GL v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2020 CFSRB 40

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

GL Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: April 23, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 40 Indexed As: GL v Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

GL, Applicant Self-Represented

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Respondent Eric Smith, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant and the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (the “Society”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation held on January 31, 2020, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in the Application, received on November 26, 2019, by the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

2The Agreement contained 9 Terms which including questions which the Society agreed to answer, as well as follow-up tasks for the Applicant and the Respondent. The parties agreed to a general implementation date of March 6, 2020, and a non-compliance date of March 13, 2020. In addition, the Society agreed to provide the Applicant with a hard copy of his file by February 19, 2020, and a letter confirming why his file was closed and any current risks associated with the Applicant’s unsupervised access with his daughter by February 17, 2020.

3The Society sent the Applicant a letter on February 18, 2020 which contained its responses to Terms 4,5, 6, and 9 of the Agreement. It also provided the Applicant with a letter dated February 12, 2020 which related to Term 9. On February 14, 2020, the Applicant sent an e-mail alleging non-compliance in relation to Term 9.

4In accordance with the CFSRB’s procedures, when there is an allegation of non-compliance, the CFSRB will hold a hearing by teleconference (the “Teleconference”) to determine whether the Society has complied with the Agreement. This Teleconference occurred on April 22, 2020.

DECISION

5After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, and hearing their arguments, I find that the Society has met its commitments and obligations as set out in the Agreement and as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”) for all 9 Terms in the Settlement Agreement.

6The reasons for my findings are as follows.

ANALYSIS

The Law

7The CFSRB found the Application to be eligible for review under section 120 of the Act. The Act outlines the rights of Applicants, the duties and obligations of Children’s Aid Societies, and the mandate of the CFSRB.

8Section 120(4) of the Act reads as follows:

The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2).

2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.

3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.

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.

6. Such other matters as may be prescribed.

Subsection 120(7) indicates that: 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 a Society in any 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.

The Teleconference

11The Applicant conceded that there were no compliance concerns with Terms 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8.

Terms of the Agreement

Term 1: Will the Society provide the Applicant with a hard copy of his file by February 19, 2020?

12The Applicant argued that the Society had not provided him with a hard copy of the file by the deadline date.

13The Society indicated that its process server attempted to deliver the hard copy of the file to the Applicant on 3 occasions.

14The Applicant indicated that he required the file to prepare for an upcoming Court proceeding. The Applicant indicated that he was able to access and use the documents e-mailed to him in the legal proceedings. As such, I find that the Applicant did not suffer any prejudice related to not having received the hard copy of the file by the February 19, 2020 deadline.

15In addition, I find that the Applicant was not fully cooperative with the Respondent in terms of being available to receive the hard copy of the documents.

16For the reasons outline above, I find that the Society has complied with Term 1 as the Society attempted to provide the Applicant with the hard copy by the deadline and provided the Applicant with the information in an electronic format well before the deadline.

Term 2: After the Disclosure, will the Society place any statements of disagreement or clarification identified by the Applicant, and/or documents provided by the Applicant on this file?

17The Applicant indicated that he did not know if the Society placed any documents on his file. The Society indicated that it received three e-mails from the Applicant which it placed on his file.

18As there is no evidence otherwise, and given that Mr. Smith is an officer of the court, I find that I have no evidence before me to suggest that the Society has not complied with Term 2.

Term 6: The Applicant has raised concerns with the mental health of his former partner and has alluded to a mental health report by Dr. Heather Maxwell. Can the Society confirm that it has considered the Applicant's concerns regarding the mental health of his former partner?

19The Society responded as follows: “The Society considers all information that is gathered during the course of an investigation in our assessments.”

20The Applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the Society’s response as it was general in nature and was not customized to his question.

21The Society reiterated its position that it could not comment directly or indirectly on the Applicant’s former partner’s mental health but that the Society considered all the information it received during the course of an investigation.

22When asked, the Applicant indicated that he had raised the mental health concerns several times with several staff. When asked if these concerns were mentioned in the CPIN notes or any documents disclosed to him by the Society, the Applicant was unable to confirm this.

23I find that the response, while vague, was reasonable given that the Society is precluded from providing the Applicant with information regarding a third party. There is no evidence before me to confirm that the Applicant’s concerns were not recorded or considered by Society staff. As such, I find that the Society has complied with the provisions of Term 6.

Term 9: Can the Society provide the Applicant with a written letter confirming the reasons why the Applicant's file was closed in September of 2019 by February 17, 2020? The letter will address whether or not there are any current risks associated with the Applicant's unsupervised access to his daughter.

24The Society provided the following letter to the Applicant:

The Society was provided with a copy of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer report, which recommended that the mother be granted sole custody of the chid and that the Applicant’s access be supervised at Family Services Ottawa. The mother expressed that she had no intention of sending the child for access following the incident that led to the Society’s involvement and instead planned to address the custody and access matter in family court. As a result, the concerns relating to adult conflict were mitigated and there was no further role for the Society at that time.

Given that the last assessment was completed in September 2019, the Society would not currently be in a position to speak to any possible risks associated with the Applicant’s access with his daughter.

25The Applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the Society’s response as the letter did not use the verbiage agreed upon and that it did not comment on whether the Applicant posed any current risks to his daughter in relation to unsupervised visits. He wanted the letter to clearly state that the file had been closed and, as such, there was no current risk to his daughter.

26The Respondent indicated that it was not in a position to comment on any current risks as the last assessment of risk occurred in September of 2019 when the file was subsequently closed. The Respondent stated that the concerns with adult conflict which led to the Society’s involvement had been mitigated and the file closed.

27At the mediation, the Applicant had indicated that he wanted this letter for use at an upcoming Court hearing. When asked if he used the letter provided by the Society, the Applicant indicated he did not; however, an updated letter could be helpful in upcoming proceedings.

28I find that there was not a meeting of the minds in relation to this Term. The Applicant expected something different than he received. The Applicant indicated that he and the Society had agreed on verbiage. I note the Term does not provide for agreed upon verbiage and the Society did not agree on any particular verbiage. The Term addresses the broad content areas that the letter would cover: reasons for closing the file; current risk of unsupervised access. My task is to determine whether the Respondent complied with the Terms of the Agreement and not whether the Applicant received the response that he expected or felt was agreed upon.

29In this case, the letter clearly indicated why the file was closed. It is clear that the Applicant wanted a letter which indicated that he was not a current (February 2020) risk to his daughter. The Society’s letter also explained why it was unable to comment on the risk in February 2020 as its last assessment was Completed in September 2019 at the time the file was closed.

30I will comment however, on the contents of the letter. The Applicant asked for a letter confirming the reasons why the file was closed. The letter went well beyond this request. It commented on the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer; the mother’s position regarding access, and current access provisions. This extraneous information could lead a reader to make negative inferences about the Applicant and the information did not relate to the reason the file was closed. I find that it was inappropriate for the Society to include this extraneous information in the letter as this was not requested by the Applicant. In addition, while the Society referred to the “concerns relating to adult conflict were mitigated”, I find that the letter could have been clearer in its conclusion that, in September of 2019, the Society found that there was no risk to the child which was why the file was closed.

31In future, I suggest that the Society should carefully examine the tone and content of its communication, especially in relation to the sharing of extraneous information.

ORDER

32For the reasons cite above, I find the Society has met its obligations to provide reasons and explanations for its decisions in accordance with the Agreement and as required under the Act.

33In my review of the Society’s responses, I found that the response to Term 4 could be clarified. In Term 4, the Applicant asked why he was not provided notification when his child was interviewed. The Society’s response did not address this question. In addition, I note that the last sentence of the Society’s response was generic in nature and did not address what happened in relation to the interview process for the Applicant’s daughter.

34I direct the Society to provide the Applicant a written response to these 2 issues by May 6, 2020. As Term 4 was not challenged, I find that the file can be closed immediately.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

35Pursuant 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.