KR v. Children's Aid Society of Toronto, 2024 CFSRB 158

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

KR

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Lise Henrie

Date: December 27, 2024

Citation: 2024 CFSRB 158

Indexed As: KR v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

KR, Applicant

Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent

Kevin Chao, 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”).

ISSUES

2This Application consists of the following complaints under section 120(4) 4 and 120(4) 5 of the Act:

a. The Applicant alleges she was not provided with reasons for the Respondent’s decisions in relation to every intake report received by the Respondent regarding her family between February 2020 and present.

b. The Applicant alleges she was not provided with reasons for the Respondent’s decisions in relation to every investigation conducted by the Respondent regarding her family between February 2020 and the present.

c. The Applicant alleges she did not receive full records disclosure and is, therefore, unable to be more specific in relation to her concerns.

RESULT

3Having reviewed the testimony and documents presented for this written hearing, I find the following:

a. The Applicant was unable to show that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for the Respondent’s decisions in relation to every intake report received by the Respondent regarding her family between February 2020 and the present.

b. The Applicant was unable to show that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for the Respondent’s decisions in relation to every investigation conducted by the Respondent regarding her family between February 2020 and the present.

c. The CFSRB has considered that the Applicant alleges that she has not yet received full records disclosure and is, therefore, unable to be more specific in relation to her concerns. As the Applicant has not provided any specific information about what further disclosure is required, the CFRSB will simply order the Respondent to provide the Applicant with the reasons for any redactions in the documents provided and provide the Applicant with its disclosure policy.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

4On October 4, 2024, the Applicant filed an accommodation request to have the hearing converted to a written hearing and the Respondent consented to this change in format. On October 25, 2024, the CFSRB directed the parties to provide their written materials, with the last documents to be filed by November 29, 2024.

ANALYSIS

Scope

5The Applicant submits that the Respondent failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding intake cases and investigations in her family’s file and further submits that by failing to provide those reasons, the Respondent has failed in other regards. The Applicant requests that if the CFSRB finds that a failure to follow procedures impacted the Respondent’s decisions, that it can order the re-evaluation of that decision. However, the CFSRB does not have that power.

6The CFSRB may only find that the Respondent has or has not provided sufficient reasons, and may ask for clearer reasons to be provided, if necessary. To be clear, the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to ask the Respondent to reconsider its decisions.

7Further, the Applicant raises allegations of bias in her submissions but those are not before the CFSRB except to the extent that they relate to the Respondent’s disclosure of reasons for its decisions.

8The first two issues will be dealt with together as both refer to the Applicant’s allegations that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons for their decisions. The third issue is not properly before the CFSRB as it is beyond the scope of section 120 of the Act.

Legislation

9The CFSRB derives its jurisdiction entirely from the statutory provisions which govern it. Section 120 of the Act sets out the matters that may be reviewed by the CFSRB as well as what orders the CFSRB can make:

(7) 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.

10A review of the section 120(7) shows that the CFSRB’s power is limited in scope. The process under section 120 is not a judicial review of the Respondent’s decision. To be clear, I cannot order the Respondent or any other agency to reopen an investigation. This decision will consider whether the Respondent provided sufficient reasons for its decisions.

Issue a. The Applicant alleges she was not provided with reasons for the Respondent’s decisions in relation to every intake report received by the Respondent regarding her family between February 2020 and present.

• and -

Issue b. The Applicant alleges she was not provided with reasons for the Respondent’s decisions in relation to every investigation conducted by the Respondent regarding her family between February 2020 and present.

Applicant’s Position

11The Applicant and former spouse had three children. According to the submissions, the Respondent became involved with her family in February 2020 after she reported domestic abuse. This was followed with a report from a neighbour who related concerns from the Applicant that the youngest child, M, was being hurt by the father. That same day, a social worker at the hospital also filed a report relating the Applicant’s concerns of domestic violence and child abuse.

12The Applicant submits that the first 18 months of the Respondent’s involvement set the tone for the interactions that followed. She submits that for every incident that followed, the reasons given referred back to their first investigation, “we already investigated in February 2020 and therefore will not investigate again.”

13The Applicant further submits that the Respondent’s reasons suggested that new reports from third parties were made because “the mother must be brain-washing the children in a campaign of ‘parental alienation’.”

14The Applicant submits that the reasons were not communicated to her which is why she continued to provide the Respondent with further information about the father.

15The Applicant’s submissions refer to a number of intake cases where she claims the Respondent did not provide reasons for its decisions:

• 2020/02/12 Intake Case #9267654

• 2020/02/19 Investigation #9268749

• 2020/05/25 Intake Case #9548767

• 2020/05/20 Investigation 9549462

• 2020/06/09 Intake #9815272

• 2020/11/21 Intake #10030551

• 2020/11/22 Investigation #10031446.

16She raises a number of examples taken from records she was provided from the Child Protection Information Network (CPIN), the Respondent’s information management system. The Applicant suggests that the Respondent’s reasons are confusing, inadequate and often contradictory. It is important to note that the CPIN records were not drafted with her as the intended reader which explains why some of the documents were redacted. This also explains why it would not contain the same level of explanation as a communication with a parent.

17The Applicant’s submissions appear to rely heavily on CPIN records, in addition to her own interactions with the Respondent. It is not always clear when the information she received was taken from the CPIN records and when it came directly from the Respondent.

18The Applicant writes that on or about February 12, 2020 she reported family violence to a social worker who, in turn, contacted CAS. She writes that the CAS file lists her as “involved” and does not list the father. While there was a change to reflect “child exposure to partner violence,” she said that the file also indicates that “a “child abuse register check “ is “not required.” She said that she was not informed of these decisions. I note that the Respondent’s submissions indicate that a joint investigation was conducted with the police. Both the Applicant’s and the Respondent’s submissions refer to communications to the Applicant from both the Respondent and the police. I also note that a later e-mail provided by the Applicant, from a worker for the Respondent in February 2023, indicates that “any investigation of sexual abuse is a joint investigation with police and decisions are not made independent of each other. From what I see in this transcript, Dr.(…) is clear that there was not enough evidence to pursue any legal action of which you were made aware of at the time of the investigation. At this this time there is no indication of any inappropriate touching of (child M) and therefor no investigation to be done.”

19The Applicant writes that there was a report from an emergency room doctor who had “concerns about physical assault on our child by father” but that is not in the file. As well, she submits that police files show that there was a call by paramedics regarding child abuse but that this is not reflected in the CPIN. In addition, she writes that the CPIN states that “there was no history identified at the time of the investigation.” I note that the Respondent explains that “no history” refers specifically to no prior involvement with the Respondent.

20The Applicant raised concerns about what the CPIN reflected in terms of what she and others reported to the Respondent. She also writes that the CPIN was redacted and some information was not communicated to her by the Respondent. She also writes that there are quotes by her child about the father’s actions that are reflected in a police report but not in the CPIN, and she submits that she was not notified about her child’s statements. However, she does say that the CPIN later describes that the child stated that her father hurts her, but that there is no explanation as to why she was not informed, nor why this was not investigated further. This relates to the interpretation of a CPIN record that the CFSRB does not have. Given that there was a joint investigation with the police, I find that, more likely than not, this issue was investigated. The submissions indicate that the Respondent found that there was insufficient evidence to find there was abuse.

21The Applicant raised concerns about how she was assured by the Respondent that the father would never find out what she or the children disclosed in their interview, but that soon after, the police and the Respondent informed her that they were required to tell the father about all the disclosures. She raised concerns about her safety, and the children’s safety. This is not before the CFSRB. Any concerns for safety should be addressed with the police.

22The Applicant writes that the CPIN did not indicate any safety concerns, despite the disclosures. She said that the police and the Respondent told her verbally that they knew abuse had occurred but that they would not lay charges because of several factors such as the abuse was not bad enough. She said that the Respondent worker involved at the time, appeared upset after the interviews and took extended mental health leave. While the Applicant may not be satisfied with the reason, it appears that the Respondent explained that the interview did not lead to a finding of abuse, and without more information, such as testimony from the worker, it is not clear what the worker thought of the interviews.

23The Applicant writes that the CPIN appears to suggest that the investigation was reframed as putting herself at risk of causing emotional harm to the children rather than domestic abuse by the father and submits that the reasoning is not documented in the CPIN record. She writes that when she was informed that her file would be closed, the Respondent said that they had no concerns about her as a parent. The Applicant said that this did not provide a reason for the decision to close the file as she believed the file related to safety concerns regarding the father, not concerns about her. She said that the CPIN indicated the risk as moderate and so does not understand how the file can be closed. I find this reason is set out in the March 2021 letter.

24In her submissions, the Applicant refers to the Respondent’s reasons for some of their decisions. For example, she writes that the investigation lists the reasons for concerns as “differing parenting styles.”

25She writes that it is not clear why the Respondent believes she has great “family supports, or why providing services such as therapy would be intrusive. She writes about missing information from the CPIN, such as the panic around the pandemic, or one of the children’s illness, or having to flee the safehouse. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to comment on how the Respondent keeps its records.

26Some of the Applicant’s submissions are complaints about advice given by the Respondent, for example, when she writes that the Respondent encouraged her to provide details of the father’s abuse but used the information to show conflict. She said that this also led to other intervenors being told that “the mother is the problem.” She also raised concerns about not being able to access Boost therapy services after someone from the Respondent was contacted and Boost determined that they were not suitable for those services. This is beyond the scope of the CFSRB jurisdiction.

The Respondent’s Submissions

27The Respondent’s written submissions suggest that the Applicant made inaccurate complaints in her submissions. It indicates that the Applicant did not correctly interpret some of the notations in the CPIN records. It also submits that the Applicant misconstrued certain information such as when she said that a worker confirmed that the “abuse disclosures were believed by everyone,” the Respondent writes that the worker actually stated that they believed that something had happened but not that they necessarily believed her allegations.” The Respondent also writes that a worker met with the Applicant to discuss her concerns.

28With respect to the Applicant’s claims of abuse on the child, the Respondent submits that their records show that the claims would not be investigated as the child had not disclosed abuse in her interview and more information would be required to investigate further.

29The Respondent writes that certain allegations made by the Applicant are inaccurate, notably as they relate to the Respondent’s records. The Respondent maintains that all allegations were investigated and the outcomes were discussed with the parents in person or in writing.

30The Respondent submits that when it first became involved with the Applicant’s family in February 2020, it conducted a joint investigation with the police. The Respondent submits that the Applicant “was advised at that time that the file would close and that concerns that were verified were related to the impact of the parents’ separation on the children.” The Respondent writes that a worker called and left a message about the closure and the concerns, and did not receive a call back from the Applicant.

31The Respondent submits that someone spoke with the Applicant directly on February 24, 2021 about the decision to not verify the concerns for abuse and the reasons, and the Respondent sent her a letter on March 3, 2021 formally advising her of the outcome of the investigation and the reasons for verification. That letter was provided to the CFSRB for review in this matter.

32The Respondent further submits that while the Applicant raised concerns about missing information in the CPIN records about certain event, those events did not happen, or if they did, they were documented in the records.

33With respect to providing reasons for closing the file, the Respondent writes that a worker called the Applicant on September 25, 2023 and provided a detailed description of the communications between the worker and the Applicant.

Conclusion

34I find that the documentary evidence shows that the Respondent gave the Applicant reasons for the decisions respecting intake cases and investigations either orally or in writing. I understand that the Applicant did not agree with the reasons provided. When reviewing whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with sufficient reasons, the CFSRB is not reviewing whether decisions are correct, but whether the reasons are clear as to why the decisions were made.

35I find that the Applicant’s review of the CPIN records at times appears to be problematic in that she may have misinterpreted some of the information, such as set out in paragraph 27 above.

36I find that the reasons were provided to the Applicant based on her own submissions, the Respondent’s submissions as well as the letters the Respondent sent her on March 3, 2021 and on May 9, 2023.

37The March 2021 letter verifies the risk of emotional harm due to ongoing post separation conflict and that other allegations of abuse are not verified due to insufficient evidence. This letter refers to increasing intensity of custody and access issues and counter parental allegations that are placing the children at risk.

38The May 9, 2023 letter terminates the Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant’s family. It indicates that the children expressed a desire for their parents to refrain from engaging in conflicts. It also states that the two older children were supported regarding their mental health and are adjusting, while the youngest child is followed by the hospital and has not disclosed any concerns with either parent’s care.

39Finally, I find that the Respondent’s submissions help the Applicant better understand some of the CPIN records and repeat the reasons for their decisions. For the reasons set out above, I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with clear reasons for its decisions.

c. The Applicant alleges she has not yet received full records disclosure and is, therefore, unable to be more specific in relation to her concerns.

40The Applicant raises an issue regarding records disclosure and indicates that some parts were redacted. Without a clearer understanding of what she requires, I turn to the CFSRB decision in JS v. Windsor-Essex Children Aid Society, 2017 CFSRB 33, https://canlii.ca/t/hpx43, which explains the importance of the sufficiency of file disclosure for an Applicant to be able to participate in the CFSRB process in a meaningful way. The Respondent must provide the Applicant with its disclosure policy as well as explanations as to why certain documents were redacted. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to order anything more in this regard.

ORDER

41The onus was on the Applicant to show that it was more likely than not, on a “balance of probabilities,” that she had not been provided with meaningful reasons. I find that the Applicant has not met this onus.

42Based on the analysis above, I find that the Respondent presented evidence through documentary evidence to show that they responded to the Applicant’s allegations and maintained communications with the Applicant throughout the process, including involving the police and other support services.

43I find that the Applicant’s allegations that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons in regard to intake cases and investigations are based on her disagreement with the Respondent’s decisions, not with the insufficiency of reasons. I find that the evidence shows that the Respondent provided reasons, as required.

44The Respondent must provide the Applicant with its disclosure policy and provide explanations about the redactions made to the documents that were disclosed.