MT v. York Region Children’s Aid Society, 2022 CFSRB 24

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MT Applicant

-and-

York Region Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: May 18, 2022 Citation: 2022 CFSRB 24 Indexed As: MT v York Region Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

MT, Applicant, Self-represented

York Region Children’s Aid Society, Respondent Alison Moonsie-Mohan, Counsel

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This is an Application (“Complaint”) 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 Complaint was found eligible for review under sections 120(4) 4 and 120(4) 5 of the Act: 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 is receiving; and the society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected his interests.

3The Applicant is the father of two daughters (the “Children”).

4The Applicant and his ex-wife are engaged in a custody and access dispute at Family Court. The Applicant’s eldest daughter has refused access visits with her father for many months. The Applicant alleged that Respondent staff (undefined whether one or more members) have colluded against him in support of his ex-wife. The Applicant alleged that inconsistencies and omissions in his child protection file is evidence of such collusion. In addition, the Applicant was concerned that his ex-wife has continued to abuse the Children by brainwashing them against him. The Applicant sought the assistance of a Manager and the Respondent’s CEO to address the issues of the manipulation of Respondent records; collusion/fraud and to stop his ex-wife’s alleged abuse of the Children. The Applicant alleged that he was ignored and played by Respondent staff and that his concerns were not heard.

5At a Pre-Hearing on April 20, 2022, the following 5 Issues/Concerns were identified:

1. That the Society conspired with his ex-wife against him such that the focus of its work with this family since the beginning has been solely to support her;
2. That the Society altered facts and documents to create a file in favor of his ex-wife to the detriment of his Children, contrary to its mandated obligation to protect children;
3. That the Society deliberately omitted facts in its file and in correspondence to the court pertaining to his ex-wife’s physical abuse of their eldest child in 2011;
4. That the Society workers and managers “completely ignored” him and failed to respond to his messages requesting a call back; and
5. That his ex-wife is engaging in ongoing child abuse by coaching the Children to make false allegations and the Society has made no effort to examine her behaviour and the effect it is having on him and his Children.

6The parties declined mediation and the matter was set for a two-day hearing.

7In a Case Management Direction dated April 26, 2022, I noted that some of the issues identified at the Pre-Hearing (Issues/Concerns 1 and 5) may have been or are currently before the Court. I also indicated that the CFSRB may not have jurisdiction to address issues of inaccuracies or omissions in the Respondent’s records pursuant to Part X of the Act. As there was little time before the hearing, I directed parties to file any documents that were germane to these 2 jurisdictional issues with the CFSRB, and to be prepared to provide oral submissions on the first day of the hearing.

8The Respondent’s Counsel provided written submissions along with her filing and reiterated the submissions at the hearing. Counsel argued that Issues/Concerns 1 and 5 are before the Family Court and therefore subject to the section 120(8)(a) exemption in the Act. Issues/Concerns 2 and 3 are covered under sections 315 and 316 of the Act and Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) and not the CFSRB is responsible for dealing with complaints under these sections.

9Finally, the Respondent conceded that Issue/Concern 4 fell within section 120(4)(4) of the Act, and therefore the CFSRB had jurisdiction to address this Issue/Concern.

10At the hearing, the Applicant submitted that the Issues/Concerns he raised were much broader than the issues that were before the Court. In addition, the Applicant argued that the Court did not have before it any allegations related to the services the Applicant received from the Respondent, including the serious allegations of fraud and wrongdoing on the part of the Respondent in the Applicant’s list of Issues/Concerns.

11With respect to Issues/Concerns 2 and 3, the Applicant indicated that sections 315 and 316 of the Act dealt with accuracy and completeness of documents, not inaccurate or incomplete records. He indicated that his concerns reflected the deeper issue of forged documentation and fraud on the part of Respondent staff which are not covered by sections 315 and 316.

12The Respondent’s Counsel indicated that, if the Applicant is alleging fraud, then these issues are best dealt with by the Criminal Court, and not with the CFSRB whose focus is on issues of natural justice.

13At the hearing I noted that Issue/Concern 4 was not included in the Applicant’s original Application of January 31, 2022, and that much of the evidence submitted by the Respondent related to this issue post-dated the Application. I asked the parties whether they consented to proceeding with this issue. The Respondent indicated that it was aware that this issue was not included in the Application but was raised at the Pre-Hearing Teleconference. The Respondent felt that in the spirit of fairness, and in relation to the efficient use of taxpayer funds, it would be best to proceed with this issue in these proceedings.

14I indicated that I would reserve my decision on the jurisdictional issues raised in Issues/Concerns 1, 2, 3, and 5, and that the hearing would proceed on the merits of Issue/Concern 4.

THE LAW

15Section 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 Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”).

16Section 15(2) of the Act ensures 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.”

17Section 120(8) of the Act states that the:

The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint, a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court

18The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441, that the mere existence of a child protection proceeding does not automatically bar the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint about the services an individual has received from a children’s aid society. In DD the Court found that complaints about how the children’s aid society had handled the temporary placement of the applicant’s children could proceed before the CFSRB. Those complaints “were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court” (para 35).

19Issues related to the collection, use, and disclosure of records, and the accuracy of records are covered in Part X of the Act. As per sections 315 – 317 of the Act, concerns regarding completeness and accuracy of records now fall within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. These sections highlight the process for an individual to complain about the accuracy and completeness of records.

ANALYSIS

20I considered the jurisdictional issues associated with the Complaint.

21Firstly, Issues/Concerns 2 and 3 dealt with the Applicant’s allegations that documents prepared by the Respondent and presented to the Court were altered and deliberately omitted facts to portray his ex-wife in a favourable light. As noted above, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address issues of accuracy and completeness of records. This is the responsibility of the IPC. As such, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to address concerns related to alterations and omissions in the Respondent’s business records.

22I note that, if the Applicant was concerned with potential fraud in relation to documents provided to the Court by the Respondent, the Court is the most appropriate venue in which to raise his concerns, especially given that the records presented to the Court deal with allegations of abuse and address issues related to the health and welfare of the Children. The Court is tasked with determining what is in the best interests of the Children. As such, any concerns with the evidence which could impact on the best interests of the Children should be raised at the Court. The Applicant testified that his concerns were not raised at Court as his Counsel was not brave enough to raise these concerns.

23For these reasons, I find that Issues 2 and 3 fall outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction.

24I then considered Issues/Concerns 1 and 5. Section 120(8) of the Act directs that the CFSRB cannot conduct a review of a complaint if: “the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court”.

25My reading of this section of the Act confirms that the concept of “subject of the complaint” is a broad category that encompasses more than the content of any specific issue raised by a party before the Court. As such, a specific issue may not have been raised in Court proceedings; however, the proceedings may have addressed the broader subject matter included in a complaint.

26Issue/Concern 1 deals with the Applicant’s allegations that the Respondent conspired with his ex-wife against him and Issue/Concern 5 deals with allegations that the Applicant’s ex-wife engaged in child abuse by coaching the Children, and that the Respondent has failed to examine the impact of this behaviour on him and the Children.

27I had before me several documents from the Court which informed my analysis regarding Issues/Concerns 1 and 5. Firstly, I note that the Court was interested in and solicited the Respondent’s position and actions related to the welfare of the Children. For example, in his Endorsement of August 20, 2021, Mr. Justice MacPherson requested a response from the Respondent. I note that Justice MacPherson’s Endorsement addressed issues of parental alienation, coaching and manipulation and their impact on the Children. He also addressed post-separation conflict, access, custody, the Respondent’s child welfare investigations, and the safety of the Children while in the custody of their mother. The Ruling also addressed the Respondent’s investigation and verification findings; including referring to the fact that neither party to the Motion addressed the fact that the Respondent found that the Children were impacted because of the actions of their parents. Finally, the Ruling indicated that the family would receive ongoing protection services, assessment, and support from the Respondent.

28The letter dated August 18, 2021, prepared by the Respondent and provided to the Court, addressed post-separation conflict; allegations of abuse; the Respondent’s involvement with both parents; the Applicant’s allegations of brain washing by the Children’s mother; lies related to allegations of abuse by the Applicant; harm to the Children; and the Applicant’s concerns with the Children’s mother.

29The Applicant’s Motion dated January 10, 2022, addressed issues related to the false allegations to the police; the provisions of the Access Order; the eldest daughter’s wishes; alleged coaching of the Children by their mother to make disclosures to Respondent staff; and the impact of alleged verbal and emotional abuse by the Children’s mother. The Motion also addressed the fact that the Child Protection Worker had allegedly prepared a letter for the Court explaining the eldest child’s wishes not to attend parenting time.

30In addition, I note that the Court continues to remain interested in the Respondent’s activities with the Applicant and his ex-wife. The Respondent provided both parents a letter dated January 25, 2022, for use in Court the next day. The letter addressed both parent’s positions regarding custody and access; the views of the eldest daughter; and the Respondent’s recommendations for next steps. The Applicant testified that he did not file this letter with the Court; however, he did not know if his ex-wife did. What I did have before me was an Endorsement by Madam Justice Himel which stated the following: “If the CAS can assist with the facilitation of a couple of supervised access visits between L and the father, that may be helpful”. As such, I find that issues related to the ongoing interaction between the Children’s parents and the Respondent continue to be issues before the Court.

31Based on the documents before me, I find that the Court continues to be seized with issues related to the best interests of the Children, including related to any evidence or documents related to the Applicant’s ability to parent the Children; and related to allegations of coaching, brainwashing, and parental alienation by the Children’s mother. In addition, the Court remains interested in the services provided by the Respondent to the family and any concerns that the Applicant has regarding the services that he received from the Respondent.

32For these reasons, I find that Issues/Concerns 1 and 5 have been placed before the Court. The Court is the most appropriate venue to address the Applicant’s allegations as it has the benefit of the entire record including oral testimony and is directed to decide issues in the best interests of the Children. The Applicant can raise his concerns with the Respondent’s alleged conspiracy to support his ex-wife; her alleged coaching of the Children; and the impact of his ex-wife’s actions on the Children at Court. The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to address these issues pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act.

33Based on the analysis and reasons cited above, I have found that the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to address Issues/Concerns 1, 2, 3, and 5 in the Applicant’s Complaint.

Issue/Concern 4

34As noted above, section 120(4)(4) and 15(2) of the Act afford an applicant the opportunity to complain to the CFSRB regarding a service she/he has received from a society. In this case, the Applicant is alleging that Respondent staff have committed fraud (altered facts and omissions) based on concerns in its records. The parties agreed to move on with a hearing on the merits of Issue/Concern 4:

That society workers and managers “completely ignored” him and failed to respond to his messages requesting a call back.

35This Issue/Concern involves attempts by the Applicant to escalate his concerns with supervisors and managers from approximately September 2021 to April of 2022.

36Based on the evidence and testimony before me I have found that the Applicant alleged that he was ignored by Respondent staff regarding the following 5 issues:

1. The Applicant’s concerns with inconsistencies between the content of the Respondent’s records and the police reports;
2. The Applicant’s concerns with an alleged conspiracy, collusion/fraud by Respondent staff in support of his ex-wife’s position;
3. The Applicant’s concerns that he was being ignored by Respondent staff when he attempted to escalate his concerns to senior staff;
4. The Applicant’s concerns that the Respondent was not carrying out its mandate by allowing his ex-wife to abuse the Children; and
5. The Respondent’s failure to respond to the Applicant’s request to cease any further activities on the case.

37I considered whether the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to be heard. In my opinion parents and children must be provided genuine opportunities to be heard. By genuine, I find that staff of a society must make diligent efforts to hear and fully understand a parent or child’s concerns about the services received.

38I had before me many e-mails and case notes which confirm that the Applicant was provided with multiple opportunities to be heard by Respondent staff (from the Child Protection Worker; Supervisor Ongoing Family Services; Manager of Child Protection Services; CEO); however, the evidence before me is that often these opportunities did not result in staff fully hearing and understanding the Applicant’s underlying concerns. In essence, there was no common understanding between the Applicant and Respondent staff regarding some of the 5 issues identified above which led to the Applicant’s dissatisfaction with the service he received from the Respondent. If Respondent staff did not fully hear and understand the Applicant, there is no question that staff also failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for many of the Respondent’s decisions.

39In general, I found that some of the failure to establish a common understanding was the result of cross-cultural communication factors between the Applicant and Respondent staff. For example, the Applicant’s use of the term “most responsible” and “right responsible person” in relation to his requests to direct his concerns to senior management. Upon questioning by Counsel, the Applicant explained that he meant this to be someone from senior management. I note that staff made efforts to clarify the Applicant’s request; however, many of these offers were made by e-mail which I find were not conducive to clarifying the Applicant’s wishes. For many of the concerns listed above, efforts by Respondent to appropriately direct the Applicant could have been greatly assisted by engaging the Applicant in a discussion related to what he wanted and from whom before any actions were proposed or implemented by staff.

40Another factor which contributed to the lack of understanding was the use of e-mails as the primary mode of communication between the Applicant and Respondent staff. The CSW testified that it was not the Respondent’s regular practice to communicate with family members by e-mail. Despite this, much of the communication between the Applicant and the CSW, Supervisor, and Manager was through e-mail. This medium did not afford the participants the opportunity to adequately clarify the Applicant’s needs and wishes. For example, the CSW indicated in her Witness Statement that there was some confusion around documents that the Applicant had requested. The Applicant alleged that he requested partial disclosure for each meeting when he met with the CPW on September 21, 2021. The Applicant sent an e-mail to the CSW on November 30, 2021, indicating that he did not receive the partial disclosure. The CSW responded by clarifying the request as she indicated that she “assumed he was speaking about file disclosure, and I agreed to follow up with the former worker to clarify this”. This is an example where there was no meeting of the minds between the Applicant and the CSW regarding the Applicant’s request.

41There were also communication challenges between the Applicant and the CSW’s Supervisor. The Applicant sent an e-mail to the Supervisor requesting the Manager’s e-mail address as he wanted to share some information with the Manager. The Supervisor replied that he needed more information to understand the purpose of the contact as it was unclear what information was to be shared. This communication resulted in an e-mail thread where in the Applicant indicated that he wanted to discuss something serious that the Supervisor could not address. The Supervisor responded that unless he understood what information he wanted to share, he could not direct him to the right person. The Applicant responded that he has been trying to find the “right and responsible person” for months and he has not received help.

42This e-mail exchange highlighted the pitfalls of non-direct communication by e-mail. It is obvious that the Applicant and the Supervisor were not fully understanding each other. The Supervisor did not understand the Applicant’s concerns with disclosing information to mid and junior and mid-level staff. He kept pressing the Applicant to disclose the information he wanted to share, despite the Applicant’s objections. The Supervisor focused on the information to be shared, rather than on the Applicant’s desire to disclose the serious information solely to senior management within the organization. It took 4 days (February 26) before the Supervisor forwarded the Applicant’s e-mail to the Manager.

43In another e-mail thread, the Applicant was informed by the Manager that he would ask the Service Team to follow-up with the Applicant to provide him with a rationale and explanation. The Applicant responded that he did not request any explanation. He wanted the alleged abuse of his daughters to end.

44In these examples, direct communication with the Applicant through telephone or a meeting could have clarified the Applicant’s wishes, including reinforcing the fact that staff were genuinely interested in hearing the Applicant’s concerns and responding to them in an appropriate fashion.

45In addition, I note the Applicant expected quick responses to his e-mail communication. The Applicant noted his frustration with not receiving timely responses from Respondent staff e.g., his request for the CSW’s and Intake Supervisors’ e-mails and his request for the Manager and CEO’s contact information. In fact, the Applicant indicated that he waited from December 2021 until March 2022 to be placed in contact with the Manager and CEO. The Applicant alleged that it was only after reaching out to the Program Supervisor at the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services did he get a response from the Manager. The delays in providing the Applicant answers to his questions, including connecting him with senior management, caused the Applicant to feel unheard and ignored by Respondent staff. This, in itself, would be vexing; however, the delays further contributed to the Applicant’s perception that a staff member or members were conspiring against him and his Children’s safety.

Respondent Records and Police Reports

46The evidence before me is that the Applicant had an opportunity to raise his concerns regarding inconsistencies between the police reports and the case notes with the Manager and the CEO. The Applicant provided the Manager with copies of the police reports. The Manager provided the Applicant with the findings of the Respondent’s investigation into the inconsistency. In this case, I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard, and the Applicant was provided with reasons by the Manager in an e-mail of April 27, 2022, for the Respondent’s findings in relation to the inconsistency between the police reports and case notes. As such, I find that the Applicant’s concerns regarding the police reports were heard, and the Applicant was provided with an adequate explanation for this issue by Respondent staff.

Alleged Conspiracy

47I found that the CSW, Supervisor, and Manager heard and were aware of the Applicant’s expressed concerns regarding an alleged conspiracy among staff in support of his ex-wife based on their witness statements; however, I did not find that the CSW, Supervisor, or Manager made a concerted effort to explore with the Applicant his reasons or evidence in support of his allegations.

48The Applicant first indicated that he feared that staff were helping his ex-wife during a meeting with the CSW on December 20, 2021. From the Applicant’s testimony, he considered this a very serious allegation. I have not been provided with any evidence that this concern was followed-up by the CSW. In fact, the CSW noted that she met with her supervisor on January 22, 2022, and discussed the Applicant’s increasing frustration that professionals and services were not assisted in getting his daughter to attend visits. There was no mention of the need to investigate or follow-up on the Applicant’s concerns regarding a conspiracy within Respondent staff.

49In addition, I find that the Applicant was not provided with an answer by the Manager or any other Respondent staff regarding his allegations of a conspiracy. I note that the Manager sent the Applicant an e-mail on April 27, 2022. This e-mail addressed some of the Applicant’s concerns but failed to address any concerns related to the conspiracy. The Applicant had been clear with Respondent staff that he suspected that staff had colluded with his ex-wife and falsified the Respondent’s records. Despite knowing this, the Manager referred the Applicant back to the Supervisor to address any concerns and did not provide an adequate explanation as to why the Applicant’s concerns regarding collusion were being referred back to program staff. The Applicant had been clear with Respondent staff that he felt that his concerns were best addressed by senior management. The e-mail did not mention or validate the fact that the Applicant had concerns with operational staff involvement in the alleged conspiracy; and did not validate the Applicant’s request that these issues be addressed by management.

50For these reasons, I find that the Applicant was not provided with reasons in relation to his allegations of conspiracy and wrongdoing by Respondent staff.

Being Ignored by Staff

51The delays the Applicant encountered in being referred to management staff, and their delays in responding to his e-mails contributed to the Applicant’s belief that he was being ignored by staff. The Applicant first requested the contact information for the CSW’s Supervisor and the Intake Supervisor on December 20, 2021. The Applicant was provided with the requested information on January 10, 2022. While I acknowledge that Christmas and New Years fell between the 2 dates and that the CSW may have been on vacation, it was still 3 weeks from the time of the request until the Applicant received the contact information.

52On February 18, 2022, the Applicant e-mailed the Supervisor and requested the Manager’s e-mail address. There were e-mails back and forth in which the Supervisor attempted to clarify the Applicant’s concerns; however, the Applicant indicated that he could only speak with the Manager regarding his concerns. The Supervisor eventually forwarded the Applicant’s request to the Manager on February 22, 2022.

53On March 1, 2022, the Applicant e-mailed the Supervisor once again to indicate that he was dissatisfied with the lack of cooperation and service he received from Respondent staff, and that he had been seeking to speak with a responsible person for months.

54The Manager reached out to the Applicant by e-mail on March 8, 2022, informing him that he had been informed by the Supervisor that the Applicant wanted to speak with him. The Manager apologized for the delay and offered to meet. The Applicant returned the e-mail the next day and indicated that he had been looking to communicate with someone for over 3 months and that staff were reluctant to provide information. He felt ignored and played by staff.

55On March 9, 2022, the Applicant e-mailed the Manager indicating that he had attempted to contact the Manager for 3 months and that the reluctancy by staff to provide him with the Manager’s e-mail was questionable. The Applicant addressed false allegations against him, and his concerns for the ongoing abuse of this Children.

56On March 11, 2022, the Applicant received an e-mail from the Manager who indicated that the Service Team would provide the Applicant with the rationale and explanation for the information that the Applicant was seeking. The Manager also indicated that he would be able to address anything that is beyond the scope of the Service Team. On March 12, 2022, the Applicant replied to the Manager that he did not request an explanation, but he wanted to report the alleged abuse of his children and for the abuse to stop. He also asked for the CEO to be involved.

57The Applicant did not receive a response to this e-mail, so he sent an e-mail to the Manager on March 29, 2022, indicating that he had communicated with the Program Supervisor at the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services who informed him to speak directly with the Manager. The Manager responded the next day and indicated that he would contact the Applicant by the end of the week. A meeting between the Applicant, the Manager, and CEO was scheduled for April 6, 2022.

58It is clear from the evidence before me that the Applicant experienced challenges in his efforts to raise his concerns with senior management staff between December 2021 and April of 2022. While some of the delays were related to the challenges of e-mail communication, and the clarity of the Applicant’s concerns; there were significant delays which could cause the Applicant to believe that his concerns were not being heard or being ignored by Respondent staff. In fact, the Applicant indicated that it was only after he had communicated with Ministry staff that the Manager returned his e-mail.

59While the Applicant was finally able to meet with the Manager and CEO, I find that the Applicant was not provided with an explanation as to why his efforts to communicate with senior management seemed to have hit roadblocks and were not responded to in a timely fashion.

Allegations of Ongoing Abuse and Requests for Respondent to Cease Activities

60The Applicant raised concerns about ongoing abuse by the Children’s mother with the CSW on October 14, 2021. He continued to express his concerns regarding the Alleged abuse with Respondent staff since that time.

61For example, during a visit on February 15, 2022, the Applicant expressed his frustration to the CSW with the Respondent’s failure to prove the child abuse that he alleged the Children’s mother was engaging in. The CSW’s and Supervisor’s response was to recommend that the file be closed.

62The Applicant continuously raised his concerns of abuse in his e-mail communications with the Manager. On March 9, 2022, the Applicant asked the Respondent to cease any activities until he could get clarification for the Respondent’s role in the case.

63The Applicant raised the allegations of abuse during his meeting with the Manager and the CEO on April 6, 2022. The Applicant provided the Manager and CEO with his concerns related to the ongoing abuse that his Children were facing while in the care of their mother during their meeting. During the meeting the Applicant also expressed his concerns regarding a conspiracy within the Respondent to falsify his records and to support his ex-wife’s abuse of the Children. The Applicant expressed his concerns that he had been trying to speak with senior staff since October/November of 2021. He spoke about his concerns regarding the inconsistencies between the police reports and Respondent file notations.

64The Manager followed-up with the Applicant by e-mail on April 7, 2022. The e-mail addressed the issues with the police notes; however, the e-mail did not address the Applicant’s concerns regarding the alleged abuse of his Children; and his request to stop any activity.

65The Applicant sent the Manager an e-mail on April 14 indicating that the Manager had enough time to work on the matters raised in the April 6th meeting. The Applicant exchanged e-mails with the Manager on April 21 and 25, 2022. The Applicant e-mailed the Manager on April 26, 2022, expressing that the Respondent had not made any positive efforts to help his Children. In addition, he indicated that he had asked the Respondent to stop its activities based on his concerns; however, his concerns were not taken seriously.

66The Manager replied on April 27, 2022, that he had heard back from the Supervisor with regard to the police incident and he explained the process of police reports to a society. The Applicant responded to this e-mail indicating that the Respondent had ignored the concerns he told the CEO about what was happening in the organization and his concerns that the case is being manipulated by some Respondent staff. He also requested that the Respondent stop all activities in the case.

67The Manager’s response to the Applicant on April 27, 2022, referred any concerns related to child abuse back to the Supervisor as the Supervisor is responsible for service delivery and is better placed to address the Applicant’s concerns with staff who have been working with the Applicant.

68The Manager’s response did not address the Applicant’s request for the alleged abuse to be halted, nor did not explain the rationale for his decision to refer the concerns back to the Service Team.

DECISION

69For the reasons identified above, Issues/Concerns 1, 2, 3, and 5 in the Application are dismissed in their entirety.

70With regard to Issue/Concern 4, I have found that the Respondent failed to respond to the Applicant’s concerns in a timely fashion; failed to hear and provide the Applicant with reasons related to its actions/lack of action in relation to the Applicant’s allegations of a conspiracy and wrongdoing by Respondent staff; staff failed to explain in a way that the Applicant could understand its position regarding the allegations of ongoing abuse; and staff failed to hear and provide an explanation for its decisions regarding the Applicant’s request for the Respondent to stop any further action.

71I will note; however, that the Applicant was provided with opportunities to have his concerns heard by Respondent staff at all levels in the chain of command and staff attempted to address some of the Applicant’s concerns. These opportunities were impeded by a breakdown in oral and e-mail communication which impaired a genuine understanding between the Applicant and Respondent staff.

ORDER

72Within 30 days the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with a written explanation from the Manager or CEO to help him understand its actions and decisions related to the following:

1. The Applicant’s allegations of a conspiracy among staff in support of his ex-wife;
2. An explanation for the delays and communication challenges that the Applicant experienced when trying to access senior management;
3. The Respondent’s position and decisions regarding the Applicant’s allegations of ongoing abuse of the Children by their mother; and
4. The Respondent’s position regarding the Applicant’s requests to stop any further activity, and the Respondent’s decision to close the file.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

73Pursuant 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.