D.B. v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County and Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, 2013 CFSRB 61

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

D.B.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County

and

Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County

IMPLEMENTATION DECISION

Date: November 19, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 61 (Companion to 2013 CFSRB 41 Decision dated August 12, 2013)

Indexed as: D.B. v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County & Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (CFSA s.68)

1This is an application under s. 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA).

2The Board issued its decision in this matter on August 12, 2013. The Board made orders relating to interviewing the Applicant and her daughter (paragraph 80) (Guelph) and to investigating the Applicant’s service concerns about racial discrimination (paragraphs 81 (Guelph) and 82 (Oxford).

3The Board stayed seized of the orders for implementation purposes.

4The Board has reviewed the materials submitted by all parties regarding implementation. These materials are:

• September 13, 2013, letter from Guelph to Board
• September 16, 2013 letter from Applicant to Board
• September 19, 2013 letter from Oxford to Board
• September 30, 2013 letter from Oxford to the Applicant, copied to Board
• October 22, 2013 letter to Applicant from Guelph, copied to Board
• October 27, 2013 letter from Applicant to the Board

Order Regarding Hearing the Applicant/Her daughter in the Investigation and providing reasons:

Guelph, Paragraph 80 Order

5The Board is satisfied that Guelph has complied with the order at paragraph 80 of the decision. Guelph did not meet the time line originally set by the Board but a new time line was arranged with the assistance of the Board and with the agreement of the parties. This was dealt with at an implementation teleconference on September 25, 2013 and referenced in the pre-hearing report dated September 27, 2013. The Board read the communications provided to it between Guelph and the Applicant about setting up the interviews, namely, the September 2, 2013 letter of the Applicant and attached emails as well as a letter to the Board from Guelph dated September 25, 2013.

6Guelph complied with the paragraph 80 order in that it followed a process for hearing from the Applicant and her daughter and it reconsidered whether to re-open the investigation, following this meeting. Guelph also provided an explanation for its decision and its rationale for not re-opening the investigation on the basis of the information in the video of the girl and following its interview with the Applicant and her daughter. This satisfies the part of the reasons order in paragraph 81 that deals with the order in paragraph 80. The Board’s role ends here in this regard because the Society followed the process, as ordered to hear from the Applicant and her daughter and to consider the video of the girl. The Applicant disagrees with the conclusions reached by the Society and questions its rationale. She is free to do so directly with the Society. This Board’s mandate does not extend to the merits of the Society’s conclusions.

Orders Regarding Hearing Service Concerns and providing reasons

7With respect to the Board’s orders about the Applicant’s service concerns about racial discrimination, neither Society has complied with the orders.

Guelph, Paragraph 81 Order

8Guelph advised in its September 2013 letter, that it could not comply because Oxford would not make its workers available to Guelph for its investigation. This means that a critical piece: the potential impact of racism in the investigation was not factored into the assessment of Guelph’s findings. Thus, while Guelph completed part of the process of hearing the Applicant and considered that information, it did not complete the second part of hearing the Applicant and the re-assessment of its conclusions that would flow from an investigation of whether racism impacted the investigations of the Applicant and her family. Oxford’s lack of cooperation in this regard, with its sister Society is noted by the Board.

Oxford, Paragraph 82 Order

9Oxford conducted an investigation and described the steps it took in detail, as well as its conclusions, however, it did not include the input of the Applicant and her daughter in its investigation or outcome, as required by a plain reading of the order at paragraph 82. The purpose of the order in paragraph 82, as prefaced by the Board’s introduction to the orders at paragraph 80, is to ensure that the Applicant was heard. Conducting an investigation of service concerns about racism of necessity would include an interview with the party affected. Instead of doing this, the Society used the Board’s decision as a proxy for the Applicant’s input. This was not the point or purpose of the order. The Board also required the Societies to reference the human rights principles from the decision of Abdallah v. Thames Valley District School Board, 2008 HRTO 230 cited at paragraph 68 of the decision on the merits. These include having a policy in place for human rights, here, racism complaints. Oxford did not cite or follow such a policy.

10The Societies have not complied with the letter and spirit of the Board’s order relating to the Applicant’s service concerns that race was a factor in the investigations in question. However, the Applicant has advised that she is pursuing this matter at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and has requested the use of the Board’s decision in that forum.

Use of Information at the HRTO

11The Applicant has advised the Board that she is commencing an application at the HRTO. She has requested permission to use the Board’s decision in that process. The Societies object to her use of the decision in that forum. Guelph does not see the Board’s decision being relevant to the HRTO, which has a different mandate. It is for the HRTO to decide relevance and not this Board. The Board sees no reason why another tribunal grappling with potentially overlapping facts or issues, should not have access to the Board’s decision to determine for itself, the relevance, if any. However, the redacted version must be used because of the privacy protections in the CFSA [s. 45 (8)]. The Board is providing a copy of the redacted (sanitized) version to the parties, with these reasons.

12The Applicant can also share this decision on implementation with the HRTO as the Board has used initials only and it is a continuation of the Board’s decision.

13The Applicant indicated on October 29, 2013, that she is in the process of submitting a claim to the Ontario Human Rights Commission [sic] (Tribunal).

14The Child and Family Services Review Board has concluded its role in this matter.