BETWEEN:
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
NI
Applicant
-and-
York Region Children’s Aid Society
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney
Indexed As: NI v York Region Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
1The Applicant is the mother of one daughter (the “Child”). The Applicant was concerned with the health and safety of the Child while in the care of her father; exposure to the Child of family violence and adult information; parental alienation; and communication concerns between herself and Respondent Workers.
2The Applicant and the Respondent mediated the Applicant’s Complaint and agreed on a final Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated January 30, 2024. The Agreement represented a full settlement the issues raised in the Applicant’s Complaint. The Agreement consisted of 6 detailed Terms with an implementation date of March 15, 2024, and a compliance date of March 22, 2024.
3The Respondent provided the Applicant with a letter dated March 1, 2024, which included its responses to the Terms. The letter indicated that the Applicant failed to provide the Respondent with a copy of the Criminal Protective Order as indicated in Term
- Without a copy of the Order, the Respondent could not implement its commitments in Term 2. The letter confirmed that the Applicant’s parenting was not assessed by Respondent Workers and therefore the Respondent could not verify or deny any parenting concerns. The Respondent did; however, encourage the Applicant to pay close attention to her daughter’s voice and her experiences being with the Applicant. The Respondent confirmed that it sent the letter from Justice MacPherson to the Applicant on February 15, 2024. Finally, the Respondent confirmed that the Applicant’s file was being closed. The Respondent noted that the last few referrals to the Respondent were from the Applicant. The Respondent suggested that the Applicant work to resolve the Family Court litigation as this issue seems to be impacting on the Applicant’s wellbeing and her relationship with her daughter.
4On March 20, 2024, the Respondent sent the Applicant and the CFSRB an e-mail outlining the Respondent’s efforts to provide the Applicant with the records she requested in the Terms 5. The Applicant was unable to open the records which were sent by secure e-mail. The Respondent couriered the Applicant a copy of her record to
her last known address; however, the Applicant refused to confirm her most current address, and did not accept the couriered package. It was returned to the Respondent’s office. The Applicant was then sent an e-mail indicating that the Applicant could pick up the documents from the Respondent’s reception.
5On March 20, 2024, the Applicant sent the CFSRB an e-mail alleging that the Respondent had not complied with the Term 5 as the Respondent had not provided the documents as per the Settlement Agreement. The Applicant also alleged that the Respondent did not provide a safe way for her to receive the records. The Applicant highlighted further allegations against the Respondent which were not germane to the issue of compliance, including in an e-mail dated March 25, 2024.
THE LAW
The Law
6The CFSRB found the Application to be eligible for review under sections 120 (4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. The Act outlines the rights of Applicants, the duties and obligations of Children’s Aid Societies, and the mandate of the CFSRB.
7Section 120(4) of the Act reads as follows:
The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
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).
Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
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.
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2).
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
Such other matters as may be prescribed.
Subsection 120(7) indicates that: After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,
(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant
(e) dismiss the complaint
8The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom or validity of a decision made by a Society in any given situation under review by the CFSRB and for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act.
9In an allegation of non-compliance, an Applicant’s statement of disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society does not negate or invalidate those reasons. In this case, the Applicant disagrees with many of the actions of Respondent workers and continues to communicate her dissatisfaction with the Respondent workers and their actions through various e-mails.
10Rule 8.1 in the CFSRB Rules of Procedure indicates that the CFSRB may conduct hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or video-conference. In deciding the format of the hearing, the CFSRB will consider:
a) Whether it is a fair and accessible process for the parties;
b) The costs and efficiency of the process;
c) The potential for a more expeditious resolution;
d) The convenience of the parties;
e) The consistency with the CFSRB’s mandate;
f) Whether facts or evidence may be agreed upon;
g) The estimated duration of the hearing;
h) Whether the issues for hearing are predominantly legal issues;
i) Whether oral testimony is likely to be needed;
j) Any objections to the format of the hearing.
ANALYSIS
Analysis
11I found that I could decide the issue of non-compliance based on the Respondent’s letter of March 1, 2024, and its e-mail regarding its efforts to provide the Applicant with disclosure her records. A review in writing is an efficient and expeditious approach given that no additional evidence is needed for me to decide this narrow issue.
Written Review of Non-Compliance Allegation
Written Review of Non-Compliance Allegation
Term 5: Disclosure of the Applicant’s File
Term 5: Disclosure of the Applicant’s File
12The Applicant requested that a copy of her file (from May 2021 onward) be provided by the Respondent on or before March 15, 2024. The Term was not specific in how the file would be provided to the Applicant. Despite this, I note that the Respondent attempted to provide the Applicant with the documents via secure e-mail, courier, and to be picked-up by the Applicant at the Respondent’s offices.
13The Applicant maintained that she was not provided with the records. She was also concerned with possible breaches in privacy associated with the disclosure. She was also concerned as she did not have access to transportation. Finally, the Applicant suggested that serving the document with proper court services would be in the interests of all children.
I find that the Respondent complied with Term 5 and attempted to ensure that the Applicant was provided with her file using several methods. The Applicant refused service of the documents sent by the courier. The Applicant’s transportation and technology challenges are not the responsibility of the Respondent. The Respondent has made a good faith effort to provide the Applicant with the records pursuant to Term 5.
14Finally, I note that the Applicant’s concerns regarding alleged breaches of privacy fall outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB. Alleged privacy breaches can be addressed by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC). The Applicant is free to raise any concerns with the IPC.
SUMMARY
Summary
15After having reviewed the response and allegations of non-compliance, I find that the Respondent has complied fully with the Terms in the Settlement Agreement. I note that the Applicant did not participate in the mediation process in good faith as she did not comply with her agreement to provide the Respondent with the Criminal Protective Order and she refused service of her records despite the Respondent’s attempts to provide them to her using various formats.
ORDER
Order
16For the reasons given, I find the Respondent has met its obligations in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the allegation of non-compliance is dismissed, and the CFSRB’s files is closed as settled.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
Confidentiality Order
17Pursuant 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 Toronto, March 25, 2024.
Daniel McSweeney
Daniel McSweeney Member