RT v. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, 2023 CFSRB 76

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

RT

Applicant

-and-

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Malcolm M. MacFarlane

Date: August 21, 2023

Citation: 2023 CFSRB 76

Indexed As: RT v Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

RT, Applicant

Emma Byrnes, Counsel

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, Respondent

Barbara Tuer, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on April 3, 2023 with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 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. The Applicant alleges the Respondent did not give her the opportunity to be heard when a decision that affected her interests was made, and that the Respondent failed to give her reasons for its decisions that affected her interests.

3The hearing on the merits took place by videoconference on July 12, 2023.

4The Applicant testified and her Witness Statement was adopted and entered into evidence.

5The Following Respondent witnesses testified, and their Witness Statements were adopted and entered into evidence:

• Julia Ford, Child Protection Worker at Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society

• Laurel LeBeau, Manager at Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society and supervisor of Julia Ford

• Sherri Couto, After Hours Worker at Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society

ISSUES

6At a pre-hearing on May 5, 2023, the following issues were identified:

1. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff did not hear her concerns regarding alleged child abuse (physical and sexual) that her son experienced while in the care of his father, and threats of harm made to the Child should he report to police or adults;

2. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff did not hear her concerns regarding the negative impact on the Child (physical, emotional, behavioural) as a result of access visits with his father;

3. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff refused to view the evidence of alleged abuse which she presented;

4. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent staff have not heard her concerns regarding the effect on the Child of multiple interviews; and his exposure to alleged abuse (somatisation);

5. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff have failed to hear her concerns regarding the investigation and its outcome;

6. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her explanations for not participating in meetings (last minute with no flexibility) and used her non-availability as an excuse to close the file;

7. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff did not provide her with reasons for closing the file in August 2020 and in response to subsequent disclosures of suspected abuse;

8. The Applicant alleges the Respondent provided her with inconsistent information regarding whether the investigation was still open;

9. The Applicant alleges that she was not treated with respect by Respondent staff when she reported the alleged abuse including being subject to false statements against the Applicant’s father; and

10. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff did not hear her allegations of gender bias.

background

7The Applicant is the mother of a Child aged 5 (The Child).

8The relationship between the Applicant and the Child’s father ended prior to the Child’s birth and the Applicant and the Child’s father have never parented together. The Applicant has always been the Child’s primary caregiver.

9The relationship between the Applicant and the Child’s father is described by the Applicant in her testimony as being “high conflict” and abusive. Coparenting is described as being difficult.

10There is currently a Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) proceeding before the family courts.

11Regular access between the Child and the father began in December 2019. Visits took place on weekends

12Shortly after access with the father began, the Applicant testified that the Child began displaying behavioural issues that were not previously present, including increased aggressiveness toward the Applicant, and somatic symptoms including high blood pressure and unexplained stomach aches that appear to be associated with visits with the father.

13Beginning in July 2020, the Child began making disclosures to the Applicant of physical and sexual abuse and threats by the father. This began a series of reports made by the Applicant and other professionals to various Children’s Aid Societies leading to several investigations and interviews of the Child by Society workers and police. None of these interviews resulted in disclosures by the Child to investigators and sexual abuse was never verified by the Respondent or other Societies. Risk of emotional harm to the Child due to ongoing post separation care giver conflict was verified by the Respondent on March 27, 2021.

Investigation history

14Four investigations took place between July 2020 and November 2022.

15The first investigation took place in July 2020. The Applicant reported concerns to the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) regarding disclosures the Child made suggesting sexual abuse of the Child by his father during access visits. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (The Respondent) participated in a joint investigation with CAST and Huron Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) during which the Child was interviewed. During this investigation the Applicant shared photographs of an unexplained bruise on the Child’s thigh. The Child was examined by physicians, but abuse was not medically confirmed. The Child did not disclose any abuse. CAST closed their file on September 1, 2020. CAST did not verify abuse but did verify that the Child was a risk of harm from exposure to ongoing post separation conflict.

16The second investigation commenced when The Respondent opened a file on January 25, 2021 on referral from CAST. CAST was contacted by the Applicant with concerns regarding the Child being sexually abused by the father. CAST did not verify sexual abuse and referred the file to the Respondent out of a concern that the Applicant’s worries regarding sexual abuse of the Child was interfering with the Applicant’s ability to parent the Child and was subjecting the Child to multiple interviews. The Child was interviewed by Respondent worker Julia Ford on January 28, 2021, and by Ms. Ford and police on February 17, 2021. The Child did not disclose any abuse.

17On March 27, 2021, the Respondent verified concerns regarding the risk that the Child was likely to be harmed from ongoing post separation parental conflict. The file was transferred for ongoing services from the Respondent in April 2021. The Child was interviewed by police and the Respondent again on May 26, 2021, following further concerns raised by the Applicant following disclosures the Child made to the Applicant. There was no disclosure from the Child. According to the Respondent’s Response the ongoing file was closed in August 2021 when the Applicant declined further services.

18A third investigation was opened by Halton CAS in January 2022 in response to a mandatory report received from the Applicant’s psychologist, based on concerns the Applicant had raised with her regarding possible sexual abuse of the Child by his father, as well as the father hitting the Child on the stomach. The Child was interviewed by Halton police and Halton CAS on January 21, 2022 and did not disclose any abuse. The file was closed.

19A fourth investigation was opened by the Respondent in November 2022 in response to further disclosures made by the Child to the Applicant regarding sexually inappropriate activities by the father. During a telephone conversation with the Respondent’s after-hours worker Sherri Couto, the Applicant felt disrespected by the worker and that her concerns were being discounted and she was being blamed for multiple interviews the Child had experienced. During her conversation with the after-hours worker, the Applicant indicated that the Child was stating that he had been threatened with death if he disclosed what happened at his father’s home and that he was scared of police and adults in general.

20Halton CAS and the Respondent initiated a joint investigation, and the Child was interviewed by police at the Huron OPP station on November 29, 2022. At this time the Applicant shared with police and CAS that she had installed in-home security cameras out of a concern for the family’s safety following disclosures the Child had made to her regarding threats the father had made to the Applicant in the Child’s presence. The Child did not disclose anyone touching him in a bad way during the November 29, 2022 interview with police. The Child also made some inaccurate statements during the interview including having a brother.

21During the November 29, 2022, interview, the Applicant stated that she had video evidence of further disclosures from the Child. During this interview, the Applicant also expressed concerns regarding the Child having high blood pressure, stomach aches, and nightmares about being chased by police. The Applicant agreed she would provide police with further videos. The Child was to be provided with a therapist through victim services. The Child is court ordered to participate in play therapy, but the Child’s father has been withholding consent for this treatment.

22On November 29, 2022, police and CAS did review video footage from March 18, 2022. The November 29, 2022 interview ended with a plan that the Applicant would share further video clips with police and CAS, the police would attempt to access the videos from the Applicant’s NEST camera system, police would contact the Applicant the next day to arrange a further time to meet, victim services would reach out to provide the Child with a play therapist, and the Respondent’s worker Julia Ford would be allowed access to meet further with the Child.

Subsequent events

23Following the November 29, 2022, interview, there was a gap in contact between the Applicant and the Respondent’s worker Julia Ford. The Applicant did not hear anything further from police or the Respondent from November 30, 2022, until December 21, 2022 when she received a voice mail from Julia Ford requesting a meeting with two days notice. Due to her work schedule, the Applicant was unable to meet on such short notice. Ms. Ford was on vacation for several weeks after, and did not contact the Applicant until January 17, 2023. A meeting between the Applicant and Ms. Ford took place on February 2, 2023 at the local shelter. At this time Ms. Ford asked the Applicant to put her concerns in writing.

24At this meeting Ms. Ford agreed to keep the Applicant’s file open for a further period to provide the Applicant with time to provide additional information. The Applicant did upload 41 videos. Ms. Ford asked the Applicant to indicate which parts of the videos she should review. In their Response, the Respondent indicates that Ms. Ford did not receive any indication that the videos contained disclosures. They further stated that Ms. Ford reviewed 4 hrs of these videos. In a March 6 email, Ms. Ford indicated that she would not be reviewing the additional recording as there was no indication of specific incidents in the videos indicating that the Child was in need of protection.

25On March 6, 2023, the Applicant received an email stating that the Respondent would be closing its file. One of the reasons given for closing the file according to the Applicant was that the Applicant was unwilling to attend further meetings. The Applicant denies having stated this.

26On March 24, 2023, the Applicant met with Ms. Ford and her supervisor Laurel LeBeau. During this meeting, the Applicant was informed that the investigation was still open. On March 27, 2023, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent outlining numerous concerns and questions. The Applicant alleges that these concerns and questions were not addressed in a response from Laurel LeBeau dated March 31, 2023 and remain unanswered.

27The Respondent’s file was closed and a closing letter was sent to the Applicant on May 16, 2023.

The Applicant’s Position

28The Applicant alleges that she has not been heard or given reasons for the concerns outlined in paragraph 6 above and enumerated below in the Analysis section of this decision. Specifically, she alleges that the Respondent has not heard her concerns regarding the Child’s disclosure captured on video recordings and has not thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided in these videos. She further alleges that the Respondent has not heard her concerns regarding the Child’s mental health and behavioural issues and the father’s refusal to consent to court ordered treatment for the Child’s mental health issues.

The Respondent’s Position

29The Respondent’s position is that they have been faced with a young Child subject to numerous investigations that have been confounded by a Children’s Law Reform Act custody and access dispute. The Respondent argues that they have listened to the Applicant’s concerns and have taken them seriously and have interviewed the Child and the Applicant on multiple occasions without receiving any disclosures or from the Child or evidence that would permit them to verify sexual abuse. They note that they have delayed closing the file on several occasions to further hear and respond to the Applicant’s concerns. They note that the threshold for psychological harm is high, and they can’t make inferences as to why the Child is displaying these behaviours. They assert that they made reasonable efforts to review the video evidence provided. They argue that they have made every effort to hear and provide reasons to the Applicant.

the law

30Section 120(4)4 of the Act indicates that the following matters may be reviewed by the Board:

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

31Section 15(2) of the Act confirms that:

Service providers shall ensure 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

32The “right to reasons” under the Act is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held that:

With respect to s.68.1(4)5 (now s.120(4)5), what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

The CFSRB has explained the right to be heard under section 120(4)4 of the Act as follows:

To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33 (para 14)

33The Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Society and for which the Society is giving reasons under subsection 120(4)5 of the Act.

34Section 120(7) states that after reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.

analysis

35I will consider each of the issues identified at the pre-hearing in turn.

36Issue 1 contains three sub-issues:

1. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding sexual abuse of the Child?

2. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding physical abuse of the Child?

3. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding threats of harm to the Child should he report to police or adults?

The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding sexual abuse allegations.

37I find that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding sexual abuse of the Child. On each of the occasions on which the Respondent received complaints regarding concerns of sexual abuse of the Child, the Respondent initiated an investigation into the allegations. On each occasion, the Respondent collaborated with police to complete an interview of the Child. The Child did not make disclosures in any of these interviews that supported a conclusion that the Child was being sexually abused, and for this reason, neither the Respondent, nor other collaborating child protection organizations were able to verify sexual abuse. In the absence of a disclosure, no charges were forthcoming. I am satisfied based on the evidence before me in the form of testimony and documentary evidence that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the possibility that the Child was being sexually abused by the father and took those concerns seriously. The Respondent’ cannot be faulted for failure to verify sexual abuse in the absence of a disclosure from the Child or the absence of conclusive medical evidence of sexual abuse which was not forthcoming despite medical examinations by physicians at the time concerns arose. For these reasons, sub-issue 1 is dismissed.

The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding physical abuse allegations.

38I find that the Applicant has been consistent in voicing her concerns regarding alleged physical abuse of the Child. I further find that the Applicant’s concerns regarding possible physical abuse of the Child were heard and documented by the Respondent worker Julia Ford. Specifically, I find that Ms. Ford in her Witness statement made note of the Applicant’s concerns regarding alleged physical abuse of the Child in at least six paragraphs. As examples, Ms. Ford notes that the Child says the father hit him on the stomach according to the Applicant’s therapist Dr. Ross, and Ms. Ford notes that in a video the Child is alleged to say that his father woke him in the middle of the night and threw him. For the above reasons, sub-issue 2 is dismissed.

The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding threats of harm to the Child should he report to police or adults.

39I find that this issue is addressed in the Witness Statement of Ms. Ford in a number of paragraphs including one where Ms. Ford indicates that she discussed with the Applicant that the Child was fearful of the father; and in another where Ms. Ford describes the Applicant reporting that the Child is scared of the police. For the above reasons, sub-issue 3 is dismissed.

40With all the sub-issues dismissed, issue 1 is dismissed.

The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the negative impact on the Child (physical, emotional, behavioural) as a result of access visits with his father

41The Applicant has indicated her concerns regarding the Child’s physical, emotional and behavioural issues to the Respondent worker Julia Ford on a number of occasions. In her Witness statement, Ms. Ford documents these concerns in a number of paragraphs including one where Ms. Ford acknowledges the Applicant’s reports of the Child being aggressive with her; one where Ms. Ford notes a report of the Child smashing his head against the ground; and one where Ms. Ford notes reports by the Applicant of the Child having high blood pressure, stomach aches, and night terrors

42For the above reasons, I find that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding the negative impact on the Child (physical, emotional, behavioural) as a result of access visits with his father. Issue 2 is dismissed.

The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding video disclosures by the Child regarding abuse.

43The Applicant reports that a number of disclosures by the Child of abuse were captured by her home video system as well as examples of behavioural issues on the part of the Child. In the November 2022 interview and investigation, the Applicant advised police and Respondent staff of the availability of this video evidence and requested that police and Respondent staff review the videos. On November 29, 2022, police and CAS did review video footage from March 18, 2022, and heard some comments from the Child about “naked” but the context of these comments was not clear. The November 29, 2022 interview ended with a plan that the Applicant would share further video clips with police and CAS, the police would attempt to access the videos from the Applicant’s NEST camera system.

44In her testimony Julia Ford stated that the Applicant provided her with 41 videos which the Applicant asked her to review. These videos were uploaded on or about February 2, 2023. Ms. Ford asked the Applicant to clarify what portions of the videos she should review. Ms. Ford states that as she did not receive any indication that the videos contained additional disclosures of child abuse, she did not review the additional videos.

45The Applicant testified that when she uploaded the 41 videos, she recommended that Ms. Ford use headphones and subtitles when reviewing the videos. She also testifies that she provided detailed notes regarding specific time segments from the videos that Ms. Ford should review. These details are included in the Applicant’s document brief and support her testimony.

46The Applicant testified that not all videos provided to Ms. Ford were provided to the police, and in particular videos re the Child alleging the father put a needle in his bum and had smacked his penis were not provided to police.

47According to Ms. Ford’s testimony she reviewed all videos from the first “batch.” She states she did review approximately four hours of the 41 videos provided by the Applicant but did not review all videos. Ms. Ford testified that she did not review all of the videos due to time constraints and because she did not receive any indication that the videos contained additional disclosures of child abuse. She did note that many of the videos summarize aggressive behaviours by the Child toward the Applicant. She did not find evidence in the videos she reviewed to support sexual abuse. She further testified that such videos are not a helpful way to determine whether a child has been sexually abused as the context is often unclear and there is no way to follow up with the Child with relevant questions. There was no indication in the testimony that she used headphones or subtitles.

48In considering the evidence around this issue I find that the Respondent did not complete an adequate review of the videos identified by the applicant. I find that the Applicant expressed concerns regarding specific incidents, and clearly referred the Respondent to these incidents in the videos as requested by the Respondent. In failing to review the specific identified segments, I find the Applicant’s video evidence regarding alleged abuse of the Child has not been heard by the Respondent.

49For the above reasons, I find that the Respondent has not heard the Applicant regarding her video evidence of abuse. Issue 3 is upheld.

The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the effect on the Child of multiple interviews, and his exposure to alleged abuse.

50There are two sub-issues involved in Issue 4:

1. Whether the Respondent staff have heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the effect on the Child of multiple interviews; and,

2. Whether the Respondent staff have heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the Child’s exposure to alleged abuse (somatization).

51With regard to sub-issue 1, based on the testimony of both the Applicant and of Emergency After Hours Worker Sherri Couto, it is clear to me that the Respondent is aware of the negative effects of multiple interviews on the Child. According to the Applicant’s letter of complaint attached to her Application, when she spoke with Ms. Couto on November 27, 2022, Ms. Couto noted that “this is the fourth report.” Although the Applicant took exception to the tone of this comment and interpreted it as blaming, I understand this comment to reflect Ms. Couto’s concern for the impact on the Child of multiple sexual abuse investigations and interviews.

52In an email from the Applicant to Ms. Ford sent February 10, 2023, the Applicant states, “I have also been heavily criticized by CAS and others about the amount of times the Child has been interviewed.” From this it is clear to me that the Respondent is conscious of the number of times the Child has been interviewed and is concerned regarding this.

53Regarding sub-issue 1, I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the effect on the Child of multiple interviews. This sub-issue is dismissed.

54With regard to sub-issue 2, whether the Respondent staff have heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the Child’s exposure to alleged abuse (somatization), I find that this issue is substantially the same issue as Issue 2 addressed above. For Issue 2, I found that that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding the negative impact on the Child (physical, emotional, behavioural). Issue 2 was dismissed. For the same reasons, sub-issue 2 of Issue 4 is dismissed.

55For the above reasons, Issue 4 is dismissed.

The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding the investigation and its outcome.

56There are two elements to Issue 5: whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the investigation, and whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the outcome of the investigation.

57With regard to whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the outcome of the Application, I would first note that the Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Society. For this reason, I am limited in my ability to address any concerns the Applicant may have regarding the outcome of the investigation.

58Regarding whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns about the investigation, I find that there are numerous places in the documentation submitted into evidence that confirm the Respondent provided the Applicant with the opportunity to be heard regarding their concerns regarding the investigation. Specifically, the Applicant had an opportunity to express her concerns and be heard during a February 2, 2023, meeting between the Applicant and Ms. Ford that took place with the Applicant’s support workers at the local women’s shelter. During this meeting the Applicant expressed a number of concerns regarding the investigation and was invited to put her concerns in an email which the Respondent committed to addressing. The Applicant did forward this email to the Respondent on March 27, 2023.

59The Respondent also provided the Applicant with an opportunity to meet with Ms. Ford and Ms. LeBeau on March 24, 2023, to discuss her concerns regarding the investigation. Ms. LeBeau responded to the Applicant’s concerns in a letter dated March 31, 2023 indicating that she had heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding challenges in communication that occurred during the investigation and clarifying that the investigation had not yet been concluded. Ms. LeBeau also confirmed that she had followed up with emergency after hours worker Sherri Couto regarding how the Applicant experienced interactions with her during a November intake telephone call.

60The Applicant testified that she is not satisfied with the information provided in Ms. LeBeau’s March 31, 2023, letter, and the Respondent acknowledges that they did not respond to all the questions in the Applicant’s March 27, 2023 email. As noted above at paragraph 32, to be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. In failing to respond to the Applicant’s March 27, 2023 email which was sent prior to the date of the Application, I find that the Respondent has not demonstrated that it has heard the Applicant’s concerns and dealt with them thoroughly.

61In her Witness statement Ms. Ford also states that during her meetings with the Applicant she has made every effort to explain the Respondent’s verification process. In the same paragraph, Ms. Ford states she has outlined all the reasons for the decision to close the file in a March 6, 2023, email. While I am aware that the Applicant finds the information in this March 6, 2023, email inadequate, and that she disagreed with the Respondent’s intention to close the file conveyed in this email, I find that the Respondent did make an effort to hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding the investigation and its outcome and did attempt to respond to the Applicant’s expressed concerns.

62Because the Respondent failed to respond to and address the Applicant’s concerns outlined in her March 27, 2023 email, I find that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding the investigation and its outcome. Issue 5 is upheld.

The Respondent heard The Applicant’s explanations for not participating in meetings (last minute with no flexibility) and did not use her non-availability as an excuse to close the file.

63In the Applicant’s complaint letter attached to her Application, the Applicant refers to a March 6, 2023, email from Ms. Ford advising that the Respondent intended to close their file. In the Applicant’s complaint letter, she states that, “One of Ms. Ford’s comments in her reasons for closing the file was the mother being unable to attend a further meeting.” In fact, the exact wording from Ms. Ford’s email was, “Thanks for letting me know that you would not be able to complete a meeting with me this week as we had talked about.” Nowhere in Ms. Ford’s March 6, 2023 email am I able to find a statement that the Respondent was closing the file because the Applicant was not participating in meetings.

64Indeed, in the Respondent’s May 16, 2023 closing letter, Ms. Ford and Ms. LeBeau reference a “reluctance on the part of both parents to work with CAS to address the concerns of post separation conflict” as being a significant factor in the decision to close the file. In Ms. LeBeau’s testimony, she notes that as of Ms. Ford’s February 2, 2023 interview with the Applicant at the shelter, the Applicant was refusing to permit the Respondent access to the Child. Ms. LeBeau testified that “if we couldn’t see the Child, we couldn’t do the work.” Also, in her March 6, 2023 email to the Applicant Ms. Ford stated that given “Given that no information has been provided that points to specific maltreatment of [the Child] …I do not believe that it is in [the Child’s] best interest to continue with our current investigation.”

65Based on the above, I conclude that the Respondent did not close their file due to any concerns regarding the Applicant not being able to participate in meetings. Instead, the Respondent closed their file because they were unable to verify abuse, because they were unable to meet with the Child, and because they did not consider it in the Child’s best interest to continue with the investigation given the lack of disclosure from the Child over the course of multiple investigations and interviews.

66For the above reasons, Issue 6 is dismissed.

Respondent staff did not provide the Applicant with their reasoning for closing the file despite the Applicant’s concerns regarding suspected abuse.

67In considering this issue, I considered not only whether the Respondent provided reasons for closing the file, but whether they provided the Applicant with their reasoning regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision whether to close the file or keep it open as described above at paragraph 32.

68With respect to whether the Respondent provided reasons for closing the file in August 2020, I note that the primary investigating agency for the August 2020 was CAST, not the Respondent. According to the Respondent’s Response, CAST closed their file on September 1, 2020. I have no evidence before me in the form of testimony or documentary evidence such as a closing letter from CAST or from the Respondent for this investigation that provides details regarding either CAST or the Respondent’s reasons for closing the file. Given the lack of evidence or testimony regarding this closing, I am not able to make any determination as to whether reasons were provided or not.

69With respect to the January 2021 investigation, I see from an April 25, 2023 CPIN case log note that the investigation closed and the ongoing file ended up closing as well as parents no longer wished to work with CAS. This documentary evidence is consistent with the Respondent’s Response and the Witness Statement of Ms. Ford which state that the file was closed in August 2021 when the Applicant declined further service. I have no testimony from the Applicant regarding her understanding of the reasons for closing her file in August 2021. The parents not wishing to work with the CAS is a sufficient reason for closing the file, particularly in the absence of any disclosure from the Child or verification of abuse.

70With respect to the January 2022 investigation, according to the Respondent’s Response, the file was closed following the Child’s interview when there was no disclosure by the Child of any abuse. Again, I find that this is a sufficient reason for closing the file, particularly given that the Respondent’s mandate is to provide services to children who are in need of protection.

71With respect to the November 2022 opening, as noted at paragraph 61 above, in her Witness statement Ms. Ford states that during her meetings with the Applicant she has made every effort to explain the Respondent’s verification process. In the same paragraph, Ms. Ford states she has outlined all the reasons for the decision to close the file in a March 6, 2023, email. Despite this assertion, the evidence and testimony before me provides few details regarding the Respondent’s reasoning around their decision to close the file. I have no testimony before me regarding how the Respondent decided not to verify sexual or physical abuse. I also note that the Applicant in her testimony is left with questions regarding why the Respondent did not verify the Child as being at risk of emotional harm due to the father’s refusal to consent to play therapy treatment as recommended by the Respondent and ordered by the Court.

72I find that for the Applicant to understand the Respondent’s reasoning regarding their decision to close the file, they require further explanation from the Respondent in the form of an explanation of the verification process and an explanation of where the Respondent determined this matter fell on the Eligibility Spectrum as it relates to intervention levels for sexual, physical, and emotional harm to the Child.

73For the above reasons, I find that the Respondent has not provided the Applicant with their reasoning regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision whether to close the file or keep it open. Issue 7 is upheld.

Respondent staff did not provide the Applicant with inconsistent information regarding whether the investigation was still open.

74Based on the Applicant’s testimony, much of Issue 8 turns on the Applicant being informed by Ms. Ford in her email of March 6, 2023 that it was the Respondent’s intention to close the file. The actual wording in Ms. Ford’s March 6, 2023 email was, “both our agency and Halton Children’s Aid Society, who has been assisting with this investigation, will plan to close our files.” Ms. Ford went on to say that “I will send a closing letter to both you and [the Child’s father] with the formal outcome of this investigation.

75Subsequent to Ms. Ford’s March 6, 2023 email indicating the intent to close the file, the Respondent was advised that the Applicant’s mother had concerns she wished to share, and on March 20, 2023, the Respondent received correspondence from the Applicant’s mother outlining her concerns regarding the Child. According to testimony from both Ms. Ford and Ms. LeBeau, the Respondent held the file open for a further period to consult with Halton CAS and Halton police. Halton police determined that they would not be investigating further as all the concerns predated the Child’s interview with police on November 29, 2022.

76Based on the above, while the Applicant may have been confused by some of the information regarding the process and timing of the Respondent closing the file, I find that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding the Respondent’s intent to close the file and did respond to the Applicant’s concerns by delaying the closing of the file until they had received and considered further information provided by the Applicant’s mother.

77For the above reasons, Issue 8 is dismissed.

The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding feeling she was treated disrespectfully when she reported the alleged abuse.

78In her testimony and Witness Statement, the Applicant raised concerns regarding perceived devaluing messages received from emergency after hours worker Sherri Couto during a November 27, 2022 telephone call to report abuse disclosures from the Child. The Applicant took exception to Ms. Couto’s alleged comments such as, “this is the fourth report, what are you expecting to get out of this,” being told she shouldn’t have called the Respondent as it wasn’t their jurisdiction, Ms. Couto saying she “wouldn’t advise” taking the Child to the hospital, and concluding the telephone conversation by wishing the Applicant “good luck” and that someone would be in touch within the next week.

79The issue of false statements against the Applicant’s father relates to Ms. Ford stating to the Applicant that the Child had made allegations against the Applicant’s father during an interview. The Applicant interpreted these as slanderous statements against her father, however in her Witness statement at paragraph 142, Ms. Ford states that “when she made comments regarding the Applicant’s father during the meeting on November 29, 2022, she did not mean to slander or insult the Applicant’s father but was providing an example of the Child in the past having fabricated statements.”

80With regard to the Applicant’s experience of her interview with Ms. Couto, the Respondent did address the Applicant’s concerns regarding her experience of Ms. Couto with the worker. Ms. LeBeau reported on this meeting with Ms. Couto in a March 31, 2023 letter to the Applicant. Ms. Couto testified that asking “what are you hoping for” is a standard question for her. She denies any memory of linking “This is your fourth call” and “what are you hoping for” together. Ms. Couto acknowledges that she does often end conversations with the phrase, “good luck.” Ms. Couto denies any intent to devalue or discount the Applicant.

81With regard to the allegations that Ms. Ford slandered the Applicant’s father, having reviewed the description of the Child’s November 29, 2022, interview which did clearly contain fabricated statements such as the Child having a brother who’s first name was the same as his middle name, I find Ms. Ford’s explanation for her comments regarding the Child’s fabrication of information regarding the Applicant’s father to be reasonable.

82For the above reasons, I find that the Applicant’s concerns about being treated disrespectfully were heard and addressed by the Respondent.

83Issue 9 is dismissed.

No evidence or testimony received regarding the Respondent not hearing allegations of gender bias.

84In this matter, I received no testimony relating to typical issues of gender bias. In the absence of any testimony or documentary evidence related to this issue, I am unable to make a finding on this issue.

CONCLUSION

85For all of the reasons above, I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns with respect to issues 1, 2, and 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10. I further find that the Respondent failed to hear the Applicant’s concerns with respect to issue 3 and 5 and has not provided the Applicant with meaningful reasons with respect to issue 7.

REMEDY

86The Applicant has requested that the Respondent review the specific segments of the videos she provided.

87As indicated at paragraph 34 above, the CFSRB is limited in the Orders it can make under Section 120(7). In reviewing the options available to me for orders, I find the CFSRB does not have the authority to under this section to order the Respondent to view the video tapes.

88The CFSRB does have the authority to order the Respondent to provide the Applicant with written reasons under section 120(7)d.

ORDER

89Issues 1, 2, and 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are dismissed.

90Issues 3, 5 and 7 are upheld.

91By September 22, 2023, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with a letter addressing the following:

1. Provide answers to the questions raised by the Applicant in their March 27, 2023 email.

2. Provide an explanation of the verification process as it relates specifically to concerns that the Child has: a) been sexually abused, b) been physically abused, and c) whether the Child is in need of protection due to risk of emotional harm and a parent’s lack of consent to treatment to address this emotional harm.

3. Provide an explanation of the Eligibility Spectrum and how the Respondent determined that the risk to the Child did not meet the eligibility criteria for intervention for a) sexual abuse, b) physical abuse, c) emotional harm (Section 2 Scale 4, or Section 3, Scale 1).

4. In providing this explanation the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with a copy of the Eligibility Spectrum document.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

92Pursuant 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.