LB v. Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services, 2024 CFSRB 127

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

LB Applicant

-and-

Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Malcolm M. MacFarlane Date: November 08, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 127 Indexed As: LB v Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

LB, Applicant Self-represented

Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services, Respondent Jeffery Hustins, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (“CYFSA” or “the Act).

2A hearing on the merits was held on October 10, 2024. The Applicant testified. Supervisor Andrea Shirtliff (the Supervisor) and worker Lisa Carswell testified for the Respondent.

3As context to this hearing, the Applicant is the mother of a child aged ten and was parenting this child on a 50/50 basis with the child’s father based on a Children’s Law Reform Act, R.SO. 1990, c.C.12 court order. The Respondent became involved with the Applicant due to concerns regarding the Applicant’s substance use, mental health issues, and conflict between the Applicant and her current partner. The Respondent has opened a total of five investigations since 2020. In late 2021, in response to the Respondent’s above concerns, the child was placed in the father’s primary care under the terms of a Voluntary Service Agreement between the parents and the Respondent.

ISSUES

4The issues in dispute revolve around whether the Applicant was heard by the Respondent and provided with reasons regarding ten issues identified in the initial Application and further clarified in a July 4, 2024, Prehearing. The issues are identified as issues 1 to 10 below:

1. The Applicant alleges CAS worker Aaron Cox did not provide her with reasons for why the child, IB, was allowed to remain with her father in May 2021, when the father failed to return her to the Applicant as per custody agreement. The Applicant further alleges she was not heard when she expressed concerns as to why the child was allowed to remain in her father’s care without her input or consent.

2. The Applicant alleges CAS worker Meagan Finley did not communicate with the Applicant after her arrest in October 2021, despite the Applicant attempting to contact Ms. Finley via email and text messages. Ms. Finley also did not communicate revisions to the child’s visitation schedule and did not provide reasons for why the child’s schedule of visitation was changed.

3. The Applicant alleges she was not provided information on what steps were taken for each investigation (six investigations) against her, the reasons for why investigations were opened and the decision-making process.

4. CAS worker Lisa Bardswich provided a signed affidavit to the Court on November 11, 2020, which included a reference by another CAS worker, Lisa Gregory, indicating that she (Lisa Gregory) had concerns about the child’s father’s motivation for multiple reports about the Applicant to the CAS. The endorsement by Justice Krause indicates “CAS is opening a file for ongoing services to mitigate risk with the mother”, “none of these recommendations limits the mother’s contact with the child or suggests [the child] should not be in her care.” The Applicant alleges she was not provided information about the ongoing services provided by CAS.

5. The Applicant alleges that she was not heard and acknowledged by CAS worker Meagan Finley after email conversations between her and the Applicant on May 11,2021, regarding services provided by CAS worker Aaron Cox.

6. The Applicant alleges that the child’s father harassed and bullied her via text and email and provided screenshots to CAS worker Meagan Finley between May 11 and June 15, 2021. The Applicant alleges she was not heard and acknowledged when she raised concerns about the relationship with the child’s father leading to parental conflict.

7. The Applicant alleges she was not heard and acknowledged after sending an introduction email to CAS worker Meagan Finley on May22, 2021.

8. The Applicant alleges she was not provided information regarding a conversation with “a CAS worker” on November 12, 2021, acknowledging that she, the Applicant, could not care for the child on a 50/50 basis.

9. In December 2021, the Applicant requested contact information from CAS worker, Meagan Finley for the Supervisor. The Applicant alleges she was not provided contact information or a meeting and was not provided reasons for why a meeting was not set or contact information provided.

10. The Applicant alleges she did not meet with CAS worker Lisa Carswell or CAS worker Meagan Finley prior to June 2022 regarding the development of the Voluntary Service Agreement (VSA). The Applicant alleges the workers had not been in recent or constant contact with her to determine her situation and alleges she was not provided reasons for how and why the terms for the VSA were determined.

RESULT

5For issues 1, 3 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 I find for the Applicant and these issues are upheld.

6Issues 2 and 5 are dismissed due to lack of evidence.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

7On August 23, 2024 a Case Management Hearing was held to address issues raised by the Applicant regarding adequacy of disclosure by the Respondent, and in particular issues regarding redaction of Respondent case notes. I reviewed both redacted and unredacted copies of the case notes and found that redactions were appropriate to protect the privacy of third parties. The Applicant relied upon these redacted documents in her exhibits. In some cases, the redaction made interpretation of the documents challenging, however when supplemented by the Applicants testimony, the documents were understandable.

8Several further documents were requested by the Applicant and subsequently disclosed by the Respondent prior to the hearing. No issues were raised regarding filing and disclosure at the hearing on the merits October 10, 2024, however the Applicant continues to maintain that numerous items of email correspondence from the Applicant to the Respondent were not included in the disclosure. This leads the Applicant to believe she was not heard by the Respondent regarding the concerns she raised in this correspondence.

ANALYSIS

Issue #1: The Applicant alleges she was not provided with reasons for why the child was allowed to remain in the father’s care in May 2021 and was not heard regarding her concerns about this decision.

9Regarding this issue, I find that the Applicant was not heard by the Respondent regarding her concerns and was not provided with reasons for this decision.

10The concerns the Applicant alleges were not heard revolve around a) her argument that the father’s complaints against her were motivated by a desire to obtain custody of the child, b) concerns she raised and believed were not heard by the Respondent regarding the father having been involved in the past in inappropriate sexual interactions with a minor, and c) her argument that the adult conflict the Respondent was concerned about between the Applicant and her current partner did not take place while the child was present. The Applicant argued that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons for why these concerns were not heard and considered in the Respondent’s decision to allow the child to remain in the father’s care in May 2021.

11Regarding concern a) the Applicant testified that she had raised with the Respondent several times her concerns regarding the father’s possible motivation for making complaints regarding her that led to the Respondent’s involvement. In support of her argument regarding the father’s motivations to obtain custody of the child, the Applicant submitted as evidence a November 19, 2020 endorsement sheet from the Superior Court of Justice in Barrie, Justice Krause, in which the Justice indicated she was “troubled” by the father’s failure to follow court orders regarding joint custody of the child and the father’s actions in unilaterally keeping the child out of school to prevent the child returning to her mother. Justice Krause did not appear to share the father’s concerns regarding risk to the child, stating, “I am satisfied there was no evidence that the RM [Respondent Mother] was actively engaging in drug use or adult conflict that would place the child at immediate risk.” The Applicant argued that the Respondent was aware of Justice Krause’s Endorsement and should have considered the information in this Endorsement as part of their investigation.

12Regarding concern b) the Applicant testified that she raised concerns with the Respondent regarding her ex-partner’s past inappropriate sexual behaviour with a minor and questioned whether her child would be safe with the father given this history. In support of her testimony, the Applicant entered a CPIN log in which she discussed by text message with worker Aaron Cox her concerns about the child’s safety and a text message in which she included screen shots of a conversation with a third party where these issues were raised. In the CPIN log, the Applicant denied any specific knowledge of the child’s father being sexually inappropriate with the child.

13The Respondent’s worker indicated in this CPIN correspondence that without specific identifying information regarding the identify of the minor individual that the father was alleged to have been sexually inappropriate with, the Respondent was unable to further investigate this matter.

14Regarding concern c) the Applicant testified that she attempted to clarify with worker Aaron Cox that the child was not present during an argument she had with her current partner, and that a no-contact order by the court had been removed. The Applicant argued that given these facts, the Respondent’s concerns regarding the impact on the child of conflict between the Applicant and her current partner were overstated. The Applicant alleges she was not heard by the Respondent regarding this matter.

15Counsel for the Respondent did not cross examine the Applicant on this or any other issue following the Applicant’s testimony.

16The Supervisor’s affidavit speaks to conversations between the Applicant and Aaron Cox regarding the Applicant’s failure to follow a safety plan that called for keeping the child away from her current partner. In her Affidavit, the Supervisor reports Aaron Cox as stating that the Applicant felt that it was appropriate to be in the same residence with her current partner, so long as the child was kept in a different room or left in the car outside the residence while she visited with her partner.

17The Supervisor’s affidavit also speaks to discussions between the Applicant and worker Meagan Finley regarding concerns the Respondent had regarding the Applicant, and in particular there were conversations between Meagan and the Applicant explaining the Society’s concerns, position, and next steps. I draw an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to submit as documentation any CPIN notes that record these alleged conversations. This failure leaves me with only the Supervisor’s hearsay evidence on which I place little weight. For these reasons, I prefer the Applicant’s evidence on this point.

18The Applicant testified that during the change of workers from Aaron Cox to Meagan Finley, she believes that many messages regarding the above issues sent by her to the Respondent were lost, and that as a result, her concerns were not heard and Meagan Finley was not fully aware of her concerns. The Applicant testified that there were many messages from her that were not included in the disclosure the Respondent provided to her. In her testimony, the Supervisor later confirmed that there were a number of messages from the Applicant that were missing from the CPIN record. She stated that she was not aware of these emails and some of this missing information would have factored into the Respondent’s assessments. The Supervisor did not provide an explanation for the missing correspondence.

19In her Affidavit, the Supervisor testified that, “Based on the CPIN records, on May 7th 2021, worker Aaron Cox met with Larissa virtually to discuss the Society’s concerns and its safety plan for the child.” Her Affidavit further stated that, “Based on the CPIN records, on May 11th and 12th 2021, there were conversations between Meagan and Larissa again explaining the Society’s concerns, position, and next steps.” The Respondent again did not submit copies of these CPIN notes as documentary evidence, and neither Aaron Cox nor Meagan Finley are available to provide direct testimony on this matter. As noted above, I draw an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to submit CPIN notes pertaining to these conversations.

20Neither the Supervisor nor Ms Carswell provided oral testimony regarding the reasons why the child was allowed to remain in the father’s care in May 2021, and the Respondent entered no documents in evidence supporting having provided the Applicant with reasons for this decision at the time. The Respondent’s Response to the original Application does provide history and reasons for the Respondent’s decisions, however the Response is not evidence. Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent entered into evidence any documentation of the Safety Plan formulated in May 2021 or the Voluntary Service Agreement (VSA) and its terms.

21In reviewing the above evidence, I find that there is no evidence before me indicating that the Respondent heard the Applicant regarding her concerns about her ex-partner’s motivation for making complaints against her. I also find no evidence that the Respondent heard the Applicant regarding her concerns for the child’s safety with the father given allegations of the father’s past sexual inappropriateness with a minor. Further, the fact that the CPIN record is missing a number of emails from the Applicant to worker Meagan Finley is concerning and raises questions regarding whether the concerns expressed in the emails was considered by the Respondent in completing their decision making. Finally, while the Supervisor’s Affidavit spoke to discussions between the Applicant and worker Meagan Finley about the Respondent’s concerns, in the absence of either direct testimony from Ms. Finley or documentary evidence in the form of the CPIN notes pertaining to these conversations, I have no clear evidence of what was discussed in these meetings, and therefore must rely upon and give weight to the Applicant’s testimony. Given that Counsel for the Respondent did not cross examine the Applicant on her testimony, the Applicant’s testimony stands unchallenged for this and all other issues.

22Based on the testimony and evidence before me, I find in favour of the Applicant regarding this issue.

Issue #2: The Applicant alleges CAS worker Meagan Finley did not communicate with the Applicant after her arrest in October 2021 and did not provide reasons for why the child’s schedule of visitation was changed

23This issue is dismissed for lack of evidence.

24The Applicant testified that she sent several documents and emails to worker Meagan Finley attempting to reach out and communicate following the change of worker from Aaron Cox to Meagan Finley, however the email evidence the Applicant submitted pertained only to dates from May 11, 2021 to June 4, 2021 and were not relevant to the October 2021 period at issue.

25Given the lack of documentary evidence before me regarding this issue, I make no finding and this issue is dismissed.

Issue #3: The Applicant alleges she was not provided information on what steps were taken for each investigation (six investigations) against her, the reasons for why investigations were opened and the decision-making process.

26I find that the Applicant was not provided with complete information regarding the reasons for why investigations were opened and the decision-making process.

27I base this finding on testimony by the Respondent that they failed to provide at least two official closing letters summarizing the results of their investigations. In her Affidavit, the Supervisor indicates that of five investigations on record, closing letters were not provided for two of these investigations, specifically, the first investigation from 06/01/2020-23/01/2020 and a subsequent investigation from 01/11/2021-20/01/2022.

28The Applicant testified that despite requesting verification forms for each of the six investigations undertaken by the Respondent, she has only received copies of two verification forms. Verification forms would have provided the Applicant with reasons for why investigations were opened and the decision-making process.

29The Supervisor testified that during the course of several investigations that took place, the methods for documenting verifications changed with some verifications done using a template and others documented in the Respondent’s contact logs. She suggested that this may have made it difficult for the Applicant to identify all verifications provided in the disclosure.

30The Respondent did not submit any documentary evidence in support of the Supervisor’s testimony that copies of all verification documents had been provided to the Applicant. The Respondent also did not submit documents supporting that they provided the Applicant with copies of closing letters at the time of closing.

31In the absence of any documentation from the Respondent that the Applicant has been provided with copies of all verification forms and given the testimony of the Supervisor that closing letters were not sent for two investigations, I find that the Applicant was not provided with reasons for why investigations were opened and the decision-making process.

32Based on the testimony and evidence before me, I find in favour of the Applicant on this issue.

Issue #4: The Applicant alleges she was not provided information about the ongoing services provided by CAS referred to in Justice Krause’s endorsement

33I find that the Applicant was not provided information about the ongoing services provided by CAS referred to in Justice Krause’s Endorsement.

34In the Endorsement, Justice Krause on page seven wrote, “The CAS is opening the file for ongoing service and provided recommendations to the RM [Respondent Mother] to mitigate risk.” These comments appear to refer to the Applicant’s conflict with her current partner.

35The Applicant testified that she had no knowledge of what “ongoing services” the Respondent expected to provide that were referred to in Justice Krause’s report.

36The Supervisor in her affidavit referenced a contact log of worker Aaron Cox, dated January 15th, 2021 which stated “Writer conducted a virtual home visit with [the Applicant] and [the child] Writer spoke with [the Applicant] first and recapped what some of the goals/service plan outcomes were.”

37Again, the CPIN notes from this January 12, 2021 interaction were not submitted as documentary evidence, and worker Aaron Cox was not available to testify, so it is not clear from the evidence whether the “ongoing services” referred to by Justice Krause were part of this discussion. Again, I draw an adverse inference form the absence of CPIN notes. I accept the Applicant’s uncontested testimony that she was not provided with information regarding the services mentioned in Justice Krause’s Endorsement.

38Based on the testimony and evidence before me, I find in favour of the Applicant on this issue.

Issue #5: The Applicant alleges that she was not heard and acknowledged by CAS worker Meagan Finley after email conversations between her and the Applicant on May 11,2021, regarding services provided by CAS worker Aaron Cox.

39Issue #5 is dismissed.

40As discussed above in regard to Issue #2, the Applicant submitted several emails addressed to Ms. Finley dating from May 11, 2021 to June 4, 2021. None of the emails included speak to issues regarding services provide by Aaron Cox.

41The Applicant’s testimony did not directly address or explain her issues with Aaron Cox and did not clearly identify any emails, correspondence or documentation related to this issue.

42In the absence of any documentary evidence or oral testimony regarding the Applicant’s specific issues regarding services provided by Aaron Cox, I have no basis on which to make a finding regarding this issue.

43For the above reasons, this issue is dismissed.

Issue #6: The Applicant alleges she was not heard and acknowledged when she raised concerns about the relationship with the child’s father, including a history of harassment and bullying by the child’s father, leading to parental conflict.

44Regarding issue #6, I find that the Applicant was not heard and acknowledged when she raised concerns about the relationship with the child’s father, including a history of harassment and bullying.

45The Applicant raised concerns regarding her ex-partner’s history of harassment and bullying in at least one email to Ms. Finley dated June 4, 2021 and submitted in evidence. In the email she notes that complaints to CAS by the child’s father began at the time that she began to pursue child support. She further alleges in the email that the father had a history of malicious calls to CAS.

46Again, this email appears to be missing from the Respondent’s CPIN records as the Applicant testifies that it was not included in disclosure.

47In her affidavit, the Supervisor states that “There are several communications between Meagan and [the Applicant] noted in CPIN between May 11th and June 15th, 2021. There is no specific communication on June 15, 2021…None of the contact logs demonstrate [the Applicant] was concerned with the father harassing her.” This reinforces for me that this email is missing from the CPIN logs.

48In the absence of any testimony from Ms. Finley, who was unavailable to testify, and in the absence of any documentation in the form of CPIN logs to indicate that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding harassment by the child’s father I find that the Applicant was not heard by the Respondent regarding her concerns.

49Based on the testimony and evidence before me, I find in favour of the Applicant on this issue.

Issue #7: The Applicant alleges she was not heard and acknowledged after sending an introduction email to CAS worker Meagan Finley on May22, 2021.

50For Issue #7, I find that the Applicant was not heard and acknowledged after sending an introduction email to CAS worker Meagan Finley.

51The Applicant included a copy of this “introduction” email to Meagan Finley in her evidence. The email described something of the Applicant’s family background. The Applicant testified that she did not receive a response to this email.

52In the Supervisor’s affidavit, she states, “There is no email in CPIN documented correspondence between Meagan and [the Applicant] on May 22, 2021.” Based on this, it appears that this email is one of the emails that are missing from the CPIN file.

53The Supervisor’s affidavit notes several contacts between the Applicant and Ms. Finley subsequent to this email, but as no CPIN notes were submitted as documentation of the topics of conversation during these contacts and as Ms. Finley is unavailable to testify, I have no evidence to dispute the Applicant’s uncontested testimony that she never received a response to this introduction email.

54Based on the testimony and evidence before me, I find in favour of the Applicant on this issue.

Issue #8: The Applicant alleges she was not provided information regarding a conversation with “a CAS worker” on November 12, 2021, acknowledging that she, the Applicant, could not care for the child on a 50/50 basis.

55For Issue #8, I find that the Respondent was unable to provide the Applicant with reasons for why a CPIN note by supervisor Cristine Frasier included a statement that the Applicant could not care for the child on a 50/50 basis when there was no documentation in any CPIN note by a worker of such a statement by the Aapplicant.

56The Applicant testified that a CPIN note by supervisor Christine Frasier included in her disclosure stated that the Applicant “acknowledged to worker; on Friday November 12, 2021, that she cannot care for [child] on a 50/50 basis.”

57The Respondent acknowledged in an October 2, 2024 email that it was unable to locate any documentation of this comment in any CPIN note documenting that the Applicant made this statement to a worker.

58In her oral testimony, under cross examination, the Supervisor acknowledged that the statement in question should have been more clearly referenced and that it was not properly documented in their system.

59Based on the testimony and evidence before me, I find in favour of the Applicant on this issue.

Issue #9: The Applicant alleges she was not provided contact information or a meeting with supervisor Andrea Shirliff, and was not provided reasons for why a meeting was not set or contact information provided.

60For Issue #9, I find that the Applicant was not provided contact information or a meeting with the Supervisor. Because the Applicant was not provided with the Supervisor’s contact information, she was not able to have her concerns heard.

61The Applicant testified that there are multiple emails in the disclosure that document repeated calls to worker Meagan Finley requesting to speak with her supervisor. These emails were not entered into evidence as exhibits, therefore they are not before me as evidence.

62In her Affidavit, the Supervisor reproduces a number of text messages between the Applicant and Ms. Finley, including one message dated December 17, 2021 in which the Applicant messages, “I would love to speak to your supervisor face to face and allow her to hear my side of things.”

63In her Affidavit, the Supervisor states that she first became aware that the Applicant wished to speak with her on May 12, 2022 when worker Ms. Carswell informed her of this. She reports reaching out to the Applicant on several occasions between May 12 and May 17, 2022 when they were finally able to connect. In her oral testimony, the Supervisor confirmed that she was unaware that the Applicant was trying to reach her.

64While I have no documentary evidence before me other than Applicant’s testimony and the text message noted in the Supervisor’s Affidavit that the Applicant made multiple attempts to obtain contact information for the supervisor, I find on a balance of probabilities that the Applicant did attempt to reach out to contact Ms. Finlay’s supervisor, and was not provided with the requested contact information or a meeting with the supervisor. To her credit, once she became aware of the Applicant’s desire to communicate, she did respond in a timely and appropriate manner.

65In none of the testimony I received were reasons given for why the worker did not provide contact information for the Supervisor at an earlier point in time or inform the supervisor that the Applicant wished to speak with her.

66For the above reasons, I find in favour of the Applicant on this issue.

Issue #10: The Applicant alleges she did not meet with CAS workers prior to June 2022 regarding the development of the Voluntary Service Agreement (VSA).

67For Issue #10, I find the evidence does not support a conclusion that the Respondent met with the Applicant prior to June 2022 regarding development of the VSA.

68The Applicant testified that she did not see the VSA until June 2022 when it was presented to her for signature. As a result, she says that she had no opportunity to provide input into the VSA or discuss its terms of the VSA. She also states that she had little communication with her worker prior to signing the VSA, in part due to being in the hospital for one week..

69In contrast, the worker described multiple attempts in April and May 2022 to meet with the Applicant. She testified that she met with the Applicant on June 6, 2022 received updates from the Applicant about her health at that meeting. She states she also reviewed the VSA with the Applicant at this meeting. The worker further stated that on June 20, 2022 the VSA was again reviewed with all parties before it was signed.

70I am left with contradictory testimony from the Applicant and the worker on this issue. As with other issues, the Respondent did not enter into evidence any CPIN notes documenting either the attempts and difficulties the worker had in meeting with the Applicant, or CPIN notes documenting her discussions with the Applicant. The worker testified that she made changes to the visitation schedule of the VSA following discussions with the Applicant, however there was no documentation provided in support of these discussions or resultant changes to the VSA. As with other issues, I draw an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to submit any CPIN notes that record these alleged conversations.

71For the above reasons, I find in favour of the Applicant on this issue.

CONCLUSION

72Issues 1, 3 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are upheld. Some of these issues relate to the Applicant not being heard and some relate to the Applicant not being provided with reasons.

73Section 120(7) of the Act states that:

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 or with any other requirements under this Act;

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

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.

74The remedy available to me in this case is to order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant.

ORDER

75Issues #2 and #5 are dismissed.

76With respect to Issues #6, #7, and #8, I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard in the course of the hearing and no further remedy is required.

77With regard to the remaining issues, by Friday, December 5, 2024 the Respondent is to provide the Applicant with written reasons addressing the following:

i. Regarding Issue #1, Reasons why the child was allowed to remain with the father in May 2021. These written reasons shall address how the Respondent considered the following concerns of the Applicant and how these concerns influenced the Respondent’s decisions:

a) The Applicant’s concerns that the father’s complaints against her were motivated by a desire to obtain custody of the child,

b) The Applicant’s concerns regarding the father having been involved in the past in inappropriate sexual interactions with a minor, and

c) The Applicant’s argument that the adult conflict the Respondent was concerned about between the Applicant and her current partner did not take place while the child was present.

ii. Regarding Issue #3, provide a clear description of why each investigation was opened and of the verification process and reasons for verification.

iii. Regarding Issue #4, provide details regarding the services the Respondent proposed to provide to “mitigate risk with the mother” as described in Justice Krause’s Endorsement.

iv. Regarding Issue #9, Provide reasons for why the Applicant was not provided with contact information or a meeting with a supervisor in December 2021

v. Regarding Issue #10, Provide reasons for why there was not more opportunity for the Applicant to have input into the development of a Voluntary Service Agreement prior to finalizing and signing the agreement.