TM v. Dilico Ashinabek Family Care, 2019 ONCFSRB 75

BETWEEN:

TM Applicant

-and-

Dilico Ashinabek Family Care Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judy Finlay
Date: October 31, 2019
Citation: 2019 CFSRB 75
Indexed As: TM v Dilico Ashinabek Family Care (CYFSA s.120)

1On September 6, 2019, the Applicant alleged noncompliance by the Respondent with regards to Term #4 and Term#5 of the Settlement Agreement dated May 28, 2019.

2The Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O., 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (‘the Act’) outlines the Society’s obligations and the mandate of the CFSRB. Section 120 reads as follows:

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

Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint

3The Act does not permit the CFSRB to make a determination on the merits of a decision made by the Society The review power is limited to assessing whether reasons were provided.

4In accordance with the CFSRB’s procedures, when the allegation of non-compliance was made, the CFSRB held a non-compliance teleconference between the Applicant and the Respondent (Society) on October 3, 2019. Discussion took place and it was agreed that no further action could be taken by the Applicant regarding the Settlement Agreement.

5The allegation of noncompliance related to item #5 of the settlement agreement in which the Society agreed to provide a letter to the Applicant which explained why although on two previous occasions, child protection workers had no concerns with the Applicant as a caregiver, the current workers/managers have intervened due to child protection concerns related to the Applicant’s history.

6The Society wrote a letter dated June 25, 2019 in which it apologized to the Applicant for the discrepancy in service delivery. Discussion on the teleconference concluded that there was no reliable explanation other than to say that there had been an error in judgement which the Society attempted to correct with the most recent intervention which was more consistent with best practice and agency policy.

7The Applicant was not satisfied with this explanation and wanted a more detailed account of what contributed to the error.

8I felt that the Society met the requirement of terms 4 and 5 by taking responsibility for the discrepancy, saying there was an error in judgment and explaining how they would move forward in a comprehensive way. For this reason, the file has been closed.

confidentiality order

9Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 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 or Appeal with anyone, including through the media or online. 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.

10Dated at Toronto, October 31, 2019.

Judy Finlay

Judy Finlay Member