RA v. Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, 2024 CFSRB 46

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

RA

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: April 23, 2024

Citation: 2024 CFSRB 46

Indexed As: RA v Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, Respondent

Vesna Benic-Mayer, Counsel

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This is an Application (Complaint) 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”).

2The Complaint was found eligible for review under sections 120(4) 4 and 120(4) 5 of the Act: It is alleged that the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made, or a chance to be heard when he raised concerns about the services he is receiving; and it is alleged that the Society has failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected his interests.

3The Applicant is father of one daughter (the “Child”). The Applicant was awarded joint custody and access to the Child pursuant to an Order of the Superior Court dated February 28, 2024.

4The Respondent had an open investigation with the family between August 25 and October 5, 2023, based on concerns that the Applicant raised. The investigation was closed as the Applicant’s concerns were not verified.

5The Applicant identified the following Issues/Concerns in his Complaint:

1. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent staff did not hear his concerns regarding abuse, parental alienation, bad parenting, and failure to follow Court orders on the part of the Child’s mother, and the negative impact that these behaviours had on the Child;

2. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff did not hear his concerns with the investigation process and outcome; and

3. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff did not hear his request for disclosure (counselling notes from Family Counselling Centre; investigation notes and file); and did not hear his concerns regarding his daughter’s consent.

6In his Application, the Applicant also referred to a previous CFSRB decision (CA24-0038) in which the CFSRB found that it did not have jurisdiction to address issues related to the disclosure of his file.

7In its Summary Response, the Respondent argued that the Applicant’s request for disclosure is before the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC). Issues related to the disclosure of documents fell outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction and were within the purview of the IPC.

8In addition, the Respondent indicated that the Applicant was given an opportunity to be heard and when decisions that affected his interests were made during several interactions with staff. The Respondent indicated that the Applicant’s behaviours made it very difficult to have respectful and productive interactions.

9Finally, the Respondent indicated that the Issues/Concerns in the Complaint were issues that were decided or are before the Court. Issues such as the placement of the Child in her mother’s care, the health and safety of the Child; and access were issues that were before the Court. As such, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to address these concerns pursuant to s. 120(8) of the Act.

10The Respondent argued that the Applicant is not satisfied with its decision not to verify any protection concerns and argued that the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to challenge or overturn a child protection decision.

11As such, the Respondent requested that the Application be dismissed.

THE LAW

12Section 120(4)4 of the Act indicates that the following matters may be reviewed by the Board:

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

13Section 15(2) of the Act confirms that:

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

14Rule 22.1 in the Child and Family Services Review Board Rules of Procedure indicates that within 20 days of determining eligibility the CFSRB will:

a. make its decision based on the application and the response; or

b. decide to hold a hearing.

ANALYSIS

15Based on the detailed Summary Response and bearing in mind Rule 22 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure, I find that I have sufficient information before me to decide the Application in writing.

16Firstly, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address any issues related to the access, consent, and disclosure of information, including the Respondent’s records and his daughter’s counselling records. These issues fall within the purview of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario and are currently subject to proceedings at the IPC. As such, I dismiss Issue/Concern 3 for a lack of jurisdiction.

17I considered Issues/Concerns 1 and 2 which related to the Applicant’s allegations that he was not heard when he raised concerns regarding the Child’s mother, and he was not heard in relation to the investigation.

18Given that I do not have any Court documents before me, I will not make a finding on the CFSRB’s jurisdiction pursuant to s. 120(8) of the Act. I do; however, have enough information in the Summary Response to support a finding that the Applicant has had an opportunity to have his concerns heard.

19The Respondent indicated that staff spoke with the Applicant on September 12, 2023, during which the Applicant had an opportunity to outline his concerns with the Child’s mother including concerns related to: the mother’s manipulation; his not being provided access and challenges to access; the mother’s poor discipline of the Child; the Child being disrespectful towards the Applicant; and the mother’s smothering and controlling behaviour. Workers explained to the Applicant that the Respondent did not involve itself in custody and access issues unless the issues raised child protection concerns. The Applicant and the Worker had a second lengthy conversation on September 13, 2024, during which the Applicant had another opportunity to share his concerns.

20On October 2, 2023, the Respondent worker left a message with the Applicant expressing her desire to update him regarding the investigation. The Applicant returned the call on the same day and the Applicant was informed about the investigation process; the fact that the Child could not be forced to attend access with him; and the Applicant’s concerns regarding the Child’s mother’s behaviour.

21The Applicant was sent a text on October 5, 2023, indicating that the file was closing as no protection concerns were verified. The Applicant responded by sending 2 text messages expressing his concerns and dissatisfaction with the verification findings. A closing letter was sent to the Applicant on October 10, 2023. The Applicant was provided with a closing letter dated October 10, 2023. The letter included an invitation to speak with the Worker or Supervisor if the Applicant had any questions or concerns.

22The Applicant called the Respondent Worker on March 1, 2024, and shared his concerns related to the Worker, the Child’s mother, the Child’s lack of respect for him and concerns regarding discipline.

23Subsequent discussions between Respondent Workers and the Applicant focused on the issue of his daughter’s consent to disclose the Family Counselling Centre notes, and the disclosure of the investigation file.

24Based on the information before me, I find that the Applicant had an opportunity to be heard regarding his concerns related to the Child’s wellbeing and care, and in relation to his concerns regarding the investigation process and outcome. As such, Issues/Concerns 1 and 2 are dismissed.

DECISION

25The Complaint is therefore dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

26Pursuant 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.