S.R. v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2012 CFSRB 12

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

S.R.

v.

Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: April 11, 2012

Citation: 2012 CFSRB 12

Indexed as: S.R. v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

(CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1On December 6, 2011, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from S.R. (the “Applicant”) regarding a complaint against Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region (the “Society”) pursuant to sections 68.1(4) 4 and 68.1(4) 5 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”).

2The application was determined to be eligible on December 8, 2011 pursuant to subsections 68.1(4) 4 and 68.1(4) 5 of the Act. The Society delivered a summary reply to the Board on December 15, 2011, in which it took the position that the Board could not hear the merits of this application because the Applicant’s complaint provided no indication that there were issues about which he had not been given an opportunity to be heard, or any allegation that the Society failed to provide him with reasons for a decision.

3The Board held a hearing to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to proceed with the merits on March 28, 2012. The Board, for the reasons that follow, found that it could hear the merits of the application. The hearing on the merits of the application was held on that day in Kitchener, Ontario.

4For the reasons that follow, the Board upholds a part of the Applicant’s complaint, and dismisses the remainder of the Application.

BACKGROUND

5The Applicant is the father of S.R.[2] [“the child”] , born July […], 2002. The Applicant gained joint custody of the child through Family Court proceedings in 2003. In 2008 the Applicant and his wife reconciled and the family moved to Kitchener. The Society became involved with the family subsequently. The child is currently the subject of a Protection Application brought by the Society, scheduled to be heard in May, 2012.

6In October, 2011 the Applicant requested that the Society change the ongoing Service Worker for the R. family, S.C. [service worker], as he believed she had assisted his wife in litigation against him, had made arrangements on two occasions to have him arrested, and had made no effort to assist him in seeing his son.

7In November 2011, representatives of the Society met with the Applicant and agreed to provide a new worker for the Applicant. The Society decided to retain the existing worker for the child and his mother.

8On December 4, 2011, the Applicant complained to the Board, and the following issues were the basis of the hearing that took place on March 28, 2012:

Whether the Society failed to listen to the Applicant’s service concerns or failed to hear him when decisions were made, and whether or not the Society has provided him with reasons for decisions that affected his interests, regarding the [service worker], whom the Applicant alleged took actions to support his ex-wife in her case against him.

JURISDICTION

9Under subsections 68.1(4) 4 and 68.1(4) 5 of the Act the Board can review the following matters:

68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2(2) (a).

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

Section 2(2) (a) of the Act sets out the following requirements which the Society has to comply with:

2(2) Service providers shall ensure,

(a) that children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.

10At the jurisdiction hearing, the Society took the position that the Society had heard the Applicant’s concerns. It submitted that at a meeting on November […], 2011 the Applicant’s concerns were fully addressed and responded to by the Society. The Society was of the view that the Applicant’s complaint was not based on an allegation that he had not been heard but stemmed from the Society’s decision that [the service worker] would continue to work with his wife and child, against his wishes. The Society submitted that the Applicant’s concern had been heard, that he had been provided with reasons for the Society’s decision, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear this matter.

11Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Board ought to ascertain whether the Applicant was heard by the Society, as he was of the view that he had not been heard. She submitted that although the Society stated that it had heard his complaint, the Society had not really heard the Applicant’s concerns. The Applicant’s counsel argued that the Board should not accept the statements relied upon by the Society as facts, since the facts were in dispute; they went to the merits of the Applicant’s complaint and were the subject of the hearing.

12The Board found that it had jurisdiction to review this complaint. The Board’s mandate under the Act is to address an applicant’s rights and interests when the Society delivers services or makes decisions.

13Pursuant to sections 68 and 68.1of the Act, the Board must ensure that the Society is meeting its statutory obligations with respect to the services it provides. Under sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 68.1(4) of the Act, the Board has to ensure that the Society listens to parents and provides them with reasons for decisions which affect their lives and those of their children, as appropriate. This involves an examination of the process used and the level of communication.

14The Board found that there was a disagreement regarding whether the Applicant had been heard and given reasons by the Society for its decision. Therefore, because the facts were in dispute, the Board found that proceeding to hear the merits of the Application was required.

15The Board proceeded to hear the merits of the application.

MERITS

16The Board now has to determine whether the Society failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard as required by section 2(2) (a) of the Act and failed to provide him with reasons for decisions that affected his interests relating to the Society’s involvement with him and his son with respect to the [service worker] whom the Applicant alleges took actions to support his ex-wife in her case against him.

17The Applicant testified that he requested that the Society change the [service worker], as he believed she had assisted his ex-wife in litigation against him, had made arrangements on two occasions to have him arrested, and had made no effort to assist him in seeing his son. Although there was an order in Family Court that allowed him to see his child at the child/parenting centre, he has not seen his child since October […], 2010.

18The Applicant met on November […], 2011 with [the service worker’s] supervisor and manager and following this meeting a decision was made by the Society to assign the Applicant with a new worker. [The service worker] continued to be the worker for the child and his mother. The explanation provided by the Society when it declined to fully remove [the service worker] from the file was that the Society believed that the worker had bonded with the child.

19The Applicant believes the problem is not solved. He wishes [the service worker] to be removed from the family’s case completely and not just his case. The Applicant believes that the situation has been exacerbated as he feels [the service worker] is destroying his bond with his son. The Applicant feels that the new worker assigned to him has not been helpful.

20Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant was not heard by the Society. The Society made an attempt to deal with his concern but the measure it took in response was not appropriate. It did not address his concern that [the service worker] should no longer work with anyone in his family, because of the steps he felt she had taken against him. The Applicant believes that the Society did not really hear his concerns, being that the worker took an interest in his family that went beyond assisting, and actively took the part of the Applicant’s ex-wife. The response to provide him with a new worker was an attempt to placate the Applicant; however, this response did not address his concerns. As a result, the Applicant believes that the Society has not heard or understood what he had to say.

21At the Hearing, the Society chose not to call any evidence. In summary arguments, Counsel for the Society submitted that the issue is that the Applicant disagrees with the Society’s decision. Counsel further submitted that the Applicant admitted in his testimony that he had explained his concerns to the Society, that the Society knew his concerns, and that the Society told him why it was not changing the worker for the child and his mother.

22The Board finds that the Society did meet a portion of its obligations as required by section 2(2) (a) of the Act related to the allegation raised by the Applicant. Specifically the Society met its obligations to hear the Applicant regarding the following:

1. The Applicant’s request for a change in worker for the family, [service worker], whom the Applicant alleges took actions to support his ex-wife in her case against him.

23The Board finds that the Society provided an opportunity for the Applicant to state his concerns at the meeting of November […], 2011. This meeting provided him with a forum at which his concerns were fully heard.

24The Board finds, however, that the Society did not provide the Applicant with fulsome reasons which would address the specifics of the Applicant’s case and provide him with detailed reasons to explain the Society’s decision to continue to have [the service worker] fulfill the role as family services worker for the Applicant’s wife and child. The Applicant appeared not to understand the factors that were taken into account by the Society and why his specific concerns were overridden.

25The remedies available under the Act are the following:

s.68.1(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.

ORDERS

26The Board orders the Society to provide detailed comprehensive written reasons to the Applicant to explain its decision in relation to the events in this case. The letter should be provided within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this decision.

Andrea Himel

Andrea Himel

Presiding Member

Celia Denov

Celia Denov

Board Member

Heather Hunter

Heather Hunter

Board Member