CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
CM
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Algoma
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney
Indexed As: CM v Children’s Aid Society of Algoma (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
CM, Applicant
Self-Represented
Children’s Aid Society of Algoma, Respondent
Anthony P. Marrato, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
1This Applicant’s complaint consisted of issues/concerns raised under section 120(4)(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, C.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2An Interim Decision with respect to the complaint was issued following the pre-hearing of January 8, 2021. The Interim Decision dismissed all the issues in the Applicant’s complaint on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction (exemption under section 120(8) of the Act), with the exception of one issue.
3The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent’s staff did not hear his request for an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) Form in December of 2018, and that the worker did not provide the Applicant with the ICRP form.
4The Interim Decision indicated that the issue would be decided through a written hearing.
5The Respondent was directed to provide the Applicant with a copy of his file on or before February 12, 2021. Parties were directed to provide submissions and evidence on the narrow issue related to the ICRP form on or before February 26, 2021.
THE LAW
6The CFSRB Rules of Procedure provides the CFSRB with the ability to hold hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or videoconference. Subsection 8.1 of the Rules state:
In deciding the format of a hearing, the CFSRB will consider:
a) whether it is a fair and accessible process for the parties;
b) the costs and efficiency of the process;
c) the potential for a more expeditious resolution;
d) the convenience of the parties;
e) the consistency with the CFSRB’s mandate;
f) whether the facts or evidence may be agreed upon;
g) the estimated duration of the hearing;
h) whether the issues for hearing are predominantly legal issues;
i) whether oral testimony is likely to be needed;
j) any objections to the format of the hearing.
ANALYSIS
7Given that the issue to be addressed was sufficiently narrow; that no additional oral evidence was required beyond the evidence presented at the Pre-Hearing; given that the parties did not object to a written hearing; and given the need to deal with complaints as efficiently as possible, I decided to review this aspect of the complaint in writing.
8In deciding the complaint, I focused on whether the Applicant requested the Respondent worker to provide him with the ICRP form in December of 2018 and whether he was provided with the form.
9On January 21, 2021, the Applicant provided the CFRSB with several e-mails. All of the e-mails, but one, did not address the issues at hand. The Applicant provided one e-mail which he alleged he sent DL (particular worker) on December 2, 2018. The e-mail indicated that the Applicant had requested a new case worker. The e-mail stated:
“Was not asked if I (Applicant) want a complaint Form. I (Applicant) was Not Even aware of a Complaint From [sic]. The Metis Nation Told me About the Complaint From [sic] I should Have Received.”
10In its submissions, the Respondent argued that the e-mails provided by the Applicant did not refer to any request for an ICRP for or provide any evidence of the Applicant requesting an ICRP form.
11The Respondent also provided Contact Logs covering the period of November until December of 2018 during which the Applicant alleged he made his request to the Respondent’s worker. The Respondent indicated that it did not have any record of providing the Applicant with an ICRP form in or around December of 2018. The Respondent also has no record of the request for the form ever been made.
12I reviewed the Contact Log dated December 2, 2018. The Contact Log contained an e-mail from the Applicant to the Respondent in which the Applicant expresses his displeasure with the existing case worker. In fact, the Applicant requested a new case worker. The e-mail did not mention the ICRP process and did not include a request for the ICRP form.
13The Applicant’s e-mail of January 21, 2021 indicated that he was not asked by the Respondent worker if he wanted a complaint form. In fact, the e-mail indicated that the Applicant was unaware of the complaint process and was only informed of the complaint form by the by the Metis Nation.
14For these reasons I find that I do not have sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence before me to conclude that the Applicant requested the ICRP form from the worker in December of 2018 and that the worker denied him the form. In fact, the Applicant’s own e-mail indicated that he was unaware of the form until the Metis Nation informed him that it should have been offered to him.
15I reviewed sections 119 and 120 of the Act as well as Ontario Regulation156/18 which addresses written complaints to child protection agency.
16Section 119(3) of the Act states: “A society shall make information relating to the complaint review procedure available to the public and to any person upon request”.
17The Act is clear that information regarding the complaint review procedure should be made available to the public. I have reviewed the Respondent’s website and have found it somewhat lacking in this area. The information about the Respondent’s complaint review process can be located by accessing the “About” tab of its website, and going to the “Doing Business with the Children’s Aid Society” page. It is in this page that there is a section which indicates:
“Registering a Complaint/Appeal
If you have a question or concern about the services you are receiving from the Children’s Aid Society of Algoma, or you think a mistake has been made, there are three ways you can be heard…Click on the ink to the right to review your options.”
18While the Respondent appears to have met the requirements of section 119(3) by making it public, placing information about registering a complaint or appeal related to services received under “Doing Business with CAS” Section makes it difficult for service recipients to locate this information and to act on their “rights”. The Respondent may consider whether it is complying with the spirit of section 119(3) of the Act as I would not consider receiving services from the Respondent is “doing business” with the Respondent. Easy access to information is important, especially for people who may have literacy, English as a Second Language, and/or disabilities which poses challenges to accessing information.
19While I have concerns with the accessibility of information regarding the ICRP process and form on the website, I note that there is nothing in sections 119 or 120 of the Act which requires workers to offer the ICRP complaint form to dissatisfied or any service recipients. I have no credible or trustworthy evidence to confirm that the worker was asked for the form and/or failed to respond to the Applicant’s request for the form.
20For these reasons I find that there is not sufficient information before me to conclude that the Applicant requested the ICRP form from the Respondent’s worker in December of 2018. In addition, there is no requirement for workers to offer the ICRP form, rather the Act requires that a society make the form available upon request.
DECISION
21Issue 11 in the Applicant’s complaint dealing with the ICRP Form is dismissed along with the remaining issues in the complaint which were dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction.
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.
Dated at Toronto, March 02, 2021.
Daniel McSweeney
Daniel McSweeney
Member