KC v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2024 CFSRB 153

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

KC Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

ORDER

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: December 16, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 153 Indexed As: KC v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

KC, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent Mira Pilch, Counsel

Overview

1This is an Application filed on April 22, 2024, with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (the “Act”).

2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under section 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The hearing was held by videoconference on December 9, 2024. A Mandarin interpreter was provided to the Applicant throughout the hearing.

4The Applicant is a Home Stay caregiver who hosts foreign students in her home. The Application relates to concerns the Applicant has about an investigation the Respondent conducted between November 2023 and April 2024 where allegations of inadequate supervision and neglect of basic physical needs of three students in her home were verified.

ISSUE

5The CFSRB’s Pre-Hearing Mediation Report dated August 19, 2024, sets out the issue for Hearing as:

The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons for [its] decision to verify allegations of inadequate supervision and risk to the Home Stay students the Applicant was caring for due to their basic needs not being met.

Result

6I find that the Respondent did provide the Applicant with meaningful reasons for why it verified allegations of inadequate supervision and risk to the Home Stay students the Applicant was caring for due to their basic needs not being met.

procedural issues

Preliminary Issue: Witness Statement

7At the October 25, 2024, videoconference Pre-Hearing before the CFSRB, the parties identified witnesses they intended to call at the Hearing. A Mandarin interpreter was provided to the Applicant throughout the Pre-Hearing. The Applicant identified that she intended to testify. The CFSRB’s Direction related to that Pre-Hearing directed the parties to file witness statements on or before November 29, 2024, that contained a detailed summary of what their witnesses would say if they testified at the Hearing. Neither party filed witness statements by November 29, 2024.

8On December 3, 2024, the CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction that the parties file the documents they intended to rely upon at the Hearing, including witness statements, by no later than December 4, 2024. The Respondent did so. The Applicant did not.

9On December 5, 2024, the CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction that the Applicant advise the CFSRB by December 6, 2024, if she intended to proceed with the Hearing. The Case Management Direction stated that the Hearing would proceed unless the CFSRB received information from the Applicant that she wanted to withdraw her Application. The Applicant did not contact the CFSRB in advance of the Hearing.

10At the Hearing I asked the Applicant why she had not filed a witness statement as required by the October 25, 2024, and December 3, 2024, Case Management Directions. The Applicant explained that she did not understand the requirement. The Respondent did not object to the Applicant giving evidence in the absence of a witness statement.

Preliminary Issue: Disclosure of Investigation “Report”

11The Applicant asked during the Hearing that she receive a copy of the “investigation report”. She had made a disclosure request to the Respondent at the end of April 2024, which was denied by the Respondent on the basis that the Applicant was not a service recipient. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction under Part X of the Act to order specific records be disclosed. I explained to the Applicant that this was outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction and within the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commission.

Analysis

12In a section 120 application before the CFSRB, the Applicant has the burden of showing on a “balance of probabilities” (i.e., that it was more likely than not) that the facts occurred as she alleged.

13I find that that Applicant has not met her burden. The Respondent did provide the Applicant with meaningful reasons for why they verified allegations of inadequate supervision and risk to the Home Stay students the Applicant was caring for due to their basic needs not being met.

14Section 120(4)5 of the Act states that the CFSRB may review allegations that a society has failed to provide a complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests. The “right to reasons” under the Act is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. In J.G. v Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held at para 13 that:

A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how a decision was made.

15The Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Respondent. The CFSRB does not have the authority to order that the Respondent reopen their investigation or reconsider their verification.

16Child protection worker CC testified that following receipt of an October 27, 2023, report of concerns regarding the care and supervision the Applicant was providing the three youth in her home she called the Applicant on November 2, 2023, introduced herself, explained that she was calling from [the Respondent] and explained why she was calling. The Applicant responded that she was driving and asked that CC call back later. CC agreed and asked what time worked for the Applicant. The Applicant responded “bye” and hung up the phone. CC called the Applicant later that day. The call rang and an automated message played stating that the voicemail was not set up. There was no option to leave a message. CC called the Applicant again on November 3, 2023, November 6, 2023, November 8, 2023, November 9, 2023, November 10, 2023, November 15, 2023, and November 16, 2023. Each time CC received an automated message stating that the voicemail was not set up.

17On November 8, 2023, CC sent a text message to the Applicant stating, “Hi…., my name is CC and I am an Intake Worker at [the Respondent]. We briefly spoke last week. If you could please give me a call when you have some time to speak, that would be appreciated. Thank you.” On November 9, 2023, the Applicant sent a text message to CC stating, “Sorry I need a translate”. CC replied by text stating, “I can call you with an interpreter. What language do you speak?” There was no reply to CC’s message. CC sent text messages to the Applicant on November 16, 2023, December 12, 2023, and February 29, 2024. There was no reply to these texts.

18On November 9, 2023, CC conducted an unannounced visit to the Applicant’s address. She knocked twice on the front door. There was no response. There was no indication that anyone was home. On November 23, 2023, CC conducted an unannounced visit to the Applicant’s address. She knocked twice. There was no response and no indication that anyone was home. CC left a letter in the mailbox address to the Applicant, on the Respondent’s letterhead, stating the protection worker’s name, position at the Society, that she had attended the home, but the Applicant was not home and asking her to contact CC to schedule an appointment.

19On December 13, 2023, CC conducted an unannounced visit to the Applicant’s address. She knocked on the door and rang the doorbell. There was no movement seen and no one came to the door. CC left a letter in the mailbox addressed to the Applicant, on Society letterhead stating, “My name is CC and I am an Intake Worker with [the Respondent]. We received information regarding you in your role as a homestay caregiver. Please call me at ….. so that we may discuss this information. Thank you.”

20On cross-examination the Applicant acknowledged that between November 2023 and April 2024 she had received telephone calls from CC but said that the number was not familiar to her and, therefore, she did not pick up. When asked if she also received text messages, she said she did not recall. The Applicant testified that she did not know CC had attended her home until meeting with the Respondent in April, despite CC having left letters at the Applicant’s home on two occasions. The Applicant was asked whether CC had later explained all the times she had tried to reach her. The Applicant responded, “She sure did.”

21On April 3, 2024, CC sent a letter to the Applicant confirming the outcome of the Respondent’s involvement. In her letter she stated that in October 2023, the Respondent received information regarding the Applicant in her role as a Home Stay provider to students and stated she had attempted to contact her through phone calls, text messages, unannounced visits to her home, and letters. CC stated that she received one text message back from the Applicant but was never able to discuss the information and concerns the Respondent received. CC’s letter stated that the allegations of “Inadequate Supervision Resulting in Risk That the Child Is Likely to Be Harmed and/or Distress to Child” and “Neglect of Basic Needs – Risk That the Child is Likely to Be Harmed or Become Ill” were verified, and that the Respondent had concluded its investigation and closed the investigation file.

22On April 11, 2024, the Applicant called CC and arranged a phone call for the following day. On April 12, 2024, CC spoke to the Applicant with a Mandarin interpreter. During the phone call CC explained her role and the Respondent’s role generally. CC explained that the Respondent had received a report at the end of October 2023, and that the main concerns were that she or any adult she assigned to the students’ care were absent from the home often or unable to be contacted, there was not proper adult supervision in the home, that meals were not provided to the students, and that the home was infested with bedbugs. The Applicant denied these allegations and expressed that she did not understand how the Respondent could conclude the investigation without hearing from her. CC explained the process of the investigation, the efforts to reach and be able to speak to the Applicant about the concerns, that she received no response from her, that the students were interviewed, and that based on their information the concerns were verified and the investigation closed. CC explained that she had made multiple attempts to reach the Applicant and as she received no response, she concluded the investigation without hearing her perspective. The Applicant acknowledged that CC reached out to her and did not receive a response. She advised that she does not speak English, she did not understand what the letter was about, and noted that there are “many scammers”. The Applicant repeated this in her evidence at the Hearing.

23On April 11, 2024, CC emailed the Applicant information regarding the Respondent’s complaints process, the Manager of Client Services’ contact information, as well as her supervisor’s information and an offer for them to have a meeting between CC, the Applicant, and the supervisor, as well as information regarding requesting file disclosure.

24On April 18, 2024, the Applicant emailed CC asking, “What’s the investigation outcome?” CC responded, “The investigation outcome is that we verified two concerns regarding yourself as a caregiver to homestay students under your care. The first concern we verified was that the students were not adequately supervised, resulting in that they could have been harmed or distressed. The second concern we verified is the student’s basic needs were neglected and could have resulted in harm or illness.”

25On April 23, 2024, the Applicant, CC, and Respondent Intake Supervisor SSJ spoke by phone. A Mandarin interpreter was used to facilitate communication. During the call CC explained the investigation process, reviewing the steps and standards that an investigation must meet, as well as their timelines. She reviewed the referral allegations, namely, that there were no adults residing in the home, no meals were being provided by the caregiver and the students were feeding themselves through UberEats, that one student’s mattress was not clean, and that there was no dryer in the home and as such the youth’s uniforms were damp when wearing them to school. CC continued to share concerns received from interviewing the students, including that the Applicant was not present in the home. She advised that the investigation revealed that the Applicant’s husband was present but not around fulltime, no meals were being provided, and that the home/bedroom was infested with bedbugs and as a result, on two nights one of the students slept in a subway station. CC explained that based on all the information collected, a verification decision was made on a balance of probabilities, meaning it was determined that it was more likely than not that the Applicant inadequately supervised the students, which could have resulted in the students being distressed or harmed. The Applicant denied the allegations. The Applicant ended the call early as she did not feel the interpreter was adequately interpreting the information. They agreed that they would have a follow-up phone call to continue discussing the Applicant’s concerns and answering her questions.

26On April 25, 2024, the Applicant, CC, and Intake Supervisor SSJ spoke by phone. A Mandarin interpreter was used to facilitate communication. During that call CC reviewed that the students living in the home were interviewed and based on the information collected the Respondent verified the two allegations. CC explained that they were not able to go into all the details from the interviews and she summarized that the students were interviewed and consistently disclosed information that there was not an adult in the home, or not an adult who was reachable about concerns, that no meals were provided, and that there was a bed bug infestation. The Applicant advised that there was always an adult in the home, meals were provided, and that the students brought the bedbugs into the home. She reported changing the cushions and using professional pesticide. CC explained that the information the Applicant was providing would be documented in the file. SSJ explained the standards the Respondent must follow, such as, that they have 45 to 60 days to complete an investigation pursuant to Child Protection Standards. SSJ also explained that the Respondent had kept the file open beyond that time in their multiple attempts to reach the Applicant. Given that they did not hear back from the Applicant, the Respondent was required to move on and make decisions without her input. SSJ explained that the Respondent felt that they had enough information to make a sound decision. The Applicant testified on cross-examination that she did not recall this information being shared with her. The Applicant repeated several times that she did not understand how they could reach an outcome without her, that she does not agree with the outcome, and that it was unfair. The Applicant repeated this in her evidence and submissions.

27On May 2, 2024, the Applicant, CC, and SSJ spoke by phone. A Mandarin interpreter was used to facilitate communication. During the call CC attempted to review the outcome decisions, however the Applicant responded that she is not the guardian or parent, that they provided supervision to the students, that her husband was home all the time that she was in the USA, that they provided food, and that the students drank, smoked, and played games overnight. She said that it was hard for them to supervise them. When asked if she had any questions, she repeated this is unfair. The Applicant testified that during this fourth telephone call the Respondent again explained why the investigation was completed without her input.

28Based on the evidence of the Applicant and the Respondent, I find that the Applicant was given sufficient explanation of the Respondent’s investigation and how it was conducted. The process of the investigation, a summary of the findings, and how these were taken into consideration in the verification process was explained to the Applicant. The reasons why the verification occurred without the Applicant’s input were also explained. The Applicant testified that all communication occurred with her after the Respondent’s decision was made. The Respondent made multiple and varied efforts to communicate with the Applicant during the investigation, which went ignored.

29The Applicant disagrees with the Respondent’s verification decision because she did not participate in the investigation and is not satisfied with the reasons the Respondent has given her for not including her in the investigation. She also wants what she calls the “investigation report”. These, though, are not the issues before the CFSRB.

30For the above reasons, I find that the Applicant was provided with meaningful reasons by the Respondent for why they verified allegations of inadequate supervision and risk to the Home Stay students the Applicant was caring for due to their basic needs not being met.

order

31The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

32Pursuant 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.

Dated at Brockville, December 16, 2024.

Karynn von Cramon

_______________________

Karynn von Cramon Member