KH and RB v Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, 2021 CFSRB 24

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

KH and RB Applicants

-and-

Dilico Anishinabek Family Care Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michele O’Connor, Tamara Jordan, John F. Spekkens Date: April 6, 2021 Citation: 2021 CFSRB 24 Indexed As: KH and RB v Dilico Anishinabek Family Care (CYFSA s.109)

APPEARANCES

KH and RB, Applicants Maura Dunk, Counsel

Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, Respondent Lydia Stam, Counsel

Office of the Children’s Lawyer Cara Valiquette, Counsel

Pays Plat First Nation Councillor Raymond Goodchild, Observer

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed by KH and RB (jointly “the Applicants”, or “KH” and “RB”) on October 26, 2020 with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 109(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2The Applicants are the great aunt and uncle of the Child CB (“CB”), the focus of this Application. CB was born on March 29, 2009, and is a registered member of the Pays Plat First Nation.

3On September 1, 2016, when CB was 7½ years old, Dilico Anishinabek Family Care (“the Respondent” or “Dilico”) placed CB as a foster child in the Applicants’ home.

4Dilico removed CB from the Applicants’ home on February 19, 2020 during a child protection investigation it commenced on that date. On October 16, 2020, Dilico provided a letter to the Applicants “as 10 day written notification that [CB] will be placed in an alternative placement for planning purposes” and that CB’s placement with the Applicants “will be terminated on October 26, 2020”.

5The Applicants have asked the CFSRB to review the decision of Dilico to remove CB from their foster home.

6The issue now before the CFSRB is whether it is in the best interests of CB, thirteen months after he was removed, to confirm or rescind the decision of Dilico to remove CB from the Applicants’ home.

7The Hearing proceeded on November 20, December 2 and 16, 2020, January 8, 13, 21, 25, and February 11, 12, and 17, 2021. Because of the restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, these Hearings were held through the MS-TEAMS videoconferencing platform. The parties provided written closing submissions on March 3, 2021.

8Dilico presented evidence from the child’s biological father, RC, as well as from the following witnesses by affidavit supplemented by oral testimony:

• DT, CB’s worker since October 2016

• PC, a Children’s Wellness Worker at Dilico since September 2018, and leading the Investigation

• KC, the resource worker for the Applicants’ foster home

• DMcC, an Alternate Care 2 Manager at Dilico; and

• DC, a Child Well Being Worker employed by Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services (“Kina”);

9The Applicants did not testify. Their only witness, TT, is an Alternate Care Worker at Dilico. She testified in person and filed a Witness Statement.

10Both parties filed and relied on extensive documentary evidence. No expert evidence was filed.

11Pays Plat First Nation presented no evidence at the Hearing. Subsequent to the completion of the evidence, on March 3, 2021, Dilico filed with the CFSRB an undated letter signed by the Chief of Pays Plat First Nation. In that letter, the Chief indicates that Pays Plat First Nation is in support of the plan to reunify CB with his father RC.

12On March 9, 2021, the CFSRB issued the following order, with reasons to follow.

Having heard the evidence and considered the submissions of the parties, the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) concludes as follows:

• The removal of CB from the Applicants’ home on February 19, 2020, was in contravention of the Act;

• Notwithstanding the above, the child’s best interests do not support his removal at this time from the current placement with his biological father and a return to the Applicants’ home;

• Section 109(15) of the Act requires the CFSRB to either “confirm the proposal to remove the child or direct Dilico not to carry out the proposed removal”. While it was not in the child’s best interests to remove him from the Applicants on February 19, 2020, and the protection investigation was flawed, the CFSRB must confirm the removal given his best interests at this time.

order

The removal of CB from the Applicant’s home is confirmed.

The Application is dismissed.

Reasons for this decision will follow.

procedural issueS

13Dilico has been investigating certain matters which were instrumental in the decision of February 19 2020 to remove CB and the other foster children from the Applicants’ home on an emergency basis. At the Hearing of November 20, 2020 agreement was reached between the parties on a timetable for bringing the investigation to a conclusion. It was also agreed that the final report would be shared, unredacted, between the parties and with the Hearing panel.

14The Applicants also requested further substantial disclosure of materials in Dilico’s files, including file notes for specific events and specific dates. As well, materials concerning other events related to this case, such as criminal records, court orders, and extensive case notes which led to the decision to remove the CB and the other foster children on February 19, 2020 on an emergency basis were also ordered to be disclosed.

15Before addressing the substantive issues, the Hearing proceeded on some preliminary and procedural issues on November 20, 2020, including disclosure and scheduling matters.

16On December 16, 2020, following Dilico’s completion of its Investigation and report on December 8, 2020, the CFSRB requested that the parties provide written submissions by January 7, 2021 on two related questions, as follows:

a) What impact, if any, do the conclusions in the protection investigation have on this CFSRB review?

b) Does the verified risk of harm and recommendation to close the foster home render these proceedings moot?

17On January 7, 2021, counsel for the parties filed their respective submissions.

18The CFSRB decided that its jurisdiction is not fettered by the Investigation’s conclusions and that it would continue with its review. Brief oral reasons were given. Written reasons followed on January 20, 2021.

19The Applicants had previously submitted an application under section 119 and 120 of the Act to the CFSRB. That application was suspended until the completion of this Hearing.

BACKGROUND

The Child and his siblings

20CB was born March 9, 2009. His birth parents are RC (the “Father”) and LW. CB and his siblings were apprehended from their parents when they were living in Sudbury. CB was made a Crown Ward by Court Order dated January 20, 2014. CB was placed in two successive foster placements, both of which broke down, prior to his placement with the Applicants. He was placed by Dilico with the Applicants on September 1, 2016. After CB was removed by Dilico from the Applicants’ home on an emergency basis on February 19, 2020, he was placed in two more foster homes. Both of these placements broke down.

21Since September 2, 2020, CB has been living with the Father RC and his partner LH, near Sudbury. On September 10, 2020, Dilico entered an Interagency Service Agreement with Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services (“Kina”) in which Kina agreed to supervise CB’s placement with RC.

22CB has four siblings, namely

●C, born in 2008, living near Collingwood

●V, born in 2011, living in a foster home in Mississauga

●L, born in 2012, living with her paternal grandmother near Sudbury

●D, (half-sibling) living at Pays Plat First Nation

23On October 8, 2020, the Father commenced a Status Review Application in the Ontario Court of Justice seeking an Order vacating the Crown Wardship of CB and placing CB in his care. This Status Review Application is supported by Dilico.

24Case Notes at Dilico from April 2020 refer to the Father’s expression of interest in becoming increasingly involved in his children’s lives and refer to CB’s frequent questions about why he can’t live with his Father. Yet, clearly CB was ambivalent about where he wanted to be. A Plan Of Care, dated January 15, 2020 quoted CB as wanting to live with the Applicants “for a long time”. One month later, he was removed from the home.

The Applicants’ Family

25The Applicants KH and RB reside in Northern Ontario. They have 2 adult children.

26The Applicant RB is a member of the Gull Bay First Nation. During the Hearing, the Applicant KH did not identify as a member of any First Nation, Inuit or Métis community.

27In 2016, the Applicants applied to foster CB. A home study was completed and they were approved as foster parents. Both Applicants have worked outside of the home. When both are at work at the same time, they have used others to provide supervision of the foster children in their home when needed. The Applicants have fostered up to four children in their home at any one time. They have also occasionally offered their home to Dilico for emergency foster placements, on an emergency basis, when they had available space in the home.

The law

28In reviewing this Application, we are mandated and guided by two pieces of legislation: the Federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, S.C. 2019, c.24 (the “Federal Act”) and the Provincial Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017 (the “Act”). Section 16 of the Federal Act and sections 3, 74(3) and 109(6) to (17) of the Act are most significant to our review.

29Section 16 of the Federal Act sets out the criteria for the placement of Indigenous children, as follows:

16(1) The placement of an Indigenous child in the context of providing child and family services in relation to the child, to the extent that it is consistent with the best interests of the child, is to occur in the following order of priority:

(a) with one of the child’s parents;

(b) with another adult member of the child’s family;

(c) with an adult who belongs to the same Indigenous group, community or people as the child;

(d) with an adult who belongs to an Indigenous group, community or people other than the one to which the child belongs; or

(e) with any other adult.

16(2) When the order of priority set out in subsection (1) is being applied, the possibility of placing the child with or near children who have the same parent as the child, or who are otherwise members of the child’s family, must be considered in the determination of whether a placement would be consistent with the best interests of the child.

30Section 3 of the Act sets out the rights of children and young persons receiving services, as follows:

3.Every child and young person receiving services under this Act has the following rights:

(1) To express their own views freely and safely about matters that affect them.

(2) To be engaged through an honest and respectful dialogue about how and why decisions affecting them are made and to have their views given due weight, in accordance with their age and maturity.

(3) To be consulted on the nature of the services provided or to be provided to them, to participate in decisions about the services provided or to be provided to them and to be advised of the decisions made in respect of those services.

(4) To raise concerns or recommend changes with respect to the services provided or to be provided to them without interference or fear of coercion, discrimination or reprisal and to receive a response to their concerns or recommended changes.

31Section 109 of Act sets out procedures for the removal of a child from a foster placement, as follows:

109(7) If a child is in extended society care under an order made under paragraph 3 of subsection 101 (1) or clause 116 (1) (c) and has lived continuously with a foster parent for two years and a society proposes to remove the child from the foster parent under subsection (6), the society shall,

(a) give the foster parent at least 10 days notice in writing of the proposed removal and of the foster parent’s right to apply for a review under subsection (8); and

(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, give the notice required by clause (a), and

(i) give at least 10 days notice in writing of the proposed removal to a representative chosen by each of the child’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities, and

(ii) after the notice is given under subclause (i), consult with representatives chosen by the bands and communities relating to the plan of care for the child.

Application for review

(8) A foster parent who receives a notice under clause (7)(a) may, within 10 days after receiving the notice, apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the proposed removal.

Board hearing

(9) Upon receipt of an application by a foster parent for a review of a proposed removal, the Board shall hold a hearing under this section.

Board decision

(15) The Board shall, in accordance with its determination of which action is in the best interests of the child, confirm the proposal to remove the child or direct the society not to carry out the proposed removal, and shall give written reasons for its decision.

No removal before decision

(16) Subject to subsection (17), the society shall not carry out the proposed removal of the child unless,

(a) the time for applying for a review of the proposed removal under subsection (8) has expired and an application is not made; or

(b) if an application for a review of the proposed removal is made under subsection (8), the Board has confirmed the proposed removal under subsection (15).

Where child at risk

(17) A society may remove the child from the foster home before the expiry of the time for applying for a review under subsection (8) or at any time after the application for a review is made if, in the opinion of a local director, there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm during the time necessary for a review by the Board.

32Section 74(3) of Act sets out the considerations for determining the best interests of the child, and provides as follows:

(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,

(a) consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c); and

(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including,

(i) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs,

(ii) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development,

(iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,

(iv) the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage,

(v) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family,

(vi) the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community,

(vii) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity,

(viii) the merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent,

(ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case,

(x) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent, and

(xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

ANALYSIS

33We will focus on two broad issues here, namely the circumstances of the removal of CB from the Applicants’ home, and a consideration of the best interest of CB, from the perspective of whether Dilico’s decisions and actions were in compliance with the relevant legislation.

34CFSRB’s task when reviewing a decision to refuse an adoption application or remove a child from a long-term foster placement was explained by the Divisional Court in Family Youth & Child Services of Muskoka v. DM and CM, 2010 ONSC 6018 (“Muskoka”), as follows:

The language of this section expressly requires the Board to make a determination as to what action is in the best interests of the child. If the decision under review is a refusal of an adoption application, the action relates to the entire adoption application process, which involves a number of distinct steps. Although action must be interpreted in the context of the decision under review (adoption application or removal from placement), it gives the Board broad authority to determine what should be done in the child’s best interests within the confines of the decision/action under review.

Compliance with [Section 109](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html#sec109_smooth) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html)

Dilico’s Investigation

35Dilico’s Investigation into the allegations against the Applicant RB commenced on February 19, 2020, the day that CB and the other children were removed from the Applicants’ foster home, and continued until December 2020.

36PC, who was responsible for the investigation, testified that Dilico waited until all other interviews were complete before offering to meet with the Applicants in September of 2020. Dilico asserted that RB was continuously unavailable to the Dilico investigator despite repeated attempts to schedule it. He failed to attend a previously scheduled interview date of November 25, 2020.

37There was agreement reached between the Applicants and Dilico that they would conduct the interview on December 2, one of the days scheduled for this Hearing.

38Dilico knew of the historical sexual abuse allegations against RB in 2016 and approved the home as a foster home. PC confirmed several concerning facts about the investigation:

• this investigation was triggered by an old newspaper article from an unidentified source about the Applicant RB being re-tried on sexual assault allegations for which he had been previously acquitted and he was acquitted again. Dilico began a “Fact-finding” investigation which included a complete review of the Applicants’ file, access requests for court documents in the trial and, in particular, the transcript of the judge’s reasons, victim impact statements and witness statements. These were released to Dilico in May 2020;

• there was no “new” information regarding the historical allegations nor were there any concerns from or about the children placed in the Applicants’ home;

• none of the children who were removed from the foster home on February 19, 2020, were interviewed in advance of their removal, nor were the Applicants;

• the child care worker responsible for CB in the home was not interviewed as part of the initial investigation, nor was she consulted in advance of his removal;

• the child wellness worker, TT, who testified on behalf of the Applicants, was not consulted in advance of the removal, and she did not support it;

• the “risk assessment” concluded that the home was “unsafe” with a “high” score for future abuse of children. This led to PC recommending that the home be closed as a foster home. This “score” was achieved by relying on a “history of alcohol abuse” allegedly self-reported by the Applicants and reported by TT. TT forcefully denied that this information came from her and the Applicants similarly denied it. Without that factor, the risk of abuse “score” would have been in the moderate range;

• during the investigation there were 2 reports of concern about possible neglect in the home, both of which were investigated and not verified;

• PC stated that there was “an escalating pattern of allegations against (RB)” but evidence from TT confirmed that the 2 “allegations” in 2019 from NB, a relative of RB, were determined to be unfounded and, in fact, “malicious”;

• PC was of the view that “…based on the history, they should never have been opened as a foster home’;

• under cross-examination PC was asked, if Dilico’s concerns related to the history of sexual abuse allegations against RB, why was there imminent risk of harm to the children on February 19, 2020? Her response was “Just because there has been no disclosure doesn’t mean nothing happened” and “at this point, we had an obligation to remove the children from the home. There was no other option”;

• PC confirmed that she waited until September, 2020, to request an interview with the Applicants. because she was interviewing other collaterals and waiting for the FOI documents. She acknowledged that this request came after CB had been moved to the Father’s home on September 2, 2020, for an extended visit and CB had not been permitted any access to the Applicants in the interim;

• on October 16, 2020, Dilico notified the Applicants by letter that CB was permanently removed from their home;

• on January 21, 2021, the Applicants were notified that their home had been closed as a foster home.

39TT also testified that it was normal Dilico practice for criminal record checks to be kept in a sealed envelope in the file. Before the decision was made to remove the children, TT was asked on two separate occasions to supply supervisory staff with a copy of the original record check, the second such request being made when she knew that a file review was under way.

40TT testified that, after the discussions above, she was not consulted about the removal of the children. She stated it was normal practice for the alternate care worker to be involved in such decisions, and that in a previous case she was consulted on removal and placement decisions.

41TT also learned that Dilico had decided that there would be no access visits between CB and the Applicants after the removal and during the time of the investigation.

42TT stated that she was interviewed briefly by the two Dilico staff, PC and DMcC, as part of the investigation, but that she had “no real involvement” in this investigation which she described as exceptionally long. Subsequently, TT learned, by “going into the system” that CB had moved to Sudbury, but she could not share this information with Applicant KH. When TT was asked at the Hearing whether she was aware of Dilico plans to re-unify CB with his Father, she answered that she was not aware, but that normally she would have been aware of such plans.

43TT also provided information on some conversations with other staff at Dilico. She referred to many conversations that she described as negative talk in the office about Applicant KH as “she’s difficult”. When asked at the Hearing if the home should have been closed TT made the following points: there were no safety issues; there were no red flags; they knew from the beginning of the historical sexual abuse allegations against RB dating back to the 80’s, and had the criminal record check yet Dilico decided to open the home anyway; nothing has happened since the home was opened to increase the risk; many children were placed with no concerns, and Dilico saw the Applicants as a valuable resource to help children.

44At the Hearing on December 16, 2020, Dilico informed us that the investigation had been completed, given that Dilico had interviewed RB and KH on December 2, 2020.

45Dilico wrote a letter to the Applicants, dated December 8, 2020. It gave the Applicants the conclusions of its investigation. The letter was signed by PC, Intersociety Liaison and Centralized Intake Manager at Dilico. Three key paragraphs read as follows:

I am writing to provide you the conclusion of our investigation that commenced February 19, 2020 with respect to historical information that was brought forward regarding a risk of sexual harm and failure to protect. Please be advised that this also includes a Quality Assurance review of your file and initially a partial disclosure from the Freedom of Information Act followed by a complete disclosure that was eventually received.

During the investigation three additional Child Protection Referrals were received regarding a [sic] limited caregiving skills that included concerns regarding children shooting at each other with pellets and children sliding on the back of bumpers in snow boots.

Based on a complete review of all services, a complete disclosure of the Freedom of Information Act as it pertains to [RB]’s previous criminal involvement and a review of previous Child Protection referrals and services and interviews completed, we have verified concerns of risk of sexual harm and failure to protect. We have not verified concerns related to limited caregiving skills.

CB’s removal from the Applicants’ home

46CB lived with the Applicants continuously for a period of more than two years. As such, the Act requires Dilico to provide notice of CB’s proposed removal from the Applicants. It is only where a child is at risk that the removal may be made without the full notice period.

47We have significant concerns about the manner in which Dilico proceeded with the removal of CB from his home with the Applicants. On February 19, 2020, workers from Dilico visited the Applicants’ home, and informed them that CB would be moved from their home that day, as would the other foster children in the home. By that evening, CB was placed in a different foster home.

48In their evidence, Dilico staff indicated that new information had become known to them, and that CB and the other foster children had to be removed that day because of the risk of sexual harm by RB.

49The sexual harm concern arose with Dilico upon the receipt by Dilico of an old newspaper clipping. The exact source of this newspaper clipping was not identified.

50This newspaper article was published more than a decade earlier, and referred to certain sexual offence allegations. The result of the court process in this matter was the acquittal of the person charged.

51The matter of past sexual offence allegations, and the court history that resulted, were known by Dilico in its previous assessment of the Applicants when they became foster parents to CB. Dilico Case Notes identify the time period of January 1, 1981 through December 31, 1987 when the offences were alleged to have occurred, and of the charges that resulted. The homestudy at that time was clearly aware of the allegations, the resultant charges and the court history. Dilico deemed the matter not to be a significant issue, in view of the passage of time, and the Applicants were approved and became approved foster parents upon completion of Dilico’s assessment.

52All reports and assessments during their tenure as foster parents indicated that Dilico was satisfied with the Applicants as foster parents. Much of the time, the home provided placement for its approved maximum of four children. When a bed was vacant occasionally, the Applicants also provided emergency placement services for Dilico.

53We heard Dilico witnesses state on a number of occasions that Dilico made errors when they did the initial assessments resulting in the Applicants being approved. However, there was a lack of specificity as to what these errors were. We did not hear what it was that made Dilico suddenly take note of the sexual charges resulting from allegations about events in the early 1980s, and what it now had learned that was significantly more serious than what they approved four years ago. No full and thorough explanation was provided as to why suddenly RB posed a risk of sexual harm that warranted removal of all the children on a same day emergency basis.

54As set out above, the Respondent did not provide written notice to the Applicants of their proposed removal of CB until eight (8) months after they had removed CB from the Applicants’ home. The Applicants state, in their Application, that they received one written communication from Dilico about the removal. This was in the form of a letter, dated October 16, 2020, addressed to the Applicants at their home address, and was signed by DT, Child Wellness Manager and DMcC, Alternative Care Manager. The letter reads as follows:

Attention: K[…] and R[…]

Please accept this letter as 10 day written notification that [CB] will be placed in an alternative placement for planning purposes. His placement within your home will be terminated on October 26, 2020.

If you have any questions regarding this notification, please contact Alternative Care Manager DMcC at [phone number].

55The reality is that CB had been removed eight months prior to this letter being written. We question why the letter is written in the future tense (… “will be placed” … and …” will be terminated” …). when it refers to events of eight months prior to the issuing of the letter.

56The timing of the issuing of the October 26, 2020 letter is in direct conflict with the legislated requirement of 10 days notice prior to the date of the proposed removal. Granted, the legislation permits a removal within the 10-day notice period if “…there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm during the time necessary for a review by the Board.” Dilico at no time presented compelling and credible evidence that there was a risk of sexual harm to CB during the period of 10 days notice between giving the notice and removal, or during the entire time it took for the Board to hold a Hearing. As well, Dilico did not implement any risk-reducing actions (such as RB leaving the home during the investigation) that would have mitigated or removed any perceived risk, and would have continued CB living in his then-current placement.

57At the time of the actual removal, absent the 10 days written notice, the Applicants did not know that this removal was planned to be permanent. They fully expected that CB would return to their home. In these circumstances, it is understandable that the Applicants did not submit an Application to the Board until they received the written communication of October 16, 2020.

58The letter from Dilico was written in late October, before the investigation was completed. If the investigation was to determine if the home was safe, we question why a seemingly permanent decision was made about CB not returning to the Applicants while the investigation was still ongoing. As well, before the investigation was completed, CB was encouraged by Dilico staff to write a “good-bye” letter to KH. This would have been a final “good-bye” from CB to KH an RB, and was proposed as a letter because staff would not permit any visit or telephone contact. And if Dilico truly had decided that CB would not return to the Applicants, as evidenced by the staff suggestion of the “good-bye” letter, why was notice not given at the time of CB’s removal, as would have been required by the legislation? We find that Dilico misled the Applicants and CB about their intention to not return CB to the Applicants and their intention close the foster home. Thus, Dilico did not follow the requirements of the legislation.

59We heard from TT, the only witness called by the Applicants. TT was an Alternate Care Worker at Dilico. She had worked with CB since 2016, prior to his placement with the Applicants. She was assigned as the main contact worker for Dilico with the Applicants. TT was one staff within Dilico who was opposed to the plan to remove CB from the Applicants’ home. She was involved with CB when his foster placement in 2016 was breaking down, and which resulted in him being placed with the Applicants. The Applicants had just been approved as foster parents, and CB was transferred to their home. TT described how the Applicants were able to deal with the difficulties that CB presented, and gradually he learned to trust them. She described the rules in the home as “strict, but fair”, with a good use of humour. She described the home as “organized chaos”, with a number of children being placed there, and lots of activity and community involvements for them, outside medical appointments, contacts with First Nations groups, and various children having access visits. She was in the home many times each week, and was very aware of the various developments as can be expected in such a busy home. When TT was asked at the Hearing whether she observed any risks in the home, her answer was a firm “No”. She saw the Applicants as cooperative with Dilico, but she also observed that some within the agency saw the Applicant KH as “difficult”. KH was very involved in scheduling the children’s activities, including their frequent car trips to Gull Bay. Gull Bay was a frequent activity destination, as CB’s maternal family reside in Gull Bay. As well, there were many trips to Pays Plat First Nation, to which CB belongs.

60TT stated that when CB’s prior mid-2016 foster home placement was breaking down, he was placed with the Applicants because they were family. This is in line with Dilico’s Mikinaak model of service, which emphasizes placements with family wherever possible. Yet, the February 2020 removal from the Applicants’ home and placement in a new foster home, not with family, went against the Mikinaak model of service. TT testified that Dilico at that time did not have any active plans to re-unite CB with his biological father.

61No evidence was presented that Dilico seriously considered alternative resolutions to their newfound risk situation. The option to request RB to absent himself from the home, if he was the source of the risks, was never implemented or even seriously considered during the course of the investigation. No other safety measures were considered or implemented to prevent the upset that would be felt by the children as a result of their emergency removal and placement elsewhere. TT testified that she worked very closely with the Applicants while CB was placed there. She stated that at no time when she was assigned to CB and to the foster home did she see any risk of harm. She also heard no reports from any other staff regarding concerns about any of the children placed in the Applicants’ home. When asked if she ever saw any risk to the children, she replied with a firm “No”.

62We find that Dilico did not give the Applicants proper notice as required by the Act, and as a result the Child’s removal from the Applicants’ home contravened the Act.

63It is the CFSRB’s conclusion that the investigation was flawed and Dilico is in contravention of s.109 of the Act.

64The notice requirements in sections 109 and 192 of the Act are mandatory and serve several important purposes.

First, they notify foster parents and prospective adoptive parents of decisions that significantly impact their lives and the lives of children in their care (or who they hope will come into their care). Second, they tell foster parents and prospective adoptive parents that they have a right to have those decisions reviewed by the CFSRB. Third, they provide clarity about the time period in which foster parents and prospective adoptive parents can apply to the CFSRB. That period is very short – only 10 days from when notice is received. This short time period ensures that children and families do not remain in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period.

65If the Respondent had given proper notice here, there would have been two possible outcomes:

1. 10 days would have passed without the Applicants filing applications with the CFSRB. The plan for the Child to relocate at some point in the future to his father’s care could have proceeded in a planful way without the disruption that the child here experienced.

2. The Applicants would have filed applications with the CFSRB. The Child would have remained in the Applicants’ home until the CFSRB Hearing concluded and the CFSRB made a decision as to which action was in the Child’s best interests.

66The Act is explicit that a child must remain in the foster home until the expiry of the appeal period or the outcome of the review. This statutory scheme is intended to avoid the very situation which has unfolded here: the destabilization of a child’s life while his ultimate placement remains undecided. As noted in NC v. Kunuwanimano Child and Family Services, 2018 CFSRB 28, at para 82, these provisions “promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children by ensuring that their placements are disrupted as little as possible.”

CB’s transition from the Applicants’ home to his father’s home

67CB was placed with the Applicants on September 1, 2016 and was removed on February 19, 2020. He experienced two foster home placement breakdowns between his emergency removal and the decision that he would go live with his father. Little evidence was presented about these interim placements, but both of them broke down. TT testified that she learned that the second foster home placement broke down in large part because the foster mother in that second foster home learned that CB had made a telephone call to the Applicant KH. The foster mother also indicated to Dilico that she felt uncomfortable with the fact that the Applicants were seen driving past her home. CB was moved a few days later, to his biological Father’s home on an extended visit. At that time, the Father was showing more interest and taking steps to become involved again with CB and his other children. On October 8, 2020 the Father issued a status review application asking the Court to vacate the Crown Wardship Order on CB. In January, 2021, the judge in that proceeding made an interim order placing CB in his father’s care under an order of supervision.

68We heard evidence that the Applicants refused to surrender CB’s clothing items and sports equipment and electronic games. At the same time, Dilico refused to permit any access between CB and the Applicants who had been his parents for 3½ years.

69Two incidents that we deemed harmful to CB during this transition period stand out. While the evidence was somewhat ambiguous or contradictory, the following two scenarios played out over this period of time.

• CB had asked numerous times for visits with the Applicants. These were all refused by Dilico. Even supervised visits were deemed unacceptable to Dilico. If Dilico was planning to return CB to the Applicants, unless the investigation uncovered significant new issues or significant risk factors previously unknown to Dilico, common sense and good clinical practice would dictate that supervised visits with the Applicant KH could and should have been arranged. These visits would have presented no risk to CB, and in fact would have been a tremendous comfort to CB, who had been removed from what was his home and his family on a few hours’ notice. Not even phone calls with KH were permitted or even contemplated.

• In fact, the opposite was the intent of Dilico. Not only were visits or phone calls by CB not allowed, but Dilico staff actively attempted to have CB “own” this situation through the “good-bye” letter, described above in paragraph 58. Clearly CB did not want to write this letter, because the suggested tone of the letter would clearly confirm that CB would never return to the Applicants. We draw the inevitable conclusion that Dilico, while it said that it was doing an investigation to determine whether or not there were significant risk factors, had already made up its mind about CB not returning to the Applicants. Ultimately, CB did not write the letter, but the suggestion of such a letter showed the true intention and plan of Dilico, namely that CB would never return to the Applicants.

70The Father testified and gave some background to his gradual re-involvement with his children. He started expressing an interest in his children around 2019. This started with contacts with Dilico, and gradually evolved to some telephone communication with his children. He acknowledged that his son C was still reluctant to get involved with him.

71CB now lives with the Father and his partner LH. The Father views this as a positive placement for CB and is a first step for him to resume care of his other children on a gradual basis. His daughter LB lives close by with her paternal grandmother.

72The placement with his father will present some challenges both to CB and to his Father. Kina is the current agency that provides services to the Father. It is also an Indigenous children and family service. The Father acknowledged significant difficulty with alcohol and opioids in the past. He says he has been free of drug and alcohol usage since 2017. Some drug usage since then was acknowledged, but this is not seen by him as a relapse, but rather as a “slip up”. He completed rehab programs in drug and alcohol abuse in 2019, as well as anger management and positive parenting programs as recommended by Dilico. He is working full-time in the construction trade.

73The Father testified that he is in a solid long-term relationship with LH, that he wants to be a full-time father for his children despite his significant past problems, and that he will not stop working to get his family together with him. His current Status Review Application relates to CB. His plan is to implement gradually the process of getting his children back with him. With regard to CB visiting with the Applicants, the Father expressed a reluctance to agree to visits for CB with them.

74Since CB has relocated to the Father’s home, DC, a worker from Kina, has been visiting the home. Her testimony was that she sees the family every week, and she reports that CB and his father are doing very well since his placement in September. We find it concerning that the worker has learned just recently that CB is truant from school quite frequently, and spends a lot of time playing video games. The comment that CB has ready access to various knives, and the reference in the OCL second report to CB “…seeing things that are not really there…” are also cause for concern. Follow-up attention is suggested as appropriate on both of these issues.

Financial issues between Dilico and the Applicants

75We heard detailed information on the funding which the Applicants received from Dilico, including various per diem rates, mileage rates, clothing allowances, relief and baby-sitting fees, sports equipment costs, and costs of other special needs items. The figure of $211,634.35 was given as the total payment to the Applicants, for all the children that were placed with them during 4½ years from September 2016 to the date they were closed as a foster home, namely January 8, 2021. These figures relate to the total cost to Dilico of the Applicants’ foster home’s operation for all children who were placed there, including CB. Much time and energy were spent in discussion between the Applicants and the workers assigned to the home, to resolve issues about money and costs as they arose.

76Evidence from TT, the sole witness called by the Applicants, confirmed that significant stresses had arisen between the Applicants and Dilico over financial issues. TT said that mileage rates were questioned by Dilico, as well as costs for any extra-curricular activities. She related that at the office, the Applicants’ financial submissions were the only one of her many foster homes over which questions would be asked, and asked repeatedly. She believed there were much more stringent controls over the Applicants’ financial affairs than any others: “it was the only file I ever got questioned over”. TT stated that the theme of “fostering is not meant to be income-generating” was mentioned a number of times.

77While the financial issues have no direct bearing on the two matters under review, namely the circumstances of CB’s removal from the Applicant’s home and his best interests at this time, the financial issues nevertheless occupied the better part of a full day of evidence from Dilico. A number of witnesses, including the Applicants’ witness, spoke to the great deal of negative attention that the Applicants’ finances generated within Dilico. While Dilico did not establish a direct relevance of this financial information to the core subject matter at this Hearing, it seems that the financial disputes between Dilico and the Applicants were relevant to Dilico’s perception of the Applicants as foster parents.

Compliance with Section 16 of the Federal Act

78We conclude that CB’s placement with his father complies with the placement priorities set out in section 16 the Federal Act. It is identified as the top priority, namely placement with a parent. The Father identifies as Métis from the Maniwaki area in Québec. Similarly, placement with the Applicants complied with section 16 as it was the first alternative to placement with a parent, namely a placement with another adult member of the child’s family, in this case, CB’s great aunt and uncle, who are also members of an Indigenous community.

79We find that both placements, namely with the Applicants and then with his Father, both meet the Federal Act’s placement priority statement.

Compliance with [Section 3](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html#sec3_smooth) of [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html)

80From the evidence we heard, we conclude that there was no “honest and respectful” dialogue between Dilico staff and CB with regard to crucial issues in his life: why he was removed, why he was denied visits in a safe manner during the time of the investigation was in process, and the factual information that was withheld from CB as to Dilico’s plans and decisions. No attempt was made to have safe visits with KH in the absence of RB and implemented under supervision. Such visits, as requested many times by CB could have saved CB a lot of emotional suffering and stress. His school work and attendance, currently a serious concern, would likely not have suffered if he had maintained such contact with the Applicants.

81No compelling reasons or explanations were given to CB as to why telephone contact was not permitted, or implemented with supervision. His second foster home placement after leaving the Applicants broke down in part because of a surreptitious phone call made by CB to KH.

82The suggestion by Dilico for a “good-bye” letter put CB in a very difficult situation. He had not been given an honest and complete explanation by Dilico as to why he was removed from the Applicants’ home. In its place, Dilico’s plan that CB send a letter to the Applicants was neither a straight-forward nor honest way to deal with CB or the Applicants at this very stressful time. CB did find within himself the strength to resist Dilico’s request for this letter.

83We find that Dilico breached section 3 of the Act in their less-than-honest persistent approach to keep the truth of Dilico’s plans from CB. This breach is all the more egregious because there was no compelling reason to keep the truth from CB. This breach also caused CB significant emotional turmoil and stress, and regression in his next two Dilico’s foster home placements from the many gains he had made with the Applicants.

Compliance with [Section 74(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html#sec74subsec3_smooth)3 of [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html)

84With regard to the various criteria of the best interest sections of the Federal and the Provincial legislation, there are many similarities. We have chosen to review the specific best interest criteria based on the Provincial legislation.

85We considered all of the factors in s. 74(3) and found that the factors discussed below were most relevant to our determination. In reviewing the elements of the best interests test relevant to our decision we have grouped together closely related criteria.

s. 74 (3) (a) The child’s views and wishes

86We heard conflicting views from the Applicants and from Dilico on this criterion. The evidence presented by Dilico focussed mostly on CB not wishing to return to the Applicants’ home. The one witness from the Applicants, indicated that CB was very stressed by the sudden removal, and gave at times conflicting messages about where he wanted to live and what access he would like with the Applicants if he were to remain in his current living situation with his father.

87Fortunately, we have independent affidavit evidence to help in examining this criterion. CB had the benefit of involvement from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (the “OCL”). The written submission of the OCL is very clear in describing CB’s position on his views and wishes. It reads as follows on this criterion:

[CB] confirmed that when it came to where he would live in the year following his removal, no one asked him his opinion, gave him a choice, or had him speak to a lawyer. His first opportunity to have any opinion only came after he was placed with his father, where the placement was with the intention of permanency and a status review application.

[CB]’s views appeared strong at his first interview in November, when he spoke openly without prompting and appeared to have independent opinions. [CB] indicated an understanding that he was being fought over and that he needed an opportunity to make his own decision.

By his second interview he was visibly uncomfortable, and unwilling to explain some of his views, although it was later clarified by him that his views were based on a belief that there was a trial going on and his dad could lose if he didn’t stop communicating with [KH] and [RB]. Essentially, he expressed a belief that he needed to pick a team and he had therefore done so. He appeared physically less able to communicate, indicating that he had been hallucinating, and demanding that the interview take place in darkness.

[CB]’s most consistent wish in both interviews and prior to OCL involvement was to communicate with and visit with [KH] and [RB]. This appears to have remained his position for a full year. He indicated his wish to contact them to Dilico before this hearing began, and attempted to make contact with them on his own. After moving with his father, he still wished to spend significant time with them at their home before deciding where he would live.

It was only in February, 2021, a year after being removed from their home, that [CB] indicated he didn’t want to have access with [KH] and [RB], a view which he then recanted after explaining that he had formed a belief that his dad would lose a “trial” if he continued having contact with [KH] and [RB]. He indicated, once again, a wish to visit them at their home, although his suggested length of time was reduced and he indicated that he had settled on remaining with his dad and he was happy there.

s.74(3)(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c).

88Both his former placement with the Applicants and his current placement with his Father give CB the recognition and the preservation of his First Nation cultural identity. The Applicants were very active in attending events at the Pays Plat First Nation, to which CB belonged. Many trips were taken there, and they were active participants. CB’s father is Métis; he is working at keeping CB exposed to his native culture by various means. Currently, he and CB are building a sweat lodge on their property.

s.74(3)(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including:

(i) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs

and

(ii) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development

89By all accounts, it appears that CB is developing physically, mentally, and emotionally in line with his age. The evidence established that he had 3½ years of good emotional support and social opportunities while living with the Applicants. They gave him stability, consistency, caring and emotional support after the experience he had prior to his apprehension in 2014. That contribution from the Applicants will give him a solid base from which to approach his teen-age years. An ongoing relationship with the Applicants would help him put in perspective the time he spent with them and help him deal with any feelings that may have arisen from the sudden termination of his relationship with the Applicants.

90The Father has expressed optimism about his dealing with major problems in the past, which made him a stranger to his children. He expressed a commitment to remaining drug and alcohol-free. He is also making long-term plans to resume care of his other children. He will need significant support services from Kina to avoid major setbacks in this very ambitious vision that he has for his and his family’s future.

91There are, however, a couple of troubling issues that need to be addressed. There are concerns about his comment about his possible hearing/seeing “…things that aren’t there …”. Given the significant stress that CB has been under for the past year, this warrants medical follow-up. Equally concerning is CB’s current school attendance. While specifics were not available, the clear picture that emerges is a pattern of significant truancy from school, and of his time being filled with playing video games at home. If this is not dealt with by the Father, with the active involvement of Kina, this will result in significant challenges for CB’s long-term future. The issue of school attendance and performance in achievements at school were not issues when CB was with the Applicants. A quick turnaround in this emerging issue is needed.

(iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression

and

(iv) the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage

92The significant issue here is CB’s First Nations heritage. When placed with the Applicants, this was a major focus of the family, with frequent trips to Pays Plat and Gull Bay and engagement in activities there. This aspect of the Applicants’ influence has been consistent and solid but is at risk of being lost if CB’s Father does not put an emphasis on it. Building a sweat lodge at home is a good activity, but it is only one beginning aspect of the involvement that CB will need to keep alive his culture.

93Again here, it is hoped that the contact with Kina, an Indigenous family service agency, will help maintain CB’s involvement in the traditions of his heritage.

(v) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family

and

(vi) the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community

94Placement with the Father is a great opportunity for CB to strengthen the relationship with his parent. However, it must be remembered that, over the past 6 months, CB has been placed in circumstances where he felt torn between two loyalties: to the Applicants, who are extended family members and who parented him over the 3½ years that he was in their home, and to his Father, about whom he, at times, felt ambivalent and at times wanted to return to the Applicants. This ambivalence is not easy for any young person to resolve. CB may need some counselling in the future to help him come to terms with and put in perspective the roles played by his substitute parents for four years, and his biological parent with whom he recently became involved.

95The Applicants are part of CB’s extended family. They have played a special role in his life, and this will always be something that is part of CB’s past. Keeping them involved would seem to be an obvious need for CB. That relationship will have to be one that recognizes what they have done for him, and yet will also have to exist with the very likely scenario that CB will be living with his Father for the foreseeable future. It is recommended that his relationship with the Applicants be supported by Dilico, Kina, and the Father. If Dilico is convinced that serious risks remain, Dilico needs to find a way to mitigate those perceived risks rather than blocking future access. CB has consistently wanted to have access visits with his siblings. The Applicants supported access visits while he was placed with them. This strong connection with his siblings is a value that he received from the Applicants and it was re-enforced by the Applicants during the time CB spent with them. This is a significant contribution made by them to CB during this period of his life.

96Since moving in with his father, access to his siblings has been inconsistent. Visits are arranged when possible. The greatest barrier is the significant distances for travelling in the North. Winter conditions at times make it impossible. The Covid-19 pandemic restrictions are another factor that comes into consideration. The level of commitment has also varied between the adults with whom the children are living. The Applicants were consistent in their openness to access visits, and put considerable effort into making access visits possible. CB’s father appears less committed, though it is hard to determine how much this is Covid-19 pandemic related. Currently, CB’s brother C won’t visit with CB while the latter is living with the Father. CB’s sister L lives in close proximity to CB and is a frequent visitor since CB moved to his father’s home.

(vii) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity

97This criterion has evolved over the past thirteen months. Given that CB has been out of the Applicants’ home for thirteen months now, and given that he went through two challenging foster home placements, and given that Dilico refused to permit any visitation or telephone contact with the Applicants, and lastly given that CB has spent more than half a year with the Father and this placement seems to be going well, there is no doubt that CB’s need for continuity of care is best met by him remaining where he is.

98Aside from the previous reason for keeping CB with his Father, there is another aspect that would strongly suggest that the current placement is best. If somehow CB were to return to the Applicants, that would be another disruption for him and could seriously jeopardize his future relationship with his father. And if the Father’s Status Review this spring results in a court order in the Father’s favour, CB would face another disruption.

99The two factors above support that it is in CB’s best interest not to move again.

(viii) the merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent

100Adoption is not an option in this situation. CB remaining with his Father is the best option for him.

(ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case

and

(x) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent

101The evidence establishes that Dilico’s decision to review the criminal record issues and remove CB from the Applicants’ home have been emotionally challenging for him. The damage from the decisions leading up to and subsequent to February 19, 2020 cannot be undone. The only positive response from all parties at this time is to support CB living with his Father and to take steps to help CB resolve his feelings of loss at losing the Applicants’ home, and to help him settle into what could be a possible long-term relationship with the two persons who parented him for 3½ years and who also are members of his extended family.

102CB is currently in grade 6. There is an acknowledgement of current issues around CB and his poor school attendance, but no plan yet to work at rectifying this situation. There are also concerns about his mental health as demonstrated in the evidence filed by the OCL.

conclusion

103For all of the reasons set out above, we conclude that, despite the process that led to CB’s sudden removal, without explanation, from his long-term placement with the Applicants, the action that is in CB’s best interests is for him to remain with his father.

104This conclusion is based in large part on the thirteen months lapse since he was removed from his successful placement with the Applicants. During his years with the Applicants, he was in a loving and accepting home, with exposure and involvement in First Nations traditions through numerous trips to Gull Bay and Pays Plat First Nations. The home environment provided structure appropriate to his needs, and freedom to be involved in many activities. CB’s schooling was progressing normally.

105While Dilico’s removal of CB from the Applicants’ home was not in compliance with the legislation, rescinding it would not be in CB’s best interests. While the Applicants seek CB’s return to their care, we find that the time that has elapsed since CB’s removal from their home and CB’s reconnection with his father, preclude his return. As long as Dilico believes there are serious protection concerns if he were to return to the Applicants, and there is no evidence to indicate that they now realize that their decision for removal in February 2020 was not in CB’s best interests, there is a possibility that Dilico would again remove him from the Applicants’ home. Such a situation could be catastrophic for CB. As well, the Status Review application is pending in the courts, and could result in the court confirming CB’s placement with his father. Thus, reluctantly and with CB’s need for stability and continuity of his current relationships in mind, we will not rescind Dilico’s decision to remove CB from the Applicant’s home.

106The OCL, in its closing submissions, provided a very accurate description of the process that Dilico imposed on CB, and the negative consequences on him. The OCL report, quoted extensively in paragraph 87 above, also clearly establishes what CB wants at this time, and confirms what we also believe to be in his best interests.

107We believe that, despite the process that led to CB’s sudden removal from his long placement with the Applicants, the action in his best interests at this time is that he remains with his father.

108As noted in Muskoka, above, the CFSRB has broad jurisdiction to determine what actions are in the best interests of a Child in applications under section 109 and 192 of the Act. In addition to the Order we have made in CB’s best interests, we make a number of recommendations below.

recommendations

• We are concerned about CB’s school attendance since placement with his father. It is recommended that Kina work with CB and his father to develop strategies to improve CB’s school attendance.

• We are also concerned about CB seeing and hearing things that he says do not really exist. We recommend that Kina assist CB’s father to set up appropriate medical consultations toward exploring and addressing this issue.

• We recommend that CB have the opportunity for visits or telephone contact with the Applicants as he has specifically requested. The Applicants were effectively CB’s parents for over three and a half years. We hope that CB’s father, and Kina and Dilico to the extent they remain involved in CB’s life, will support the meaningful and beneficial relationship that exists between CB and the Applicants through ongoing communication and visits. The Applicants are members of his family, they have played a major role in his development, and CB needs to have the opportunity to have visits, and to have an active role in evolving the relationship between him and the Applicants to a level that he feels comfortable with on a long-term basis. To the extent that Dilico may remain involved, we urge them to put a priority on CB’s best interests, and work at making the visits safe, rather than blocking them.

ORDER

Having heard the evidence and considered the submissions of the parties, the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) concludes as follows:

• The removal of CB from the Applicants’ home on February 19, 2020, was in contravention of the Act;

• Notwithstanding the above, the child’s best interests do not support his removal at this time from the current placement with his biological father and a return to the Applicants’ home;

• Section 109(15) of the Act requires the CFSRB to either “confirm the proposal to remove the child or direct Dilico not to carry out the proposed removal”. While it was not in the child’s best interests to remove him from the Applicants on February 19, 2020, and the protection investigation was flawed, the CFSRB must confirm the removal given his best interests at this time.

order

The removal of CB from the Applicant’s home is confirmed.

The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

109The CFSRB authorizes the use of this decision and reasons by any party in the status review proceedings pertaining to CB which are currently before the court.

110Except as provided above in paragraph 109 pursuant 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 these Applications 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.