BKB v. Family and Child Services of Waterloo Region, 2022 CFSRB 63

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

BKB Applicant

-and-

Family and Child Services of Waterloo Region Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ivana Vaccaro Date: December 23, 2022 Citation: 2022 CFSRB 63 Indexed As: BKB v Family and Child Services of Waterloo Region (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

BKB, Applicant Shaun Harvey, Paralegal

Family and Child Services of Waterloo Region, Respondent Aisha Ghafoor, Counsel

Introduction

1BKB (“the Applicant”) filed a complaint against Child and Family Services of Waterloo Region (“the Society”) on May 11, 2022 under subsections 120(4) 1 and 4 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched. 1 (“the Act”), alleging that the Society refused to proceed with her complaint and did not give her a chance to be heard when she raised her concerns.

2The Applicant’s complaint to the Child and Family Services Review Board (“the CFSRB”) originally included twenty (20) different complaints. By interim decision of August 15, 2022, the CFSRB dismissed the Applicant’s complaints in the Application, save and except for the following two (2) complaints, which were limited to the Applicant’s complaints under subsections 120(4)1 and 4 of the Act, that the Society:

a. refused to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint made under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2) of the Act; and,

b. failed to comply with subsection 15(2) of the Act,

in relation to the Applicant’s concerns about,

i. the Society’s failure to inform the Applicant and the Court about the radiological findings of Dr. EM; and

ii. the suggestion by Society worker AG, during a Zoom call, that PK take a course, “Caring Dads.”

3The CFSRB must decide whether the Society met its obligations regarding the Applicant’s complaint: did the Society refuse to proceed with her complaint? Was the Applicant given a chance to be heard when she raised her concerns?

4The hearing was held on November 23, 2022. The Applicant testified on her own behalf. The Society called evidence from Child Protection Supervisor HH and Kinship Worker RG. Both parties filed documentary evidence.

5For the following reasons, the CFSRB finds that the Society partially failed to meet its obligations under subsections 120(4) 1 and 4 of the Act; however, given my finding that there was no factual basis for the Applicant to make the complaint or raise the concern set out in subclause (ii) above, I dismiss the Applicant’s complaint to the CFSRB in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

6The Society has been involved with the Applicant and her family since December 1, 2017. The Applicant is the mother of three (3) minor children, namely EK and his twin sister AK (both born September 26, 2017), and their older brother TK (born February 11, 2013) (collectively “the children”). On December 1, 2017, EK stopped breathing while he was in the care of PK, the biological father of the children and the Applicant’s husband. EK was rushed to McMaster Children’s Hospital (“McMaster”) by ambulance. At McMaster, a referral was made to the Society by the treating physician Dr. AN due to protection concerns arising from the alleged injuries to EK. Consequently, the Society attended the Applicant’s home and apprehended both AK and TK, placing them in the care of kin. EK remained in the hospital and the Applicant was permitted to have supervised contact with him. In January 2018, PK was charged with aggravated assault and arrested. Criminal restrictions were placed on PK’s contact with the children.

7The Applicant requested a second opinion regarding EK’s alleged injuries and was referred for an assessment at Toronto Sick Kids Hospital (“Sick Kids”). On February 8, 2018, the Applicant, EK and kin attended the Bone Health Clinic at Sick Kids for an assessment.

8On February 22, 2018, following EK’s assessment at Sick Kids, Dr. EM raised concerns regarding a potential bone fragility in her diagnostic imaging consultation report. The Applicant alleges that neither she nor the Court were notified of Dr. EM’s radiological findings in her report of February 22, 2018.

9At trial, the Applicant and the Society filed a Statement of Agreed Facts dated May 15, 2018 (“SAF”) with the Ontario Court of Justice. Following the trial, the children were returned to the care of the Applicant. However, the Society remained involved with the family until August 2019 in accordance with a supervision order.

10In March of 2021, PK was acquitted of the assault charge following a criminal trial. Afterwards, the Society attempted to engage in discussions with the Applicant and PK regarding their continued involvement with the family. During one of these discussions, which took place during a Zoom call on April 12, 2021, the Applicant alleges the Society recommended an inappropriate program to PK, specifically “Caring Dads.”

11By letter dated April 11, 2022, the Applicant put to the Society twenty (20) different complaints in relation to services she received from the Society and requested that each of her complaints proceed to a review before the Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”). On April 16, 2022, the Society’s Executive Director KS responded to each of the Applicant’s complaints, providing reasons, and determined that only two (2) were eligible for review. The Applicant’s complaint that the Society failed to inform her and the Court of the radiological findings of Dr. EM was determined to be eligible for review; however, her complaint regarding the Society’s suggestion that PK take an inappropriate program was determined to be ineligible for review.

12In her letter of April 16, 2022, KS indicated that she would be in touch with the Applicant to schedule a meeting to review the eligible complaints.

13The Applicant subsequently disengaged from the Society’s internal complaints process and instead filed her complaint against the Society with the CFSRB. On May 16, 2022, after filing her complaint with the CFSRB, the Applicant filed with the Society a Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP).

14The Society asserts that it met its obligations under subsections 120(4) 1 and 4 of the Act, and subsection 15(2) of the Act in relation to each of the Applicant’s complaints.

THE LAW

15The relevant provisions of the Act are set out below:

Subsection 15(2) provides:

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.

Subsection 119(1) of the Act provides:

A person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the society in accordance with the regulations.

Subsection 119(2) of the Act provides:

Where a society receives a complaint under subsection (1), it shall deal with the complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation, subject to subsection 120(2).

Subsection 120(1) of the Act provides:

If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may,

(a) decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 119 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section; or

(b) where the person first makes the complaint to the society under section 119, submit the complaint to the Board before the society’s complaint review procedure is completed.

Subsection 120(4) of the Act provides:

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 comply with subsection 15 (2).

Subsection 120(7) of the Act provides:

After reviewing the complaint, the Board may:

(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

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

(e) dismiss the complaint.

Subsection 120(8) of the Act provides:

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;

16With respect to the Applicant’s right to be heard, it is well established that being heard “…involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.” See PO v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara 2012 CFSRB 38 at paras. 14 -15, wherein the CFSRB described the purpose of provisions equivalent to subsections120(4)4 and 5 of the Act in its predecessor legislation, i.e., subsections 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990, C.11. This description of the purpose continues to apply to the current legislative scheme.

ISSUES

17At the hearing, the CFSRB was tasked to determine the following issues:

2. Whether the Society refused to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint? and,

3. Whether the Society failed to give the Applicant a chance to be heard when she raised her concerns regarding:

(a) the Society’s failure to inform the Applicant and the Court about the radiological findings of Dr. EM; and

(b) the suggestion by Society worker AG, during a Zoom call, that PK take a course, “Caring Dads?”

1. Whether the Society refused to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint?

18As previously noted, after reviewing the Applicant’s complaints, KS determined that the Applicant’s complaint regarding the Society’s failure to notify the Applicant and the Court of the radiological findings of Dr. EM was eligible for review and should proceed to an ICRP. In her letter of April 16, 2022, KS specifically noted that she would be in touch with the Applicant to schedule a meeting to review the eligible complaints.

19Notwithstanding, on May 11, 2022, the Applicant filed a complaint against the Society with the CFSRB alleging that the Society failed to comply with subsection 120(4)1 and 4 of the Act. At the time she filed her complaint with the CFSRB, the Applicant had not complied with subsection 119(1) of the Act; she had not filed the required Ministry form with the Society, in accordance with the regulations. However, the required form was later filed, and there is no dispute regarding the Applicant’s ability to proceed with her complaint to the Board, pursuant to subsection 120(1) of the Act.

20There is also no dispute that the Applicant did not schedule a meeting to review the eligible complaint before the ICRP and that she subsequently withdrew from the Society’s internal complaints process. Notwithstanding, at the time the Society filed its Response, it remained open to a complaint review meeting with the Applicant.

21At the hearing, when cross-examined by Counsel for the Society, the Applicant confirmed that the Society did give her an opportunity to meet with them, but that she withdrew from the Society’s internal complaints process because they only offered to review two (2) of her complaints, which she stated was not sufficient.

22The fact that the Applicant chose to disengage from the Society’s ICRP process because it determined that only two (2) of her complaints were eligible for review does not negate the evidence that the Society received the Applicant’s complaint, heard her concern regarding the Society’s failure to notify the Applicant and the Court of the radiological findings of Dr. EM, and took steps to advance that complaint to an ICRP, where her complaint would have been dealt with more thoroughly. The Applicant ultimately chose not to fully avail herself of the Society’s ICRP process.

23Accordingly, I find that with respect to the Applicant’s concerns regarding the Society’s failure to notify her and the Court of the radiological findings of Dr. EM, the Society met its obligations under subsection 119(1) of the Act, as required by subsection 119(2) of the Act.

24With respect to the Applicant’s complaint that Society worker AG suggested that PK take the “Caring Dads” course during a Zoom call, given KS’s determination that the complaint was ineligible for review, it is clear the Society was not prepared to discuss this complaint any further or take any further steps to address it.

25KS refused to review the complaint on the basis that “the agency’s assessment of risk to… [the Applicant’s] …children was a matter that was put before the family Court”. However, the Society did not adduce any evidence at the hearing which supported KS’s determination, nor did the Society advance this position at the hearing

26In my view, the Applicant’s complaint ought to have proceeded to an ICRP, and by deeming it ineligible, the Society denied the Applicant an opportunity for her complaint and the concern she raised to be dealt with more thoroughly.

27I find that by refusing to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint regarding the suggestion by Society worker AG that PK take the “Caring Dads” course, the Society failed to comply with its obligation under subsection 119(1) of the Act, as required by subsection 119(2) of the Act. However, for the reasons stated below, I decline to make an order that the Society proceed with the complaint made by the Applicant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation, and instead dismiss the Applicant’s complaint.

2. Whether the Society failed to give the Applicant a chance to be heard when she raised her concerns regarding:

(a) the Society’s failure to inform the Applicant and the Court about the radiological findings of Dr. EM?

28With respect to this issue, the following facts are not disputed by the parties:

a. The Applicant, not the Society, requested a second opinion from Sick Kids regarding the cause of EK’s injuries, following the opinion of the McMaster team that EK’s injuries were non-accidental. Dr. KN at McMaster referred EK to Sick Kids Bone Health Clinic for a second opinion on whether there was an underlying bone fragility disorder versus non-accidental injury.

b. The Applicant and EK (accompanied by kin) attended the Bone Health Clinic at Sick Kids in Toronto on February 8, 2018. At the time EK was seen, Sick Kids had not yet received all of EK’s records from McMaster. Consequently, Dr. EM was not able to complete her diagnostic imaging consultation report until February 22, 2018.

c. The Applicant requested the medical records from McMaster for EK from Society worker AR by email of January 25, 2018 and followed up with that request on February 14, 2018.

d. On March 6, 2018, Child Protection Worker VWF faxed to the Health Records Department at Sick Kids a request for the health records concerning AK and EK.

e. On March 14, 2018, the Health Records Department at Sick Kids sent to Child Protection Worker VWF a complete summary of medical records and a CD copy of diagnostic imaging.

f. The Society made its file available to the Applicant’s lawyer, subject to the lawyer signing a Counsel’s Undertaking Re: Disclosure of CAS File on March 28, 2018 that, among other things, the Applicant would only view the Society’s file at her lawyer’s office.

g. On April 6, 2018, the Applicant sent an email to Society workers DM and AB in which she stated:

I went through…[EK’s]…medical records at…[lawyer’s]…office this week and based on the reports from Bone Health Clinic in Toronto from February 22, 2018 in which they name six features that raise concern for possible bone health issue, I would like to discuss those further with their team.

The foregoing email was attached as an Exhibit to the Affidavit of HH sworn November 14, 2022, which the Society tendered as evidence at the hearing.

h. A SAF dated May 15, 2018, was filed by the Society, the Applicant and PK with the Ontario Court of Justice. The SAF was tendered as evidence by the Society at the hearing. The SAF included a paragraph which was added to the SAF as paragraph 9, and which the Applicant, PK and Child Protection Worker AB initialled. Paragraph 9 states:

[BKB] …received the medical records received from the medical professionals and a question/concern has arisen by the Bone Health Clinic regarding…[EK’s]…bone health. She requested CAS to do a follow up but she has now been able to obtain a further referral by the pediatrician to do a further assessment on…[EK’s]…bone health.

i. On June 29, 2018, the Applicant received from the Department of Health Records for Sick Kids, a complete copy of medical records up to June 11, 2018.

29The dispute lies in the Applicant’s allegation that neither she nor the Court were informed of the radiological findings of Dr. EM that raised bone fragility for EK. I am required under the Act to determine whether the Applicant was given the chance to be heard regarding this concern, not whether the Applicant or the Court were notified of the findings of Dr. EM by the Society. However, at the hearing, both parties focussed on the factual underpinnings of the Applicant’s complaints or concerns, rather than the issues at hand.

30However, the factual basis for this concern is relevant to my finding that the Society not only complied with its obligations under subsection 15(2) of the Act but informed the Applicant and the Court of the radiological findings of Dr. EM, contrary to the Applicant’s allegation.

31It is clear from the testimonies of the Applicant and HH, as well as the documentary evidence tendered at the hearing, that the Applicant requested EK’s medical records from the Society and Sick Kids, and that the Applicant subsequently gained access to those records from both the Society and Sick Kids.

32The medical records from the Health Records Department at Sick Kids were sent to Child Protection Worker VWF on March 14, 2018, following an earlier request by her the records.

33During her testimony, HH stated that any records received by the Society would have been sent directly to its legal department to prepare for release, and not to the client directly, in accordance with their internal policy. As such, VWF would not have been permitted to release the records from Sick Kids directly to the Applicant upon receipt, albeit HH admitted that, in the past, documents were mistakenly released to the Applicant.

34HH also testified that she was not aware Child Protection Worker VWF had received the medical records from Sick Kids in March of 2018, prior to the Applicant’s meeting with her lawyer, until she reviewed the Applicant’s Book of Documents. This is supported by HH’s evidence that she and AR sent a co-signed a letter to both McMaster and Sick Kids on June 28, 2018, requesting that they release their records directly to the Applicant as soon as possible. HH explained that, at the time the letter was written, AR was no longer the family’s Child Protection Worker but both she and AR tried to facilitate the Applicant’s retrieval of records given that she was only able to view them at her lawyer’s office in the past.

35On March 28, 2018, the Applicant’s lawyer signed an undertaking which enabled the Society to release its file to the lawyer so that the Applicant could view its contents at her lawyer’s office. When cross examined by Counsel for the Society on this issue, the Applicant confirmed that she attended her lawyer’s office to review the Society’s file in March of 2018.

36In her email of April 6, 2018 to Child Protection Workers DM and AB, the Applicant confirmed that she reviewed EK’s medical records at her lawyer’s office, and specifically referenced the report from the Bone Health Clinic in Toronto dated February 22, 2018, which cited six (6) features that raised a concern for a possible bone health issue. I have no doubt that the Applicant was referring to the radiological findings of Dr. EM in her email. In fact, the Applicant’s used the same, if not similar wording in her email as in Dr. EM’s report.

37The email sent by the Applicant to Child Protection Workers DM and AG, in and of itself, confirms that the Applicant not only received notice of the radiological findings of Dr. EM, but that she was distinctly aware of its contents.

38I am satisfied that the Society heard the Applicant’s concern regarding the Society’s failure to inform her of Dr. EM’s radiological findings, and after doing so was prepared to address her concern more fully at a review before the ICRP as confirmed by KS’s letter of April 16, 2022. There is no indication in any of the evidence before me that the Society was not prepared to engage in discussions or take the appropriate steps to address the Applicant’s concern. It was the Applicant who disengaged from the review process.

39I am also satisfied that the Society did notify the Applicant of the radiological findings of Dr. EM, both in providing access to the medical records in its file through her lawyer and in taking steps to facilitate her direct access to medical records through Sick Kids. As such, the Applicant had no factual basis for this concern.

40With respect to whether the Society provided the Court with notice of Dr. EM’s radiological findings, paragraph 9 of the SAF specifically states that a concern had arisen by the Bone Health Clinic regarding EK’s bone health. Paragraph 9 also references the Applicant’s request in her email of April 6, 2018 that the Society follow up with EK’s bone health. This paragraph was added to the SAF and initialed by the Applicant, PK and the Society; the SAF was signed by all parties and filed with the Court. At the time, the Applicant was represented by a lawyer.

41Given the contents of the SAF, and the fact that it was filed with the Court, I can only conclude that the Court received notice of Dr. EM’s radiological findings, particularly since neither the Applicant nor the Society filed any other documents which would lead me to conclude otherwise.

42When cross-examined by Counsel for the Society regarding paragraph 9 of the SAF, the Applicant confirmed that she initialed it, read it prior to initialing it, signed the SAF and had legal representation at the time but did not know what it said. I do not accept the Applicant’s testimony that she did not know what it said, given the foregoing admissions.

43Following the family Court proceeding of May 15, 2018, the children were returned to the Applicant’s care which in my view confirms that the radiological findings were before the Court and were factored into its decision concerning the care of the children. Accordingly, the Board would be precluded from reviewing this complaint, pursuant to subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act.

44For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that the Society did give the Applicant a chance to be heard when she raised this concern and that the Society did provide the Court with notice of the radiological findings of Dr. EM, which were specially referenced in the SAF and filed with the Court. As such, the Applicant had no factual basis for this concern.

45The Applicant chose to withdraw from the Society’s internal complaints process in respect of this concern and in doing so disengaged from an opportunity to be heard and to fully address this concern before an ICRP.

46Accordingly, I find that the Society met its obligations under subsection 120(4)4 of the Act with respect to this concern. Even where the Society had failed to meet its obligation, which is not the case here, the Board would not have the requisite jurisdiction to deal with this complaint under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act.

(b) the suggestion by Society worker AG, during a Zoom call, that PK take a course, “Caring Dads?”

63I have already determined that the Society failed to meet its obligation under subsection 120(4)1 of the Act. In failing to do so, the Society denied the Applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding this concern and refused to take any further steps to ensure that the Applicant’s concern was taken seriously and dealt with more thoroughly, contrary to subsection 120(4)4 of the Act. However, given the following reasons, I dismiss the Applicant’s complaint.

64At the hearing, the Applicant testified that after PK was “exonerated” by the criminal Court, she received a phone call from RG advising her that the Society was aware of the acquittal and wanted to discuss becoming reinvolved with the family. The Applicant was reluctant to meet with the Society but agreed to do so with her lawyer present.

65A Zoom call took place on April 12, 2021. The call was attended by the Applicant, PK, their lawyer, and the Applicant’s support person TB. AG and RG attended on behalf of the Society.

66When questioned by her representative how the suggestion that PK take the “Caring Dads” course came about, the Applicant testified that the Society asked how the family would be able to cope now that PK was back with the family and at that time asked whether PK would agree to taking a course. The Applicant further testified that it was at this time that the conversation turned to “Caring Dads,” but the family was not aware that the course was for abusive fathers, and it was not until their support person TB pointed it out that they became aware. The Applicant also testified that the Society had, in the past, suggested that PK take the “Caring Dads” course. When asked by her representative whether the Society had provided her with reasons for suggesting “Caring Dads,” the Applicant answered that they had not.

67Counsel for the Society filed as evidence a transcript of the Zoom call which took place on April 12, 2021. There is no dispute between the parties that the transcript of the Zoom call was obtained by the Applicant from an independent third party, that the Applicant recorded the Zoom meeting with the knowledge of all parties involved, and that the transcript was produced in its entirety. There is also no dispute that the same transcript was used by the Applicant in a previous CFSRB proceeding. The Society put the transcript to the Applicant during her cross-examination on this issue, and the Applicant was given additional time to review the transcript.

68During cross-examination, Counsel for the Society asked the Applicant to point to where in the transcript of the Zoom call Society worker AG suggested that PK take the “Caring Dads” course. The Applicant was unable to do so, stating only that AG brought up “programs;” that AG had in the past suggested “Caring Dads” to PK; and repeated that she was not aware it was for abusive fathers.

69A review of the relevant sections of the transcript which relate to the discussion regarding “programs” generally and “Caring Dads” specifically, makes it clear that it was PK who raised “Caring Dads” in the context of a conversation initiated by the Society worker AG regarding PK’s return to the family and caring for EK.

70I have paraphrased the relevant sections of the transcript below:

a. Within the context of the conversation described above, Society worker AG noted that there was an indication in prior documents that PK was interested in doing “parenting groups or something else” and asked whether there was anything the Society could do to assist in terms of that process. In response, PK acknowledged that it was a good question and asked, as a preliminary question due to the pandemic lockdown, “how these things done nowadays?” PK then referenced that they had talked about “Caring Dads” two years ago, which he suspected might be “out of the option at the moment.”

It is clear from the context that PK was referring to the accessibility of the program during the lockdown, not the appropriateness of the program.

PK went on to say that he was trying to figure out what was available to lessen the Society’s concerns.

b. At this point in the transcript, the Applicant interjected to make it clear that PK’s participation in a program would only be a show of good will, given that the family did not need the Society’s assistance. AG acknowledged the Applicant’s statement and PK agreed with it. However, PK went on to say that he hadn’t really looking into anything and was waiting on the Society to suggest something that would work for the Society as well, but he was still not sure how it would all work in pandemic conditions.

c. In response to the concern raised by PK regarding the pandemic conditions, RG advised that “Caring Dads” was still running but virtually, so there would still be an opportunity to engage that program.

d. At this time, the family’s support person TB flagged that “Caring Dads” was a program for abusive fathers. RG then clarified that the Society wanted to hear from the family on what they thought was the best fit for PK as he returned to the family and normal family functioning.

71Counsel for the Society referred the Applicant to the segment of the transcript wherein RG stated that the Society wanted to hear from the family on what supports they felt were appropriate for their family and asked the Applicant whether she suggested any parenting options. The Applicant responded that she was not interested in co-operating with the Society, and if they agreed to a program, it would only be a show of good will because it was being forced on them.

72During the Society’s questioning of RG on this issue, Counsel for the Society pointed RG to her letter dated April 9, 2021 which was addressed to the Applicant and PK. RG testified that the letter was sent before the Zoom call to confirm the purpose of the meeting, which included re-assessing concerns, engaging the family in meaningful discussions on safety planning for PK’s return to the home, and discussing parenting program options for PK. The transcript confirms that the matters discussed during the Zoom call did not deviate from RG’s letter.

73RG testified that the Society did not push programs on the family, and that neither she nor AG recommended that PK complete “Caring Dads.” RG testified that neither she nor AG brought up “Caring Dads” but that she only responded to PK’s inquiry about how programs were running during the lockdown, when she told PK that “Caring Dads” was virtual. The transcript supports and I accept RG’s testimony with respect to this issue.

74The transcript does not support the Applicant’s allegation that specific programs, courses or services were forced upon the family, and when asked by Counsel for the Society whether AG specifically suggested “Caring Dads,” the Applicant was not able to provide an affirmative answer.

75Moreover, it is clear from the transcript that after TB flagged “Caring Dads” as a program for abusive fathers, the discussion turned to what would be more appropriate, including consulting medical professionals. There is no mention of “Caring Dads” by AG anywhere in the transcript, much less is there any suggestion by AG that PK attend “Caring Dads.”

76The evidence before me does not support the Applicant’s allegation that Society worker AG suggested “Caring Dads” to PK during the Zoom call, nor does it satisfy me that there was a factual basis for the Applicant’s concern.

77Notwithstanding, I am satisfied that by failing to proceed with a review of the Applicant’s concern before an ICRP, the Society ultimately denied the Applicant her procedural rights and failed to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard when she raised her concern regarding the Society’s suggestion that PK take the “Caring Dads” course, contrary subsection 15(2) of the Act.

78The weakness of the Applicant’s complaint does not diminish her rights under subsections 119(1) or 15(2) of the Act, nor does it release the Society from its obligations under the Act. However, the weakness of the Applicant’s complaint does factor into the remedy which may be ordered under subsection 120(7) of the Act.

79Given that there was no factual basis for the Applicant’s concern, I decline to order that the Society proceed with this complaint in accordance with its obligations under the Act and instead dismiss the complaint.

DECISION

80With respect to the Applicant’s complaint that the Society failed to meet its obligations under subsection 119(1) of the Act, as required by subsection 119(2) of the Act, and under subsection 15(2) of the Act, in relation to the Applicant’s concern regarding Society worker AG’s suggestion that PK that take the “Caring Dads” course during the Zoom call, I find that the Society failed to meet its obligations under the Act.

81However, given my finding that there was no factual basis for the Applicant to make the complaint or raise the concern, I decline to order the Society proceed with the complaint in accordance with the complaints review procedure established by the regulation.

82With respect to the Applicant’s complaint that the Society failed to meet its obligations under subsection 119(1) of the Act, as required by subsection 119(2) of the Act, and under subsection 15(2) of the Act, in relation to the Applicant’s concern that the Society failed to give the Applicant and the Court notice of the radiological findings of Dr. EM, I find that the Society met its obligations under the Act, and furthermore, that this issue was decided by Court.

ORDER

83The Application is therefore dismissed in its entirety.

Confidentiality Order

84Pursuant 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.