DF v. Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay, 2024 CFSRB 70

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

DF

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley

Date: June 19, 2024

Citation: 2024 CFSRB 70

Indexed As: DF v Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

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”): CA22-0049, CA22-0107 and CA22-0108. The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed pursuant to sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

2Both parties have made written submissions setting out their respective views on the appropriate hearing format. The Applicant wants an oral hearing while the Respondent prefers a written hearing.

3This decision explains why the CFSRB has decided the hearing will proceed in writing.

ANALYSIS

4Rule 8 and 24 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure provides that the CFSRB may conduct section 120 hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or video-conference and may conduct a hearing in a combination of formats. For the reasons below, I have concluded that a written hearing is the appropriate format to hear and decide this Application.

The Applicant’s position

5The Applicant refers to section 8.1(h) of the Rules of Procedure and states:

… this is a legal matter in my opinion, and wish that this issue be investigated by law enforcement …. There was a failure to report criminal negligence on three separate occasions … Failure to report a crime is also a crime. … I request to proceed with a full video recorded trial. I am legally requesting that I receive a copy of the video for my records.

The Respondent’s position

6The Respondent states that a written hearing “would be appropriate and in the best interests of both parties” while expressing a willingness to consider another option preferred by the Applicant.

7In support of its view that a written hearing would be appropriate, the Respondent notes that an oral hearing would probably be lengthy and that no oral testimony is likely needed. Instead, the “parties are relying on e-mail exchanges that have been produced and can be reproduced via a written hearing. submitted that the hearing should be held in writing.

A written hearing is appropriate

8The Applicant is seeking remedies that the CFSRB cannot provide. The CFSRB does not have the authority to conduct or order an investigation into the actions (or inactions) of the Respondent. The focus of the hearing will not be on alleged crimes or the alleged failure to report crimes. Rather, it will be on whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided him with meaningful reasons for decisions that affected his interests. Essentially, the focus will be on the quality of the communication between the Applicant and the Respondent. As it appears that most of this communication took place by email, the parties will be able to put a record of that communication before the CFSRB in a written hearing.

9The Applicant requests that the hearing be videorecorded and that he receive a copy of the videorecording. The CFSRB does not currently videorecord its hearings. Its confidentiality rules prohibit parties from videorecording hearings. Thus, the Applicant’s desire for a videorecording is not relevant to a determination of the appropriate hearing format.

10A written hearing will be more efficient than a lengthy oral hearing.

11For these reasons, I conclude that a hearing in writing is the appropriate format for hearing and determining this Application.

ORDER

12The hearing will proceed in writing.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

13Pursuant 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.