MM v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2022 CFSRB 33

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MM

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: July 21, 2022 Citation: 2022 CFSRB 33 Indexed As: MM v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent

Chithika Withanage, Counsel

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act: it is alleged that the Applicant was not heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made and was not heard when she had concerns about the services she received; and it is alleged that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected her interests.

3The Applicant is the mother of a daughter (the “Child”).

4The Applicant identified the following Issues/Concerns in her Application:

1. The Applicant wanted the CFSRB to review the investigation into the alleged sexual abuse of the Child based on her belief that the investigation was flawed; and
2. The Applicant alleged she was not given the opportunity to be heard during the investigation.

5In its Summary Response, the Respondent argued that the CFSRB did not have the jurisdiction to review an application pursuant to section 120 that is a duplication of process. It submitted that the Application should be dismissed.

6The Respondent provided evidence that the Applicant had participated in an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process on June 28, 2022, during which the concerns in the Application were addressed. The Respondent indicated that there was no possible outcome for the Application other than the Respondent repeating the contents of its July 6, 2022, letter which followed-up on the ICRP meeting.

7The Respondent appended the ICRP Meeting Follow-Up Letter (Exhibit A) and the ICRP Meeting Notes (Exhibit B) to its Summary Reply.

THE LAW

8Section 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:

a) Decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 119 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section; or

b) Where the person first makes the complaint to the society under section 119, submit the complaint to the Board before the society’s complaint review procedure is completed.

9Subsection 119(5) indicates that:

If a complaint relates to one of the following matters, the complainant may apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the complaint review procedure:

1 A matter described in subsection 120(4)

2 Any other prescribed matter

10The CFSRB can review the following under section 120(4):

4 Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2) 5 Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with

reason for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests

11Section 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.”

12The 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

13I note that the Applicant requested that the CFSRB perform a complete review of the Respondent’s investigation into the alleged sexual abuse of the Child. The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review or make any findings related to a society investigation and verification findings under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. The CFSRB is restricted to reviewing whether an applicant was heard and whether an applicant was provided with reasons for decisions that affected her/his interests. As such, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review the investigation.

14I then considered the Respondent’s argument that the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to review the Application as it was a duplication of the ICRP process.

15As noted above, section 119(5) affords a complainant with the opportunity to apply to the CFSRB after the completion of the ICRP process on a matter that is described in subsection 120(4). In this case, the Applicant indicated that she was concerned that she was not given an opportunity to be heard during the investigation process which falls under section 120(4).

16I find that the mere existence of an ICRP Complaint does not mean that an application to the CFSRB amounts to a duplication. If this were the case, subsection 119(5) of the Act would not allow for a complaint to the CFSRB after the completion of an ICRP process. The CFSRB is tasked with deciding whether an applicant was heard and provided with sufficient reasons. This requires a careful analysis of the CFSRB and ICRP applications, as well as any documents flowing from the ICRP.

17In this case, the Respondent provided the CFSRB with the post-ICRP letter as well as the ICRP notes. I found that these documents provided sufficient information for me to decide the narrow issue of whether the Applicant was heard. In addition, a written hearing is the most efficient and effective way of deciding the Application as no additional oral testimony is required.

18After reviewing the 2 documents provided by the Respondent, I find the Applicant was provided the opportunity to have her concerns regarding the investigation heard by senior staff. The documents reflect that the Applicant’s concerns regarding not being heard by Respondent staff, and not being provided with information regarding the outcome of the investigation were heard. In fact, the Intake Supervisor provided the Applicant with a written apology in his letter of July 6, 2022, for Respondent staff’s failure to hear the Applicant’s concerns and for its failure to inform the Applicant about the outcome of the investigation.

19In this case, the ICRP process provided the Applicant with an opportunity to have her concerns heard, and for the Respondent to provide written responses to the Applicant’s concerns regarding the investigation.

20For these reasons, I find there is no need for the CFSRB to further review the Application. I concur with the Respondent in this case that proceeding with a review would result only in the Respondent repeating the contents of its letter of July 6, 2022.

DECISION

21For the reasons identified above the Application is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

22Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions, or any other documents or information provided or used in this Application, with anyone including through the media or online. The CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.