CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
H.S.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
WRITTEN REVIEW
Indexed as: H.S. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an Application from the Applicant on April 4, 2013 regarding a complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”) under section 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, as amended (the “Act”). The Board received further documentation from the Applicant on April 10, 2013.
2On April 11, 2013, the Board determined that the Applicant’s application was eligible to proceed to the next stage of the Board’s process: the receipt of the Society’s Summary Reply. The application was found eligible under subsection 68(5), which relates to statutory compliance with the internal complaint process.
3The Board received the Society’s Summary Reply to the application on April 18, 2013. The Applicant provided responding materials on May 2, 2013, including a letter from his wife, as well as other documentation.
4The Board has determined that an oral hearing is not required in this case as the Board has sufficient information before it to make its decision based on the written material filed.
5It is the Applicant’s position that he was not heard at the Internal Complaints Review Process (the “ICRP”) that was conducted on January [ ], 2013. At the ICRP the Applicant complained about certain aspects of the investigation that was carried out by the Society and by police arising from allegations of domestic violence involving his family that led to criminal charges and conditions that he be removed from the home.
The Applicant also complained about the Society’s decision to place the children with the third party that he felt was behind the allegations, against the parents’ wishes.
6It is the Society’s position that it has met its obligations by conducting an ICRP at which time the Applicant’s concerns were reviewed, and explanations were provided. The Applicant was also provided with a copy of CAS and police protocol in order to respond to his concerns about the investigation and various interviews that had taken place. The Applicant was encouraged to follow up on his concerns with the police.
7On February [ ], 2013, the Society sent the ICRP summary letter to the Applicant that reviewed the contents of the ICRP meeting, summarized the concerns and discussions, and identified next steps. The concerns identified and responded to in the Society’s ICRP summary letter are as follows:
(1) the Society allowed the children to be videotaped, with no neutral party present and without the knowledge and consent of the parents.
(2) the Society interviewed one child at school, without parental consent.
8The Society explained the protocol that exists between the police and the CAS, which governs how children are interviewed, and the reasons that this approach is used in these investigations.
(3) the Applicant and his wife felt discriminated against by the CAS, and felt prejudged by the investigating worker as someone with drug or mental health issues.
9The Society explained that questions about drug use and mental health issues are standard questions that are part of the Safety and Risk Assessment tools used by the investigating worker. The letter explained that the investigating worker weighs the responses with other probative evidence.
(4) the Applicant was denied access to his son when he was admitted to the hospital because the Society’s workers declined to accompany him, and there was a requirement in place for supervised access.
10The Society explained the reason for declining the request, being that the file had been closed at the request of the Applicant’s wife who did not want to work collaboratively with the Society. However, the Society acknowledged that the request was reasonable and could have been handled differently.
11On February [ ], 2013, the Applicant wrote to the Society setting out specific concerns that arose from the Society’s ICRP summary letter. The Applicant’s first concern was that the letter made no reference to his complaint that the investigating worker called the family home repeatedly threatening court action. The first letter also made no reference to an earlier letter that the Applicant produced at the ICRP hearing, which he considered threatening. Second, the Applicant disagreed with the Society’s response to the fourth concern (set out above). The Applicant disagreed that his wife was unwilling to work collaboratively with the Society. However, he did not dispute the Society’s stated reason for declining to accompany him to the hospital, which was that the file was closed. Third, the Applicant raised concerns about the allegation that his child had been pressured to change her original statement to police, and about the children’s placement with a third party who was the person he blamed for the incident (which resulted in criminal charges against the Applicant).
12On March [ ], 2013, the Client Services Manager (who had not attended the ICRP hearing) informed the Applicant that she was working with the individuals who had been present in order to respond to his concerns. On April [ ], 2013, the Society sent a second letter to the Applicant that provided explanations about certain steps taken in the investigation, and the decision that he must be removed from the home. The Society responded to the Applicant’s first concern about the threatening phone calls by explaining that these are part of the investigative protocol as outlined in the ICRP summary letter. With respect to the letter that the Applicant produced at the hearing, the professionals who attended the hearing did not recall seeing this letter. However, the professionals reviewed the letter and provided an explanation; the letter was not a threat but a request for a meeting with the family. The Society responded to the third concern by explaining that the Applicant’s removal from the home was a direct result of the criminal charges and bail conditions, information that should have been included in the ICRP summary letter.
13Based on the information provided by the Applicant and the Society the Board dismisses the Application. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Society has complied with its obligations in conducting the ICRP hearing in a manner that heard the Applicant and provided him with reasons.
ANALYSIS
14Where a Society has conducted an ICRP hearing, the matter before the Board is to review the ICRP process and decision. The relevant provisions of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, as amended (the “Act”) are as follows:
Section 2(2)a
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.
Section 68(5)
If a complaint relates to one of the following matters, the complainant may apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the complaint review procedure:
- A matter described in section 68.1(4)
Section 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.
15The Board’s role is to assess whether the Applicant’s concerns were heard at the ICRP hearing, whether he was provided with meaningful reasons for the decisions that were made, and whether the Applicant was heard during that process. In P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33, at paras. 13-14, the Board described the purpose of s.68.1 (4) and (5) and addressed s. 68.1 (4) 4 as follows:
The obligations under s. 68.1(4) 4 and 5 reflect the importance of active participation for parents, providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. This is facilitated through genuine communication, giving applicants the opportunity to have input into decision making and to have enough information to make informed responses to, or accept decisions.
To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.
16The “right to reasons” under the Act, means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (CA12-0140) the Board held that:
With respect to this section of the Act, 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 complainant must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.
17In this case, the Applicant’s position is that he does not agree with the explanations provided to him at the ICRP hearing, and set out earlier in this decision, and he does not agree with the decisions made by the Society during the investigation phase and throughout the Society’s involvement. For example, the Applicant rejects the Society’s explanation that his wife was not prepared to work collaboratively with the Society. However, it is not the Board’s role to assess whether or not the Society’s explanations are correct, nor is it the Board’s role to assess the reasonableness of the Society’s decisions.
18The Board finds that the Applicant was provided the opportunity to be heard at the ICRP meeting, and he was provided meaningful explanations both during the ICRP meeting and in the ICRP summary letter dated February [ ], 2013. Further, when the Applicant complained on February [ ], 2013, that “some of my concerns were deliberately left out,” the Client Services Manager looked into these concerns. The Client Services Manager contacted the Applicant by telephone to advise him that she was working with the professionals who had been present at the ICRP hearing in order to respond to his concerns. On April [ ], 2013, the Society issued a second letter responding to outstanding issues.
19Upon review of the correspondence between the parties that followed the ICRP hearing, and after considering the written material filed by the parties, and for the reasons set out above the Board finds that the Society has complied with the Act.
CONCLUSION
20The Board dismisses the Applicant’s application.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
21Parties and their representatives must not use, share or disclose any documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including the media or on-line. Any documents or information shared by the parties must be used only for the purpose of the hearing of this application by the Board.
ANDREA HIMEL ______________________
Andrea Himel
Board Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 28th day of May, 2013.