CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
VKJ
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney
Indexed As: VKJ v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent
Beata Lis, Counsel
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1The Applicant filed an Application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, (the “Act”) on March 1, 2021.
2The Application was found eligible pursuant to sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. It is alleged that the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made, or a chance to be heard when he raised concerns about the services he/she received; and the Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected his interests.
3In a Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated May 6, 2021, the CFSRB decided that the Applicant’s complaint would be reviewed in writing. The parties were ordered to disclose all arguably relevant materials to each other on or before May 14, 2021. The Applicant was ordered to file written submissions and documents to the CFSRB on or before May 21, 2021, and the Respondent was ordered to provide its written submissions and documents on or before June 1, 2021. The Applicant did not provide submissions or documents by May 14, 2021.
4On May 25, 2021, the CFSRB learned that the Applicant had experienced an illness which prevented him from fully participating in the Complaint proceedings. The proceedings were adjourned sine die. On June 15, 2021, the Applicant sent an e-mail to the CFSRB and the Respondent in which he indicated that he was ready to proceed with his Complaint. He also included several new allegations which he asked to be included in his complaint.
5In a Case Management Direction dated June 14, 2021, the parties were directed to disclose all arguably relevant material to each other and confirm in writing to the CFSRB that they have done so. On or before July 6, 2021, the Applicant was directed to file with the CFSRB his written submissions. On or before July 13, 2021, the Respondent was directed to file with the CFSRB its written submissions.
6The Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated May 6, 2021, identified the 3 issues listed below to be addressed through the written hearing. The hearing will not address any new issues raised by the Applicant in his e-mail of June 15, 2021.
The CAS did not give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard when he raised concerns and expressed his dissatisfaction with the services provided to his child and to the family, although he praised the first Intake Worker and the current Intake Worker’s support;
The CAS did not provide the Applicant with reasons for the decisions made and actions taken, in particular did not ensure that other organizations and agencies (mentioned below) complied with the Applicant’s expectations; and
The CAS did not comply with the Applicant’s demands relating to the services provided by other organizations outside the CAS mandate, namely Holland-Bloorview Hospital and the TDSB operated school attended by the child.
7The Applicant did not provide the CFSRB with any submissions or evidence to be considered in the written hearing. The Applicant did, however, send several e-mails to the CFSRB including his demand that the Respondent disclose his complete file to him. These e-mails referred to Respondent staff in a derogatory and insulting manner. The e-mails also referred to demands by the Applicant’s Counsel, Mr. Ken Berger for disclosure. The Applicant’s Counsel sent an e-mail to the CFSRB on July 13, 2021 indicating that some of the content of e-mails sent by the Applicant to his Counsel and copied to the CFSRB appear to have been edited. Counsel indicated that: “unless the email comes directly from me, I would not accept the contents to be a reflection of my personal communication”. Counsel also reported that he did not represent the Applicant before the CFSRB and that his work with the Applicant is very limited and restricted.
8With respect to the issue of disclosure, I note that the Respondent was directed to disclose to the Applicant all arguably relevant information related to his Complaint. In an e-mail from the Manager of Client Services indicated that the Applicant was couriered “the relevant material related to your CFSRB claim on May 14, 2021”. The Applicant was provided with the tracking number, an acknowledgement and an undertaking form with a self-addressed stamped envelope. The e-mail also indicated that, separately from the CFSRB Complaint, the Applicant requested a copy of his complete file. The Respondent confirmed that it was completing its disclosure and will provide the file to the Applicant’s counsel once complete.
9The Applicant’s e-mail of July 13, 2021 also indicated that the Applicant required an in-person hearing.
10In its Submissions, the Respondent argued that the Applicant has been provided with an opportunity to have his concerns heard, and the Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions on his Complaint.
THE LAW
11Section 120 of the Act provides that, if a person has “a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society [and the complaint] relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may decide” to make a complaint to either the society or the CFSRB.
12The right to be heard, as set out in sections 120(4)4 and 15(2) applies to “children and young persons and their parents”.
13Section 120(4)5 of the Act states that the CFSRB may review:
- Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
Section 120(7) discusses the remedies available to complainants as follows:
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.
14The “right to reasons” under section 120(4)5 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.
15The 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
16As outlined above, the CFSRB had previously decided that the hearing would be held in writing. This decision was made based on submissions by both parties at a Pre-Hearing/Mediation Teleconference. The Applicant indicated in his e-mail of July 13, 2021, that he required an in-person hearing. This issue was discussed and the decision to go forward with a written hearing was decided at the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Teleconference Report dated May 6, 2021. I will not reconsider this request as it has already been decided by the CFSRB.
Was the Applicant Heard?
17I considered whether the Applicant had an opportunity to be heard when he raised concerns regarding the Respondent’s efforts to support his daughter in relation to brokering educational and other supports to deal with her diagnosis of autism.
18The evidence presented by the Respondent confirms that staff spoke with the Applicant in person on 6 occasions (December 1, 10, 2020; January 26, February 17 and 19, and April 1, 2021), and by telephone or videoconference on 11 occasions (December 4, 2020; January 1, 14, 21, 29; February 18, 22; March 30; April 8; June 1, 17, 2021). The telephone, virtual, and in-person meetings included frontline workers and their manager, the Child Welfare Supervisor, the Branch Director, and representatives from the Toronto District School Board and other organizations.
19In addition, I note that the Respondent indicated that the Applicant sent staff e-mails on a daily basis.
20I also note that in a meeting on January 26, 2021 the Applicant expressed concern with his current worker. These concerns were heard and the Applicant was provided with a culturally matched Intake Worker.
21Although I am not privy to the discussions at the Pre-Hearing Mediation, the Respondent’s submissions indicated that the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to have his concerns heard regarding the lack of services available to his daughter during Teleconferences dated April 15, 2021 and May 6, 2021.
22Given the evidence before me, I find the Applicant has had multiple opportunities to present his concerns regarding the services he felt are required by his daughter; and to express his concerns with the Respondent’s services and actions as a result of his concerns. In this case, the Applicant is not satisfied with the Respondent; however, this does not mean that the Respondent has not heard the Applicant’s concerns.
Was the Applicant Given Reasons for the Respondent’s Decisions?
23The evidence from the Respondent indicated that the Applicant was provided with reasons for its decisions orally and in writing. The Respondent provided two closing letters (May 19, 2021, and June 28, 2021) which explained that Respondent staff did not have any child protection concerns in respect of the Applicant’s daughter. The letters explained that the Respondent did not have any authority over the Toronto District School Board, or any third-party service provider. The letter of May 19, 2021 outlines the efforts that Respondent staff have made to reach out and advocate to the Applicant’s daughter’s school, and to local service providers such as the Geneva Centre; Holland Bloorview Rehabilitation Hospital, and Surrey Place.
24Respondent staff met with the Applicant over the telephone on March 30, 2021, and in person on April 1, 2021 during which time the Respondent’s worker explained the Respondent’s mandate.
25The closing letter of May 19, 2021 also outlined that the Applicant’s wife has insisted that the file should be closed. The closing letter dated June 28, 2021 also indicated that the Applicant’s wife did not want the Respondent to be involved with her family and that the file should be closed.
26Respondent staff also spoke with the Applicant on June 1, and 17, 2021 in response to an investigation based on the Applicant being formed under the Mental Health Act. The letter outlined the steps taken in the investigation and the Respondent’s reasons for finding that the Applicant’s daughter was not in need of protection. The letter also explained why the Respondent did not have any authority over the Toronto District School Board or other social service agencies.
27Based on the evidence before me, I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with oral and written explanations regarding its actions and decisions, including in relation to the Toronto District School Board, and social service agencies. The letters also explain why the Respondent does not have authority over the Toronto District School Board and third-party service providers.
28In this case, the Applicant feels that Respondent staff should take a more active advocacy role in brokering services for his daughter. The Respondent has clearly explained its jurisdiction and reasoning for its advocacy activities.
29For these reasons, I find that the Applicant has been provided with adequate reasons for the Respondent’s decisions and actions.
DECISION
30For the reasons identified above, the Applicant’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety. The Respondent has heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding his daughter’s needs and has heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the alleged mistreatment and inaction by Respondent staff. In addition, the Applicant has been provided with adequate reasons for the Respondent’s decisions and actions through 2 closing letters, as well as through meetings with a variety of Respondent Staff.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
31Pursuant 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, July 22, 2021.
Daniel McSweeney
Daniel McSweeney
Member