CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
ED
Applicant
-and-
Payukotayno James and Hudson Bay Family Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk
Indexed As: ED v Payukotayno James and Hudson Bay Family Services
(CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
ED, Applicant
Self-represented
Payukotayno James and Hudson Bay Family Services, Respondent
Sonia Migneault, Counsel
OVERVIEW
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”). A hearing was held by videoconference on November 12, 2024.
ISSUES
2The Application consists of the following complaints under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act:
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons for the investigation relating to her son, AW, surpassing 45 days in duration.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not sufficiently explain to her in writing what the child welfare “concerns” were relating to her, as referenced to her by Respondent staff members.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her concerns about, or sufficiently explain to her, the provisions included in a Voluntary Services Agreement (including those related to her ability to protect AW).
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not explain the verification decision made during its investigation relating to AW or provide information in writing to the Applicant related to this decision.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons as to why, in May 2024, a Respondent staff member, MVL, informed her that the Respondent would be commencing a protection application naming the Applicant and then later, retracted its intention to commence this proceeding.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with sufficient reasons relating to why, in July 2024, an after-hours worker, CK failed to take steps to confirm the wellbeing of AW despite the Applicant’s referral to CK relating to AW’s safety and supervision at that time.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not explain how it considered the Applicant’s history and experience of trauma by VJ, the same person alleged of harming her son, AW, in its provision of services to the Applicant.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her concerns about the impact of its services on the Applicant and AW.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear or explain what steps it had taken to address the Applicant’s concerns that she felt harassed and bullied by certain Respondent staff members.
3The Respondent submits it complied with subsections 15(2), 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
RESULT
4Having reviewed the testimony and documents presented at the hearing, I find the following:
The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for its investigation surpassing 45 days in duration.
The Respondent explained to the Applicant the child protection concerns that were the subject of its child protection investigations.
The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the Voluntary Services Agreement (“VSA”) and explained its terms to her as best it could given the Applicant’s resistance to direct contact with the Respondent.
The Respondent failed to explain the verification decision to the Applicant in relation to AW and did not provide the Applicant with information related to this decision.
The Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for not commencing a child protection proceeding after she was informed that there would be a child protection proceeding in May 2024.
The Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for an incident in July 2024 when an after-hours worker failed to take appropriate steps to confirm the wellbeing of AW.
The Applicant has failed to establish that the Respondent did not consider the Applicant’s history and experience of trauma by VJ, the person alleged of harming her son, in its provision of services to the Applicant.
The Applicant failed to establish that the Respondent did not hear her concerns about the impact of its services on the Applicant and AW.
The Applicant’s complaint does not relate to services sought or received by her and, therefore, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review this issue.
ANALYSIS
Context
5At the time of the hearing, the Applicant had two children, AW and JD, and was pregnant with her third child.
6The Respondent most recently became involved with the Applicant on April 3, 2024, at which time it began a child protection investigation into concerns that the Applicant was not adequately protecting her children from being sexually abused by the Applicant’s step-father, VJ. It was alleged that AW made a disclosure of sexual abuse by VJ. There is a history of verified sexual abuse of the Applicant by VJ when the Applicant was a child. The Applicant testified that she reported the abuse by VJ.
7A concurrent child protection investigation was initiated on April 5, 2024, further to allegations of domestic violence between the father of the Applicant’s younger child and the Applicant, as well as allegations of substance abuse by the Applicant.
8The Respondent closed its file in relation to the Applicant and her children on or about July 8, 2024.
Issue 1: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for the investigation relating to her son, AW, surpassing 45 days in duration?
9The parties agree that child protection investigations are to be concluded within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the referral. They also agree that where a child protection investigation cannot be concluded within 45 days, it is within the supervisor’s discretion to extend the timeframe up to 60 days from the date of referral.
10The position of the Respondent is that the investigation did not exceed 45 days but, even if it did so, the Respondent may extend that time to 60 days.
11The Applicant submits that the child protection investigation conducted by the Respondent exceeded 45 days. She acknowledged being aware that the investigation could be extended to 60 days, however, it was her evidence that the Respondent did not inform her the investigation was being extended despite her making numerous requests asking about this. The Applicant included emails she sent to the Respondent, including on May 10, 2024, and May 22, 2024, asking about the status of the investigations and whether a decision had been reached to extend the investigation beyond 45 days. There is no evidence the Applicant received a response.
12Jessica Linklater is a Child Protection Worker employed by the Respondent. She was assigned to conduct the child protection investigations in this matter. Ms. Linklater testified that there were two concurrent child protections investigations involving both children, the first investigation having been initiated on April 3, 2024 and the second investigation having been initiated on April 5, 2024.
13Ms. Linklater testified that she transferred the file to ongoing service on May 27, 2024. It was Ms. Linklater’s evidence that she was unable to complete her investigation standards as she could not meet with AW to interview him as part of the child protection investigation. This suggests that the investigation had not been concluded as of May 27, 2024.
14Mark Van Luven, Manager of Child Welfare for the Respondent, testified that he sent the Applicant an email on May 24, 2024, that stated “…there were verified child welfare issues related to her family and that she would receive a formal letter from the service team”. This appears to suggest that a verification decision had been made and, therefore that one or both investigations had been concluded as of this date, but this is not clearly stated nor was a verification date provided.
15Erin Chilton, a Child Protection Supervisor employed by the Respondent, testified that she sent a closing letter to the Applicant by way of email on July 8, 2024 but that it ‘bounced back’. It was her evidence that the same letter was sent by another staff member during her absence. A July 8, 2024 email from the Respondent to the Applicant was admitted into evidence as part of the Respondent’s care. The letter states that the Applicant’s file will be closed as the Applicant had confirmed VJ would not be in a caregiving role or have unsupervised visits with her children. This letter does not speak to the outcome of the investigations.
16The Applicant entered into evidence a letter from the Respondent to the Applicant dated July 17, 2024. In that letter, the Respondent states, among other things, “The Agency has concluded their investigation as of July 17, 2024” and advises that it had notified the Band Representatives that the investigation has been concluded and the file was being closed. This suggests the investigations may not have been concluded until July 17, 2024 which is well beyond 60 days from the date of the referral.
17May 20, 2024 was the 45th day after the start of the second investigation which was initiated on April 5, 2024. There is no evidence before me that a supervisor approved the extension of the time for the child protection investigations from 45 to 60 days. June 4, 2024 would have been the extended completion date for the second investigation. It is unclear from the evidence when the child protection investigations were concluded and the findings or verifications that were made.
18For the reasons set out above, I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for the investigation surpassing 45 days.
Issue 2: Did the Respondent sufficiently explain to the Applicant, in writing, what the child welfare “concerns” were relating to her, as referenced to her by Respondent staff members?
- and –
Issue 4: Did the Respondent explain the verification decision made during its investigation relating to AW or provide information in writing to the Applicant related to this decision?
19Issues 2 and 4 are related and, for that reason, I am addressing them together.
20Jessica Linklater testified that the child protection investigation initiated on April 3, 2024 related to allegations that the child AW had disclosed sexual abuse by VJ, and reports that the Applicant was permitting VJ to have unsupervised contact with the children. Ms. Linklater testified that a concurrent investigation was initiated on April 5, 2024 related to allegations of domestic violence as between the Applicant and TS who is the father of JD, as well as allegations that the Applicant was abusing substances during her current pregnancy. Further to disclosures by the Applicant and TS, the Respondent advised the Applicant that it had concerns about TS having unsupervised contact with the children.
21It was Ms. Linklater’s evidence that she met with the Applicant on April 16, 2024 at which time she discussed the protection concerns including AW’s reported disclosure of abuse by VJ, VJ’s history of abuse of children including the Applicant, the Respondent’s concerns about VJ having unsupervised contact with the children, as well as the concerns about the Applicant’s relationship with TS, concerns about TS having unsupervised contact with the children, and reports of substance abuse by the Applicant.
22Based on the oral testimony and the documentary evidence, I find that the Respondent did explain the child protection concerns and the allegations under investigation to the Applicant.
23The Applicant’s ability to discuss the child protection issues in a more fulsome way with the Respondent was hampered by multiple refusals by the Applicant to interact directly with the Respondent. The Applicant directed that communications from the Respondent go through her Band Representatives’ Office or through her lawyer.
24Although the Applicant was aware of the ‘concerns’ that led to the child protection investigations, I find the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with confirmation as to when the child protection investigations were concluded and the outcome of the investigations including any verifications related to the Applicant.
25Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Respondent sent a letter to the Applicant dated July 8, 2024 which suggested the nature of the concerns. This letter was admitted into evidence. The letter includes a statement that the Applicant’s ongoing protection file has been closed as the Applicant confirmed that the children’s step-grandfather would not have unsupervised contact with the children.
26Respondent’s counsel further submits that there were multiple email exchanges with the Applicant where the Respondent made it clear that the children having contact with the step-grandfather was the problem and advised the Applicant what she needed to do to mitigate those concerns. However, none of this assists the Applicant in determining if one or more of the allegations about her that had precipitated the child protection investigations had been verified or not verified. The Applicant’s evidence was that she had been sexually abused as a child by the step-grandfather, had reported the abuse and had always taken appropriate steps to keep her children safe from him.
27As was discussed in relation to Issue 1, Mark Van Luven sent an email to the Applicant on May 24, 2024 advising her that there were “verified child welfare issues”. However, no particulars were provided with respect to the verified child protection issues. Mr. Van Luven advised the Applicant she would be receiving a formal letter regarding the verified child protection issues but there is no evidence that occurred.
28The Respondent provided the Applicant with a letter dated July 17, 2024 stating that it had concluded its investigation. The letter goes on to state that the Applicant’s file was being closed. The letter does not provide the Applicant with any information as to whether any of the child protection issues that were the subject of its investigation had been verified. The Applicant is entitled to this information.
29I find that the Respondent did not explain to the Applicant what, if any, of the child protection concerns that were the subject of the child protection investigations, had been verified by the Respondent.
Issue 3: Did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concerns about, or sufficiently explain to her, the provisions included in the Voluntary Services Agreement (including those related to her ability to protect AW)?
30Jessica Linklater met with the Applicant and her Moose Cree First Nation Band Representative on April 16, 2024 for a planned meeting to discuss the Respondent’s protection concerns. On April 17, 2024, Ms. Linklater sent the Applicant a draft VSA by way of email. The VSA set out conditions that the Applicant shall not allow any unsupervised contact between the VJ or TS and the children.
31On April 17, 2024, the Applicant also advised Ms. Linklater via email that she would not sign the VAS and asked that her file be closed.
32It was Ms. Linklater’s evidence that she was advised by her supervisor of the supervisor’s discussions with the Band Representative and the plan for the Moose Cree First nation to meet with the Applicant to review the VSA with her. Ms. Linklater followed up with the Applicant on April 30, 2024 to schedule a meeting. It was Ms. Linklater’s evidence that she received an automated message that the email could not be delivered and that the email account was not found.
33Ms. Linklater attempted to reach the Applicant by phone on April 30, 2024 to schedule a meeting. The Applicant directed Ms. Linklater to contact her Band Representative to schedule any meetings with her. She also advised Ms. Linklater to schedule any meetings via email and hung up before Ms. Linklater could inform her that the email account was not working.
34Ms. Linklater testified that she contacted the Band Representative for an update on May 1, 2024 and was informed by the Band Representative that she had provided a copy of the VSA to the Applicant and that the Applicant would be discussing it with her lawyer.
35On May 9, 2024, Ms. Linklater met with the Band Representative who advised her that the Applicant, under the direction of her lawyer, would not be signing the VSA with the Respondent.
36The Applicant did not dispute the evidence of Ms. Linklater on this issue.
37I find that the Respondent made reasonable efforts to meet with the Applicant to review the terms of the proposed VSA with her and that it was unable to do so as a result of the Applicant’s refusal to meet with Respondent representatives. The Respondent cannot be faulted for not explaining a document to an individual who refuses to meet with them or speak with them about the document.
38Subsection 15(2) of the Act requires that service providers 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. In this case, the Respondent made attempts to provide the Applicant with opportunities to be heard. She declined those opportunities.
Issue 5: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons why, in May 2024, a Respondent staff member, MVL, informed her that the Respondent would be commencing a protection application naming the Applicant and then later, retracted its intention to commence this proceeding?
39Jessica Linklater testified that she sent the Applicant a Voluntary Service Agreement on April 17, 2024 which set out conditions that the Applicant not allow any unsupervised contact by either VJ or TS with the children. The Applicant responded that same day that she would not sign the Voluntary Service Agreement and asked that her file be closed.
40Ms. Linklater testified as to her subsequent efforts to meet with the Applicant which were unsuccessful. It was Ms. Linklater’s evidence that on May 1, 2024, she advised the Applicant’s Band Representative that the Respondent would be commencing a child protection proceeding.
41It was Mark Van Luven’s evidence that, on May 24, 2024, he reiterated to the Applicant the Respondent’s intent to commence a child protection proceeding.
42The Applicant was aware of the protection concerns that were being investigated, however, there is no evidence that she was provided with the protection concerns that had been verified and, relatedly, the basis for the Respondent commencing a child protection proceeding.
43No child protection proceeding was commenced by the Respondent.
44It was the evidence of Erin Chilton, Child Protection Supervisor, that she conducted a home visit with the Applicant on July 5, 2024 at which time she advised the Applicant that the Respondent would be closing its file on the basis that the Applicant had agreed she would not be allowing unsupervised contact between the children and their step-grandfather.
45At some point between May 24, 2024 and July 5, 2024, the Respondent decided against proceeding by way of a child protection proceeding. There is no evidence as to when that decision was made, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent notified the Applicant at the time the decision was made or the reasons for it. In fact, when Mr. Van Luven was asked in cross-examination the reason the Applicant had not been notified the Respondent would not be commencing a child protection proceeding, his response was that she received notice when her file was closed.
46I find that the Respondent did not explain to the Applicant the basis for it informing her it was proceeding by way of a child protection proceeding and the reason for the reversal in its position.
Issue 6: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with sufficient reasons relating to why, in July 2024, an after-hours worker, CK failed to take steps to confirm the wellbeing of AW despite the Applicant’s referral to CK relating to AW’s safety and supervision at that time?
47On July 10, 2024, the Applicant traveled to Timmins with JD and her father for an appointment. The Applicant had arranged for AW to be cared for by his father while she was away, however, AW’s father advised the Applicant at the last minute that he could not care for AW. TS offered to care for AW and the Applicant agreed.
48On or about July 12, 2024, TS became inebriated and was not responding to the Applicant’s efforts to reach him. The Applicant contacted Nishnawbe Aski Police Service (“NAPS”) and asked them to conduct a wellness check. The Applicant’s evidence is that she did not hear back from NAPS.
49The Applicant testified that TS became inebriated again on or about July 13, 2024. The Applicant contacted NAPS for assistance. It was her evidence that the responding peace officer was hostile towards her. Despite this, the Applicant’s evidence is that she called NAPS a second time and requested an after-hours number for the Respondent.
50It was the Applicant’s evidence that she called the Respondent’s after-hours number several times before she received a return call from the after-hours worker. According to the Applicant’s evidence, the after-hours worker informed the Applicant that she did not cover the Applicant’s area. She advised the Applicant that she would follow up with her supervisor and get back to her. The Applicant testified that she waited approximately twenty minutes before hearing back from the after-hours worker. The Applicant’s evidence was that the after-hours worker told her she had tried several times, unsuccessfully, to reach AW’s father and the trusted individual the Applicant suggested she contact. The Applicant testified that she asked the after-hours worker to call NAPs and that the after-hours worker responded by telling the Applicant to call them herself.
51The evidence of Geraldine Cheechoo, an Associate Executive Director employed by the Respondent, is that the after-hours worker had attempted to reach NAPS without success.
52The Applicant testified as to her subsequent efforts to locate AW and find someone reliable to care for the child. It was the Applicant’s evidence that she learned from her brother that AW was at the residence of the Applicant’s mother where VJ also resides. The Applicant testified that she was not comfortable with this. It was her evidence that she asked VJ to spend the night elsewhere but he refused to speak with her. The Applicant contacted the police again. It was the Applicant’s evidence that she heard back from Moose Factory NAPS and was told that a wellness check had been done and that AW was at her mother’s residence. The police asked the Applicant if it was okay that he stay there for the night and she agreed.
53According to the Applicant’s evidence, she eventually heard back from the after-hours worker requesting more information. The Applicant testified that she responded with profanity and hung up on the after-hours worker.
54It was the evidence of Geraldine Cheechoo that, typically, when an on-call matter is received and the risk of harm is coded over the intervention line under the Ontario Child Welfare Eligibility Spectrum, the Respondent is mandated to respond to the call within the timeline specified by the Ontario Child Protection Standards. Ms. Cheechoo’s evidence was that the Respondent has a unique situation in that most communities they serve are fly-in only and, as such, the Respondent is not always able to respond to calls in the same fashion as ‘mainstream agencies’.
55Ms. Cheechoo testified that, whenever possible, the Respondent will generally complete an in-person visit after-hours calls when the matter is urgent within 12 hours of the referral. For an urgent on-call matter, the on-call worker will consult with the on-call supervisor to establish next steps, and together they determine whether community partners are required to assist the Respondent or whether a Respondent worker will tend to the call. The direction as to how a case will be managed will depend on the facts of the case, the nature of the referral and the level of urgency.
56It was Ms. Cheechoo’s evidence that, in this case, process would have dictated that the after-hours worker complete a further supervisory consultation which did not occur.
57The Respondent’s evidence is that this was effectively a ‘systems failure’ and an internal issue. It was also the Respondent’s evidence that it only learned of the incident on July 26, 2024 when it received the Applicant’s Application to the CFSRB. Ms. Cheechoo testified that, following this incident coming to her attention, she immediately reminded all child welfare staff of the Respondent’s expectations during emergency after-hours services.
58The Respondent submits that it provided reasons to the Applicant through this proceeding and that the Applicant also has all the information available by way of disclosure she has been provided during the course of this proceeding.
59I find that the Respondent has provided sufficient reasons for this incident and has also indicated that steps have been taken to correct the issue.
Issue 7: Did the Respondent explain how it considered the Applicant’s history and experience of trauma by VJ, the same person alleged of harming her son, AW, in its provision of services to the Applicant?
60There is no evidence that this was an issue raised by the Applicant during the period services were being provided to her by the Respondent. It appears to have been raised by the Applicant for the first time during the course of the CFSRB proceeding.
61As previously noted, the Applicant provided few opportunities for the Respondent to have direct communications with her. Melissa Longhi, a Child Protection Supervisor employed by the Respondent, testified about her conversation with the Applicant on April 4, 2024 in which she explained to the Applicant that the Respondent had received concerns about VJ. It was Ms. Longhi’s evidence that the Applicant’s response is that they were “all lies” and she blamed TS for making the referral.
62During a meeting that took place between the Applicant and Jessica Linklater on April 16, 2024, the evidence of Ms. Linklater is that the Applicant advised her that she did not have protection concerns with her parents or VJ, did not acknowledge concerns about the children being in the unsupervised care of VJ, and became upset when Ms. Linklater suggested to her that VJ should be supervised when around the children.
63On July 5, 2024, near the end of the Respondent’s involvement in this matter, the Applicant met with Erin Chilton, a Child Protection Supervisor employed by the Respondent. It was Ms. Chilton’s evidence that, during this meeting, the Applicant shared a significant amount about her experience as a child with VJ and spoke of the services she and her children were receiving. The Applicant agreed she would not allow VJ to have unsupervised contact with her children and was advised by Ms. Chilton that, based on that agreement, the Applicant’s file would be closed.
64There is no evidence that the Applicant raised her history or trauma related to the abuse she suffered at VJ’s hands during the child protection investigations. Despite this, in their closing letter dated July 8, 2024, the Respondent encouraged the Applicant to continue to utilize her therapist when needed.
Issue 8: Did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concerns about the impact of its services on the Applicant and AW?
65The Applicant testified that the child protection investigation caused both her and AW significant stress.
66The evidence of Mark Van Luven is that, on June 12, 2024, the Applicant sent him an email that the Respondent’s involvement was causing “serious emotional turmoil on [her] son” and that the Respondent was taking her son’s “sense of security away”.
67The testimony of Mr. Van Luven is that the only contact the Respondent had with the Applicant’s children at that juncture was on April 6, 2024 when AW provided a statement to the police. The child had been brought to the police station by his maternal uncle, not Respondent staff. The Respondent had not been able to conduct an independent interview of the child as the Applicant refused to permit it. As far as face-to-face contacts with the Applicant were concerned, it was Mr. Van Luven’s evidence that there were two meetings, one outside the Applicant’s home on April 4, 2024 and a second meeting at the Respondent’s office on April 16, 2024.
68It was Mr. Van Luven’s evidence that he offered to meet with the Applicant. She declined. Mr. Van Luven encouraged the Applicant to speak to her First Nation for support and to express her concerns.
69In Erin Chilton’s July 8, 2024 closing letter to the Applicant, Ms. Chilton encouraged the Applicant to continue utilizing her therapist when needed and that AW continue with his therapy services as well. Ms. Chilton also encouraged the Applicant to utilize her Band Representative for additional supports and services, as required.
70I find that the Applicant has not established that the Respondent did not hear her concerns about the impact of its involvement on her and AW. As has been noted throughout this Decision, the Applicant was provided with numerous opportunities to meet with Respondent to discuss her concerns. The Applicant made the choice to decline these opportunities.
Issue 9: Did the Respondent fail to hear, or explain the steps it had taken to address the Applicant’s concerns that she felt harassed and bullied by certain Respondent staff members?
71Although the Applicant expressed concerns about various members of the Respondent’s staff from time to time, the only individual she identified at the hearing was the Respondent’s Executive Director.
72The Applicant takes the position that she was harassed by the Executive Director of the Respondent Society related to an incident the Applicant says took place on May 24, 2024. More specifically, it was the Applicant’s evidence that the Executive Director drove by her on May 24, 2024 and smiled at her. This was perceived by the Applicant as an act of bullying, intimidation and harassment. The Applicant called the police to report the incident.
73It was the evidence of Geraldine Cheechoo, Associate Executive Director for the Respondent, that she was contacted by the Applicant on May 25, 2024 who described what had occurred the previous day and how it had made her feel. The Applicant asked for contact information for the Board of Directors and Ms. Cheechoo provided the Applicant with the requested information.
74The Applicant made a formal complaint about the Executive Director in relation to the May 24, 2024 incident. The complaint was managed by the Board of Directors and the Respondent’s Human Resources Department.
75The evidence of the Respondent was that the Executive Director had no involvement in the Applicant’s case. Further, as the Executive Director has a familial relationship with the Applicant, she is blocked from accessing the records of the Applicant.
76Complaints brought before the CFSRB under section 120 of the Act must relate to services sought or received from a society.
77There is no evidence that the Executive Director had any involvement in the services provided to the Applicant, either directly or indirectly. The complaint made by the Applicant in relation to the Executive Director was with respect to alleged employee misconduct and was not a complaint related to services provided to the Applicant.
78I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to conduct a review of Issue 9.
ORDER
79Issues 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are dismissed.
80In relation to Issues 1, 4, and 5, the Respondent shall provide the following, in writing, to the Applicant, within 14 days of this Order:
a. In relation to Issue 1, the date the child protection investigations conducted during the period under review were concluded and the basis for the exercise of discretion by the Respondent to extend the duration of the investigation beyond 45 days.
b. In relation to Issue 4, the outcome of the child protection investigations conducted during the period under review including what protection concerns, if any, were verified and which were not verified.
c. In relation to Issue 5, when the decision was made not to proceed by way of a child protection proceeding and the reasons the Applicant was not notified at the time the decision was made.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
81Pursuant 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.
Released: December 13, 2024
Donna A. Wowk
Donna A. Wowk
Vice-Chair