PRH v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2023 CFSRB 26

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

PRH

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: March 23, 2023

Citation: 2023 CFSRB 26

Indexed As: PRH v Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

PRH

Applicant

Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Respondent

Marc E. Hecht,

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 3 sons (the “Children”).

4The Applicant alleged that the Respondent was involved in removing the Children from his care on April 15, 2013. He alleged that the removal of the Children was a manifestation of a bias and discriminatory actions based on his male gender and his status as a father. The Applicant also alleged that he had requested that the Respondent remove the Child Protection Worker (CPW) assigned to his file and replace her with a male worker. He alleged that this request was denied by the Respondent. On October 29, 2014, the Family Court issued an Order that the Children were to be placed in the custody of their mother, with access to their father. The Applicant alleged that the Respondent did not enforce the Court ordered access which he alleged has resulted in the Children being alienated from him.

5On October 29, 2014, the Applicant was involved in an accident where he sustained a traumatic brain injury. The Applicant was left with the inability to recall clearly details associated with the Children’s removal from his custody as well as the Respondent’s involvement in this event.

6At the Pre-Hearing, the Issues/Concerns in the Complaint were narrowed to include the following:

1. The Applicant alleged that he was treated by the Society in a sexist manner due to his gender as a male, and as a result he had been alienated from his three children who are now adults;

2. The Applicant alleged that the Society failed to act to enforce a Family Court Custody Order that permitted him to have access to his children; and

3. The Applicant alleged that he was not given reasons for why the Society did not find his children to be at risk of harm from their mother.

7The Applicant declined mediation and a hearing was scheduled to assess the merits of the Complaint.

8Given the Applicant’s brain injury, the Applicant was asked to identify any accommodations required for his full participation in the hearing process. The CFSRB provided reminder e-mails and calls to the Applicant. In addition, Respondent Counsel agreed to be flexible in terms of the hearing process. For example, during questioning by Respondent Counsel, the Applicant indicated on several occasions that the questions were jogging his memory. He was then able to provide his recollection of events. Given this, I asked Respondent Counsel if he would like to lead the questioning of the witness first as this may allow the Applicant to reflect on the responses and outline any additional areas for exploration. Both the Applicant and the Respondent approved of this accommodation and approach.

THE LAW

9Section 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”).

10Section 120(4) of the Act states:

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 section 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 section 15(2).

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons 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.”

ANALYSIS

12In his opening remarks, the Applicant indicated that the primary purpose of his Complaint was to help him understand why the Children were taken from him on April 15, 2013. The Applicant’s brain injury has left him with unanswered questions, including who was responsible for the Children being taken from him and why. The Applicant also indicated that he wanted to understand the Respondent’s role in his losing custody of the Children as he had an incomplete picture of the Respondent’s role in this event. Given the incomplete picture, the Applicant hypothesized that the removal of the Children was the result of the Respondent’s and the Family Court’s bias against fathers. He speculated that the Children would not have been taken from him if he were a woman.

13The Applicant called the Child Protection Worker (CPW) as his only witness. The Respondent did not call any witnesses.

14The CPW testified to the following:

• The Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant came as a result of allegations of domestic violence and post-separation conflict between the Applicant and his ex-wife;

• The Respondent verified a risk of emotional harm to the Children as they had witnessed arguments between the Applicant and his ex-wife, and it also verified that the Children were at risk of mental/emotional harm due to significant conflict related to separation and custody of the Children. The Respondent did not verify a risk to physical harm to the Children;

• The Applicant and his ex-wife were provided with ongoing support which the Applicant refused for the most part;

• The Children were taken from the Applicant by their mother and the Respondent had no involvement in advising the Children’s mother to take the Children from the Applicant’s custody;

• Issues of custody and access related to the Children were decided by Family Court. The Respondent was a witness at Family Court for the Applicant, and the Worker solely testified that the Respondent had not verified a risk of physical harm to the Children;

• The Children were represented at Family Court by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer;

• The Respondent had no role in enforcing access Orders; however, Respondent staff assisted in brokering access with the Applicant’s youngest son as agreed to at Family Court; the Applicant’s two older Children were at an age where their decisions not to participate in access were respected;

• The Applicant and Respondent were involved in a file transfer meeting; however, the new worker left, and the file remained with the witness; and

• The ongoing service file was closed in May of 2014 as the issues which led to the risks for the Children had been mitigated.

15At the end of the CPW’s testimony, the Applicant indicated that, for him, the proceedings were over once he heard and understood that the Respondent had no involvement in the decision to take the Children from him. The Applicant indicated that he never understood the reason for why the Children were taken and the Respondent’s involvement in this situation. He then indicated that the CAS did not initiate the process of sexism which he felt that he was subjected to. When asked, the Applicant indicated that there was no reason to hear from any other witness as their testimony would be redundant.

16I carefully considered the Applicant’s comments in my decision-making. In addition, I supplemented the Applicant’s comments with the oral testimony from the Applicant and the CPW, and the documentary evidence provided by the Applicant and the Respondent.

17The Respondent issued a letter to the Applicant on February 11, 2013, indicating that it had verified a risk of emotional harm due to domestic violence and separation/custody conflicts between the Applicant and his ex-wife.

18The Applicant later complained in a letter dated April 9, 2013, that the CPW was biased and abused her power. He also outlined his concerns with the parenting practices of the Children’s mother. The Director of Service replied to this letter on April 19, 2013. The Director indicated that no impropriety was identified in the investigation process and that the outcomes were appropriate. In addition, no concerns were identified regarding the care the Children were receiving from their mother.

19The Case Notes provided by the Respondent confirmed that the Applicant raised the issue of parental alienation with Respondent staff. The Case Notes also confirmed that Respondent staff made multiple attempts to reach out to the Applicant; however, he refused to engage with Respondent staff. The CPW testified that she met with the father on two occasions, including at a transfer meeting where he was provided with the reasons for the Respondent’s investigation and verification decisions.

20I considered Issue/Concern 1. The Applicant alleged that he was treated by the Society in a sexist manner due to his gender as a male, and, as a result, he had been alienated from his three children who are now adults. After the CPW’s testimony, the Applicant conceded that the Respondent had nothing to do with the removal of the Children from his care. Therefore, the Respondent did not act in a sexist manner and did not contribute to the alienation of the Children. Given the Applicant’s admission at the hearing, I find that the Respondent did not act in a sexist manner in relation to the Applicant, and that the Respondent had no involvement in alienating the Children from the Applicant.

21The Applicant alleged that the Society failed to act to enforce a Family Court Custody Order that permitted him to have access to the Children. The CPW testified that it was not the role of the Respondent to enforce Family Court Orders. The Respondent; however, did play a role in brokering access between the Applicant and his youngest Child. As such, I find that the Respondent did not fail to enforce a Custody Order as it was not its responsibility to do so. Any concerns regarding enforcement of Court Orders were issues that could and should have been brought to the Court as the Respondent was not provided with any enforcement responsibilities by the Court.

22The Applicant alleged that he was not given reasons for why the Society did not find the Children to be at risk of harm from their mother. The documents before me indicate that the Applicant’s concerns and complaint regarding the Children’s mother were raised to the Respondent in his letter of April 9, 2013. The concerns were addressed in a letter from the Service Director dated May 22, 2013, in which the Director stated that the: “Society has no concerns regarding the care the children are receiving form their mother”. The Applicant’s concerns were heard, and he was provided with reasons in writing as well as at 2 meetings with the CPW. The Respondent staff investigated the concerns regarding the Children’s mother and found that they were unfounded.

23Furthermore, I note that issues related to the safety and well-being of the Children were also issues that would have been best decided by the Family Court. The Family Court Judge was responsible to make decisions regarding custody and access based on the best interests of the Child. The Applicant was represented by Counsel at Family Court. As such, issues related to the alleged risk of harm to the Children while in their mother’s care were issues that should have been placed before the Court.

DECISION

24For the reasons outlined above and based on the Applicant’s concession that he had been provided with the information he wanted to obtain through the hearing process, I find that all 3 Issues/Concerns in the Application are dismissed.

25I would also like to express my admiration of the Applicant’s approach to the Complaint and his acceptance and recognition of the evidence presented to him. In addition, I would like to thank Respondent Counsel for his willingness to be flexible in accommodating the Applicant’s unique needs and ensuring a fair process and outcome for the hearing.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

26Pursuant 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.