DF v. Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay, 2024 CFSRB 136

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

DF Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: November 19, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 136 Indexed As: DF v Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2The Children and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 119(5), 120(4)2, 120(4)3, 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3In its Interim Decision on June 18, 2024, the CFSRB ordered the hearing to proceed in writing. The CFSRB’s August 27, 2024, Case Management Direction provided that the Applicant was to provide written submissions by September 27, 2024, and the Respondent to file their written submissions by October 11, 2024. The Applicant was to provide a reply by October 18, 2024, if desired.

4After the deadline for written submissions, the Applicant requested to add investigators and school boards to the Application. That is beyond the scope of this hearing.

ISSUES

5The issues drawn from the Application and that fall within the CFSRB’s eligibility determination are as follows:

1. Did the Respondent respond to the Applicant’s complaint within the time frame required?
2. Did the Respondent fail to comply with its complaint review procedure?
3. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concerns and/or give meaningful reasons regarding: a. the Applicant’s requests to receive accommodations for specific services; b. the Applicant’s concerns about whether the Respondent is assigning qualified workers to his file; c. why there was correspondence which indicated that the Applicant’s file would be closing; and d. why a decision was made to have 2 workers meet with the Applicant’s son.

RESULT

6Having reviewed the submissions and documents presented, I find the following:

1. The Respondent failed to fully respond to the Applicant’s complaint within the time frame required;
2. The Respondent failed to comply fully with its complaint review procedure;
3. The Applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard, but the Respondent did not give the Applicant meaningful reasons regarding: a. the Applicant’s requests to be accommodated and receive a written explanation on how the Applicant contravened a cell phone policy; b. the Applicant’s concerns about why there was correspondence from a mediator which indicated that the Applicant’s file would be closing; and c. why there was a decision to have two workers meet with the Applicant’s son.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: The Respondent did not fully respond to the Applicant’s complaint within the required time

7Reg 156/18: General Matters Under the Authority of the Minister (the “Regulation”) outlines the required times for a children’s aid society to proceed with an internal complaint. It mandates that the Society shall determine eligibility within 7 days of receiving a complaint, and a meeting of the Internal Complaints Review Panel (the “ICRP”) shall be held within 14 days after the date of written notice to the complainant that the complaint is eligible for review, or at such later time as may be requested by the complainant. A written summary of results must be provided within 14 days of the ICRP meeting.

8The Applicant emailed the Respondent’s Executive Director asking to file a complaint on January 30, 2024. On the same day, the Respondent wrote back providing the steps required to formally bring a complaint. The Applicant followed with an email requesting accommodation. The Respondent followed up on January 31, 2024, with a request seeking clarification on what accommodation was being sought.

9On February 2, 2024, the Respondent’s Executive Director advised the Applicant that the necessity for the complaint to be made on the form prescribed by section 56 of the Regulation would be waived. The complaint provided on January 30, 2024, and the Applicant’s three emails sent on February 2, 2024, would serve as the formal complaint to initiate the ICRP process.

10On February 8, 2024, within the 7-day time requirement, the Respondent sent an email to the Applicant confirming that the complaint had been deemed eligible to proceed to an ICRP. The email provided the Applicant with two potential dates for the IPRC meeting, February 22, and February 23, 2024. The ICRP was held on February 23, 2024, which was 15 days after the date confirming eligibility.

11On February 27, 2024, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent stating that he did not have enough time to present his concerns at the ICRP meeting and asked for a second meeting. In response, the Respondent sent an email on March 6, 2024, requesting an extension to provide the written summary of the ICRP meeting. The Applicant’s email dated March 7, 2024, consented to the extension.

12An additional meeting of the ICRP was held with the Applicant on March 13, 2024, and a summary of the ICRP meeting was sent with follow up steps on March 21, 2024.

13Based on the above, I find that the Respondent failed to fully respond to the Applicant’s complaint within the required time, in that the ICRP was held one day later than required. Although there was non-compliance of the Regulation, the date for the ICRP was only one day past the required time, it was a mutually agreed upon date, and it ultimately proceeded on that date.

14Sections 119(10) and 120(7) of the Act together set out the decisions that the CFSRB may make upon a review of allegations under section 120(4)2 that a society has failed to respond to a complaint within the required time This includes, under section 120(7)(c), ordering a society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation. Given that the Applicant’s complaint ultimately proceeded through two separate ICRP meetings, there is no further remedy the CFSRB may order.

Issue 2: The Respondent failed to fully comply with its complaint review procedure.

15The Respondent failed to fully comply with the review procedure, however, there is no further remedy for the CFSRB to provide.

16The evidence before the Board shows that the Respondent did not follow all aspects of its internal review procedure. Section 56 of the Regulation states that all complaints must be made using a prescribed form entitled “Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP)”. On February 2, 2024, the Respondent waived the requirement for the Applicant to complete the prescribed form in response to the Applicant’s request for accommodation, and instead accepted an email from the Applicant as the formal complaint. Although the Respondent did not comply with its review process, the complaint was deemed eligible to proceed and in fact resulted in two meetings with the ICRP, benefitting the Applicant.

Like above, sections 119(10) and 120(7) of the Act together set out the decisions that the CFSRB may make upon a review of allegations under section 120(4)3 that a society has failed to comply with its complaint review procedure or other procedural requirements. The procedure which was waived by the Respondent benefitted the Applicant as it enabled him to proceed with the complaint and attend the ICRP. Requiring the Applicant to complete the prescribed form would be redundant at this point and would pose a barrier to the Applicant. There is no further remedy that the CFSRB can provide at this time.

Issue 3: The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns but did not give meaningful reasons for some of its decisions.

17An application deemed eligible under section 120(4)4 of the Act, is limited to reviewing only 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. The CFSRB’s jurisdiction does not include hearing allegations related to a society’s general practices. Concerns about a society’s general practices are not ones contemplated by the Act.

18The Applicant’s complaint was also deemed eligible under section 120(4)5. The right to reasons under the Act means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. The CFSRB’s jurisdiction does not include reviewing whether meaningful reasons were provided for matters which fall outside of these criteria.

19The Applicant’s submission included a list of approximately 13 matters he would like addressed and reviewed by the CFSRB. In addition to the complaints listed in paragraph 5, the Applicant’s submission included requests for documents, forms, contact information, general policies, and practices. Those items are beyond the scope of what is reviewable under section 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 as they are related to internal, general matters.

20The Applicant and Respondent have engaged in a parallel complaint process. On February 23, 2024, the Applicant met with the ICRP for 1 hour and 45 minutes to discuss his complaint. After this meeting, the Applicant sent an email stating that he did not feel he had enough time to have all his complaints heard and requested an additional opportunity to meet with the ICRP. The request was granted, and the Applicant met with the ICRP again on March 13, 2024, for almost two hours, so he could be heard.

21On March 21, 2024, the ICRP provided the Applicant with a letter stating that “after a careful review of the information provided in person and in written format, it was making the following recommendations: a review of the service file by two external reviewers; and a review of the actions of the staff by an external reviewer”. The external review was commenced, and a final report was provided to the Applicant on July 12, 2024.

22A copy of ICRP findings and the investigation report was submitted as evidence. Neither the written ICRP summary or the written external review report makes specific mention of any of the issues listed in paragraph 5 above, either in their summaries of what was reviewed and discussed, or in the findings and recommendations.

23Both parties also submitted numerous emails and letters in support of their respective positions which I have considered in determining whether the Applicant was heard and provided reasons.

24Based on the fact that the Applicant was provided with two separate opportunities to meet with ICRP as well as provide additional information and materials relating to all of his concerns relating to decisions affecting his interests, coupled with the recommendation by the ICRP to have the file and actions of staff reviewed by external reviewers, I find that the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to be heard.

25In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held that:

… what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making decisions to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

26It may be that meaningful reasons regarding the issues were provided by the Respondent to the Applicant during the ICRP or considered during the external review on many o the issues, but without these being reflected in either of those reports, I must mostly rely on the emails before me to determine the sufficiency of reasons provided to the Applicant. Based on what has been submitted, I find that the Respondent has not provided meaningful reasons in relation to some of its decisions.

a) The Respondent did not provide reasons for all of the Applicant’s requests to receive accommodations for services

27In an email dated, December 18, 2023, the Applicant asks for accommodation stating, “I have asked for accommodations in the past under the AODA. Knowing that there were [previous] requests for accommodation, I would have expected that I would have been asked if I needed any accommodation for my formal request into an investigation.” The Applicant sought accommodations for various matters as shown in at least 5 emails presented to the CFSRB. Although the specific accommodation being sought is not always clear, the Applicant has expressed to the Respondent that he requires accommodation or assistance understanding material, and the preferred method would be via written explanation.

28From a review of the Applicant’s numerous emails to the Respondent requesting accommodations, the requests focus on four separate matters: a) a written explanation on how the Applicant contravened a cell phone policy b) a request for the formal complaint to initiate an ICRP be accepted without using the prescribed form; c) assistance to obtain case worker notes and; d) assistance to start the complaint to the CFSRB.

29The Applicant requested information regarding cell phone use on October 4, 2023, as well as an accommodation. It is not clear what the accommodation was that was being requested at that time. In response, the Respondent provided the Service User Agreement and Text Messaging Guidelines via email on November 1, 2023. According to an email by the Applicant to the Respondent’s worker on March 6, 2024, he clarified that his accommodation request was not for an electronic version of a policy, but reasons for why it was thought he had contravened it. “I asked for accommodation under the AODA to have it explained to me in writing, what “you” specifically believed was contravening the policy.”

30No evidence was provided to show that the Applicant ever received a response. As the first requests were made prior to the ICRP meetings, he would have had an opportunity to be heard on this concern. However, I find that the Applicant was not provided meaningful reasons on how he contravened the cell phone policy.

31The Applicant emailed the Respondent on October 31, 2023, asking to initiate a formal investigation. The Applicant submits that he also spoke to the Respondent on November 9, 2023, wishing to initiate the internal review process, and to be accommodated in doing so by submitting his complaint verbally. He sent an email asking for a response to this request on December 11, 2023. On December 12 and 19, 2023, the Respondent acknowledged the Applicant’s complaint but did not respond to the request for accommodation or provide information on what was required to formally bring the complaint to the ICRP. The Applicant again emailed the Respondent with a request to initiate a formal investigation on January 24, 2024.

32Based on the evidence provided, it does not appear that the Applicant was provided with information on how to initiate the ICRP process or whether his accommodation request to do so was being considered until January 30, 2024, when he was asked what accommodations would be required. The request for accommodation was approved in writing on February 2, 2024.

33I find that the Applicant’s request for accommodations on the initiating of the complaint process was not taken seriously or heard until he escalated his requests to the Executive Director. However, reasons were eventually given to the Applicant on February 2, 2024, and accommodation for the ICRP process provided. As such, there are no other remedies that the Board can provide on this issue.

34Last, the Applicant asked for assistance to obtain case notes and to initiate the CFSRB application. An email was sent to the Applicant one day after the request on how to obtain notes and directing him to resources to seek accommodations with the CFRSB matter. I find that the Applicant was heard and provided reasons for his accommodation requests on how to obtain worker notes and how to begin the CFSRB matter.

b) The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and gave meaningful reasons about whether the Respondent is assigning qualified workers to his file.

35The Applicant has made multiple requests via email for information on workers including registration numbers and their qualifications prior to the ICRP meeting. He would have had an opportunity to voice his concerns about the qualifications of the workers assigned to his file at these meetings.

36On March 25, 2024, the Respondent provided information about registration numbers for all of the workers the Applicant had requested. The Applicant’s response reiterates his request for further information: “In your words, “Please note that none of the workers are registered with The Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Services Workers.” You are stating that not one of six (6) employees, including three (3) workers, a Supervisor, Director of Services and Yourself, have never been registered? What qualifications do they have for their position? Do any workers have any education in children’s mental health?”

37The final report of the external review touches on this concern. It states the following:

It is noted that the staff employed by the Society who are engaged in providing services and investigations related to child protection are governed primarily by the Child and Youth Family Services Act, 2017 (“CYFSA”) and regulations thereunder. The staff receive training and support in ensuring that the Society’s standards and obligations arising under the CYFSA are satisfied. It is further noted that it is not required that all staff employed by the Society who are engaged in providing services and investigations related to child protection must be registered social workers under the CYFSA or otherwise.

38The Respondent has provided an explanation related to overall qualifications of staff employed by the Respondent.

39The Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Respondent and for which the Respondent is giving reasons under section 120(4)5. As such, the CFSRB has no authority to deal with complaints about the qualifications of specific workers who may have been assigned to the Applicant’s file.

c) The Respondent has not provided meaningful reasons on why there was correspondence which indicated that the Applicant’s file would be closing.

40On October 31, 2023, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent stating that the Respondent had threatened to close his file. The Respondent responded on the same day noting that there was no threat to close the file. On December 18, 2023, the Applicant alleged again that there was a threat made to close the file.

41The Applicant has provided a letter which was written by a mediator to the Respondent dated November 6, 2023. The mediator was involved in an attempted mediation with the Respondent and Applicant. It notes “my understand[ing] is that the issues between yourself and the parties was addressed and that you will be closing the file from the Child Welfare perspective.”

42In an email dated January 24, 2024, the Respondent wrote to the Applicant stating, “At the in-person meeting in October we discussed and addressed your concerns…It was further clarified that your file remains open for ongoing services.”

43There is no evidence put before the CFSRB which seeks to answer the Applicant’s concerns or address why the mediator believed that the Applicant’s file would be closed.

44The Applicant was provided with opportunities to be heard regarding the concern of whether the file was being closed during the two ICRP meetings, as well as an in-person meeting with the Respondent in October 2023. However, based on the evidence before me, I find that the Applicant was not provided with reasons on why there is correspondence from the mediator that the file would be closing, which is in conflict with what the Respondent’s worker has said.

d) The Respondent did not provide meaningful reasons regarding the decision to have two workers meet with the Applicant’s son.

45The Applicant requested information on who authorized having two workers meet with his son on October 26, 2023, and how this decision was made. The issue is anchored in a concern that additional workers meeting with his son may cause undue stress and anxiety.

46The Applicant would have had the opportunity to discuss his concerns and be heard during the ICRP meetings.

47None of the ICRP reports, the external investigation report or any emails put before the CFSRB provide any information showing reasons why the decision was made to have two workers meet with the Applicant’s son on October 26, 2023. As such, I find that the applicant was not provided reasons on this matter.

CONCLUSION

48For the reasons set out above, I find:

1. the Applicant established that the Respondent failed to respond to the Applicant’s complaint within the required time, but there is no further remedy that the CFSRB can order;
2. the Applicant has established that the Respondent failed to comply with the complaint review procedure, but there is no further remedy that can be ordered by the CFSRB;
3. the Applicant failed to establish that he was not given the opportunity to be heard; and
4. the Applicant has established that the Respondent did not give the Applicant meaningful reasons related to: a) how the Applicant contravened a cell phone policy b) why there are conflicting notes around the closure of the Applicant’s file; and c) why was a decision made to have two workers meet with the Applicant’s son.

ORDER

49The Application is upheld in part.

50Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with detailed written reasons for the following:

1. stating how the Applicant contravened the cell phone policy
2. why there are conflicting notes around closure of the file
3. why a decision was made to have two workers meet with the Applicant’s son.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

51Pursuant 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.