MS v. Kina Gbezhgami Child and Family Services, 2025 CFSRB 17

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MS Applicant

-and-

Kina Gbezhgami Child and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: February 13, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 17 Indexed As: MS v Kina Gbezhgami Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, (the “Act”).

2The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act on January 27, 2025.

3The Respondent submitted their Response on January 30, 2025.

4Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure permits the CFRSB to decide an Application on the basis of the Application and the Response. In addition to the filed Application and Response, the Applicant has provided approximately 10 pages of text correspondence. I also have before me an Application with 20 pages of text correspondence filed on July 15, 2024, by the Applicant, a Response filed July 30, 2024, by the Respondent, and a final decision of the CFSRB dated November 15, 2024, which dealt with many of the same complaints alleged in this current Application.

ISSUES

5The issues drawn from the Application are as follows:

Did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concerns and provide reasons regarding:

a. the Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant with her son’s hospital and doctors’ notes;

b. the Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant with her son’s schoolwork;

c. the Respondent’s decision to allow a sibling to visit the hospital to see the Applicant’s son;

d. the Respondent’s decision to not arrange for access between the Applicant and her son over Christmas;

e. the Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant with her son’s silver chain, dream catcher, and moccasins; and

f. the Respondent’s alleged failure to provide the Applicant with all of her son’s ashes.

RESULT

6I find that the Respondent has failed to provide the Applicant with:

a. an opportunity to be heard for the complaints listed in paragraph 5 (a), (b), (c), (e), and (f) above; and

b. reasons for the complaints listed in paragraph 5(e) and 5(f) above.

ANALYSIS

July 15, 2024, Application

7On July 15, 2024, the Applicant filed an Application with the CFSRB which consisted of 6 complaints, including the complaints listed in this Application outlined in paragraph 5(a) – 5(d) above (the “2024 Application”).

8As part of the 2024 Application, the Applicant provided 20 pages of selected portions of text correspondence where she requested among other things, her son’s hospital records, schoolwork and some of his belongings.

9The Respondent filed a Response on July 30, 2024, which addressed the complaints outlined in paragraph 5(a) – 5(d) above (the “2024 Response”). The Respondent further submitted that the Applicant had opportunities to have all of her concerns heard as they met with and texted with the Applicant regularly.

10The CFSRB Decision dated October 25, 2024, dismissed the 2024 Application as abandoned for the following reasons:

• a pre-hearing was scheduled for August 28, 2024, but was re-scheduled to September 19, 2024, as the Applicant was unable to participate meaningfully and privately as she was on her way to an appointment.

• The Applicant did not attend the re-scheduled pre-hearing rescheduled to September 19, 2024, stating that she forgot. The pre-hearing was rescheduled to October 22, 2024.

• The Applicant failed to attend the pre-hearing scheduled October 22, 2024, stating in an email that she had forgot again and would just cancel the Application.

January 20, 2025, Application

11This Application alleges two new complaints in addition to the above noted complaints alleged in the 2024 Application. The new complaints are listed in paragraph 5(e) and 5(f) above.

12The Applicant provided an additional 10 pages of text messages sent to the Respondent requesting a consent to access hospital records, expressing concerns about her access during Christmas, and requesting all of her son’s ashes.

13The Response dated January 30, 2025, addressed all complaints outlined in paragraph 5 above while noting that many of the complaints had already been addressed in the 2024 Application that was dismissed as abandoned.

Issues

a) The Respondent provided reasons for the complaints listed in paragraph 5 (a) – (d) but only provided an opportunity to be heard for complaint 5 (d).

14The Applicant alleges that she was not provided an opportunity to be heard or provided reasons for why the Respondent refused to provide her son’s hospital records and schoolwork. She also alleges that she was not provided an opportunity to be heard or provided reasons about concerns she had involving her son’s sibling visiting him at the hospital or the lack of access with her son during Christmas.

15I am persuaded by the Respondent’s submission that these complaints were dealt with in the 2024 Application wherein the 2024 Response provided the following reasons to the complaints outlined in paragraph 5(a) – 5(d):

a. Hospital records: the Respondent submitted that the Applicant did not request the hospital records.

b. School work: the Respondent submitted that they did not receive any of the Applicant’s son’s schoolwork from his new school prior to his passing as it was the beginning of the semester following the Christmas holiday.

c. Sibling visit to hospital: the Respondent submitted that the sibling chose to visit her brother and was prepared for what that would be like. She was escorted by a worker of the Respondent and medical staff from the hospital to support her during the visit as well as after her visit with him.

d. Christmas access: the Respondent submitted that the Applicant had no approved support person to supervise her visits over the Christmas period. The child also voiced their views on visits. During a home visit on January 30, 2024, the Applicant and the Respondent’s worker, spoke about the lack of access during Christmas, the views of the child, and possible solutions for the future.

16In the Response dated January 30, 2025, the Respondent provided further reasons for the following complaints:

a. Hospital records (5(a)): the Applicant can request hospital records from the hospital as she is the child’s next of kin. Consent from the Respondent is not needed.

b. Sibling visit to hospital (5(c)): the Respondent submitted that they did not insist that the sibling visit her brother, but did express she had a right to see him.

17I find that the Applicant was provided reasons for the complaints listed in paragraph 5(a) – 5(d) by way of the written 2024 Response, and reiterated in the Response dated January 30, 2025, but only provided an opportunity to be heard for the complaint listed in paragraph 5(d).

b) The Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and did not provide reasons for allegedly failing to provide the Applicant with specific belongings of her son’s as outlined in paragraph 5(e)

18The Applicant complains that the Respondent has not provided an opportunity to be heard nor have they provided reasons for their alleged failure to return her son’s silver necklace, moccasins, or dream catcher.

19These complaints were not set out in the 2024 Application, the 2024 Response, or the Decision dated October 25, 2024.

20Nothing has been submitted in the Application dated January 20, 2025, or the Response dated January 30, 2025, to indicate that the Applicant was heard regarding returning the silver necklace, moccasins, or dream catcher. The January 30, 2025 Response states only:

Everything was returned to the Applicant within two weeks of the child’s passing. All the child’s belongings were returned to the Applicant by February 20, 2024. [The Respondent’s case aid] delivered the items to the Applicant, which included several tote bins, boxes, toys, and more items.

21In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8 para 13, the CFSRB held that:

… what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making decisions to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

22I find that the Respondent’s Response to this complaint is vague. The Applicant has requested specific and personal items to be returned. There is no mention of these specific items in the Response. It should be noted that a silver chain is quite small and not something that would be presumed to have been just put in boxes with toys. Under the circumstances, it is understandable that the Applicant would be concerned about where these personal items are, whether they were included in the boxes, or whether they got lost. As such, I find that the Respondent has not provided the Applicant with meaningful reasons for this complaint.

c) The Respondent has failed to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard or meaningful reasons for the complaint that they have allegedly failed to provide the Applicant with all of her son’s ashes as outlined in paragraph 5(d)

23The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has stolen some of her son’s ashes and provided them to her son’s foster parent. In one text message sent to the Respondent by the Applicant she alleges that the Respondent stole the ashes and gave them to her son’s foster parent.

24The Respondent has submitted that a small portion of the Applicant’s son’s ashes were given to a sibling in a keepsake necklace.

25There has been nothing submitted by either party that would indicate that the Applicant has been heard about her concerns regarding her son’s ashes.

26In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2012, CFSRB 25 para 28, the CFSRB held:

The right to reasons is based on the principle that sufficient information, both factual and contextual, is required to understand decisions that were made. There is a link between the right to be heard and the right to reasons because having information helps people understand and this helps them participate meaningfully in discussions and ultimately, helps in achieving acceptance of the decision made.

27I find this particularly compelling given the sensitivity and subject matter of the complaint, and the impact losing a child likely had on the Applicant. It would have been incumbent on the Respondent to understand the presumed state of the Applicant after having lost her son when providing reasons to help her achieve acceptance of the decision made. It is clear in the text that she was not told or did not understand what had happened to her son’s ashes and was upset. Although the Respondent has provided an explanation in the Response as to where the ashes went, they did not explain why or how that decision was made or the steps they took to ensure the Applicant understood.

CONCLUSION

28I find that the Applicant has established that the Respondent has failed to provide:

a. an opportunity to be heard for the complaints listed in paragraph 5 (a), (b), (c), (e), (f); and

b. written reasons for the complaints listed in paragraph 5 (e) and (f)

ORDER

29The Application is upheld in part.

30Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with detailed written reasons for the following:

1. the Respondent’s failure to return the Applicant’s son’s silver chain, moccasins, and dream catcher; and

2. the Respondent’s failure to return all of the Applicant’s son’s ashes to her.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

31Pursuant 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.