CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
E.I.
v.
Halton CAS
REASONS FOR DECISION ON COMPLIANCE
Indexed as: E.I. v. Halton CAS (CFSA s.68)
Related Decision: Reasons for Decision on Merits - E.H. v. Halton CAS (CFSA s.68), 2009 CFSRB 31
Reasons for Decision on Jurisdiction - E.H. v. Halton CAS (CFSA s.68), 2009 CFSRB 18
INTRODUCTION
1On May 15, 2009, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) heard the application of E.I. (the “Applicant”) regarding a complaint against the Halton Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The Applicant complained to the Board that the Society failed to hear her concerns or provide her with reasons regarding evidence of sexual abuse of her children by their father. The Applicant also complained about the manner in which the Society portrayed her as referenced in a case note of June […], 1999.
2By decision dated July 13, 2009, the Board upheld the Applicant’s complaint about her concerns regarding sexual abuse and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for the actions that it took in response to the allegations made in March 2007 and April 2008. The Board further ordered that the explanation provided should reference the specific standards the Society relied upon in undertaking the steps involved in the process used, the factors relied upon in order to arrive at its conclusions and the reasons for not informing the Applicant of its plan to undertake the reinvestigation conducted in 2008. The Board notified the parties in its decision that it would remain seized of the application until the order was fully complied with by the Society.
3The Board dismissed the second complaint about how the Applicant was portrayed in a case note.
4By letter dated August 10, 2009, the Society provided written reasons for its actions taken in response to the allegations in March 2007 and April 2008. The Applicant wrote to the Board on August 26, 2009 indicating that the Society had not fully complied with the Board’s order. The Applicant raised a total of 116 questions related to the Society’s written response and the issue of compliance.
5By decision dated November 26, 2009, the Board concluded that the Society had generally complied with its order of July 13, 2009 and indicated to the Society the instances in which the Society was not in compliance and provided specific directions to bring it into full compliance. The Board notified the parties in its decision that it would remain seized of the application until the order was fully complied with by the Society.
6By letter dated December 7, 2009, the Society provided a written response to the directions given by the Board in its decision dated November 26, 2009. The Applicant wrote to the Board on February 7, 2010 indicating that the Society had not fully complied with the Board’s directions.
7The issue for the Board is whether the Society complied with the directions included in its decision of November 26, 2009 in order to bring it into full compliance with the Board’s original order dated July 13, 2009.
ANALYSIS
8In its decision of November 26, 2009, the Board directed the Society to provide a copy of the standards that it relied upon in undertaking its investigation into allegations of abuse including timeframes and concluding that the Applicant’s children were not in need of protection. The Board further directed that the Society provide specific reference to these standards and how the actions that it took were in compliance with these standards and if they were not, the reasons for not being in compliance. In addition, the Board directed the Society to clarify a point regarding a discrepancy in dates. Finally, the Board directed the Society to provide clarification regarding references to code and standard numbers made in its response of August 10, 2009.
9The Board reviewed the response that the Applicant submitted on February 7, 2010 regarding her belief that the Society had not complied with the order made by the Board in its decision dated November 26, 2009. The Board concludes that none of the issues raised in the Applicant’s response is relevant to the issue of compliance.
10The Board reviewed the Society’s response dated December 7, 2009 and concluded that it is in compliance with the directions of the Board. The Society provided a copy of the standards as well as information about how to access them electronically. It provided the coding information directed by the Board. The Society’s response contained sufficient detail to enable the Applicant to understand the basis for the decisions taken and clarified a number of points in question. Therefore, the Board concludes that the Society has fully complied with the Board’s original order.
CONCLUSION
11The Society’s response dated December 7, 2009 is in compliance with the Board’s directions as set out in its decision of November 26, 2009 and the Society is therefore in full compliance with the Board’s original order dated July 13, 2009. For these reasons, the Board is no longer seized of this matter and the file is closed.
Gail Gonda Presiding Member
Donald Butler Board Member
Patrick Doran Board Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 17th day of March, 2010.