CAW v. Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiyag Child & Family Services, 2023 CFSRB 69

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CAW

Applicant

-and-

Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiyag Child & Family Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Malcolm M. MacFarlane Date: August 16, 2023 Citation: 2023 CFSRB 69 Indexed As: CAW v Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiyag Child & Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

CAW, Applicant CAW, Self-represented

Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiyag Child & Family Services, Respondent Wes Marden, 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, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2This decision considers the Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent did not comply with the terms of a May 1, 2023 settlement agreement (“the Settlement Agreement”).

background

3The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. These sections oblige a children’s aid society to provide service recipients with the opportunity to be heard and to provide reasons for decisions which affect an individual’s interests.

4The parties reached a settlement during a May 1, 2023, mediation. The written Settlement Agreement required that:

1. The Applicant and the Society agree to convene and participate in a circle facilitated by an indigenous neutral facilitator employed by the Society in order to provide an opportunity for the Applicant’s concerns to be heard and for the Applicant to receive reasons from the Society for their actions.

2. The circle shall take place at a mutually agreeable date, time and location within the next 30 days.

3. The Applicant is permitted to have a support person attend the circle with her.

5On June 10, 2023, the Applicant sent an email to the CFSRB alleging that the Respondent had not complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. In the email, the Applicant stated that their reasons for alleging non-compliance were,

• I felt rushed
• the agency didn’t really seem interested
• the agency kept calling and wanting to change the date and time making me feel uncomfortable
• I asked two specific questions and did not feel as though I was given a truthful answer
• the first question was how can my daughter guarantee she’s not going to be bothered
• the second question was why does the agency have people spying on my daughter
• had trouble using the video chat and it was stressful

6On June 26, 2023, the CFSRB received a Response from the Respondent to the allegations of non-compliance.

7The CFSRB scheduled a non-compliance hearing for July 26, 2023. Both parties made oral submissions at the July 26, 2023 hearing.

analysis

8In deciding whether the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, I have considered the Settlement Agreement, the Applicant’s June 10, 2023 email, the Respondent’s June 26, 2023 letter, and the parties’ oral submissions during the July 26, 2023 hearing.

9The March 24, 2023 Settlement Agreement required:

1. The Applicant and the Respondent to participate in a circle facilitated by an indigenous neutral facilitator employed by the Society. The Circle was to take place by June 2, 2023.

2. The Applicant was permitted to have a support person participate in the circle with her.

10During the hearing both the Applicant and the Respondent agreed that the circle took place on June 2, 2023 which was within the required time frame. It was agreed that the circle was facilitated by a neutral facilitator.

11The Applicant did not have a support person during the circle. Both the Applicant and the Respondent agreed that the Respondent did not refuse to allow a support person. The reason why the Applicant did not have a support person was that her support person was unavailable. The Applicant chose to proceed without a support person.

12With regard to the issues raised by the Applicant in paragraph 5 above, it was agreed that the circle lasted for 45 minutes to one hour and that the facilitator did provide the Applicant with time at the end of the meeting to review her notes and ensure that everything she wished to address had been addressed. Further, the facilitator attempted to create a positive atmosphere for the Applicant to be heard through smudging and ensuring only one person spoke at a time. While the Applicant may have felt “rushed” I find that ample time was provided for the Applicant to express her concerns, to be heard, and to receive reasons from the Respondent.

13Although the Applicant stated she was more comfortable with a Zoom platform than with the Teams platform used, the facilitator did take time before the meeting to orient the Applicant to the Teams platform. The Applicant expressed that a videoconference was preferable to her to an in person circle in this case. I find that the video platform used did not significantly compromise the Applicant’s ability to be heard and receive reasons.

14With regard to the Applicant’s question of how her daughter can guarantee she will not be bothered by further complaints; it was clarified during the hearing that the Respondent is required to investigate any complaints received and there can be no guarantees around this. The Applicant expressed that she understands this reality but is not happy with it. The Respondent further clarified that they do have processes in place for addressing frivolous or vexatious complaints.

15At the end of the hearing the Applicant stated that there were no further actions from the Respondent she would like to see as a result of the hearing.

16Based on the above evidence, I find that the circle was convened within the required time frame by an indigenous facilitator and that although the Applicant did not have a support person present this was not due to any restrictions or failure on the part of the Respondent but was due to the support person’s unavailability and the Applicant’s decision to proceed without a support person. For these reasons I find that the core requirements of the Settlement Agreement have been met.

CONCLUSION

17For the above reasons, I find that the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

18As the Respondent has complied with the Settlement Agreement, the CFSRB’s file is now closed.

confidentiality order

19Pursuant 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.