NKA v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2024 CFSRB 28

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

NKA Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Caroline Sand Date: March 11, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 28 Indexed As: NKA v Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (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”).

2This decision explains why the Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB.

THE LAW

3Subsection 120(4) of the Act states:

The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2).
2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.
4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2).
5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
6. Such other matters as may be prescribed.

4Subsection 15(2) of the Act states:

Service providers shall 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.

5In paragraph 6 of the Application, where an applicant identifies why they have applied to the CFSRB, the Applicant checked off the following boxes:

• The Society did not give you a chance to be heard when you raised your concerns;
• The Society did not give you a chance to be heard when decisions that affected your interests were made
• The Society did not give you reasons for its decisions that affect your interests.
• The Society refused to proceed with your complaint.
• The Society did not follow its complaint review process or timelines

background

6The Application was filed on March 2, 2024, setting out in detail numerous serious concerns and complaints about the Society’s conclusion letter and investigation report dated July 6, 2023.

7Approximately ten months before filing the present Application, the applicant filed a previous Application on April 24, 2023 (CA23-0052). The same boxes were checked off in Paragraph 6, as were in the new Application. The first Application made similar complaints about the conduct of the Society. The Application was filed before the Society’s conclusion letter and investigation report was sent to the parties. The first Application settled through mediation with a Settlement Agreement on August 25, 2023, over a month after the applicant had received the Society’s conclusion letter and investigation report of July 6, 2023. The applicant was represented by counsel. The CFSRB file was closed on September 12, 2023, as per the pre-hearing report of that date.

analysis

8In her Application of March 2, 2024, the applicant expresses dissatisfaction with the Society’s conduct following the Settlement Agreement of August 25, 2023. The applicant provided in her new Application “the pre-hearing concluded in a settlement based on assurances from (named) Legal Counsel at CAS, promising full disclosure and a cross-investigation into (the worker’s) conduct. However, I received confirmation from him in November, 2023 that no further information would be disclosed, and the requested documents were no longer available in the CAS database.” The applicant provided that she submitted a dispute letter to the ICRP in December, 2023, contesting the closing letter and report of July 2023, and received only a disappointing response from the ICRP. The applicant outlined in detail her numerous serious concerns and questions about the Society’s conduct through its investigation. The timeline mirrors the timeline in the first Application.

9The current application does not raise new issues that were not in the previous one. It is essentially an attempt to enforce the settlement agreement. The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to do this.

order

10The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

11Pursuant 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 Choose an item., 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.