Respondent, including how concerns about the Applicant leaving Canada may have factored into these.
56The 2019 SAF, at paragraph 5, sets out that, “[o]n May 15, 2018, on consent, the honourable Justice Rogers placed the children with the [Applicant] subject to a 9 month supervision order”. The terms of this supervision order and any subsequent supervision order made by the Court are squarely substantive issues before the Court. Before issuing a supervision order, the Court would have reviewed the reasons sought by the Respondent for these orders, including related to its length or any concerns about the Applicant leaving Canada. Moreover, the Applicant would have had the opportunity to challenge the reasons provided by the Respondent for seeking a supervision order or its duration in the Court process.
57Accordingly, I find that Issue 13 was previously before the Court and is not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.
Issue 14
58The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 14 relate to the Respondent becoming involved again with the Applicant after the child protection file was closed and the Respondent’s general practices about becoming involved with families after a child protection file is closed.
59The Applicant’s concern related to the Respondent becoming involved again with the Applicant was raised by the Applicant as an issue in CFSRB application CA21-0071 and was identified as an issue in the pre-hearing of that application under the heading, “[t]he basis of the Society’s current involvement, based on the court’s ruling and the CYFSA; the basis for the Society’s September 2019 letter”. This application was adjudicated by the CFSRB through to its decision in BKB v Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region, 2021 CFSRB 85 (“CFSRB’s 2021 Decision”).
60As discussed above, the Respondent’s general practices, in this case related to when it becomes involved with families, is not an issue which the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review.
61I find that the Applicant’s concerns in Issue 14 about the Respondent becoming involved again with the Applicant after the child protection was closed has been previously reviewed by the CFSRB in application CA21-0071 and that the Applicant’s concerns about the Respondent’s general practices relating to when it becomes involved with families are not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review.
Issue 16
62The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 16 relate to the Respondent’s contact of EK’s paediatrician in 2021 without the Applicant’s knowledge or consent and that this was an overreach of the Respondent’s authority.These concerns have been raised previously by the Applicant in CFSRB application CA22-0071 and adjudicated through to a hearing under the heading, “the reasons for the Society reaching out to paediatrician Dr [D]”. In the CFSRB’s 2021 Decision, the CFSRB made a finding related to this issue at paragraph 21 of that decision:
…when it came to the events of June 2021, I find that the Respondent did not inform the Applicant and certainly did not provide reasons for its actions in contacting the child’s paediatrician, after they had received consistent information from the medical personnel who had been involved in the treatment of the child in the hospital that there were no child protection concerns arising from the child’s current health issues.
63To the extent the Applicant’s concerns relate specifically to the failure of the Respondent to obtain consent for the collection of personal information, those concerns are not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review. Concerns about a service provider’s failure to obtain consent for the collection of personal information must be brought before the OIPC under Part X of the Act. It appears that the Applicant has in fact brought these concerns to the OIPC as she notes in her submissions that a “complaint against supervisor [AG, JS, CR] and Dr.[D] for requesting/providing a minor’s medical information without a parent’s consent is currently before the IPC and as such I will withdraw this point of the complaint until resolution from the IPC is obtained”.
64Regardless of the outcome of the Applicant’s complaint before the OIPC related to Issue 16, I find that Issue 16 has been previously adjudicated before the CFSRB and any further concerns about the Respondent’s collection of personal information are outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB and within the purview of the OIPC.
Other Issues within the Purview of the OIPC
65Four additional concerns outlined in the Application are within the purview of the OIPC.
Issue 10
66The Applicant’s concern in Issue 10 is a request for notes from a January 2018 hospital meeting between Society Worker AR and a doctor. This is a concern relating to access to the Respondent’s records.
67Concerns about access to a service provider’s records must be raised to the OIPC through the procedures set out under Part X of the Act. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review these concerns.
Issue 11(a)
68The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 11(a) relate to discrepancies in the Respondent’s documents about the Applicant’s youngest children and the “verified concerns” regarding them. These are concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the Respondent’s records.
69Concerns about the accuracy and completeness of a service provider’s records must be raised to the OIPC through the procedures set out under Part X of the Act. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review these concerns.
70I also note that the Applicant’s concerns about the Respondent’s verification decisions related to the twins have been raised in previous applications before the CFSRB. In CFSRB application CA18-0188, the Applicant raised, and the CFSRB adjudicated, the Applicant’s concerns about the “scope and findings of the investigation regarding [EK]”. In CFSRB application CA21-0071, the Applicant requested as the third of three complaints the Respondent’s “evidence for [its] ‘verified’ claim that [PK] used excessive physical force against [the] children. What was the ‘verification’ based on?”. The Applicant’s concerns were specifically outlined as one of seven issues during the pre-hearing of this matter, as “[t]he basis for the Society’s determination about the use of excessive physical force against the children by the Applicant’s husband” and adjudicated through to the CFSRB’s 2021 Decision.
Issue 17
71The Applicant’s concern in Issue 17 is a request for the Respondent’s records to be updated and corrected further to a request made by the Applicant to the Respondent in June 2021. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review these concerns. Requests relating to the correction of a service provider’s records and complaints about the refusal of a service provider to make corrections to a record must be raised to the OIPC through the procedures set out under Part X of the Act.
Issue 18
72The Applicant’s concern in Issue 18 relates to the Respondent’s refusal to correct records related to the Respondent’s initial assessment and verified concerns from December 2017. As set out above relating to Issue 17, concerns related to the correction of a service provider’s records and complaints about the refusal of a service provider to make corrections to a record must be raised to the OIPC through the procedures set out under Part X of the Act.
73To summarize, Issues 10, 11(a), 17 and 18 are within the purview of the OIPC and the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review them.
Issues Otherwise outside of the CFSRB’s Jurisdiction to Review
74Counsel for the Respondent submits some of the issues raised in the Application are outside of the jurisdiction and scope of the CFSRB’s mandate.
Issue 8
75The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 8 relate to what she perceives as the Respondent failing to take remedial action with Society Worker AR after the finding in the CFSRB’s 2018 Decision that Society Worker AR failed to hear the concerns of the Applicant about subjecting EK to additional x-rays. The Applicant bases her concerns on the testimony of Society Worker AR during the criminal trial of PK in 2021, wherein Society Worker AR allegedly testified that she did not recall reading the Applicant’s CFSRB 2018 complaint against her. The Applicant also has concerns about the “common practice” of the Respondent when complaints are made about its workers.
76In the CFSRB’s 2018 Decision, the CFSRB found that the Respondent breached s.120(4)4 by failing to hear the concerns of the Applicant about subjecting EK to additional x-rays, and specifically, that Society Worker AR “did not treat the Applicant’s concerns seriously but brushed them off by telling her that she was making too much of a fuss and making clear in an extremely dismissive way that the Respondent had the power to make decisions about [EK], not the Applicant”.
77While the CFSRB’s 2018 decision made a finding about the Respondent’s breach of the Act with respect to Society Worker AR not hearing the Applicant’s concerns about additional x-rays, it did not order that any action must be taken by the Respondent in light of that finding.
78The Applicant’s concerns about what Society Worker AR allegedly said during the criminal trial of PK in 2021 does not relate to a society decision or service as contemplated by section 15(2) of the Act.
79Further, the common or internal practices of the Respondent in its response or follow up to complaints are also not issues that relate to specific decisions or services contemplated by section 15(2) of the Act.
80Accordingly, I find that the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s concerns in Issue 8. The Applicant’s concerns about the services she was receiving by Society Worker AR were addressed in CFSRB application CA18-0188, including the CFSRB’s 2018 Decision, and the Applicant’s other concerns set out in Issue 8 are not reviewable by the CFSRB.
Issue 12
81In Issue 12, the Applicant seeks general information related to the Respondent’s practices, in this case, how the Respondent generally handles information obtained from medical experts and how this is shared with parents and the Court.
82The Respondent’s general practices relating to its use of information obtained from medical experts are not issues that relate to specific decisions or services contemplated by section 15(2) of the Act. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review allegations related to a society’s general practices.
83I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review Issue 12.
Issue 19
84The Applicant’s concern in Issue 19 is that the Respondent’s workers are not registered with the College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review concerns related to the professional designations of the Respondent’s workers.
85I find that the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to review Issue 19.
Issue 20
86In Issue 20, the Applicant seeks details of contracts that allegedly exist between the Respondent and the child advocacy team at McMaster hospital. The Respondent in its April 2022 Letter states that it, “does not have a contract with the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program at McMaster”.
87Even if there were contracts as between the Respondent and a program at McMaster hospital, the review of such contracts is not a reviewable decision or service contemplated by section 15(2) of the Act.
88I find that the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to review Issue 20.
Issues 11(b) and 15: Issues Within the CFSRB’s Jurisdiction to Review
Issue 11(b)
89The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 11 (b) relate to the Respondent’s failure to inform the Applicant and the court about radiological findings made by Dr. EM.
90In the April 2022 Letter filed with its Response, the Respondent notes that the radiological findings were brought to the attention of the court in an Agreed Statement of Facts dated May 15, 2018 (“2018 SAF”).
91Under Rule 21.2 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, where a society takes the position that the CFSRB cannot conduct a review because the subject of the application is an issue that has been decided or is before the Court, the society must provide all relevant documents to support its submissions related to that position. However, a copy of the 2018 SAF has not been filed with the CFSRB and I am unable to ascertain on the other documents filed by the Respondent whether this issue was in fact before the court.
92There are also no documents filed by the Respondent or previously by the Applicant with the CFSRB to support that Issue 11(b) has been previously before the CFSRB, and Issue 11(b) is not an issue over which the OIPC has jurisdiction.
93Issue 11(b) relates to a specific decision taken by the Respondent that affected the Applicant’s interests as contemplated by section 15(2) of the Act. In the absence of documentation to support that this issue has been before the Court or previously before the CFSRB, I find that this issue is within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.
Issue 15
94The Applicant’s concerns in Issue 15 relate to the suggestion by Society Worker AG, during a Zoom call, that PK take a course, “Caring Dads”.
95In the April 2022 Letter filed with its Response, in respect of Issue 15, the Respondent submits that its “assessment of risk to [the Applicant’s] children was a matter that was put before family court”. There are no other submissions by the Respondent specific to Issue 15.
96As set out above under Issue 11(b), under Rule 21.2 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, where a society takes the position that the CFSRB cannot conduct a review because the subject of the application is an issue that has been decided or is before the Court, the society must provide all relevant documents to support its submissions related to that position. However, I am unable to ascertain on the documents filed by the Respondent whether Issue 15 was a substantive issue before the court.
97There are also no documents filed with the CFSRB to support that Issue 15 has been previously before the CFSRB, and Issue 15 is not an issue over which the OIPC has jurisdiction.
98Issue 15 relates to a referral offered to PK as part of the Respondent’s services to the Applicant’s family as contemplated by section 15(2) of the Act. As with Issue 11(b) above, in the absence of documentation to support that this issue has been before the Court, I find that this issue is within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.
order
99All issues in the Application are dismissed with the exception of the two (2) issues identified above as being within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review, namely:
Concerns about the Respondent’s failure to inform the Applicant and the Court about radiological findings by Dr. EM;
Concerns about the suggestion by Society worker AG, during a Zoom call, that PK take a course, “Caring Dads”.
confidentiality order
100Pursuant 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.
Dated at Toronto, August 15, 2022.
Tamara Jordan
Tamara Jordan
Member