HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mary Fortier
Applicant
-and-
Child and Family Services of Timmins and District, Payukotayno James and Hudson Bay Family Services, Earl Cheechoo, Ernest Beck, Marlene Kapashesit, Charlene Linklater, Sharleen Burgess, Rache Hughes and Elizabeth Iserhoff
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: April 17, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 455 Indexed as: Fortier v. Child and Family Services of Timmins and District
1In her Application, the applicant alleges discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability, ancestry, family status, association with a person identified by a prohibited ground and reprisal.
2This Interim Decision requests submissions on whether the allegations in this Application are within the power of the Tribunal to decide. A final determination on jurisdiction will not be made until the parties are afforded the opportunity to make submissions on this issue, as set out at the end of this Interim Decision.
3To assist the parties in making their submissions, I have summarized below what appear to be the uncontested facts, and the allegations against the respective parties.
Background
4The applicant is the paternal grandmother of a boy and girl. Child and Family Services of Timmins and District (“Timmins”) became involved with the family in July 2006 as the agency had some concern about the applicant’s son and his spouse’s ability to care for their two children. Timmins remained involved with the family until December 2007. The child protection file was transferred to Nippissing Children’s Aid Society, briefly, before being transferred to Payukotayno James and Hudson Bay Family Services (“Payukotayno”) on or about January 15, 2008. The latter transfer occurred because the applicant’s son and his spouse had moved to Moosonee.
5The applicant advises that she supported her grandchildren, both financially and as a caregiver, from the outset of Timmins’ involvement in the family. She notes that she became concerned with what she perceived as the increasing irresponsibility of her son and his spouse towards her grandchildren, and reported them to Timmins in February 2007. For a period after that, her contact with her grandchildren was terminated, but on March 29, 2007, her son, apparently with the tacit approval of his spouse, granted the applicant and her husband temporary custody of her granddaughter. The applicant continued to have custody of her granddaughter until February 15, 2008, at which time her son and spouse assumed responsibility for the girl.
6It is not clear what, if any, involvement the applicant had in the lives of her grandchildren after that, but in August 2008 she downloaded pictures of them on Facebook which concerned her. She reported this concern to the child welfare agencies. Payukotayno did an investigation, and reported to the applicant on August 22, 2008 that it had no concerns. Payukotayno’s child protection file was closed on October 2, 2008.
Allegations against Timmins
7Timmins was not named in the Application as a respondent, but was added as a respondent by Payukotayno because it appeared that some of the allegations against Payukotayno were more appropriately made against Timmins. From a review of the applicant’s material – in particular her Reply to Timmins’ Response – it would appear that the major allegations against Timmins are as follows:
a. After the applicant and her husband assumed custody of her granddaughter, a worker from Timmins would make home visits to check on the progress of the girl. The applicant alleges that the worker did not inform her that the applicant had “the legal right” to deny the worker access into her home. Moreover, the worker did not provide the applicant and her husband with a “Form 14,” which the applicant alleges would have protected her confidentiality.
b. The worker asked the applicant questions about her health, as well as questions related to her care of her granddaughter.
c. No one from Timmins intervened when the applicant advised the worker of her concern about her grandson, who was being moved about from placement to placement.
d. No one from Timmins got back to her when the applicant advised the worker that she and her husband would be willing to take in her grandson.
e. The applicant and her husband did not receive compensation during the time they cared for her granddaughter.
Allegations against Iserhoff
8Elizabeth Iserhoff (“Iserhoff”), one of the named respondents, is the mother of the applicant’s son’s spouse, and thus the maternal grandmother of the applicant’s two grandchildren. She is also a Child and Family Intervention Worker for Payukotayno. It is this dual role that appears to have been the source of the applicant’s concern.
9The applicant is of the view that, as a child welfare professional (the applicant seems to have mistakenly believed Iserhoff was a child protection worker), Iserhoff had a higher responsibility to report children in need of protection, including her own grandchildren. Iserhoff’s alleged failure to act is broadly classified as “professional misconduct” by the applicant. Moreover, because she was employed by Payukotayno, the applicant alleges Iserhoff was in a conflict of interest.
10It would appear from the applicant’s voluminous material that the applicant alleges that Iserhoff failed in her duty to her grandchildren and/or acted in a conflict of interest in the following manner:
a. In February 2007, when the applicant notified Iserhoff about what she considered to be an escalating pattern of irresponsibility on the part of her son and Iserhoff’s daughter, Iserhoff phoned Timmins during business hours and “scape-goated” the applicant rather than supporting her legitimate concerns. Iserhoff also failed to speak with her daughter about the applicant’s concerns at this time.
b. Iserhoff failed to report the applicant’s concerns about their grandchildren’s neglect to her employer, but rather informed Payukotayno that it was an issue between the two grandmothers.
c. Iserhoff left numerous voice mails, emails and MSN messages for the applicant concerning access to their granddaughter in December 2007 through to February 2008 thereby “cyber stalking” and “bullying” the applicant. This continued even after the applicant had returned their granddaughter to her parents.
d. Iserhoff stated in an email in February 2007 to the applicant “I hope your life will be fulfill with whatever left [sic],” which was a demeaning reference to the applicant’s disability and/or her age.
e. Iserhoff disparaged the applicant’s ability to look after their granddaughter because of the extent of the applicant’s disability.
f. When Iserhoff visited their granddaughter at the applicant’s home, she “presented herself in a formal manner” rather than as a “concerned grandmother.”
g. Iserhoff inappropriately asked the applicant to release their granddaughter into her care so she could take the girl to see Iserhoff’s dying mother. This proposed visit was not in the best interest of the child.
h. Iserhoff was on the camping trip in August 2008, but did not report the fact that their grandchildren were not being properly looked after to the proper authorities