S.T. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2013 CFSRB 52

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

S.T. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: October 16, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 52

Indexed as: S.T. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application on April 2, 2013 regarding a complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”) under section 68 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, as amended (the “Act”).

2On April 11, 2013, the Board determined that the 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 68.1(4) 4 and 68.1(4) 5. The Board received the Summary Reply on April 23, 2013.

3On May 7, 2013, the Board determined that this matter would proceed by Written Hearing, and provided a letter of direction on July 9, 2013, setting out specific questions to the Applicant. On July 29, 2013, the Board received the Applicant’s submissions and on August 19, 2013, the Board received the Society’s responding submissions.

4It is the Applicant’s position that the Society has failed to meet its statutory obligations by failing to properly investigate and address his concerns about the well being of his child (“the Son”) while in the care of his mother (“the Mother”). Specifically, the Applicant alleges that the Society did not appropriately respond to his concerns that: (1) Adult sedative medication was prescribed in the Son’s name; (2) The Son’s medical needs were not being met by the Mother, and he was not receiving appropriate medical testing and treatment; (3) The Son received a serious burn while in the care of the Mother yet was not taken to a doctor until ten days following the injury; (4) Other concerns about the Son’s care while in the custody of the Mother; and, (5) The Society’s failure to provide disclosure of the family’s file following requests made since May 2012.

5The Society takes the position the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the application for the following reasons: (1) The application is virtually identical to the Applicant’s 2011 application (“the First Application”), which he did not pursue and which was closed administratively. The Applicant raised the same issues in his 2011 complaint to the Society’s Internal Complaint Review Panel. Again he did not pursue that complaint; (2) While the alleged failure to disclose the family’s file was not part of the First Application, it is not properly before the Board as file disclosure requests are not “a service” provided by the Society that falls within the purview of section 68.1(4) 4 of the Act; and (3) The subject matter of the complaint (being concerns about the mother and her care of the child) was decided by the Family Court in 2011. The Society submits that the application cannot be heard by the Board as it does not meet the criteria set out in the Act.

6Upon review of the Act and the materials submitted by the parties, the Board concludes that it has jurisdiction to hear this application. The Board has reviewed the following materials: The Application received April 15, 2013; The Society’s Summary Reply received April 23, 2013; The Applicant’s submissions received July 29, 2013; and, the Society’s Submissions received August 19, 2013. Upon review of these materials, the Board finds the Applicant was not being heard/ given reasons regarding his request for file disclosure. The Board dismisses the remaining allegations finding that the Society heard the Applicant and provided him with reasons.

BACKGROUND

7The Son has been diagnosed with developmental delays and is on the autism spectrum disorder. The Applicant is a foreign trained psychiatrist but did not practice in Ontario. The Society initially became involved with the family in April 2010, following a referral from police regarding concerns of domestic violence. The Applicant and the Mother were involved in family law proceedings. The Mother had custody of the Son and the applicant had access, which was finalized by the Court on June 14, 2011.

8As noted above, the Applicant commenced the First Application on June 13, 2011. The applicant left Canada in August 2011, and has not returned to Ontario. The Board closed the First Application on October 3, 2011.

9In May 2012, the Applicant requested that the Society provide him with a copy of the family’s file from June 2011, onwards. He already has a copy of the file up to June 2011. To date the Applicant has not received any disclosure.

10The Society closed its file (providing service to the Mother) in September 2012.

11In April 2013, the Applicant commenced this Application.

ANALYSIS

JURISDICTION

12For the reasons below the Board finds that it has the jurisdiction to hear this application. To arrive at this conclusion, the Board makes the following findings: (1) The Applicant received services from the Society; (2) The First Application was never disposed of on its merits; (3) The existence of a prior ICRP matter is irrelevant; and, (4) There is no evidence before the Board that the Applicant’s complaints about the Society were decided by the Court.

13The relevant sections of the Act are as follows:

3(1)

“service” means,

(a) a child development service,

(b) a child treatment service,

(c) a child welfare service,

(d) a community support service, or

(e) a youth justice service;

68.1(1) If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may

(a) decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 68 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this 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.

68.1(8) 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…

14Section 68.1 of the Act gives the Board authority to review a society’s actions in limited circumstances. Section 68.1(4) 5 provides that the Board may consider whether a society provided an applicant with reasons for a decision “in respect of a service sought or received from a society”.

15The first jurisdiction issue relates to whether the Applicant received a service from the Society. “Service” is defined in section 3 of the Act, to mean a child development service, a child treatment service, a child welfare service, a community support service, or a youth justice service. The Society acknowledges that the Applicant is a person who received services from the Society in the past. The Society disputes that the Applicant is currently a person who receives services on the basis that disclosure, does not fall within the definition of services contained in the Act.

16The Board finds that once a party has received services from a Society there is no time limitation as to when he/she must commence a complaint. There are no time limits in the Act, and if the legislature had intended to put time limits into s.68 it would have done so. Further, the Board has determined that file disclosure requests are a service. See, for example, P.O. v. FACS Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38. Files relating to any one of the enumerated types of services received are integrally related to that service as the Society has an obligation to keep records. A request for file disclosure is just one further aspect of the service relationship, in this case, a child welfare service relationship.

17The Board finds that a request for disclosure of the applicant’s file is a service that falls within its jurisdiction.

18The second jurisdiction issue stems from the Society’s request that the Application be dismissed as the complaint is virtually identical to the First Application, which was closed by letter dated October 3, 2011, after several unsuccessful attempts to contact the Applicant by telephone and by letter dated September 23, 2011. The absence of any limitation period in the Act also forms the basis to deny the Society’s request. As stated above, the Board neither heard nor decided the merits of that application. As such, the Board retains the jurisdiction to deal with this Application.

19Next, the Board will address the Society’s position with respect to the existence of an ICRP matter. Section 68.1(1) sets out that the Applicant need not bring his complaint to the Society before the matter can heard by the Board. The fact that the Applicant made a previous internal complaint to the Society is not relevant to the Board’s jurisdiction to hear this matter.

20Finally, the Board will consider whether or not the Applicant’s complaint has been decided by the court. Section 68.1(8) of the Act directs the Board not to conduct a review of a complaint if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

21The Court of Appeal clarified the very limited circumstances in which s.68.1(8) applies in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441, 2011ONCA 441, leave to appeal to SCC refused, at paras. 27 and 45:

In my view, before the CFSRB can embark on a review, it must be satisfied that the subject matter of the complaint is neither (i) an issue that has been decided by the court nor (ii) an issue that is currently before the court.

I do not accept the CAS position that if the matters could have been raised before the court that is where they must go. The language used in the statute is clear: only those matters “decided by the court or before the court” – past and present – are excluded from the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. If the legislature had intended that all matters that could be raised before the court were also excluded, it would have said so in clear language and it

did not.

22In this case there was no child protection proceeding, and the only matter before the Court was the family law dispute. Neither party provided any evidence that the Applicant’s complaints about the Society were addressed in that proceeding. On the contrary, the only evidence before the Board is a copy of a judge’s endorsement dated June 14, 2011. The endorsement directs the Applicant to feel free to communicate with the Society if he continues to have concerns that the Son’s health needs are being neglected by the Mother. As such, the Board declines to find that Applicant’s complaint was decided by the Court.

23For these reasons, the Board finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the application.

ANALYSIS (MERITS OF THE APPLICATION)

24The Board must decide whether the Applicant was heard regarding decisions that were made affecting his interests or when he raised service concerns, and whether he was provided with reasons for decisions that affected his interests. As a parent, the Applicant had a right to be heard and to reasons. The relevant provisions of 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 68.1(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.

25The Board’s role is to assess whether the Applicant was given the appropriate opportunity to be heard about his service concerns and whether he was provided with meaningful reasons for the decisions that were made. In P.O. v. FACS Niagara, above, 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.

26The “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, 2013 CFSRB 8 at para. 13, 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.

Issue 1: Adult Prescription Medication was Prescribed in the Son’s Name

27In September 2010, the Applicant contacted the Family Services Worker (“Family Worker”) to request an explanation as to why there was a prescription for an adult sedative medication in the Son’s name. The Family Worker responded by voicemail that the Mother reported that the issue had been raised at Court that the prescription was in error. She also advised the Applicant that a note from the family doctor explained that the medication was prescribed to the Mother and not the Son. As set out in the Applicant’s submissions, he engaged in further discussions about this issue with the Family Worker in January 2011. The Applicant was also in contact with the Family Services Supervisor (“Supervisor”) and the Client Services Manager.

28The Board finds that the Society investigated the Applicant’s complaint and responded within a reasonable timeframe, with an explanation that was sufficient to enable the Applicant to understand what had happened and why there was no ongoing concern. The Applicant does not accept the Society’s explanation. 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.

Issue 2: The Son’s Medical Needs Were Not Being Met by the Mother, and the Son was not Receiving Appropriate Medical Testing and Treatment

29In July 2010, the Applicant raised concerns about the Son’s medical needs which he attributed to the Mother’s poor care of the Son, the Mother failing to feed the Son, and the absence of appropriate steps taken by the Mother to have the Son assessed and treated for his developmental delays. The Family Worker investigated the Applicant’s concerns by following up with the Mother and with third party professionals to determine if therapy was being followed up.

30In early winter 2011, the Applicant spoke with the Family Worker by telephone to provide further details relating to speech and language services; vision and hearing testing; the absence of a humidifier. The Applicant followed up this call by faxing a ten page letter to the Society outlining his concerns, which was based in part on information provided by the Society in response to the Applicant’s requests for file disclosure.

31The Family Worker met with the Mother on many occasions and followed up on the nutritional and other concerns. She also received information (by way of telephone calls and written reports) from various doctors, clinics, the school, and community resources. On February 15, 2013, the Family Worker telephoned the Applicant to provide the information collected to date in response to his issues, and to advise that the Society had no concerns that the Son’s needs were being neglected. Further information was collected shortly afterwards and the Family Worker met with the Applicant at his home to provide him with a copy of the file, (although the Applicant already had a copy of his file up to January 2011), including reports from collaterals. The Family Worker confirmed once again that the Society did not have concerns about the Son’s care.

32In June 2011, the Society was advised by a doctor from a children’s hospital that the Son met the diagnosis for Autism Spectrum Disorder. The Family Worker left a message for the Applicant, and he responded by voicemail.

33As set out in the Applicant’s submissions, the Society declined to focus on the steps that the Mother had allegedly failed to take to address the Son’s needs prior to the family law proceedings and the Society’s involvement in 2010. The Applicant was of the view that the Society was not thorough enough in its investigation, notwithstanding his objections. However, as set out in the Applicant’s submissions, the Supervisor explained that the Applicant’s “standard’s (sic) are very high which is beyond our mandate”. Further, on at least two occasions the Society explained that they had no concerns about the Son’s care. The Society was of the opinion that the Mother was taking appropriate steps to find support for the Son’s developmental needs and behavioural issues.

34Based on the information set out above, the Board finds that the Applicant was provided the opportunity to be heard by the Society by communications that took place by way of telephone calls, voicemail exchanges, the Applicant’s letter, in-person meetings and the provision of the file. The Family Worker, Supervisor and the Client Services Manager communicated with the Applicant and the Society responded to the Applicant’s concerns. There was genuine communication with the Applicant and he was given several opportunities for input and response. Further, the explanations provided were responsive and dealt specifically with the Applicant’s position versus that of the Society, and thus, were sufficient to enable him to understand how and why the Society arrived at its conclusion that there were no concerns. It is not the Board’s role to comment on the way in which the Society defines its mandate or carries out its investigations, nor on the decision that the Society had no concerns about the Son’s care.

Issue 3: The Child’s Burn

35On Saturday May 28, 2011, during an access visit, the Applicant observed that the Son had suffered a burn while in the Mother’s care. He brought this to the attention of the supervised access center staff and they called the Society. The Applicant was concerned that the burn may have been caused intentionally by the Mother, particularly since the information he had been provided was contradictory (with respect to the cause of the burn). The Applicant was also concerned as the Mother had delayed taking the Son to see the doctor until 10 days after the Son was burned, and the burn had become infected.

36A duty worker who responded to the referral contacted the Son’s teacher on May 30, 2011, and a photo of the injury was sent to the Society. Another duty worker (“the Second Duty Worker”) called the Applicant to discuss his concerns about the burn and informed him of the communication with the teacher and the Son’s doctor. The next day the second duty worker left a message for the Applicant confirming that the Son’s doctor had seen the Son and had no concerns with respect to the injury, the Son’s general health, or the possibility of abuse or neglect by the Mother.

37The Applicant expressed to the Client Services Director that he felt that the Society was taking the matter casually, had not spoken with the Mother about the injury and was biased against him. He was directed to discuss his concerns with the family service team, and was informed that he could speak with the Supervisor or the Branch Manager.

38On June 1, 2011, the Family Worker spoke with the Mother by telephone and attended at her home. The Supervisor advised the Applicant by telephone of the steps taken in the investigation and the conclusion, being that the Society had no concerns that the injury was intentionally caused by the Mother. The Supervisor provided the Applicant with information about the Society’s complaint procedure and advised him that he could call the Branch Manager. The Applicant spoke with the Branch Manager on that day about his concerns, and was informed that he should put his complaints in writing so that they could be addressed.

39On June 2, 2011, the Family Worker spoke with the Applicant by telephone to discuss the investigation process and to review the information that had been collected. She informed the Applicant that the Society had concluded that the injury was accidental. On June 8, 2011, the Applicant spoke with the Client Services Manager about the burn injury, his allegations of medical neglect and the complaints process. She provided him with information about the Internal Complaint Process and the option of complaining to this Board.

40As described above, the issue of the burn injury was first brought to the Society’s attention on May 28, 2011, by a supervised access center staff. Within 10 days, the Society had spoken with the Son’s teacher, the Son’s doctor and the Mother. The Applicant was advised by telephone by the Family Worker and the Supervisor that neither the Son’s doctor nor the Society had any concerns that the Son was being abused or neglected while in the Mother’s care, nor did they believe that the injury was caused intentionally. The Branch Manager and the Client Services Manager advised the Applicant how to deal with his concerns, and he received information about the internal complaint process and this Board.

41Further, when he raised the fact that they had not spoken to the Mother, the Society did so. The sequence of events indicates that the Society took the Applicant’s allegations seriously, they followed up with professionals and then, after consulting with the Applicant further, with the Mother. The Society was responsive to the safety concerns raised and took the Applicant’s input into account, indicative of having heard him. In reporting back to him, the Society was thorough and gave him enough information to understand how and why it decided the burn was an accident, including reference to collateral sources. When the Applicant raised a service concern about how the investigation was handled, he was given opportunities to meet with a supervisor and the complaints process was provided to him. The Board concludes that the Applicant was given the appropriate opportunity to be heard with respect to the decisions and service concerns relating to the Son’s burn, and was provided reasons by several Society staff, within a reasonable timeframe. While the Applicant may disagree with the Society’s decision, it is not the Board’s role to review how the Society investigates a matter, or its conclusions.

Issue 4: Concerns about the Son’s Care While in the Custody of the Mother (Other than Those Set Out in Issues 1 to 3 above)

42The Applicant first contacted the Society on April 6, 2010, to discuss concerns he had observed since returning to Canada in February 2010. The concerns related to the Son’s delayed development and regressive behaviour, the Applicant’s opinion that the Mother suffered from a psychiatric disorder, and his view that the Mother was not caring for or supervising the Son.

43On July 23, 2010, the Applicant met with the Family Worker to discuss his concerns and he provided her with a document he had submitted at family court outlining his concerns. The Applicant submits that he also raised these concerns in a discussion that took place with the Branch Manager. The Board finds that these concerns fall into the same two broad areas that include the concerns set out in issues 1 to 3 above, and which are as follows: (a) concerns about the Son, his development and the lack of appropriate attention to address his needs; (b) concerns about the Mother and her intentional or neglectful care of the Son.

44The Board finds that in addition to the April 2010 meeting with the Family Worker and the June 2010 discussion with the Branch Manager, many other telephone calls and in-person meetings took place with various members of the Society staff and the Applicant. As set out in detail above, the Society investigated the Applicant’s concerns by speaking with the Mother in-person and by telephone, and by communicating with the teacher, the Son’s doctor and various collateral resources. The outcome of these investigations was communicated to the Applicant, as well as the conclusion that the Society had no concerns about the Mother’s ability to care for the Son. Also during this time the family court gave final sole custody of the Son to the Mother, notwithstanding the Applicant’s objection to same. The Board finds that the Applicant was appropriately heard by the Society, and was provided reasons for the decisions that were made.

Issue 5: The Society’s Refusal to Provide the Applicant with Disclosure of the Family’s File since May 2012

45On May 27, 2012, the Applicant sent an email to the Client Services Manager requesting that a copy of the family’s file from June 2011 onwards be sent to him in [Country A]. The Applicant sent further emails and left additional voicemail messages with a Society staff member (“the Case Worker”), but he received no meaningful response until August 13, 2012. At that time the Case Worker advised that after seeking an opinion from the Society’s legal counsel, a decision had been made to decline the request. The Society’s stated reasons for declining the request were as follows: (1) It is contrary to the Society’s confidentiality policies to provide a copy of the entire file by mail to someone who is out of the country; and, (2) Some of the information requested cannot be disclosed as the Society does not have a consent executed by the Mother.

46From August 13 to 17, 2012, an email exchange took place between the Applicant and the Case Worker (and copied to the Supervisor and the Society’s legal counsel) about file disclosure. The Applicant responded by email advising of the Court endorsement dated June 14, 2011 that specifically addresses his right to third party disclosure, and states as follows:

Resp (the Applicant) shall be entitled to the same information as the App (the Mother) receives about the child from the child’s schools, doctors and other services providers.

47The Applicant’s statutory right to information is pursuant to s. 20(5) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.12, which provides that:

The entitlement to access to a child includes the right to visit with and be visited by the child and the same right as a parent to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child.

48The Applicant also complained that the Mother could not decline to sign the consent with respect to information about the Son, but could only decline to consent to the release of her own personal information. The Applicant stated that a denial of this request would be confirmation of the Society’s negative attitude towards him.

49In the original email declining the disclosure request, the Case Worker offered that if the Applicant had specific questions regarding his Son, she may be able to provide some information about the Son. The Applicant responded by email on August 17, 2012 as follows:

I want to study the file and your offer of giving answers to my verbal questions does not fulfil the requirement of providing information as per the court order nor does it make part of any record. Also everybody has a different observation and analysis about a written thing, hence instead of being confused I myself would like to read the file which include the medical reports and psychological reports of the child.

50To date the requested disclosure has not been provided. The Applicant may have no information about the child’s more recent medical needs, the community services being provided or the child’s school and welfare. He may be unable to obtain this information except from the file disclosure from the Society since the Applicant is not in communication with the Mother.

51The Board finds that the Society’s response to the disclosure request is not indicative of having heard the Applicant. While an explanation was provided, when the explanation was challenged, no further consideration for the Applicant’s input seems to have occurred and [no]further explanation followed. As is the case for any parent involved with a Children’s Aid Society, the Applicant has a right to disclosure of the family’s file. In this case, a family court endorsement, and the Children’s Law Reform Act create a distinct but equally valid right to the file. The Board finds that the Society did not hear the Applicant and did not provide reasons in relation to the Applicant’s response to their initial decision/reasons. The Society has apparently persisted in its position but has not explained why, in light of the Applicant’s points including about the Court order, it cannot provide him with at least redacted copies of the file. The Board finds that the Society failed to meet its obligations under the Act.

52Since the Applicant is entitled to information about his child as an access parent and under the Court order and since the Society is a holder of that information, hearing him would entail responding to him in a way that acknowledges and respects his entitlement to information. This would include providing him with access to the file in a manner consistent with the Society’s policy: for example, a redacted file by courier, as opposed to mail. Alternatively, if the Society wishes to consider maintaining its position that it will not disclose a redacted file, it must provide the Applicant with a genuine opportunity to be heard and to brainstorm solutions regarding file disclosure. This would necessitate the Society providing the Applicant with a copy of their policy and the opportunity for a full discussion, such as by telephone meeting or email exchange. To hear the Applicant, the Society would then be obliged to consider his points in its decision-making. If the Society decided to maintain its position that it would not disclose the file, it must provide meaningful reasons to the Applicant, setting out its detailed response to each of his points, including the Court order and his point about consent not being necessary for information about the son and any other new points he may make, how his perspective was considered and why the Society decided to maintain a position contrary to his perspective.

CONCLUSION

53The Board finds in favour of the Society in respect of issues 1 to 4 above: the Applicant was heard and provided with reasons by the Society, as required under the Act, about his concerns relating to Son and the Mother. The Board finds in favour of the Applicant in respect of issue 5: the Applicant was not provided with a reasonable or meaningful response to his request for disclosure of the family’s file.

54The Board has specific remedial powers under the Act. These are:

Board decision

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

55Ordering a society to comply with “any other requirements under this Act”, must by necessary implication, mean ordering a society to hear the Applicant, otherwise the rights contained in the Act hold little meaning.

56Here, the Board finds that the suitable remedy is to order the Society to comply with the Act by hearing the Applicant. In the circumstances, and in particular, given the court order about accessing information from other services providers (which would include the Society), hearing the Applicant would entail providing him with a copy of the redacted file by courier, or by complying with the following order.

57If the Society will not exercise the option of providing the Applicant with a redacted file, by courier, the Board orders that the Society shall:

1. Provide the Applicant with a copy of its file disclosure policy;
2. Provide the Applicant with the opportunity to meet with the Society over the phone or by way of email exchange, to allow him to have input into the decision about file disclosure, including discussing options for delivery, before the decision is made; and,
3. If after the phone meeting or email exchange, the Society wishes to refuse disclosure it shall provide the Applicant with detailed reasons for its decision, with reference to its policy and the points he has raised about the court order, the lack of necessity for the mother’s consent for information about the son and any new points, explaining how the Society took the policy and the points into consideration and providing a rationale for its decision not to disclose the file.

58The Society will have a month from the date of this decision to complete all of the above orders.

59The Board will stay seized for the purposes of implementing its order.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

60In accordance with the Board’s Rules 30.1 and 30.2 parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including through the media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board’s proceedings.

ANDREA HIMEL ______________________

Andrea Himel

Board Member