GJ v. York Region Children’s Aid Society, 2020 CFSRB 96

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

GJ

Applicant

-and-

York Region Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: November 09, 2020

Citation: 2020 CFSRB 96

Indexed As: GJ v York Region Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

GJ, Applicant

Self-represented

York Region Children’s Aid Society, Respondent

Alison Moonsie-Mohan, Counsel

Introduction

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”).

2The CFRSB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5.

3A full day video hearing was held on October 26, 2020 during which the Applicant testified. The Respondent called Mr. B, the Intake and Assessment Supervisor (IAS), and Mr. S, the Intake and Assessment Worker (IAW) as witnesses.

4In reaching my decision, I reviewed the witnesses’ testimony, the documents entered as exhibits, and the parties’ closing submissions.

5For the reasons set out below, I find the Respondent met its obligations under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 with the exception of Issue/Concern 12. The Application is dismissed with the exception of the direction related to Issue/Concern 12 outlined below.

the law

6The relevant provisions of the Act are:

s.15(2) 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;

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

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

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

Section 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;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

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

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.

background

7The Applicant is the father of three children.

8The Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant and his family began on October 15, 2019 pursuant to a community referral concerning the Applicant’s alleged exposure to the children of adult conflict in the home. The IAW interviewed the Applicant’s former wife and the two eldest children in their home on October 21, 2019. The mother subsequently removed herself and the children from the home and went to live with her brother (maternal uncle). The same evening, police were called to the maternal uncle’s home as the Applicant reportedly attempted to remove the children.

9The IAW interviewed the Applicant’s former wife and two of the children at the maternal uncle’s home a second time on October 24, 2019. That same day, the IAW met with the Applicant and reviewed the basis for the referral and the information that had been shared by his children and former spouse. The IAW informed the Applicant that he would support supervised access for the children as a result of the preliminary information he received, but that all decisions related to access were at the discretion of the children’s mother.

10The Applicant subsequently sent e-mails to the IAW and Intake and Assessment Supervisor (IAS) expressing that he had not seen his children in a week; the children were not attending school; and expressing concerns for the children’s safety (supervision, sleeping arrangements) in the maternal uncle’s home.

11The Applicant met with the IAW and IAS on October 31, 2019 to review his concerns. On November 6, 2019, the Applicant sent the IAS an e-mail outlining his efforts to access parenting support services as well as expressing concerns regarding counselling required by one of his children; the children’s living arrangements; and the transfer of his matter to ongoing services.

12The IAW conducted a home visit with the Applicant on November 8, 2019. During this visit the Applicant spoke about the counselling he had participated in and his current mental health.

13On November 12, 2019, the IAW and IAS verified the following concerns regarding the Applicant’s interactions with his children based on the information gathered from the Applicant, two of his children, and his ex-wife: risk of mental harm due to partner violence; risk of harm due to caregiver actions/inactions, risk of harm due to partner violence; and risk of harm by physical force. The IAW and IAS also decided to move the file to Durham Children’s Aid Society as the mother and children resided in that region and the mother indicated that she had no intentions of returning to the family home in York Region.

14On November 13, 2019, the Applicant e-mailed the IAW addressing the Applicant’s belief that the file was to be transferred to York Region Family Services. The Applicant also was concerned that he had been placed on waiting lists for parenting support services. The IAW spoke to the Applicant by telephone to explain the outcome of the investigation, the verification decision, and the information the Respondent relied on to make the decision. The Applicant was also informed that the file would be transferred to Durham Children’s Aid Society as the children and mother now resided in that jurisdiction.

15The Applicant did not agree with the verification decision. He left a voice message with the IAS. The IAS returned the call during which the Applicant expressed his concerns, including those related to the file transfer. The Applicant called the director of Services who offered to meet with him. The Applicant declined the meeting.

16On November 29, 2019, the IAW contacted the Applicant to arrange for the file transfer meeting. At that time the Applicant indicated that he did not know why the file was being transferred. The IAW explained the rationale for the decision. The Applicant attended the transfer visit on December 6, 2019 during which the rationale for the transfer as well as for the verification were explained. The Applicant disagreed with the assessment and indicated that he had not been listened to. He expressed concern with the care of the children by their maternal grandparents, as well as the fact that the children were being coached by their mother. In addition, the Applicant was concerned that the IAW did not notify him when the IAW learned that he was not on any waiting list with Family Services of York Region.

17The Applicant submitted an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) complaint to the Respondent on November 19, 2020; however, he indicated that he required the full disclosure of his file before he would agree to attend the ICRP meeting. The Applicant was provided disclosure and the ICRP meeting was held on January 17, 2020. At the ICRP meeting the Applicant expressed concerns regarding discriminatory and inappropriate treatment he experienced from staff, and with inaccuracies in his file.

18The Applicant e-mailed the Director requesting that surreptitious recordings that he had made be added to his file. This request was denied by the Director in an e-mail of June 10, 2020. The Director explained that the conversations between the Applicant and the IAW and IAS were recorded in contact logs. Contact logs do not capture verbatim conversations but offer a summary of information that is relevant to the provision of service.

19The Applicant submitted his complaint to the CFSRB on July 13, 2020. The complaint outlined the following Issues/Concerns:

1. The Respondent failed to hear his concerns regarding the safety of his children;

2. The Respondent failed to hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding the coaching of his children;

3. The Respondent did not hear his complaints related to Respondent staff e.g. bias against him and in favour of his ex-wife, boundary crossing issues, breaches of confidentiality and disclosure of personal information, and allegations that staff informed his ex-wife to take the children from the family home;

4. The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns with the investigation process e.g. interviewing the children at the home of his wife’s family; not asking him for his perspective on issues;

5. The Respondent failed to hear his position on a voluntary service agreement and the file transfer, and challenges associated with accessing parenting supports;

6. The Respondent made its decision regarding the need for supervised access without the Applicant’s input;

7. The Applicant was not provided with the reasoning for the verification findings;

8. The Applicant was not provided with sufficient reasons why the file had to be transferred to Durham CAS;

9. The Applicant was not provided with a reason as to why Respondent staff indicated that he would not support a voluntary services agreement;

10. The Applicant was not provided with a reason why the Respondent refused to place the audio recording on his case file; and why the Respondent refused to correct case notes that did not coincide with the audio recordings;

11. The Applicant was not provided a reason for the initial delay in meeting with the caseworker; and

12. The Applicant felt that the reasons provided through the ICRP process were not sufficient.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

20A Pre-Hearing Mediation Teleconference was held on September 11, 2020. The parties were unable to settle the matter through mediation. Arrangements for a hearing were confirmed in a Case Management Teleconference dated September 25, 2020. During this Teleconference, the Applicant raised the issue of the admissibility of audio recordings. In a Case Management Direction of October 7, 2020, the parties were directed to provide written submissions on the admissibility of audio recordings. In an Interim Decision dated October 23, 2020, I decided that the audio recordings presented by the Applicant were not relevant to the two determinative issues to be addressed at the hearing (whether the Applicant was heard; and whether he was provided with reasons for the Respondent’s decisions). In his submissions, the Applicant was unable to establish the link between the content of the audio recordings to the two determinative issues. I also was not provided with evidence as to the reliability of the recordings. The Interim Decision affirmed that the Applicant was free to provide his evidence orally and through documents related to the alleged inconsistencies between case notes and oral conversations, as well as to question the Respondent’s witnesses about these concerns.

21The Applicant’s submissions on the audio recording raised two additional procedural issues. Firstly, the Applicant asked the CFSRB to admit into evidence video recordings. I denied this request as the Applicant did not disclose the existence of video recordings during the Case Management Teleconference. As a result, the parties were not asked to provide submissions on the admissibility of video evidence. Finally, the Applicant did not provide an argument in his submissions as to the relevance of the video recordings to the two determinative issues to be decided at the hearing.

22The Applicant’s audio recordings contained 3 recordings related to a second activation of his family’s file which post-dated the Applicant’s complaint to the CFSRB. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address issues/concerns/evidence that are not included in an Application. The Applicant was informed at the hearing that he is free to submit a new application; however, the application must not include issues that were addressed in the first Application.

23At the hearing, the Applicant raised the issue of disclosure. He alleged that he was not provided with full disclosure from the Respondent and he needed the Respondent to acknowledge that they were in possession of additional documents. The Applicant was unable to indicate precisely what additional documents were not disclosed to him.

24Respondent’s counsel indicated that the Respondent had disclosed all of the information upon which the current complaint was based to the Applicant at the end of 2019; and again, in response to the Applicant’s request for disclosure before the ICRP process. The Applicant provided an e-mail to the Respondent indicating that on December 20, 2019, he requested: “all documents and [sic] any format held by York Region Children [sic] Aid Society and Durham Children [sic] Aid Society which pertains to GJ, SG, SG, and JG.” The Applicant subsequently participated in the ICRP process.

25After some discussion, it became evident that the Applicant was unclear of the distinction between his requests to the Respondent for general disclosure of his records and the requirement for parties to disclosure all arguably relevant documents for the hearing. The disclosure of all arguably relevant documents for the hearing was discussed at the Pre-Hearing Mediation and including in its Report of September 24, 2020. The Applicant did not raise any concerns with the disclosure provided to him by the Respondent for the hearing.

26Given that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with all the documents it has related to the allegations in the current complaint on two occasions; given that the Applicant could not specify what documents were allegedly missing and therefore their relevance to the issues to be decided at the proceeding; and given that the Applicant participated in the ICRP process which was predicated on the Respondent’s disclosure of his full file, I found that the Applicant has been disclosed all the documents relevant to his current complaint and that the hearing should proceed on the basis of the documents provided for the hearing.

27Finally, the Applicant objected to the IAS being the Respondent’s instructing client as part of his complaint dealt with the IAS. I found that the Respondent has the right to identify its instructing client, and therefore we would proceed with him present throughout the hearing.

analysis

I. The right to be heard (s.120(4)4)

28The CFSRB has explained the right to be heard as follows:

To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33 (para 14)

29The Applicant’s concerns under section 120(4)4, are identified in the list of Issues/Concerns 1 – 6 outlined above. The Respondent argued that the Applicant was given every opportunity to be heard by Respondent staff. In addition, the Applicant attended an ICRP meeting and engaged in ongoing communication with the Director of Services following the ICRP meeting.

30My analysis of whether the Applicant was given an opportunity for his concerns to be heard has taken into consideration the Applicant’s statement in his submissions regarding the admissibility and relevance of audio evidence in which he stated:

“The audio recording demonstrates that the applicant was heard; however, society’s reasons contradict what was said verbally as to what was captured in the society’s case notes.”

31This submission is inconsistent with the Applicant’s assertions in his complaint and at the hearing that he was not heard by the Respondent.

32A review of the evidence before me confirmed that the Applicant was interviewed by the IAW on October 24, 2019. The IAW spoke with the Applicant on the telephone on October 28, 2019. The Applicant e-mailed the IAS twice on October 28, 2019 with his concerns with supervised access. The Applicant and the IAS and IAW met in person on October 31, 2019. On November 6, 2019, the Applicant sent the IAS an e-mail updating his efforts to access services. The IAW conducted a home visit with the Applicant on November 8, 2019. The IAW spoke with the Applicant on November 13, 2019 regarding the verification decision and that the file would be transferred to Durham CAS. The Applicant left a voicemail with the IAS who returned the call. The Applicant was contacted on November 29, 2019 to arrange a transfer visit which occurred on December 6, 2019 during which he was informed of the rationale for the file transfer.

33The Applicant participated in an ICRP process on January 17, 2020 during which he was able to have his concerns regarding the IAW and the IAS heard by senior management. The ICRP heard and investigated the Applicant’s concerns regarding Respondent staff bias/discrimination; boundary crossing issues; breaches of confidentiality; disclosure of personal information; and allegations that Respondent staff counselled his ex-wife to take the children out of the family home. The Respondent sent its response to the concerns expressed in the ICRP meeting to the Applicant on January 31, 2020. This response addressed the Applicant’s concerns with the IAW’s credentials and experience, his concerns with possible influence of the IAS, and requested the Applicant to provide examples of his allegations of discrimination.

34After the ICRP meeting, the Applicant was asked to provide specific examples of alleged discriminatory behaviour he experienced from Respondent staff. In its letter dated February 21, 2020, the Respondent addressed the Applicant’s allegations of boundary crossing; inappropriate disclosures of personal information; the Respondent’s position on supervised access; inaccuracies in the information provided to Durham CAS; and inconsistencies between conversations and case notes. The Applicant was also sent a letter on March 6, 2020 regarding the correction of an inaccurate statement by the IAW in his file.

35My analysis and findings on the Applicant’s particular issues are outlined below.

36Reflecting on the totality of the evidence provided by the parties in relation to the issue of being heard, I have concluded that there was a fundamental disagreement regarding how the Applicant and Respondent would communicate. The Applicant testified and provided evidence of his desire to communicate with and receive communication from Respondent staff through e-mail. Respondent staff sometimes communicated with the Applicant through e-mail; however, chose to communicate most of its findings with the Applicant primarily through telephone or in-person conversations.

37In addition, the Applicant’s perception that he was not heard was based on his expectation that Respondent staff would inform him of its investigation efforts and outcomes related to each of his concerns and his challenges to the decisions which they took. The Applicant felt that, not being provided with responses to each of his individual concerns was evidence that the Respondent did not hear his concerns.

38The Applicant’s impression that he was not heard may also be the result of his discovery that the IAW incorrectly informed Durham CAS that the Applicant would not agree to a voluntary service agreement and recorded this in the case notes. This error by the IAW served to undermine the Applicant’s confidence that he was heard.

39In the complaint, and in the evidence presented at the hearing, it was clear that the Applicant disagreed with the Respondent’s approach to the investigation of the abuse allegations, its eventual verification decisions, and the decision to transfer the file to Durham Children’s Aid Society (CAS). The Applicant mistakenly felt that he could influence the investigation, verification and file management processes, and the outcome of the investigation. When decisions were made by the Respondent regarding these issues, the Applicant indicated that he was not heard or that he was not provided with adequate reasons for the Respondent’s decisions.

Issue/Concern 1: The Respondent failed to hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding the safety of his children.

40The Applicant provided documentation and testimony related to multiple reports to Respondent staff on the safety of his children. Reports included: his children’s failure to attend school and extracurricular activities; his limited access to the children; sleeping arrangements; appropriateness of caregivers; access to counselling for one of his daughters; the children’s hygiene and bathing habits; scratches on his son’s face; and living arrangements at the maternal brother’s home. The Applicant testified that he did not receive responses from Respondent staff to his e-mails and verbal reports, and he had no indication that the issues were investigated and/or addressed.

41The ISW testified that he was aware that the children were not being sent to school for a period of a week. He was not concerned with this as the children required a transition period after moving to the maternal uncle’s home. With respect to the Applicant’s concern about not seeing his children for a week, the ISW testified that he informed the Applicant to reach out to the Family Court to arrange an access schedule. The ISW indicated that he heard the Applicant’s concerns about his children’s caregivers while the mother was working; however, he acknowledged that this was not a concern due the fact that the mother was free to access and use her support network. The ISW was questioned about the Applicant’s concerns regarding counselling for one of his daughters. The ISW indicated that he encouraged the Applicant to connect with the mother regarding this issue. The ISW also indicated that he was not concerned with the living conditions and sleeping arrangements with the children.

42The Applicant raised the issue of the children being bathed together. A review of the evidence indicates that this issue was not raised by the Applicant with the Respondent previously and was not included in his complaint to the CFSRB. The IAW indicated that he provided the mother a brochure on safe sleeping and bathing practices, and he screened the children for sexual abuse. The IAS confirmed that the risks of harm and safety of the children at the maternal uncle’s home was assessed by Respondent staff based on the initial safety assessment.

43The Applicant asked the IAW how he relayed his findings related to the Applicant’s concerns and the IAW reported that he informed the Applicant during a meeting on November 8, 2019. The Applicant indicated that he wanted the concerns to be addressed in writing. While the Applicant had expressed a preference to have his concerns addressed in writing, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that this is a requirement of child welfare authorities. He also did not provide any documentary evidence such as case notes to support the fact that his concerns were unaddressed, despite his being in possession of the case notes from his case file.

44Whether or not the Applicant was provided with the ISW’s response to his concerns in writing, it was the oral testimony of the ISW that he heard the concerns, he considered them, and decided that the children were not subject to any safety or child abuse risks while residing in the maternal uncle’s home.

45What I had before me was the Applicant’s assertion and the oral testimony of the IAW. I placed significant weight on the IAW’s testimony that he considered the Applicant’s concerns and verified them throughout the process of his interactions with the mother and the children. In addition, I placed considerable weight on the 3 letters which followed the ICRP meeting which acknowledged the Applicant’s concerns with the service he received.

46Based on the testimony and the statement by the Applicant in his submissions that he had been heard; based on the multiple telephone and in-person meetings with the IAW and IAS; and based on the responses to the ICRP process, I find that the Applicant’s concerns regarding his children were heard by the Respondent.

Issue/Concern 2: The Respondent failed to hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding the coaching of his children.

47The Applicant testified that his ex-wife had coached the children on what to say in their interviews and that the Respondent failed to investigate his allegations of coaching. In cross-examination, the Applicant was unable to indicate when he reported the alleged coaching to the Respondent.

48In his e-mail to the Ombudsman’s office dated November 15, 2020, the Applicant indicated that he was concerned that his spouse had been coaching the children to speak ill of him. The Applicant stated:

“This information was not shared with Michael and Kevin previously because it was evident that they lacked objectivity, and I had concerns about the multiple breaches of confidentiality. Unfortunately, at this time I feel that I have no choice but to share this evidence to ensure an objective assessment of our file. I am open to meet with you to review this matter at your office. I would need you to assure me that any information I share with you, would be kept confidential so that it does not jeopardize future custody matter [sic].”

49This e-mail confirms that the Applicant did not share his concerns regarding his wife’s coaching the children with Respondent staff until after November 15, 2019 which was after the verification decision of November 12, 2019.

50Furthermore, in questioning by the Applicant, the ISW indicated that, when he spoke to the children the first time, he confirmed with them that no one had told them why he was coming to speak with them. Given that they had no knowledge of why he was coming and what he was going to talk about, the ISW concluded that the children were not being coached.

51Based on the evidence before me, I find that the Applicant did not inform the Respondent about his concerns regarding coaching before the verification decision. As such, the Respondent could not have heard his concerns, and could not have integrated these concerns into their investigation and decision-making.

Issue/Concern 3: The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s complaints regarding bias, boundary crossing issues, breaches of confidentiality, and disclosure of personal information, and allegations that Respondent staff had informed his ex-wife to take the children from the family home.

52The Applicant alleged a wide range of bias, boundary crossing, confidentiality, and privacy breaches in his Application.

53The Applicant testified that the discussion regarding his self care and his reducing some activities to reduce stress was inappropriate as the IAW was giving him inappropriate advice and telling him what to do. The IAW’s Will Say confirmed that the Applicant and the IAW had a conversation on the stresses that the Applicant was experiencing that led up to his behaviour, and what could be some solutions to reduce the stress. I find that the evidence before me on this issue is that the Applicant was able to express his concerns regarding stress, as well as express his concerns regarding the IAW’s advice during the ICRP process.

54The Applicant alleged that the IAW or some other Respondent staff informed the mother of the children to remove them from the family home. This allegation was supported in a statement in a police report. The IAW testified that he did not inform the mother of the children to leave the home. The IAW admitted discussing safety issues concerning the Applicant’s finding out about CAS involvement with the family. The IAW testified that the statement in the police report was an error on the part of the police. In addition, the case notes of December 6, 2020 indicated that the worker had not told the Applicant’s ex-wife to take the children out of the marital home, and that the decision was her own. The case note indicated that the Applicant expressed that this was the way that the IAW interacted with him that led him to this conclusion.

55The evidence before me is that the Applicant assumed that the IAW informed his ex-wife to take the children from the family home based on the statement in the police report and based on his impression of the IAW’s behaviour. No additional evidence such as a case note was presented by the Applicant in support of his assertion. I find that the Applicant’s allegations related to alleged counselling of the Applicant’s ex-wife to leave the family home were heard by the Respondent and addressed in the Director’s letter dated January 31, 2020.

56Finally, in respect to the issue of bias, I note that the Applicant may have felt that the IAW was biased against him given an erroneous notation in the case file. The Applicant indicated that the IAW had informed the worker from Durham CAS that the Applicant would not be agreeable to signing a voluntary services agreement. The IAW had not posed the question to the Applicant.

57The Respondent addressed this concern in its letter dated February 21, 2020 in response to the ICRP complaint which stated:

“In the review of your family file, it was confirmed that Mr. S relayed inaccurate information about you to the worker from Durham Children’s Aid Society by stating that you would not be agreeable to signing a Voluntary Services Agreement when he had not posed the question to you. It was Mr. S’s assessment that a Voluntary Service Agreement was not necessary for your family and he also assumed that you would not be agreeable This assumption was relayed and documented in a manner that could misrepresent you. The Society acknowledges this error in judgement and its impact on you. This will be addressed accordingly with Mr. S and a notation of your disagreement and correcting contact log will be placed on your file.”

58The contact log was corrected on March 5, 2020. The correspondence addresses the motivation for the IAW to include this statement in the case notes (faulty assumption), and the Respondent has corrected the error in the case notes.

59The Applicant indicated to the ICRP panel that he was concerned with the objectivity of the IAW and that the case notes in his file placed him in a negative light.

60I note that the Applicant’s allegations of bias were reviewed as part of the ICRP process and the Applicant was provided with reasons in the correspondence of January 31, 2020 and February 21, 2020. The letter of February 21, 2020 indicated that: “Mr. S documented and assessed information gathered from you, your wife, and your children in an objective manner”. I note that this was before the IAW’s documentation error was identified and rectified.

61For these reasons I find that the Applicant’s concerns regarding potential bias were heard by the Respondent on several occasions.

Issue/Concern 4: The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns with the investigation process.

62The Applicant was concerned with the Respondent’s investigation processes.

63The Applicant indicated that he did not approve of the way that the interviews were conducted (the children interviewed in their rooms in the family home, children interviewed in the maternal uncle’s home). The Applicant was also concerned that the IAW did not inspect both homes (including basements) as part of his investigation.

64He was also concerned that the IAW interviewed his children and ex-wife and then questioned him based on the statements of his children and his ex-wife. The Applicant would have preferred that the IAW ask him his side of the story. The Applicant was concerned that the file remained open from October 15 to December 6, 2019. The Applicant was concerned with the language used in the investigation notes. For example, he claimed that, if he said he took JG somewhere, the IAW recorded in the notes: “you grabbed JG”. Finally, the Applicant was concerned that he was not heard in relation to the allegations of physical discipline. He stated that the therapist and his ex-wife did not report his use of physical discipline with the children. The IAW conceded that the initial report did not mention physical abuse; however, the children reported this during their interviews. In addition, the Applicant’s ex-wife confirmed physical discipline in a subsequent interview.

65While the Applicant has an interest in the investigation processes and may have expressed concerns regarding the investigation and the outcome of the investigation, he has not provided evidence that the Respondent is required to integrate the suggestions of a person who is suspected of abuse or harm in its investigation process. The Applicant’s concerns related to the investigation and the outcome were listened to and simply noted by Respondent staff. Respondent staff implemented its investigation based on established protocols. As such, I find that Respondent staff heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the investigation process.

66In addition, I note that the Applicant had an opportunity to raise his concerns about the investigation in his ICRP complaint. His concerns were heard by the panel and the Respondent’s response to the Applicant’s concerns with the investigation were included in the February 21, 2020 letter.

67As such, I find the Applicant’s concerns with the investigation were heard and addressed by the Respondent.

Issue/Concern 5: The Respondent failed to hear the Applicant’s position on a voluntary service agreement and file transfer, and challenges associated with accessing parenting supports.

68The Applicant testified that he was not heard regarding the transfer of his file and that the Respondent made the decision to transfer the file to Durham without his input.

69The IAS testified that a children’s aid society is guided by the CYFSA which directs that the residence of the children determines which society takes responsibility for a file. As such, the Respondent had no choice but to transfer the file as the children’s mother indicated that she had no intention of returning to York Region.

70The evidence before me is that the Applicant shared his concerns about the transfer of the file to Durham CAS with the IAW, the IAS on several occasions, including at the time he was informed of the verification decision. The decision to transfer the file was based on the Respondent’s interpretation of the Act which they believed required the file to be transferred to the child welfare agency where the children resided.

71The Applicant disagreed with the transfer decision; however, he has not provided sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to support his argument that the Respondent did not hear his concerns. While Respondent staff heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the file transfer, they chose to follow their own interpretation of the Act.

72The Applicant alleged that the Respondent failed to hear his concerns regarding parenting support programs recommended by the IAW. The evidence before me is that the Applicant communicated with the IAW and IAS in person and via e-mail about his efforts to engage in parenting supports and challenges. In an e-mail of November 6, 2019, the Applicant indicated that he has contacted Family Services of York Region to register in 4 courses, and that he had been informed that he has been waitlisted for 3 courses as the other course has not been offered. The Applicant also indicated that he began individual and couples counselling and was reading parenting books. In an email of November 13, 2019 to the IAS and IAW the Applicant indicated that the York Region Family Services programs to which he had been referred were ill equipped to support families through difficult times. He explained challenges to registering for several programs, and the costs and waiting lists associated with counselling. He then asked for an update on the status of his file.

73Based on the communication between the Applicant and the IAW and IAS, I find that the Applicant’s concerns about registering for parenting supports were heard by the Respondent.

Issue/Concern 6. The Respondent made its decision regarding the need for supervised access without the Applicant’s input.

74The Applicant testified that the Respondent did not take into consideration his input before a decision was made that the Respondent would support supervised access. The Applicant did not understand how the Respondent would make this recommendation when both parents had equal custody of the children. The Applicant indicated that he asked for the rationale for supervised access in writing but that he was not provided with one. In addition, the Applicant indicated that he did not know why the IAW concluded that the decision on access was up to his ex-wife, but that the Respondent would support supervised access.

75The IAW testified that he outlined the concerns that the Applicant’s wife and children identified regarding the Applicant’s behaviour. The Applicant and the IAW discussed these concerns. The IAW testified that he informed the Applicant on October 24, 2019 that the Respondent was supportive of supervised visits because of the children told him that they were afraid of the Applicant, and as a result of an incident where the police were called to the maternal uncle’s home. The IAW testified that he informed the Applicant that it was up to the mother to decide whether supervised access was required because the children were residing with their mother. The IAW indicated that he told the Applicant that he would support the mother’s decision.

76The Applicant maintained that he was not informed of the reason for the Respondent’s recommendation related to supervised access. In an e-mail to the IAS dated October 28, 2019 the Applicant indicated that he had been informed by the IAW that the Respondent was recommending supervised visits. The Applicant indicated that he needed to understand how the IAW came to the conclusion and requested a written report as soon as possible. Upon cross-examination the Applicant indicated that he was not informed why the society supported supervised access with him. The Applicant agreed that he was informed by the IAW that the children had been exposed to adult conflict; and that the children were fearful of being with him.

77The Applicant met with the IAS and IAW on October 31, 2019 to discuss supervised access and other concerns. The Applicant followed-up the meeting with an e-mail dated November 6, 2020 in which he indicated that the IAS and IAW had: “expressed concerns about my parenting strategies. You and Michael had mentioned that you were concerned about (1) me raising my voice (e.g. yelling around my children) and, (2) hitting my children. As I had mentioned during our meeting, I have never hit my children, but I do tend to raise my voice. As per Michael and your recommendation, I have taken steps to address the concerns around my use of elevated tone when disciplining my children.”

78Based on the evidence, I find that the Applicant had an opportunity to discuss his concerns regarding the recommendation for supervised access with the Respondent on several occasions. This discussion took place as part of the conversations regarding the Respondent’s concerns with the Applicant’s parenting (raising his voice, and physical discipline).

79I note that there is evidence before me that the Respondent’s position regarding supervised access may not have been communicated clearly to the Applicant. The February 21, 2020 letter states: “The Society acknowledges that its position regarding your access may not have been clearly communicated to you. The Society apologizes for any confusion or frustration that this may have caused you”. This relates to the Applicant being provided reasons for the Respondent’s decision, not whether the Applicant was heard. My reading of the evidence is that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns with the decision to recommend supervised access and that these concerns were discussed in the context of discussions of the children’s fears to be alone with their father, and in context of the verification decision.

The right to reasons (120(4)5)

80The “right to reasons” under the Act is a right to receive a meaningful explanation of decisions that affect one’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, at para 13, the CFSRB held that:

A parent must be given 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.

81The Applicant’s concerns under section 120(4)5 are included as concerns/issues 7 – 12.

Issue/Concern 7: The Applicant was not provided with the reasoning for the verification findings.

82The Applicant indicated that he had requested the reasons for the verification findings in writing. He was not provided these by the Respondent. Instead, the IAW and IAS provided the rationale in a telephone call dated November 13, 2019.

83In cross-examination the Applicant agreed that he was spoken to about the verification decision during a call on November 13, 2019, and again at a in-person meeting on December 6, 2019. The Applicant was adamant that he was not told the reasoning behind the verification decision.

84In their will-say statements both the IAW and IAS indicated that they had explained the verification process and the rationale for the decisions during their calls on November 13, 2019. In addition, the case notes from the file transfer meeting addressed the reason for the Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant.

85The evidence is clear that the Applicant was provided with the rationale for the verification decision on several occasions. The Applicant simply disagrees with the verification findings.

86Given the evidence before me, I find that the Applicant was provided with sufficient information sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the verification decision to allow him to understand why and how the decision was made.

Issue/Concern 8: The Applicant was not provided with sufficient reasons why the file had to be transferred to Durham CAS.

87The Applicant testified that he was provided an explanation for the file transfer but that the explanations were not documented in the case notes.

88The Applicant testified that he was not consulted before Respondent staff made the decision to transfer his file to Durham Region, and he was not provided with reasons for the decision. He indicated that the Respondent staff disregarded his assertion that the children’s permanent address was in York Region and they were going to school in Markham. The Respondent chose to take the word of his wife regarding the residency of the children rather than his view on their permanent address.

89In his testimony the Applicant indicated that he spoke with the IAS on November 13, 2019 about the file transfer. The Applicant indicated that it was discussed; however, he was not in agreement with the decision. The Applicant agreed that the IAS had explained that the Applicant’s wife and children were residing in Durham; however, the Applicant indicated that he was not aware that it was his wife’s intention not to return to York.

90The IAW testified that the Applicant was informed that the file was being transferred to Durham CAS because the children resided in that Region and that the mother and children had no intention of returning to York Region. He testified that the reasons for the transfer were explained to the Applicant in a telephone call on November 13, 2019. When asked by the Applicant if the Applicant had consented to the file transfer, the ISW indicated that the Applicant was confused as to why the file would be transferred if the children were attending school in York Region and resided in Durham. The ISW indicated that the Applicant disagreed with the assessment. A transfer visit meeting what then scheduled, and the Applicant agreed to attend the meeting.

91The IAS testified that the Act indicated that the children had to be transferred to the society where the children reside. Given that the mother had no intention of returning to York Region, the decision was made to transfer the file to Durham CAS. When asked if the decision was based on one parent’s perspective, the IAS testified that the decision is based on where the children resided. This was explained to him by the IAS in the November 13, 2019 telephone call.

92The Applicant sent an e-mail to the Ombudsman’s Office on November 15, 2019. In the e-mail the Applicant expressed his concerns regarding the transfer of his file to Durham CAS. He surmised that: “it appears that the file is getting transferred to Durham as a means of deferring the responsibility of addressing my concerns”. He then cited the IAS who indicated that the Applicant’s spouse had no plans of returning the children to Markham.

93The evidence before me clearly indicates that the Applicant was provided with the rationale for the file transfer on multiple occasions and therefore, I find that he was provided with sufficient information for him to understand how and why the decision to transfer the file to Durham CAS was made.

Issue/Concern 9: The Applicant was not provided with a reason as to why Respondent staff indicated that he would not support a voluntary services agreement.

94The Applicant indicated that he was not provided the rationale for the IAW’s decision to record in the case note that the Applicant would not support a voluntary services agreement.

95The issue of the IAW’s communication with Durham CAS in relation to the Applicant’s position regarding a voluntary services agreement was addressed by the Respondent in its letters of February 21, 2020 and March 6, 2020, and in it record correction in the contact log dated March 5, 2020. The contact log confirmed that the IAW did not ask the Applicant if he would be in agreement to signing a voluntary service agreement and therefore the statement was incorrect.

96While the failure by the IAW to consult the Applicant regarding a voluntary service agreement and his misinforming Durham CAS of the Applicant’s position is a serious error on the part of IAW, I find that the Applicant was provided an explanation for the error, and that the error was clarified in the revised case note and in the statements explanation in the letter of February 21, 2020 cited above.

Issue/Concern 10: Decision not to place recordings on case file.

97The Applicant testified that there were inconsistencies between what was said in meetings and interviews and what was recorded in case notes. The Applicant complained that the Respondent failed to correct case notes based on recordings and failed to place recordings on the file.

98In an e-mail dated June 10, 2020, the Director of Services indicated that the conversation between the Applicant and the IAS was documented in a contact log dated November 13, 2019. In addition, the Director indicated that under Part X of the Act: “contact logs do not capture verbatim conversations but rather a summary of information relevant to provision of service. As such, the audio recording will not be added to your family file”. This e-mail also indicates that the Director had listened to the recordings.

99I find that the Applicant was provided with written reasons, including making reference to the Act, to help him understand why the Respondent decided not to include the audio recordings in his client file.

Issue/Concern 11: The Applicant was not provided a reason for the initial delay in meeting with the caseworker.

100The Applicant testified that he was concerned that the initial appointment scheduled for October 22, 2019 was cancelled. In addition, he indicated that he was concerned that the IAW was able to book an appointment with his ex-wife on the morning of November 24, 2019 despite his being told that the only appointment the IAW had to meet was on November 24^th in the afternoon.

101In cross-examination the Applicant conceded that the IAW informed him that he had an emergency and that he did not know the IAW’s schedule.

102The IAW testified that there was an emergency meeting which he had to attend to on October 22, 2019. Given the role and duty of an investigation and assessment worker, the roles of a children’s aid society, and confidentiality and privacy legislation, I find that an explanation of an “emergency” is sufficient.

103I find that the Applicant’s concern that the IAW had not scheduled the meeting for the earliest time was speculative at best. He presented no evidence that the meeting with the Applicant’s ex-wife had not been scheduled before the cancellation of the October 22, 2019 meeting. In addition, I find that the Applicant could not point to any rule or regulation that indicated that a parent had to be interviewed at the earliest moment possible, and he could not point to any rule that would oblige the IAW to explain his time management and appointment schedule.

104For these reasons, I find that the Applicant was provided with adequate reasons to help him understand why the initial meeting had to be rescheduled.

Issue/Concern 12: The Applicant felt that the reasons provided through the ICRP process were not sufficient:

105The Applicant testified that none of the 3 letters provided to him after the ICRP meeting answered his concerns.

106He indicated that he was concerned that, as a result of the ICRP meeting, Respondent management spoke with the IAS. He felt that it was inappropriate for the Respondent to involve the subject of a complaint in its response to the complaint.

107The evidence before me is that the Respondent listened to the Applicant’s concerns at the ICRP meeting, investigated the concerns with appropriate staff including the IAW and IAS, responded to the concerns, and followed-up the Applicant’s concerns by asking him to provide additional examples of alleged discriminatory behaviour he experienced.

108While the Applicant is not satisfied with the reasons provided by the Respondent as a result of the ICRP process, this does not mean that the Applicant was not provided with reasons. Based on the 3 letters sent to the Applicant after the ICRP process as well as the e-mail exchanges between the Applicant and the Director, I find that, in general, the Applicant was provided with enough written information to allow him to understand why and how the ICRP considered his concerns and their findings related to his complaints.

109My review of the ICRP responses has raised one issue; however. Throughout the ICRP and CFSRB processes, the Applicant argued that he was concerned that some of the notations in his case file portrayed him in a negative light. The January 31, 2020 letter from the Director confirmed that the Applicant’s file was reviewed by the ICRP Panel members and the Respondent’s Privacy Officer in light of the Applicant’s concerns of a lack of objectivity by the IAW.

110The February 21, 2020 letter from the Director addresses the Applicant’s concerns regarding the IAW’s erroneous recording in the file and statement to the Durham CAS worker that the Applicant would not agree to a voluntary service agreement. The letter indicated that the family file was reviewed.

111My review of the responses to the ICRP process do not reveal that the Applicant was provided a sufficient explanation for the Respondent’s finding that the IAW: “documented and assessed information gathered from you, your wife, and your children in an objective manner” (February 21, 2020 letter) in light of the finding that the IAW attributed a false statement to the Applicant and then passed the information to another Society who would be assuming carriage of the case file. The information passed-on (Applicant’s refusal to agree to a voluntary services agreement) most certainly portrayed him in a negative light.

112I find that the Applicant was not given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account by the Respondent in its finding that the case notes were documented in an objective manner and that the Applicant’s allegations of being portrayed in a negative light in the case file were unfounded.

CONCLUSION

113For all the reasons set out above, I conclude that the Respondent met its obligations under section 120(4) and met the obligations related to Issues/Concerns 7 – 11 in relation to 120(5) of the Act. I find that the Applicant was not provided with sufficient reasons regarding Issue/Concern 12.

ORDER

114As outlined in my analysis of Issue/Concern 12 above, I find that the Respondent has failed to provide sufficient reasons regarding the Respondent’s findings that the Applicant’s case notes were objective. To remedy this, I direct the Respondent to implement the following on or before December 14, 2020:

• The Respondent will conduct a review of the case notes written by the IAW and the Applicant’s case file for any signs of bias against the Applicant.

• The Respondent will rectify any case notes which may demonstrate a bias and will inform the Applicant in writing of the outcome of the review and any remedies implemented by the Respondent.

• The Respondent will review its ICRP findings related to its review and report any changes or updates in its findings to the Applicant.

confidentiality order

115Pursuant 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.