IK and SK v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2020 CFSRB 43

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

IK and SK Applicants

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: May 07, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 100 Indexed As: IK and SK v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

IK and SK, Applicants Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent Nicole Horwitz, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed by the Applicants 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”).

2The CFSRB initially found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. After hearing the Respondent’s motion challenging the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application, I decided the Application could proceed to a hearing on the merits only under section 120(4)5: IK and SK v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2020 CFSRB 32 (“Interim Decision”).

3Section 120(4)5 states:

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

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

4The substantive issue before the CFSRB as set out in the January 7, 2020 Pre-Hearing Report, is the following:

The Respondent did not send pictures of the two children in the Society’s care to the Applicants.

5For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the Respondent has provided the Applicants with reasons as required by the Act.

Background

6The two children involved in this Application are J (born in July 2012) and R (born in May 2015). J became a crown ward in October 2014 and R became a crown ward in August 2015. The Interim Decision summarizes the Applicants’ unsuccessful attempts to overturn the Court decisions making the children crown wards.

7Email correspondence between the Applicants and Respondent staff confirm that the Respondent provided the Applicants with pictures of the children in September 2017 and June 2018.

8The Applicants say the Respondent stopped giving them pictures of the children in 2019. The Respondent says the Applicants requested an updated picture of J in July 2019 but have not requested an updated picture of R since last receiving pictures in June 2018.

9The Respondent states it told Ms. K on September 5, 2019 about ”the adoptive family’s position that they would not be providing pictures of J.” More recently, the Respondent “has made inquiries from R’s adoptive family as to whether they would be agreeable to receiving gifts from the Applicants on behalf of R or providing photographs of R, and on April 28, 2020, the adoptive family stated that they were not agreeable to either of those things.”

Analysis

10Section 120(4)5 of the Act provides applicants with a right to reasons for decisions that affect their interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, at para 8, the CFSRB explained that this requires:

... sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

11In its April 30, 2020 submissions the Respondent summarizes its reasons for not providing pictures of either child to the Applicants, as follows:

The Society respects the wishes of both adoptive families who are not prepared to accept gifts from the Applicants or send pictures to them. Further, there is no obligation by the Society to the Applicants relating to J or R, who were both made Crown Wards with no provisions of access being open to the Applicants.

12In my view nothing turns on whether the Applicants specifically asked for pictures of R after June 2018 or whether the Respondent had a legal obligation to provide the Applicants with pictures of J and R. In 2017 and 2018, the Respondent provided the Applicants with pictures of the children. When that practice ceased an explanation was required.

13The Respondent states that it explained to Ms K in September 2019 why no picture of J would be provided. As I have no evidence before me regarding the content of that communication, I make no finding as to whether that explanation satisfied the Respondent’s obligations under section 120(4)5 of the Act.

14The Respondent’s April 30, 2020 submissions, however, give a clear explanation of the reasons why pictures of the children are no longer forthcoming. The Respondent has asked the adoptive families of J and R if they are prepared to send pictures, the families have refused and the Respondent is respecting the families’ decisions. Further, the Respondent believes it does not have a legal obligation to provide pictures.

15I find the Respondent has provided the Applicants with sufficient information for the Applicants to understand how and why the Respondent decided not to continue providing the Applicants with pictures of J and R.

16For these reasons, the Application is dismissed.

Order

17The Application is dismissed

Confidentiality Order

18Pursuant 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.