SM v. Bruce Grey Child and Family Services, 2019 CFSRB 84

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SM

Applicant

-and-

Bruce Grey Child and Family Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens

Date: December 3, 2019

Citation: 2019 CFSRB 84

Indexed As: SM v Bruce Grey Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

SM, Applicant

Self-represented

Bruce Grey Child and Family Services, Respondent

John Morscher, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant and the Bruce Grey Child and Family Service (the “Society”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation held on June 12, 2019, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in the Application dated May 2, 2019 to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

2The Agreement contained four Terms, expressed as questions to the Society, which sought reasons and/or explanations from the Society. The parties agreed to a compliance date of July 11, 2019 and a non-compliance date of July 18, 2019.

3The Society sent a letter (the “Letter”), dated June 27, 2019, as its Response to the terms raised in the Agreement. A second letter dated August 30, 2019 was significantly later than the compliance date of July 18, 2019. Both letters were addressed to the Applicant, and were subsequently shared with the CFSRB.

4The Applicant sent an e-mail, dated July 12, 2019, to the CFSRB, advising that “It is my belief that the Society is non-compliance with most of the settlement issue.”

5In accordance with the CFSRB’s procedures, when there is an allegation of non-compliance, the CFSRB held a hearing by teleconference (the “Teleconference”) on October 31, 2019 to determine whether the Society had complied with the Agreement.

ANALYSIS

The Law

6The CFSRB had previously found the application to be eligible under section 120 (4) 4 and 5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”).

7The Act outlines the rights of Applicants, the duties and obligations of Children’s Aid Societies, and the mandate of the CFSRB.

8Section 120 of the Act reads as follows:

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

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2).

Subsection 15(2) reads as follows:

Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity 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.

5. 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

9The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom or validity of a decision made by the Society in the given situation under review by the CFSRB and for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act.

10In an allegation of non-compliance, an applicant’s statement of disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society does not negate or invalidate those reasons.

Terms of the Agreement

Term 1: The Society will give the Applicant a copy of the Society’s Policy & Procedures document re disclosure of private information to a third party that was in effect in November 2015, and a copy of the current Policy & Procedure on this subject if it is different from the 2015 version.

11The Applicant acknowledged that the Society had complied with Term 1, and no further action is required on this Term.

Term 2: Regarding the May 8 2018 letter from the Society to the Applicant:

a) Why and when did the Society move away from its original position as stated in its letter with respect to M.A.’s attendance at the Child’s home?

b) What new safety information became available to the Society after the May 8 2018 letter that led to the above-referenced change in the Society’s expectation re the safety of the Child as it relates to the Applicant’s partner’s attendance at the Child’s home?

c) The Applicant believes that she was not told directly by the Society of that change; why was this proposed change not discussed with the Applicant to obtain her views, and, when the Society did make a change in its position why was she not told directly by the Society of the change and the Society’s reasons for the change?

12Specifically as to Term 2a, the Letter stated that the correspondence of May 8, 2018 stated the position of the Society as it had evolved to that date. The Society was seeking four “bottom lines” on the safety of the Child, all of them revolving around the basic issue of the Society not wanting the Child to be residing with or having unsupervised access with M.A. The Society also indicated that what it had sought from the Applicant as to the Child’s safety was the same as what the Society presented in court. The prime driver of the Society’s position, as it evolved from what may have been previous positions, was the safety of the Child.

13The Society also made reference to the questions of Term 2 at the middle of the second page of its response, when it described in broad terms what it identified the requirements for the Child to feel safe in her home, and gave the Society’s thinking about not allowing M.A. access visits to occur in the home.

14The Letter stated that no new information had become available that changed the Society’s position on access, in response to Term 2b.

15With regard to Term 2c, the Society’s Letter re-iterated its position that the location of access was a contention issue, and that the Society wished to have a discussion on this with all parties and counsel present.

16I find that the Society gave a substantive reason and explanation on its decisions relating to Term 2 and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 3: Would the Society, as the recipient of the CAMH’s report, contact CAMH and clarify further CAMH’s recommendation and implementation plan of their recommendation, and convey to the Applicant the Society’s interpretation of what is recommended by CAMH and that this meets the Society’s expectations concerning M.A.’s therapy?

17From the comments made by both parties during the Teleconference, it is clear to me that the parties had spoken with each other about various aspects of Term 3. Page 2 of the Society’s letter makes general references to the issue of the circumstances which led to the report written by CAMH.

18In the discussion, the Society made expressly clear to the Applicant that the Society’s expectations would be met if the recommendations of the CAMH were followed and acted upon. The Society emphasized the importance for the Applicant to review the recommendations on an ongoing basis with her family.

19However, the Society’s letter did not explicitly convey in writing what it had conveyed verbally to the Applicant, namely that following the CAMH recommendations would satisfy the Society’s expectations. In line with this, the Society will issue a follow-up letter to the Applicant, with a copy to the CFSRB, confirming its position. This letter is to be mailed to the Applicant by November 8, 2019. It was agreed that, in the absence of any indication to the contrary by the Applicant in the week after November 8, the CFSRB will accept that the Applicant will have received her letter, as committed by the Society.

20The follow-up letter to the Applicant was dated November 8, 2019 and a copy was received by the CFSRB on November 13, 2019.

21I find that the Society failed to respond in writing, as required by the Agreement, on Term 3 of the Agreement. Thus, the Society failed to meet its commitment around the timing of its written response. However, I find that no substantial prejudice resulted for the Applicant, especially since there had been discussion on this issue. No remedial action is needed to correct the delay in the timing of the written response to Term 3. Notwithstanding the delay in giving a written response, with regard to the substance of the Society’s response, as given verbally in the Teleconference and as given in writing in its letter dated November 8, 2019, I find that the Society gave the Applicant substantive information and explanations on Term 3 and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 4: The Society will convene and ICRP in line with the Applicant’s mid-April 2019 written request, as per the Regulations (recognizing that the time-line at this point is out of sequence).

22The Applicant acknowledged that the Society had complied with Term 4, and no further action is required on this Term.

CONCLUSION

23I find that the Society did not meet its obligations under the Agreement with regard to the timing of the written response to Term 3.

24The Applicant had not alleged non-compliance with regard to Terms 1 and 4. I find that the Society did meet the requirements of the Agreement as to the content of its responses to Terms 2 and 3; as noted earlier, I find that the delay in the timing of the Society’s response to Term 3 was beyond the compliance date. I also find that this did not cause undue prejudice against the Applicant, and that the Society remedied this situation through its supplementary letter dated November 8, 2019.

ORDER

The Society has met its obligations to provide reasons and explanations for its decisions on Terms 2 and 3 in accordance with the Agreement and as required under the Act. Therefore, the allegation of non-compliance is dismissed, and the CFSRB's file is closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY

25Pursuant 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 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.