A.D. v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 28

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

A.D.

v.

Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: May 31, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 28

Indexed as: A.D. v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant filed this Application on May 3, 2012, pursuant to subsection 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.11, as amended (the “Act”).

2The Applicant alleges that the Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard about her concerns relating to a Society worker (the “Worker”) and failed to give her reasons for its decisions affecting her interests arising from these concerns. The Board heard the application on January 23 and May 2, 2013.

3The Application is dismissed for the reasons that follow.

BACKGROUND

4The Applicant requested help from the Society in January 2009 for her son due to his special needs and her exhaustion in caring for him. As a result, the Applicant and the Society entered into a temporary care agreement effective January [ ], 2009 which was extended in February 2009 for a six-month period. Her son was placed in a foster home. The Applicant’s son was apprehended by the Society on August [ ], 2009 and he was made a Crown Ward on February [ ], 2012. The Applicant began working with the Worker in the spring of 2009.

ANALYSIS

5The main issues for the Board are whether the Society heard the Applicant as required when she raised service concerns about the Worker, and whether the Society provided her with explanations relating to the decisions it made related to these concerns. The Board’s authority and the Society’s obligations are found in the following sections of the Act:

Matters for Board review

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

1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 68 (1) as required under subsection 68 (2).

2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.

3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.

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.

6. Such other matters as may be prescribed. 2006, c. 5, s. 26.

Review by Board

(5) Upon receipt of a complaint under this section, the Board shall conduct a review of the matter. 2006, c. 5, s. 26.

Application

(6) Subsections 68 (7), (8) and (9) apply with necessary modification to a review of a complaint made under this section. 2006, c. 5, s. 26.

Board decision

(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. 2006, c. 5, s. 26.

Duties of Service Providers

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;

6The Applicant had many concerns about the Worker that included allegations that he had yelled at her and threatened her, called her from a pay phone and disguised his voice, failed to respond to her phone calls, and failed to provide her with explanations for actions taken by the Society. She did not provide coherent and specific details for each of these concerns in her oral testimony except for broad timeframes starting at the time that she began working with the Worker in 2009.

7The Applicant had concerns as well about this Worker with regard to an incident related to a planned trip to [another province] in 2009 for her son that did not take place. However, this matter could not be heard by the Board because it had been before the Court and decided by the Court in February 2012. The Board had confirmed that this was the case in a letter to the Applicant dated July 4, 2012. The Applicant raised this as a significant issue of concern during the hearing and was informed again that the Board was not in a position to hear the matter in accordance with s.68.1 (8) of the Act which states that:

The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,

(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

8The Board noted specific reference to this matter in paragraphs 47 and 143 of the Court order dated February [ ], 2012 to support its decision on this matter.

9The Worker and his supervisor (the “Supervisor”) attested to the many concerns that the Applicant raised including her allegations about the Worker’s behaviour towards her. The Worker was a relatively new worker with the Society at the time that he began working with the Applicant and her son in the spring of 2009. He described the challenges he faced in attempting to respond to the Applicant’s frequent and persistent phone calls. In the interest of accommodating the Applicant, the Worker scheduled a specific time to speak with her on a weekly basis in order to ensure that he was available and had the time to deal with her concerns.

10The Applicant and Worker kept to this agreed upon schedule which reduced the number of calls. The questions and concerns raised during the phone conversations varied but included comments by the Applicant to the Worker that she was unhappy with him. The Worker indicated that he was doing his best for her son and provided the Applicant with information about the Society’s complaint review procedure. He explained to the Applicant that she could speak with the Supervisor about her concerns. The Applicant became increasingly hostile toward the Worker and as a result the Worker consulted with the Supervisor about the matter. This arrangement broke down in late November, early December 2009.

11At the time, the Society was in the process of changing its model of service delivery that entailed assigning a children’s worker focused on the child and a family services worker focused on working with the family. As a result, a new worker, a family services worker, was assigned to be the primary contact between the Society and the Applicant in December 2009. The Worker remained the child’s worker because of the positive relationship that had been established between the child and the Worker and the positive working relationship between the Worker and other professionals involved in the case.

12The Applicant spoke with the Supervisor on several occasions regarding her concerns about the Worker. The Supervisor testified that she investigated the Applicant’s complaints each time the Applicant made a complaint to her about the Worker. She spoke with the Worker regarding the allegations and he denied them as he did in his testimony to the Board. The Supervisor also spoke with the Worker’s colleagues who worked in an open work area adjacent to the Worker and would have been in a position to overhear the Worker. The Worker’s colleagues did not report to the Supervisor that they had heard or witnessed the Worker conducting himself in the inappropriate manner described by the Applicant.

13The Society did not proceed with a formal complaint review procedure since the Applicant did not put any of her concerns in writing to the Society or request a formal review. The Applicant did submit lengthy handwritten notes detailing her history with the Society during the hearing. However, none of these submissions included correspondence between her and the Society documenting the concerns about the Worker. The Society had many contacts with the Applicant in the interest of hearing and addressing her concerns including a meeting at her home with the previous executive director. The Supervisor spoke with the Worker each time the Applicant raised a concern and ultimately assigned a new worker to address the concerns. The Supervisor had initially put into place weekly update meetings with the Worker to support the Worker in addressing the Applicant’s concerns. All of these contacts between the Society and the Applicant were documented in case notes in accordance with the regular practice of the Society. Despite these attempts to hear her concerns and provide answers, the Applicant was not satisfied with the Society’s responses.

CONCLUSION

14The Applicant was persistent in her belief that the Worker had behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner toward her. The nature of her oral testimony was lacking in coherent details related to her contacts with the Society regarding these concerns. In addition, the Applicant did not submit into evidence any written correspondence to the Society outlining her concerns. However, there is no doubt that the Applicant expressed her concerns about the Worker to the Society. And there is no doubt that the Society heard the Applicant’s concerns by responding to them in a variety of ways including scheduling regular phone contact with her, arranging for a new worker to be a contact between the Applicant and the Society, providing the Applicant with information about how to deal with her concerns and attempting to address the Applicant’s concerns through discussions with the Supervisor. The Society took these actions in order to improve communication and the ongoing working relationship with the Applicant.

15The efforts made by both the Applicant and the Society did not result in an outcome that was satisfactory to either party. Despite this however, the Society has met its obligations under the Act and for this reason, the Board dismisses the application.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

16Parties 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.