CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
ML
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney
Indexed As: ML v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
ML, Applicant Self-Represented
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent Mira Pilch, Counsel
introduction
1This decision refers to 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”).
2The CFSRB found the Application (Complaint) eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3The Applicant is the father of a then 16-year-old daughter (the “Young Person or K”) who was provided service by Respondent staff after she moved into the home of her boyfriend (“MM’s home”). The Applicant alleged that the home was unsafe, and that 2 Respondent Workers who were assigned to MM’s home (the “Workers”) acted improperly in supporting the Young Person’s decision to leave home. The Applicant alleged that the actions of the Workers led to the Young Person being abused.
4The Applicant identified the following 9 Issues/Concerns in his Complaint:
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns nor did they explain their reasons related to Respondent staff members’ alleged failure to guide his daughter toward safety when they first encountered Kiera during a site visit to MM’s apartment;
The Applicant alleges that workers did not hear his concerns nor did they explain their reasons that staff decided to not seek out K’s family when they decided to speak to an unrelated adult about his daughter without his permission;
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns about MM;
The Applicant alleges that Respondent has not heard his reports of the impact of their actions/inaction on his daughter;
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide answers to the questions in his March 1, 2023, letter;
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his requests for supports to disengage MM from his daughter’s life; including encouraging his daughter to seek mental health support;
The Applicant alleges that he was not provided with reasons as to why workers determined that the home his daughter was residing in was safe;
The Applicant alleges that Respondent workers failed to provide reasons when he raised concerns that CAST workers providing services to MM’s household did not reach out to him when they first interacted with his daughter; and
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent could not hear his concerns about workers’ interactions with his daughter as they failed to contact and inform him that they were interacting with his daughter. This restricted his ability to express his concerns.
HEARING
5A hearing was held by videoconference on October 6, 2023. At the hearing the member explained that the hearing would focus on whether the Applicant was heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made; and whether he was given reasons for decisions made that affected his interests.
6The parties clarified the list of witnesses and entered documents into evidence. In addition, the parties agreed to narrow the list of Issues/Concerns to be addressed at the hearing to included Issues/Concerns 1, 2, and 7 outlined above. The remaining Issues/Concerns were removed from the issues list.
Issues of Jurisdiction
7During their opening statements the parties raised 2 jurisdiction questions related to the interactions between the Applicant’s daughter and the Workers which they argued impacted on the focus of the hearing. The parties agreed that submissions would be sought related to the following 2 questions:
Was the Applicant a service recipient during the period when the 2 Workers spoke with the Applicant’s daughter in the home of MM?
At the time the 2 Workers spoke with the Applicant’s daughter in the home of MM, was the Respondent required to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions about his interests were made?
Respondent’s Submissions – Question 1 Whether the Applicant was a Service Recipient
8The Respondent argued that the Complaint was ineligible for review as the Applicant was not a person who had sought or received services at the relevant time in which the events that formed the subject of the remaining issues in the Complaint took place. As such, the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to review the Complaint.
9At the time the Applicant and his wife received services by Worker R, the Child was 16, had left her family, and was residing separately and independently from her parents. She had the right to make her own decisions regarding where she lived. Respondent staff did not find that the Young Person was in need of protection. Some of the interactions with the Young Person may have been considered service; however, the service was provided to the Young Person alone with her consent and without parental involvement. Respondent staff were precluded from contacting the Young Person’s parents without