DT v. Brant Family and Children’s Services, 2020 CFSRB 56

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

DT Applicant

-and-

Brant Family and Children’s Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens Date: June 11, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 56 Indexed As: DT v Brant Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

DT, Applicant Self-represented

Brant Family and Children’s Services, Respondent Inge Packull, Representative

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant and the Brant Family and Children’s Services (the “Society”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation held on March 4, 2020, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in the Application, dated November 25, 2019, to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

2The Agreement contained five Terms which sought reasons for the Society’s decisions. The parties agreed to a compliance date of April 2, 2020 and a non-compliance date of April 9, 2020.

3The Society sent a letter (the “Society’s Letter”), dated March 25, 2020 as its response to the issues raised in the Agreement. The Society’s Letter was addressed to the Applicant, with a copy sent to the CFSRB.

4The Applicant sent an e-mail, dated April 8, 2020 to the CFSRB, indicating that the Applicant was sending a response to the Society’s Letter.

ANALYSIS

The Law

5The CFSRB deemed the Application eligible for review under section 120(4)1 and section 120(4)5 of The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”), and this determination was conveyed to the Applicant in the CFSRB’s letter dated December 2, 2019.

6The Act outlines the Society’s obligations and the mandate of the CFSRB. Section 120 reads as follows:

120(4) The following may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

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

120(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

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

(e) dismiss the complaint

7Sections 119(1) and 119(2) of the Act read as follows:

119(1) A person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the society in accordance with the regulations.

119(2) Where a Society receives a complaint under subsection (1) it shall deal with the complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation. Subject to subsection 120(2)

8Section 120(2) of the Act reads as follows:

120(2) If a person submits a complaint to the Board under clause (1)(b) after having brought the complaint to the Society under section 119, the Board shall give the society notice of that fact and the society may terminate or stay its review, as it considers appropriate.

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.

10The Act does not provide for an applicant’s statement of disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society to negate or invalidate that the Society did give written reasons as required by the Act.

The Current Situation

11The Rules of Procedure of the CFSRB allow the CFSRB to conduct hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference.

12In this situation, I have determined that a hearing in writing is the appropriate manner to proceed. Both parties have communicated to the Board their position in writing. I will rely on the Applicant’s e-mail of April 8, 2020, which forwarded 6 pages of material from her, all dated April 3, 2020, and on the Society’s Letter of March 25, 2020, which was just over two pages in length. As well, after the determination of eligibility, the Society had submitted correspondence with 5 Appendices, totalling eleven pages.

13A point of clarification is warranted. In the Agreement and in the Decision, the Applicant is

• the grandmother of the Child M;
• the mother of the person referred to as the “mother of the Child”.

Term 1 of the Agreement

14The first Term in the Agreement is a question from the Applicant asking for the reasons behind a certain placement decision made by the Society about the child M [namely, the Applicant’s grandchild] involving the mother of the Child M [namely, the Applicant’s daughter].

15The Society’s Letter states that the Society was not free to share with the Applicant any information about the Child’s mother in the absence of express written consent from the Child’s mother for the sharing of her personal information.

16The Applicant in her communication did not accept the Society’s answer, as the Applicant stated that she knew a great deal of information about the Child and the Child’s mother.

17I find that the Society did give a clear answer to the question posed in Term 1, and I dismiss the Applicant’s complaint about Term 1. The knowledge of the requested information by the Applicant does not override the right of the Child’s mother to have her information at the Society remain private and confidential, unless she gives informed consent to share such information.

Term 2 in the Agreement

18The second Term in the Agreement deals with an allegation by the Applicant that the information resulting from the Society’s investigation into a particular situation and that had been given by the Society to a different Children’s Aid Society (“the other society”) was false information. The allegation also was that this false information has resulted in the other society denying unsupervised visitation with the Child who now lives in the jurisdiction of the other society.

19The Society’s Letter re-affirmed that it stands behind the investigations and assessments made by its staff. It refers to a similar complaint that the Applicant had made to the Society in 2019. At that time, the Society in a letter dated November 20, 2019 suggested to the Applicant that it is within her rights to request from the Society access to her full records at the Society, and to look at options available to her to correct such records. The Society’s Letter points out that, to date, the Applicant has not contacted the Society to explore this option available to her.

20After having received the Society’s Letter responding to this Term of the Agreement, the Applicant in her April 3 communication blames the CFSRB for not holding the Society “accountable for its botched investigation”. The Applicant then writes in some detail her version of the situation that was investigated by the Society, and makes various accusations that the Society lied to her on a number of issues.

21As quoted in paragraphs 6 through 10, the CFSRB’s mandate is clearly spelled out in the Act, as are the remedies available to it, in the case of an allegation under section 120(7). These remedies are limited to ordering reasons to be given, or dismissing the complaint.

22In Term 2 of the Agreement, the Society made a constructive suggestion whereby the Applicant could access, first-hand, the relevant information in the Society’s record. I find that the Society gave its reasons for its actions, and therefore I dismiss the complaint of Term 2.

Term 3 of the Agreement

23The third Term in the Agreement is the Applicant’s question that asks what information may have been shared with the other society that may have led the other society to decide that supervision was required during visits of the Applicant with the Child M. It also asks if this information that was shared with the other society referred to the first investigation in early 2011, given that the Applicant challenges the validity of the conclusions of that 2011 investigation.

24The Society’s Letter indicated that it was not involved in the discussions held by the other society in arriving at the decision to require supervision of the visits with the Child now living in the other society’s jurisdiction. It also points out that Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario are required to review the child protection history of the case through the Provincial Database CPIN (Child Protection Information Network). The Society suggests to the Applicant that they approach the other society directly seeking information as to the other society’s information upon which it based its decision. The specific suggestion made by the Society is the same process identified in the information relating to Term 2, and which has not been followed-up by the Applicant with the Society.

25In the Applicant’s April 3 communication, the position of the Applicant is that either the Society or the other society is lying.

26The CFSRB has no mandate or authority to try to determine any truth to the Applicant’s position, nor which of the two Societies is truthful or correct in this difference of viewpoints.

27In its response to the complaint in Term 3 of the Agreement, the Society again suggests a method whereby the Applicant could access the relevant information in the other society’s record. I find that the Society gave its reasons for its actions, and therefore I dismiss the complaint of Term 3.

Term 4 of the Agreement

28In the fourth Term of the Agreement, the Applicant makes a very specific reference to the Society reaching one particular conclusion in the fourth investigation, which occurred in 2014. The Agreement asks the Society for its reasons in reaching the conclusion that the Society was “refused access to the Child” during this fourth investigation

29In giving its reason for having reached its conclusion on the very specific issue in question, the Society lists its reasons as follows, quoting from its file:

• the worker made multiple attempts to request an interview with the younger children;
• these requests were made via letter and via three phone conversations;
• the Applicant advised she would not allow the worker to interview the other children;
• one child was ultimately interviewed at school
• the second child, being home-schooled, could not be interviewed;
• the Applicant told the worker there was no need to interview her or the children.

30The Applicant states that the information in the Society’s response is a lie. It states that the Applicant never stopped the Society from talking to the relevant children involved.

31I find that the Society gave the above as the reasons why it made the assertion that it was “refused access to the child”. I dismiss the complaint of Term 4.

Term 5 of the Agreement

32The fifth Term of the Agreement asks three questions of the Society, firstly whether or not the Society has impact or influence over the other society’s decisions on visits of the Applicant with her grandchild, secondly whether the Society has expectations for a review and a possible expansion of the scope of the visits, and thirdly whether the Society would share such expectations with the other society.

33The Society’s Letter states that it does not have any impact or influence over the other society’s decisions between the Applicant and her granddaughter. As to the second aspect of Term 5, given that the Society has no role in the decisions of the other society as to visits, the Society encourages the Applicant to discuss with the other society what its expectations are of the Applicant for it to change the requirement for supervision of the visits. The third aspect of Term 5 is moot, as the Society has no role in the deliberations and decisions of the other society.

34I find that the Society has fully answered the questions raised in Term 5, and I dismiss the complaint in Term 5.

ORDER

35I find that the Society met its commitments and obligations under the Agreement and the Act to provide reasons for its decisions. Therefore, the allegation of non-compliance is dismissed, and the CFSRB's file is closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

36Pursuant 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.