EV v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2020 CFSRB 106

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

EV Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services Niagara Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: December 04, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 106 Indexed As: EV v Family and Children’s Services Niagara (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

EV, Applicant Self-represented

Family and Children’s Services Niagara, Respondent Maggie Scull, Counsel

background

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”). The CFRSB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5.

2A mediation took place by teleconference on October 19, 2020 between the Applicant and the Respondent facilitated by a Board member. The Applicant brought his complaint forward to the CFSRB because he believed that the Respondent was not following a previous CFSRB Settlement; that the Respondent had falsified documents; and that the Respondent has made false allegations against him.

3A Settlement Agreement was reached which had an implementation date of November 17, 2020 and a non-compliance date of November 25, 2020.

4The Respondent provided the Applicant with a letter dated November 9, 2020 in which it outlined its responses to the Terms of the Settlement Agreement.

5In an e-mail dated November 11, 2020, the Applicant alleged that the Respondent has lied and requested a hearing. The Applicant sent another e-mail dated November 10, 2020 in which he alleged non-compliance. He indicated that the Respondent did not address the “SV” case and that the response provided only dealt with the “N” case. He again, requested to move to a hearing on the merits of his complaint.

6The Respondent submitted that it has responded to each and every point raised in the Settlement Agreement. The Respondent indicated that its response did not outline specific questions related to the child “SV” other than specific incidents cited in each Term, and that further concerns related to “SV” were not dealt with in the Applicant’s complaint.

7While the Applicant may disagree with the answers provided, the Respondent indicated that it has conducted a thorough review of records and spoken to all relevant workers relating to the concerns raised by the Applicant.

8In accordance with Rule 8.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, the CFSRB has the discretion to adjudicate allegations of non-compliance orally or in writing. Given the circumstances of this case, I proceeded with written submission regarding non-compliance of the Terms of the Settlement Agreement.

DECISION

9After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, I find that the Respondent has met its commitments and obligations as set out in the Settlement Agreement, and as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”). The reasons for my findings follow.

ANALYSIS

The Law

10The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 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:

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

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

Subsection 15(2) reads as follows:

Service providers shall 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.

(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

11The 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 situation under review by the CFSRB and for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act.

12In an allegation of non-compliance, an applicant’s disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society in its response does not negate or invalidate the fact that the Society did give reasons for its decisions.

Terms of the Agreement

13The Settlement Agreement consisted of three Terms:

Term 1: The Applicant alleges that the Society is not working co-operatively with him on resolving issues in the Applicant’s family. Examples of this lack of co-operative working include:

• an April 2016 incident involving the Child S where the partner of the Child’s mother caused the Child to fall to the floor, which greatly upset the Child;

• a September 2016 incident, involving the Applicant’s current partner, where an epileptic seizure upset the Child N who threw herself down onto the street and where the Applicant picked up the Child by her backpack and removed her from the street, with this incident leading to active intervention by the Society and resulting in the Applicant not seeing his children for over 3 months;

• a March 2019 incident wherein the Society requested the Applicant to write a letter to the mother of his Children S and T requesting her to suspend the Applicant’s access to the Children S and T, which situation resulted in great stress on the Applicant and led to his serious heart condition on March 19 2019;

• a January 2019 incident of parental conflict and conflict with the room-mate M which led to the Society re-opening its file on the family;

The Applicant recognizes that the Society is now working better with him, but he asks why it took such a long delay for the working relationship to improve from the examples above to its current level, and what can be done to keep the working relationship at the currently-improved level.

Term 2: The Applicant understands that significant issues of accuracy and errors in the file can be addressed formally through the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. Alternatively, the Applicant understands that he can make a written submission to the Society, indicating that his intent is to give correct information where he believes that the Society’s information is incorrect. This would result in the file having its original information, but also having the correspondence from the Applicant stating the information as he believes it to be correct. If the Applicant proceeds with the alternative option, he likely would want to focus, among others, on the following situations:

• the “John Buck” report of 2008, which he believes incorrectly lists the number of children he had in 2008 as four children;

• the January 2019 Society report to the Court, which he alleges incorrectly stated that he in 2014 had been convicted of child molestation;

• the OCL Investigator KM report, referring to his 1986 child.

It is left to the discretion of the Applicant as to how he will proceed with this issue.

Term 3: The Applicant alleges that the Society is making false allegations about him, as in the following situations:

a) a CPIC note in March 2010 (or possibly March 2019) written by the worker M in her description of the house states that the Applicant’s house is “littered” with alcohol bottles, that there is smoking and drug usage in the house; around the same timeframe, the worker N in his description of the house describes it as being in a very different condition. Given that both statements cannot be correct at the same time, would the Society explain the discrepancy between these two descriptions?

b) the Applicant states that he submitted to the Society three psychiatric reports from three different hospitals (in Welland, St.Catharines, and Hamilton) all asserting that he has no mental health problems; the worker N also states that he sees no mental health problems in the Applicant, yet the worker M states that she is concerned about the Applicant’s mental health problems. Would the Society explain the discrepancy between the three hospitals’ and N’s view of the Applicant’s mental health and the view expressed by the worker M?

c) the Applicant states that he was told twice (March 21, 2019 by the worker SM, and in a meeting on October 7, 2020 with BQ and other staff) that the Society will not “move forward” with him and that the Society is not willing to work with him; why were these views expressed, when the family needs a positive working relationship with the Society for the benefit of the Children?

Would the Society reconcile these allegedly false allegations?

14I find that the Respondent has responded adequately to Term 1. The Respondent has provided a general response related to the improving relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent, including a desire to move forward through child-focused and respectful communication. The Response addressed each of the 4 incidents listed in the Term. I note that the response to incidents a) and c) directly address the child “SV”. As such, I placed little weight on the Applicant’s assertion that the response did not address the “SV” case.

15In addition, I note that the Respondent’s response clearly addresses the Applicant’s negative behaviours (yelling at workers, making threats, swearing, and using in appropriate language with workers) which has contributed to possible the acrimonious relationship between the Applicant and Respondent staff and delays in improving the relationship between the parties.

16For these reasons, I find that the Respondent has complied with Term 1 of the Settlement Agreement.

17With regard to Term 2, I note that the Respondent has addressed each of the three examples of inaccuracies that the Applicant alleged in his complaint. The Respondent clearly indicated that the Applicant could provide it with written communication which addresses alleged file inaccuracies. The Respondent also explained that it is not responsible for inaccuracies in documents provided by third parties. The Applicant is required to take these inaccuracies up with the appropriate party.

18The Respondent explained that the employee cited in item a) was not an employee of the Respondent and therefore any error in his report is not the responsibility of the Respondent. The Respondent acknowledged that there was an inaccuracy in the mental health assessment regarding the Applicant’s record; however, it explained that the Respondent only cited information in a report that was provided by the Applicant. The OCL report cited in item c) was not prepared by the Respondent.

19Finally, I note that the CFSRB no longer has jurisdiction to address inaccuracies in records as of January 1, 2020. The Applicant is free to raise his concerns with each of the three authors of the alleged inaccurate information, or address his concerns with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner which is now responsible for complaints regarding inaccuracies in child protection agency records.

20With respect to the third Term, I find that the Respondent clearly addressed the three alleged false allegations. The Respondent provided evidence that the alleged falsehoods were not recorded in CPIN records; provided an explanation for why a worker may have a different assessment of his living situation given the passage of time and the Applicant moving to a new home; and explained its position regarding the Applicant’s mental health based on its own engagement and documents provided by the Applicant. As such, I find that the Respondent has adequately responded to Term 3 of the Settlement Agreement.

DECISION

21For the reasons cited above, I am satisfied that the Respondent has complied with all three Terms of the Settlement Agreement and the file is therefore closed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

22Pursuant 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 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.