C.K. v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, 2015 HRTO 450

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

C.K. Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: April 7, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 450 Indexed as: C.K. v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County

APPEARANCES

C.K., Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, Respondent Sheila Handler, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

2The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction dated December 31, 2014 advising the parties that a hearing would be held to consider whether or not the Tribunal has the authority to deal with the applicant’s allegations.

3The hearing took place by teleconference on March 24, 2015. The applicant made submissions on her own behalf. The respondent was represented by counsel.

4Because of the privacy issues engaged by this Application, the parties agreed that the applicant should be identified by her initials in this Decision. For the same reason, I have set out only those facts which are necessary to explain my Decision.

5During the teleconference, I explained to the applicant that I would not be hearing evidence or assessing her credibility and that I would assume that she was telling the truth. The applicant understood the difference between an experience which is unfair and one which is discriminatory. She explained her belief that the unfairness she experienced was connected to her disability. That connection is the basis for her allegation of discrimination.

6The applicant gave birth to two children who have been adopted by another couple. The applicant believes that she entered into an open adoption. She has assumed that the adoption is open because she was not told otherwise. The respondent disputes that the adoption was open. The applicant alleges that the adoptive parents will not provide her with access to, or information about the children, because of perceptions about the applicant which are disability-related.

7The applicant brought a proceeding before the Child and Family Services Review Board on January 17, 2014. The application was settled. The applicant agreed to write a letter to the adoptive parents. The CAS agreed to relay the applicant’s letter to the adoptive parents and provide the applicant with any response. An adoption worker from the CAS met with the applicant on or about May 7, 2014 to advise the applicant that the adoptive parents would not agree to communicate with her.

8The applicant alleges that the worker advised her, among other things, that the adoptive parents do not wish to communicate with her because of disability-related issues. The applicant states that she felt the worker was relaying a message of discrimination from the adoptive parents.

9The applicant brought the matter back before the CFSRB alleging that the CAS did not comply with the settlement agreement because the adoptive parents were still refusing to communicate with her due to her past disability. The CFSRB found that the CAS had complied with the terms of the settlement. The CFSRB also found that it did not have the jurisdiction to determine or enforce the openness issues raised by the applicant. She was directed to file a Court application to obtain a determination of those issues.

10The compliance decision was ordered sealed by the CFSRB along with the settlement agreement. There is also a confidentiality order which prohibits the parties from referring to the compliance order in any other proceeding.

11I have not found it necessary to consider the findings of the CFSRB, the terms of the settlement, or the findings set out in the compliance decision. My decision is based on the allegations contained in the Application.

12The applicant stressed that this Application is not about attempting to gain access to, or information about, the children. The adoptive parents are not respondents to this Application. As counsel for the CAS pointed out, the adoptive parents do not provide a service to the applicant nor is there evidence of any contractual relationship which would bring them within the authority of this Tribunal under the Code.

13The applicant argues that when the message from the adoptive parents was relayed to her, she felt that the CAS worker was “in on the discrimination”. The applicant believes that the worker could have taken some kind of action or refused to relay the message to the applicant.

14Even if I accept the applicant’s allegations about the nature of the message relayed to her, there is no reasonable prospect that these facts would lead to a finding of discrimination against the CAS. The CAS has no role in supervising the adoptive family nor does it have control over the wishes of the adoptive parents in these circumstances. The applicant found the situation extremely upsetting and feels that she has been treated unfairly. Unfortunately, the CAS has no power to remedy this situation.

15The questions that the applicant is seeking answers to, including whether or not the adoption was “open”; what rights to access and information she has if any; what obligations the adoptive parents have toward her if any; whether the adoptive parents can refuse to communicate with her and for what reasons as well as what role the CAS can play in resolving any of these issues, are questions to be answered by a Court. They are not within the authority of this Tribunal to resolve.

16Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.