FB v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2019 CFSRB 20

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

FB

Applicant

-and-

Children's Aid Society of Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Gail Gonda Date: April 12, 2019 Citation: 2019 CFSRB 20 Indexed As: FB v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION

1F.B. (the “Applicant”) and Children's Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during settlement facilitation discussions on October 5, 2018 providing for full settlement of all issues raised by the Applicant in his application to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) dated August 15, 2018.

2The Agreement between the parties provided for implementation dates of October 12, 2018 and December 20, 2018 and a non-compliance date of December 27, 2018.

3On December 14, 2018, the CFSRB received correspondence from the Applicant raising concerns about the lack of information provided to him at the meeting scheduled as per the terms of the Agreement. On December 21, 2018 the Applicant confirmed that he was alleging non-compliance.

4The Society responded to the Applicant's allegations in writing to the CFSRB on December 21, 2018 in which it included a copy of a letter dated October 11, 2018 as per the terms of the Agreement. It also responded on January 17, 2019 with further details regarding the issue of compliance and included with that submission a copy of a letter dated January 8, 2019 written to the Applicant as per the terms of the Agreement.

5The Applicant alleged that neither the letter dated October 11, 2018 nor the letter dated January 8, 2019, adequately met the first term of the Agreement which specified that the Society would prepare a letter to the Applicant outlining the roles of the Society as well as the role of any other society involved in his case.

6The second letter, dated January 8, 2019 was prepared by the Society in accordance with the second term of the Agreement that specified the Society would provide a written summary of a meeting agreed to by the parties. This meeting was scheduled “... for both parties to discuss and determine how the parties will communicate”. This was in the interest of facilitating a better working relationship between the parties going forward. The Applicant's position was that the letter dated January 8, 2019 did not adequately meet the second term of the Agreement.

7The allegations of non-compliance were not clear to the CFSRB. During a teleconference with the parties conducted on January 29, 2019, the Applicant was directed to provide in writing by February 11, 2019 to the CFSRB and the Society specific details regarding how each of the letters described above failed to meet the terms of the Agreement. The Society was directed to provide its response to the Applicant's submissions in writing to the CFSRB and the Applicant by February 21, 2019. The Applicant was to provide a final response to the Society's submission by February 28, 2019 in writing to the CFSRB and the Society.

8Having reviewed the submissions, I find that the Society complied with the terms of the Agreement.

BACKGROUND

9During the pre-hearing on October 5, 2018, the parties agreed to mediation and arrived at a full settlement and agreed on the following terms:

• The Society would provide a letter to the Applicant via email, copy to his support person, outlining the roles of the Society and any other society involved in his case.

• The Society would schedule a meeting with the Applicant, the Family Service Worker, the Family Service Supervisor, the Applicant's support person, counsel for both parties to discuss and determine how the parties will communicate. A summary of the discussion would be provided to the Applicant in writing.

ANALYSIS

10The Society provided a letter dated October 11, 2018 to the Applicant outlining the roles of the Society as well as the role of any other society involved in his case in accordance with the first term of the Agreement. In addition, the Society scheduled and held a meeting with the Applicant on November 30, 2018 and provided a written summary of the meeting in a letter dated January 8, 2019 to the Applicant's counsel who was present at the meeting held on November 30, 2018. The date of the letter was outside of the timeframe set in the Agreement. It is clear from the letter and the submission provided by the Society that this delay was the result of the need to take into account a request by the Applicant made for additional information that arose in the course of the meeting and that was outside of the scope of the terms of the Agreement. Due to scheduling challenges and availability of staff to meet for the purpose of gathering the additional information requested by the Applicant, the written summary of the meeting along with the information was delayed beyond the implementation date set in the Agreement.

11The Applicant did not provide clear and focused submissions regarding his allegation that the Society had not complied with the Agreement. In a submission dated February 11, 2019, he stated that “the [Society] could have provided additional information to the CFRB pertaining to the duties of the family service worker ...” Although that may be the case, this does not constitute evidence that the Society failed to provide the Applicant with a written outline of the role of the Society as per the terms of the Agreement. The Applicant is free to engage in on-going discussions with staff and supervisors about the Society’s policies and practices and any other matters that may be unclear to him.

12The terms of the Agreement between the parties were meant as a catalyst for repairing and resetting the working relationship between the parties which was fractured. The Agreement was meant to initiate on-going communication between the parties and a better working relationship. While the meeting may not have been as successful in achieving this goal, pursuant to the Agreement, the meeting was nonetheless scheduled, a written summary of the meeting was provided, and overviews of the role of the Society and another society were outlined in a separate letter to the Applicant.

13In his submissions, the Applicant raised new issues which were not the subject of the original complaint or meant to be addressed by way of the Agreement. These issues are outlined in the Applicant's two submissions dated February 11, 2019 and include, among a number of issues, his request for information as well as difficulties in scheduling sessions with a therapist. These issues, and others identified in these submissions by the Applicant, arose outside of the context of the original complaint to the CFSRB and are outside the scope of the terms of the Agreement.

14The Applicant has the right to make concerns that are outside the scope of the Agreement known to the Society through his on-going relationship with his designated worker or supervisors, and through the Society's formal complaint procedures should he wish to do so. He also has the right to make a complaint regarding new issues to the CFSRB that fall under its jurisdiction.

15The Society complied with the terms of the agreement. While I acknowledge that the Applicant is dissatisfied with the outcomes, the Society has met its obligations. I am satisfied that the Society acted in good faith and its actions were consistent with the terms of the Agreement.

DECISION

16I am satisfied that the Society complied with the terms of the Agreement and the allegation of non-compliance by FB is dismissed. The file is now closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

17Pursuant to Rules 9.1 and 9.2 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB 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 CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.