SM v Tikinagan Child and Family Services, 2022 CFSRB 4

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SM Applicant

-and-

Tikinagan Child and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: January 21, 2022 Citation: 2022 CFSRB 4 Indexed As: SM v Tikinagan Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

SM, Applicant Self-Represented

Tikinagan Child and Family Services, Respondent Bill Kuzemczak, Representative

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant and the Tikinagan Child and Family Services (the Respondent) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation held on December 9, 2021, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in the Application, received on October 1, 2021 by the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under section 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The Agreement consisted of 7 Terms containing questions which the Respondent agreed to answer. The Settlement Agreement had an implementation date of January 7, 2021 (excluding Term 7), and a non-compliance date of January 14, 2021 (excluding Term 7).

4The Respondent sent the Applicant and the CFSRB an e-mail on January 7, 2021, 2021 with its responses to the Terms. The Applicant replied to the e-mail on the same day. She indicated that she did not agree with the findings. She inquired about the next steps in the process.

5The original Settlement Agreement was facilitated by a member who is no longer with the CFSRB. As such, I have been assigned to decide whether or not the Respondent has complied with the Terms. In doing this, I reviewed the original Application; the Respondent’s Summary Response to the Application dated October 29, 2021; and the Applicant’s e-mail of January 7, 2021. In accordance with the CFSRB’s procedures, I will determine whether the Society has complied with the Agreement.

DECISION

6After reviewing the arguments provided in the parties’ submissions, I find that the Respondent has met its commitments and obligations for the most part as set out in the Agreement and as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”). I have identified 3 Terms for which the Respondent is directed to provide additional responses.

7The reasons for my findings are as follows.

ANALYSIS

The Law

8The CFSRB found the Application to be eligible for review under section 120 of the Act. The Act outlines the rights of Applicants, the duties and obligations of Children’s Aid Societies, and the mandate of the CFSRB.

9Section 120(4) of the Act reads as follows:

The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2).
2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.
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 reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
6. Such other matters as may be prescribed.

Subsection 120(7) indicates that: After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant (e) dismiss the complaint

10The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom or validity of a decision made by a Society in any given situation under review by the CFSRB and for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act.

11In an allegation of non-compliance, an Applicant’s statement of disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society does not negate or invalidate those reasons.

Written Review of Terms of Settlement

Term 1: With regard to the investigation: In April of 2021, five workers came to the Applicant’s home, and announced that they were removing the children; why was this the “first step” of the investigation rather than the result of the investigation?

12In its response, the Respondent indicated that the children were removed after careful consideration of the information in the initial referral. In addition, the removal was necessary to prevent any possible contamination of any statements or evidence.

13I note that the Summary Response provided to the Applicant provides greater detail on the reasons for the initial referral and the verification findings.

14As such, the Respondent has complied with Term 1 as its response is adequate.

Term 2: With regard to the investigation: Why did Tikinagan interview only the Applicant, and no one else who knows her, including her daughter, to get a broader picture of her ability to care for the children?

15The Respondent