HF v. Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury & Manitoulin, 2022 CFSRB 47

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

HF Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury & Manitoulin Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: September 28, 2022 Citation: 2022 CFSRB 47 Indexed As: HF v Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury & Manitoulin (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin, Respondent

Robin L. Saari, 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 section 120(4)4 of the Act: The Applicant alleges she was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when issues affecting her interests were made, or a chance to be heard when she raised concerns about the services she is receiving.

3The Applicant is the mother of a son and a daughter (the “Children”).

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

1. The Applicant was concerned that her allegations regarding spousal abuse involving the Children’s father in front of the Children were not heard;
2. The Applicant was concerned that Respondent staff did not provide her with an explanation regarding supervised access conditions (location of access visits, supervisor required, exclusion of current partner) imposed by the Respondent that were not consistent with the conditions in the Court Order; and
3. The Applicant was concerned that Respondent staff did not hear her evidence that her current partner was not involved in “child grooming”.

5In the Application, the Applicant indicated that issues of custody and access had been and are still before the Court.

6In its Summary Reply, the Respondent indicated that the issues identified in the Application are currently before the Ontario Court of Justice in a proceeding pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. As such, the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to review the complaints pursuant to s. 120(8) of the Act. In the alternative, the Respondent submitted that staff have met with the Applicant on multiple occasions to review her concerns, including concerns regarding access; adult conflict in the matrimonial home; and the safety and well-being of the Children.

7After receiving submissions from both parties, I found in an Interim Decision that Issues/Concerns 2 and 3 were issues that had been before the Court and therefore the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to address these Issues/Concerns pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act. These 2 Issues/Concerns were dismissed.

8I also found that Issue/Concern 1 (Applicant’s concerns regarding spousal assault) related to an incident which post-dated any current Court Proceedings therefore this Issue/Concern was not before the Court and could continue on in the CFSRB review process.

9Given the comprehensiveness of the submissions and documents presented by the parties, I directed parties to provide submissions on whether I should decide the remaining Issue/Concern through a written hearing. Parties are asked to refer to the CFSRB Rules of Procedure.

10The Respondent provided written submissions. The Applicant did not provide submissions.

11The Respondent argued that a review in writing was more convenient and cost effective and that oral testimony is not required to determine the remaining Issue/Concern.

12The Respondent indicated that it accepted the Applicant’s concerns regarding spousal abuse. It responded to the concerns by deciding that the Applicant’s access be held outside the marital home in one of the Respondent’s offices. The Respondent also asked the Applicant to identify alternate supervised access locations.

13In her Application, the Applicant indicated that she felt that the decision to move access to a Respondent office was retribution for her raising her concerns that she had been a victim of domestic violence during the June 25, 2022 incident.

THE LAW

14The 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

15I considered the most appropriate method to conduct the hearing. I concur with the Respondent that the remaining Issue/Concern is sufficiently narrow that no additional oral testimony is required for me to decide whether the Applicant’s concerns were heard by the Respondent. In addition, I had before me the Applicant’s 9 page, typed, single spaced narrative, as well as her submissions which provided significant detail on the June 25, 2022 incident and the interaction between the Applicant and the Respondent after the incident. The Respondent’s Summary Reply to the Application also provided significant detail on the incident and the response by Respondent staff.

16For these reasons, and in the absence of submissions by the Applicant, I find that a review in writing is fair and efficient and would lead to the most expeditious resolution of the Application.

17I then considered whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the allegations of spousal abuse in front of the Children.

18The Applicant’s allegations related to an incident between the Applicant and the Children’s father on June 25, 2022. The details of the incident were reported to Respondent staff by both the Applicant and the Children’s father. The Applicant left a voice mail message concerning the incident to Respondent staff on June 28, 2022. The Applicant spoke with Respondent staff on June 30, 2022 and provided a detailed account of the interaction between the Applicant and the Children’s father. Based on the reports by both parents, Respondent staff decided that the Children had been exposed to adult conflict and decided that the Applicant’s access should be outside the martial home. Alternative access arrangements were also solicited from the Applicant.

19While the Applicant may disagree with the Respondent’s motive to have access moved outside the marital home, I find that there is sufficient evidence before me to support the fact that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the incident and what she described as spousal abuse. The Respondent made a finding that the Children were exposed to adult conflict. Based on the reports of both parents, the Respondent decided to limit the interaction between the Applicant and the Children’s father by having access visits moved outside the marital home. As such, the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and responded accordingly in a way that decreased the Children’s exposure to adult conflict.

DECISION

20I find that the Applicant’s concerns regarding spousal abuse were heard by the Respondent. As such, I find that Issue/Concern 1 is dismissed. Issues/Concerns 2 and 3 were dismissed in the decision of September 8, 2022.

21Based on my current and previous decisions, I find that the Applicant’s complaint 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.