JB v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2023 CFSRB 91

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JB Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan Date: October 18, 2023 Citation: 2023 CFSRB 91 Indexed As: JB v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

JB, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent Jodi Kaiman, Counsel

Introduction

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”).

2On August 1, 2019, the CFSRB determined it could review the Applicant’s complaints related to the following matters:

• the Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects his interests [subsection 120(4)5 of the Act]; and

• the Applicant alleges the Respondent inaccurately recorded something on the Applicant’s file, and the Applicant is not satisfied with the decision made in the Respondent’s internal complaint review panel (“ICRP”) [subsection 119(5)(2) of the Act].

3In its January 13, 2020 Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report, following a January 10, 2020 pre-hearing (“January 2020 PH/M Report”), the CFSRB confirmed that the Applicant had not brought detailed information about inaccuracies in the Respondent’s file to the ICRP such that the CFSRB could review the Applicant’s allegations related to the Applicant’s perceived inaccuracies under subsection 119(5)(2) of the Act.

4The CFSRB’s Pre-Hearing Report dated March 10, 2020, sets out that the specific issues for the hearing are those contained in the January 2020 PH/M Report. The remaining issues are as follows:

That the Respondent has not provided the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affected his interests regarding the matters raised during the [Internal Complaints Review Panel] (“ICRP”) meeting held on March 8, 2019 relating to the following allegations:

1. The Respondent did not conduct an investigation agreed to by the parties;

2. The Respondent did not take into account its full history of involvement with the Applicant, the Applicant’s request for accommodation and the absence of any Action Plan;

3. In the absence of an investigation, the Respondent was not in a position to determine that the Applicant’s children were no longer at risk and to determine that the issue of their neglect had been addressed;

4. The Respondent made decisions that failed to take into account the content of an existing court order.

5The Hearing in this Application was initially scheduled to commence on April 3, 2020 but was delayed due to several factors including most significantly, the COVID-19 pandemic.

6The Application was heard on June 16, July 27, August 15, and September 14, 2023. The CFSRB provided Communication Access Realtime Translation (“CART”) on each hearing day as part of accommodations offered to the Applicant.

7The parties provided closing submissions in writing on September 18, 2023. I disregarded any submissions over and above the page limit set forth by me at the Hearing and any information referenced that was not entered into evidence at the Hearing.

8For the following reasons, the CFSRB dismisses the Applicant’s complaints in Issues 1, 3 and 4, and orders the Respondent to provide responses and reasons for decisions related to some elements of the Applicant’s complaints in Issue 2.

BACKGROUND

9The Applicant is the father of two children (“Children”), a son (“Applicant’s Son”) and daughter (“Applicant’s Daughter”), with his ex-spouse (“Children’s Mother”). The Applicant’s family first became involved with the Respondent around 2012.

10The Respondent completed a child protection investigation relating to the Children between December 2017 and the Spring of 2018, after which the Respondent provided services to the Applicant and his family until the Respondent closed its file in November 2018.

11In February 2019, the Applicant made a formal request to the Respondent for an ICRP. On March 8, 2019, the Applicant attended an ICRP meeting at the Respondent’s office.

12On March 21, 2019, Natasha Tucker, the Respondent’s Manager of Client Services, sent a letter to the Applicant summarizing the ICRP meeting (“ICRP Outcome Letter”).

13The Applicant was dissatisfied with the ICRP meeting and the ICRP Outcome Letter and brought his Application to the CFSRB in July 2019.

14The Applicant submits that the Respondent failed to provide him with reasons during its decision-making related to the Issues and he seeks that those reasons be provided.

15The Respondent submits that it provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions, including before, during and after the ICRP meeting with the Applicant and seeks that the Application be dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Preliminary Issue: Witnesses

16At a March 7, 2023 case management videoconference before the CFSRB, the parties identified the witnesses they intended to call at the Hearing. The Applicant identified that he intended to testify and would call up to three witnesses and the Respondent’s Legal Counsel identified that the Respondent intended to call two witnesses. The CFSRB’s Case Management Direction related to that videoconference (“March 2023 CMD”) directed the parties to file witness statements on or before May 25, 2023 that contained a detailed summary of what their witnesses would say if they testified at the Hearing. The Applicant filed two witness statements, for his mother and father. He did not file a witness statement for his sister. The Respondent filed two witness statements.

17Paragraph 12 of the March 2023 CMD set out, “[a]t the hearing, the CFSRB member will determine whether any particular witness will be heard based upon relevance and other usual considerations”.

18At the Hearing, I informed the Applicant that the witness statements for his mother and father appeared primarily to relate to incidents that occurred after his Application was received by the CFSRB on July 22, 2019, and there was no information provided in the witness statements that suggested that his parents had information related to the decisions made by the Respondent that were Issues before the Hearing. Upon offering the Applicant the opportunity to make submissions related to his proposed witnesses, the Applicant provided additional information related to his father, not included in the witness statement, that suggested his father may have been present during the ICRP meeting where information related to the issues was communicated. The Applicant did not provide any information to demonstrate that his sister and mother had independent information related to any of the four Issues at the Hearing. Accordingly, I found that the Applicant’s father may be a witness but the Applicant’s sister and mother, who appeared unable to provide relevant evidence to the specific Issues at the Hearing would therefore not testify.

19Ultimately, the Applicant elected only to call himself as a witness and the Respondent elected not to call any witnesses after the Applicant closed his case.

Remedies Under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act

20Subsection 119(10) of the Act sets out what actions the CFSRB may take upon completing a review of a decision by a society in relation to a complaint:

Section 119(10) Upon completing its review of a decision by a society in relation to a complaint, the Board may,

(a) in the case of a matter described in subsection 120(4), make any order described in subsection 120(7), as appropriate;

(b) redirect the matter to the society for further review;

(c) confirm the society’s decision; or

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

21Subsection 120(7) of the Act sets out what actions the CFSRB may take after reviewing a complaint:

Section 120(7) 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.

22Under subsections 119(10)(d) and 120(7) of the Act, there is not presently any “other order” that is “prescribed” to address complaints made to the CFSRB under sections 119 and 120 of the Act.

23I confirmed during the Hearing, that in this Application before the CFSRB, I am limited to reviewing the Applicant’s allegations that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affect(ed) his interests related to the Issues set out in paragraph 4 above. After my review, the only relief I may consider ordering is set out in the legislation described above.

24The Applicant conveyed during the Hearing that he had some additional expectations about what the CFSRB may be able to review in this Application and the nature of the relief the CFSRB may order after the Hearing.

The Right to Reasons

25Previous decisions of the CFSRB have held that the “right to reasons” under the Act is a right to receive a meaningful explanation of decisions that affect one’s interests. A children’s aid society must provide a service recipient with “sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow [them] to understand why and how the decision was made” (J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, at paragraph 13).

26In applications under sections 119 and 120 of the Act as they relate to allegations that a children’s aid society has not provided reasons to an applicant for decisions, the onus is on an applicant to provide evidence to show that decisions were in fact made by a children’s aid society and that reasons in respect of those decisions were not provided to them.

Issue 1: There was No Agreement between the Parties to Investigate

27The Applicant alleges that the Respondent “did not conduct an investigation agreed to by the parties”. As there is some overlap in the evidence related to Issues 1 and 3, these issues are reviewed successively first.

28The Applicant testified that he provided a package of information in March 2018 to Respondent worker Parag Ray and asked her to investigate his concerns arising from the information in that package. The Applicant’s concerns included the Applicant’s Son’s development and oral health and that the Children’s Mother was “alienating” the Children from him. The Applicant explained that it was his expectation based on the information he provided that the Respondent would have commenced an investigation.

29The Applicant stated that throughout his history of involvement with the Respondent he had requested workers to investigate concerns about the Children. The Applicant noted that he signed consent forms to allow the Respondent to speak to various practitioners and his perspective was that the workers “had a duty to investigate” especially when his requests were made in writing, as some were. The Applicant also stated that he believed his concerns met the “threshold under Child Protection Standards” for an investigation.

30The Applicant testified that he specifically believed a further investigation into child protection concerns relating to the Children was warranted after the Respondent closed its file in November 2018.

31In email messages to Respondent Supervisor Dave Lewis on November 29, December 11 and December 12, 2018, the Applicant provided information about his continued concerns about the Children, including about their oral health and the Applicant’s Daughter’s emotional health and access issues with the Applicant. On December 12, 2018, Mr. Lewis provided a summary of what steps were taken by the Respondent to confirm that the Children were being seen by dentists, including conversations with the Children’s Mother. On December 14, 2018, Mr. Lewis noted in an email to the Applicant that the Respondent would “be having someone look into this concern you are expressing related to the children’s dental needs”.

32During cross-examination of the Applicant, the Applicant confirmed that he participated in a telephone call on January 31, 2019 with Mr. Lewis and another Respondent worker, Jaye Appotive. The Contact Log dated January 31, 2019 summarizing this meeting includes a notation that the “purpose of the call was to provide [the Applicant] with an opportunity to explain his concerns regarding the children’s dental care” and that the Applicant “expressed his concern”. This Contact Log also notes that the Applicant questioned why the Respondent had not called “the dental providers” and that the Respondent explained that the Applicant’s “concerns do not warrant an investigation”.

33The Applicant did not provide any other evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent had “agreed” to conduct any investigation.

34While the Applicant may have had expectations that the Respondent should have conducted an investigation of the concerns he brought forward, Mr. Lewis’ December 14, 2018 notation that he would have someone “look into” the concerns about the Children’s oral health does not equal an agreement to commence an investigation. In any event, during the Respondent’s meeting with the Applicant on January 31, 2019, the Contact Log notes that the Respondent confirmed that an investigation was not warranted. If there was any ambiguity about Mr. Lewis’ earlier comments, the January 31, 2019 meeting effectively refuted the Applicant’s allegation that there was an investigation “agreed to by the parties”.

35As I find that the Applicant was unable to demonstrate that there was an agreement between the parties that there would be a further investigation, there is no basis upon which to require the Respondent to provide reasons in relation to Issue 1.

Issue 3: The Respondent Provided Reasons for Closing Its Files and Not Conducting a Further Investigation

36The Applicant alleges that “in the absence of an investigation”, the Respondent “was not in a position to determine that the children were no longer at risk and to determine that the issue of their neglect had been addressed”.

37The Applicant testified about his interactions with the Respondent since 2011 or 2012. He stated that a child protection investigation was commenced in December 2017, completed around March or April 2018 and closed in November 2018. As set out above, he provided a package of information setting out concerns to a Respondent worker in March 2018 hoping these would be investigated.

38In a letter dated November 28, 2018, from Mr. Lewis to the Applicant and the Children’s Mother, Mr. Lewis provided reasons for the Respondent closing its file. Mr. Lewis noted that the Applicant’s worker, Brendan Cronin, had worked with the family related to the Children’s exposure to post separation conflict between the parents and there was “no significant emotional impact” at that time. Mr. Lewis also noted that since working with the family, “the police had not been called and solutions to the issues were sought elsewhere”.

39In the November 28, 2018 Letter, Mr. Lewis also notes that there was an outstanding issue related to the Applicant’s Son’s dental needs. Mr. Lewis reviews his understanding that a dentist recommended to the Applicant that the Applicant’s Son have a follow up dental appointment as there may be a risk of future pain or infection, and that the Children’s Mother had met with a different dentist who had a different opinion and she followed that recommended treatment plan for the Applicant’s Son.

40As set out above, after the Applicant received the November 28, 2018 Letter, there was additional email correspondence between the Applicant and Mr. Lewis in December 2018 relating to the Applicant’s ongoing concerns about the Children’s oral health and emotional harm experienced by the Applicant’s Daughter. On January 31, 2019, the Respondent informed the Applicant that a further investigation was not warranted.

41The Applicant thereafter initiated a complaint to the Respondent and an ICRP meeting was scheduled.

42On March 8, 2019, further to his application for an ICRP, the Applicant provided a letter to the Respondent setting out concerns related to the Children that he wanted to present at the ICRP. This letter includes the Applicant’s concerns that the Children’s oral health continues to be neglected and the Applicant’s request that the Respondent contact dental and family practitioners in relation to the Children’s oral health and mandate the Children to attend a specific parent-child counselling program with the Applicant.

43The Applicant testified that he attended the ICRP meeting on March 8, 2019 and that it lasted about 90 minutes.

44The ICRP Outcome Letter notes that at the ICRP meeting, the Applicant identified that his “main concerns are related to the risks posed to [his] children due to other parent lack of follow through with oral care and counselling”, and the Applicant shared his concerns related to the Children being exposed to parental conflict.

45In the ICRP Outcome Letter, the Respondent summarizes in over two pages of single-spaced sentences the events it considered in relation to the Applicant’s concerns about the Children’s oral health and need for counselling. The ICRP Outcome Letter describes how it determined that “the children’s dental needs seemed to have been met or is currently being met through the current provider”, that all professionals have an independent duty to report child protection concerns, and “that the lack of follow through with counselling does not pose a risk to the children which is being supported by the absence of professional referrals related to the children’s wellbeing”.

46The ICRP Outcome Letter also includes explanations of a professional’s duty to report, a summary of how decisions are made to determine eligibility for service, an explanation of how workers use the “Eligibility Spectrum” tool to make decisions about intervention, references to the interpretation of “Child Protection Standards for Ontario”, and a discussion of how workers apply the “balance of probabilities” test when determining verification of allegations.

47As part of the ICRP process, the ICRP Panel made three recommendations. Recommendation Two was to “[c]onsult with the Intake Branch Director to review eligibility of service related to the children’s dental care and recommendation for counselling”.

48On page five of the ICRP Outcome Letter, the Respondent described the outcome of the action taken in relation to Recommendation Two as follows:

On March 14, 2019, the supervisor and manager, client services, met with the intake director, who independently reviewed the allegations to determine eligibility for a child protection investigation. Based on a review of the family’s history, the other parent follow-through with the children’s dental care and the absence of collateral or professional reports, it was assessed the allegation related to lack of dental care does not meet eligibility for intervention. The Society’s recommendation related to counseling was a recommendation to enhance the family’s dynamics and not a solution to mitigate risk”.

49The Applicant testified that he was “frustrated” that the Respondent’s interpretation of the Child Protection Standards was “not the same” as his. He described that he felt that the Respondent did not investigate what he believed was parental alienation, as well as emotional harm to the Children and neglect of their oral health.

50On July 8, 2019, the Applicant sent a letter to “Complaints Against a Children’s Aid Society” at the Respondent’s address. In this letter, the Applicant provides additional “context” for his complaints to the Respondent including instructions provided to him by the Ontario Court of Justice to contact the Respondent with concerns about the Children, concerns about the Duty to Report provisions and the ability of a parent to avoid detection of neglect, and the Applicant’s perspective relating to his concerns and eligibility criteria.

51I find that the Respondent’s detailed ICRP Outcome letter demonstrates that sufficient reasons were provided to the Applicant at the ICRP meeting for the Respondent’s decision not to conduct a further investigation. The Respondent reviewed the Applicant’s concerns and explained how and why it determined that the concerns did not meet the threshold for intervention. The ICRP Outcome Letter also described how a further independent review of the Applicant’s concerns was conducted by the Intake Director and the reasons they determined that the Applicant’s concerns did not meet eligibility for the Respondent’s intervention.

52It may be that on the Applicant’s own assessment of his concerns for the Children according to Child Protection Standards and the Eligibility Spectrum, the Applicant expected the Respondent to engage in further intervention. The Applicant may also disagree with the reasons the Respondent provided to him, or not like them. However, my review of the evidence supports that sufficient information was provided to the Applicant regarding the factors that were taken into account by the Respondent in making its decision not to conduct a further investigation and determining that the level of risk or neglect was below its threshold level of intervention.

53As such, I find the Respondent has provided reasons related to Issue 3.

Issue 2: The Respondent Failed to Provide Sufficient Reasons to the Applicant related to the Applicant’s Request for Accommodation and the Absence of an Action Plan

54The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide him with reasons for why it did not take into account the Respondent’s full history of involvement with the Applicant, the Applicant’s request for accommodation and the absence of any action plan. Below I address separately each of the three allegations contained within this broader complaint.

Applicant Failed to Demonstrate that the Respondent Did Not Take into Account its Full History of Involvement with the Applicant

55The Applicant submits that the Respondent has not taken into account its full history of involvement with the Applicant and the Respondent owes him reasons for this.

56The Applicant testified that in the ICRP Outcome Letter, “there is a whole lot of statements and feedback but nothing saying they are willing to go back and take into account the full history of the case”. He also described how it was difficult for him to understand that the Respondent could look at the history of the case and arrive at the decisions it did.

57During cross-examination, when the Applicant was asked if Mr. Lewis told the Applicant in November 2018 that Mr. Lewis had reviewed the history of the file, the Applicant stated that “perhaps” he did.

58Later, during his own re-examination during the Hearing, the Applicant stated that although Mr. Lewis told him that he had “reviewed the full history of the file”, the Applicant’s perspective was that it was “not in accordance with Child Protection Standards”.

59As set out above, as part of the follow-up to the ICRP meeting and described in the ICRP Outcome Letter, the Respondent Intake Director independently reviewed the Applicant’s allegations to determine eligibility for a child protection investigation. As part of that review, the ICRP Outcome Letter notes that the Intake Director reviewed “the family’s history”.

60The Applicant has not provided evidence to support that the Respondent did not take into account the full history of its involvement with the Applicant. On the Applicant’s own evidence, he notes that Mr. Lewis had reviewed the full history of the file. The ICRP Outcome Letter reflects that the Intake Director also reviewed “the family’s history”, among other things, in supporting the Respondent’s decision not to intervene further with the Children.

61While the Applicant may feel that the Respondent would have made different determinations if it had reviewed the history of the file from his perspective, the Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the Respondent did not consider the full history such that reasons for decisions are required. Instead, the evidence shows that a Respondent Supervisor and Intake Director had specifically referenced their review of the file history.

62As such, I find that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the Respondent made a decision not to read the history of the file and there is no decision about which to provide reasons in relation to this sub-issue.

The Respondent Failed to Explain Why the Applicant’s Requests for Accommodation Were Not Addressed

63The Applicant testified that from his first contact with a Respondent worker in 2012, he identified that he was “hard of hearing”. He named fourteen Respondent workers and supervisors whom he informed that he needed email communication and captioning as he was “deaf and hard of hearing”.

64The Applicant described an in-person interview with a worker in the fall of 2013 at which he was not accommodated. He stated that the Respondent continued to provide information to him over the phone or in person without CART, and not in writing.

65The Applicant described that he is concerned that the lack of accommodation of his communication needs impacted on his interactions with the Respondent and how information was collected about the Applicant and his children.

66The Applicant described that it was only in November 2018 when Mr. Lewis became involved in services to the Applicant that the Respondent started to accommodate the Applicant’s communication needs. The Applicant testified that starting around this time, the Respondent used CART in their communications with him.

67The Applicant described that he raised concerns about not being accommodated for his hearing loss at the ICRP meeting. The ICRP Outcome Letter noted,

you stated due to your hearing loss, you asked to be serviced through close captioning which the worker did not provide. The supervisor apologised and said they were not aware of your request. The panel talked about the importance of providing accessibility in delivery of fair and equitable service, and acknowledged the impact.

68As documented in the ICRP Outcome Letter, the first of three recommendations made by the ICRP Panel Members following the ICRP meeting was “[f]ollow-up on the allegation related to lack of accommodation”.

69The Respondent’s “follow up” was documented in the ICRP Outcome Letter as follows:

“As you are aware your worker has retired; as such, the supervisor is unable to directly address this issue with them. The supervisor apologized and has ensured compliance with their team’s follow-through with the legislative Accessibility for Ontario with Disabilities Act training.”

70The Applicant testified that he did not understand what was meant in the ICRP Outcome Letter and was dissatisfied with it. He stated that he was left with questions about how he was not accommodated historically and how his requests were not acknowledged. The Applicant stated that he felt the response in the ICRP Outcome Letter was “insulting”.

71The Applicant testified that he was not provided with reasons as to why the Respondent was not providing CART earlier than November 2018 and how his “asks” for accommodation “went unheard”.

72The Respondent did not challenge the Applicant’s testimony in cross-examination related to his requests for accommodation before November 2018 nor proffer any witness in response to that testimony.

73In the absence of competing evidence from the Respondent related to the Applicant’s testimony about his requests for accommodation between 2012 and November 2018, I find that the Applicant did make requests of the Respondent for accommodation.

74It is not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Applicant was accommodated under the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as the Applicant requested early in the Hearing. However, it is within the CFSRB’s powers to determine whether reasons ought to have been provided to the Applicant to help him understand how it was that he was not accommodated for his hearing loss after he told workers that he required accommodation and he requested between 2012 and November 2018 that the Respondent communicate with him in writing.

75I find that the information provided to the Applicant at the ICRP meeting and in follow-up afterward, in response to the Applicant’s concerns about unmet requests for accommodation is insufficient. The reason provided by the Respondent that it cannot address this issue with a worker who is no longer employed by the Respondent is only a partial response to the Applicant.

76I find that the Respondent did not provide sufficient reasons to the Applicant as to why the Respondent did not address his requests for accommodation for hearing loss prior to being accommodated by Mr. Lewis in November 2018.

The Respondent Failed to Provide Sufficient Reasons about Plans

77The Applicant testified about the absences of “plans” presented to him.

78The Applicant explained that it was his expectation that the Respondent should have developed an action plan that would help the family “get back on track” and set out “what is required” to do that.

79The Applicant pointed to the November 28, 2018 Letter in which Mr. Lewis notes that he “would encourage [the parents] to follow the established plan whereby you continue to implement the changes you have made in how you have handled discrepancies with one another” [emphasis added]. The Applicant testified that he did not know what plan Mr. Lewis was referring to in this letter.

80The Applicant also testified that in 2018 when the Respondent was investigating allegations, that he pleaded with his worker, Brendan Cronin for an action plan. The Applicant stated that Mr. Cronin promised him a plan but he never received one.

81The Applicant noted that in the November 28, 2018 Letter, Mr. Lewis states that “Mr. Cronin shared his believe that ongoing support once the Society closed it file would be of benefit to you all” and Mr. Cronin discussed the benefits of a specific counselling program that would allow the parents to “have support in the [sic] addressing the ongoing changes that have occurred with the separation”. Mr. Lewis thereafter recommended the program to the parents. The Applicant wondered if this was part of a plan.

82The Applicant explained that at the ICRP meeting an action plan had not been provided to him. The ICRP Outcome Letter notes that the Applicant raised at the ICRP meeting that his “worker made a verbal contract with [him] related to the development of an outcome plan with targeted goals, and duration and frequency of visits which was not fully realized”.

83The Applicant noted that the ICRP Outcome Letter appears to provide “as a rationale for lack of an action plan that Mr. Kronin left the agency so they did not have access to that purported plan”.

84The Applicant also testified about his understanding of the Child Protection Standards and services flowing from them. He stated that as part of services to him, there ought to have been a written Safety Assessment and Plan. He stated that he has “not seen that plan” or any other plan.

85There were no additional reasons provided to the Applicant for the lack of any plan being provided to him.

86In the absence of witness testimony from the Respondent, it remains unclear what “plans” were created or documented during its services to the Applicant and why these were not provided to him.

87I find that the Applicant was entitled to have sufficient reasons provided to him related to why he did not receive a Safety Assessment and Plan or any other written plan addressing the Respondent’s services to the Applicant and his family and the Respondent has failed to do so.

Issue 4: The Applicant has not Demonstrated that the Respondent made Decisions that Failed to Take into Account the Content of an Existing Court Order

88The Applicant submits that the Respondent failed to account in its decision-making for the Final Order of the Honourable Justice Waldman, dated July 25, 2013 related to family court proceedings in which the Respondent and the Children’s Mother are engaged (“Family Court Order”).

89The Applicant testified that he provided a copy of the Family Court Order to the Respondent. He stated that he believed that the Respondent had the ability to supervise the Family Court Order and that the Respondent ought to have taken certain actions based on its content.

90The Applicant explained that he did not understand how the Respondent did not open investigations related to concerns about his Children when he felt the Applicant’s Mother was not in compliance with the Family Court Order. The Applicant also testified that the Respondent informed him that it was not their role to document issues with the Family Court Order.

91The Applicant described other information conveyed to him and the Children’s Mother as part of the family court proceedings, including that he was advised to contact the Respondent with child protection concerns.

92The ICRP Outcome Letter references the Family Court Order and information the Applicant provided related to it during the ICRP meeting, including the Applicant’s ability to obtain information from the Children’ dentists:

Your son saw the dentist again in January 2019 and through an Order decreed by The Ontario Children’s Law Reform Act, (CLRA) you contacted the dentist who provided specification of the dental service.

93The ICRP Outcome Letter also describes a discussion between the Applicant and the ICRP members relating to the Applicant’s concern that he was directed to contact the Respondent with child protection concerns as advised by the family court:

In response, you said you called to re-open the file because through the CLRA process and contact with TPS, you were told to contact the Society if you are concerned about your children’s wellbeing. The panel explained that notwithstanding the entities’ recommendation the Society’s intervention is based on an eligibility criteria and not arbitrarily decided.

94As set out above related to Issue 3, in the ICRP Outcome Letter, the Respondent also summarized how the Respondent uses the Eligibility Spectrum to determine when it may intervene related to child protection concerns.

95I make several findings from the Applicant’s testimony set out under this Issue and Issue 3, and the contents of ICRP Outcome Letter.

96I find that the Respondent had a copy of the Family Court Order in its file, as provided to it by the Applicant. I find that given references to the Family Court Order in the ICRP Outcome Letter, the Respondent had familiarity with it. I find that Respondent Supervisor Mr. Lewis informed the Applicant that he had reviewed the “full history of the file”, and as part of the ICRP follow-up process, the Intake Director also reviewed “the family’s history”. I find that the Respondent informed the Applicant that the Respondent’s role did not include supervising the Family Court Order and that it is the Eligibility Spectrum that is used by the Respondent in determining when it can intervene with a family.

97I also find that the Respondent has provided reasons to the Applicant for the way in which it determines intervention with a family, regardless of the family being involved in a family court proceeding or any recommendation made by other “entities” related to the Applicant’s family court proceedings.

98As such, I find that the Applicant has not established that the Respondent made decisions that failed to take into account the content of the Family Court Order and there is no basis upon which to require the Respondent to provide reasons in relation to Issue 4.

Conclusion

99In respect of the Applicant’s complaint in Issue 1, I find that the Applicant was unable to demonstrate that there was an agreement between the parties that there would be a further investigation, and as such, there is no basis upon which to require the Respondent to provide reasons in relation to Issue 1.

100In respect of the Applicant’s complaint in Issue 2, I find that the Respondent did not provide sufficient reasons to the Applicant as to why the Respondent did not address the Applicant’s requests for accommodation for hearing loss prior to being accommodated by Mr. Lewis in November 2018, and why the Applicant did not receive a Safety Assessment and Plan or any other written plan addressing the Respondent’s services to the Applicant and his family.

101In respect of the Applicant’s complaint in Issue 3, I find that sufficient information was provided to the Applicant regarding the factors that were considered by the Respondent in making its decision not to conduct a further investigation and determining that the level of risk or neglect to the Children was below the threshold level of intervention. As such, I find the Respondent has provided reasons related to Issue 3.

102In respect of Issue 4, I find that the Applicant has not established that the Respondent made decisions that failed to take into account the content of the Family Court Order and as such, there is no basis upon which to require the Respondent to provide reasons.

ORDER

103Having heard the evidence, considered the submissions of the parties, and further to my findings above related to the Issues in this Application, the CFSRB makes the following order.

104The Applicant’s Complaints in Issues 1, 3, and 4 are dismissed.

105Within 45 days of the date of this Decision, the Respondent shall send the Applicant a letter providing a written response to each of the following questions:

1. Why did the Respondent not address the Applicant’s requests for accommodation for hearing loss prior to being accommodated by Mr. Lewis in November 2018?

2. What is the plan to which Mr. Lewis refers in the November 28, 2018 Letter to the Applicant when he states that he “would encourage [the parents] to follow the established plan whereby you continue to implement the changes you have made in how you have handled discrepancies with one another” [emphasis added]?

3. Why was a Safety Assessment and Plan or any other written plan addressing the Respondent’s services to the Applicant and his family not provided to the Applicant?

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

106Pursuant 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. This includes all CART transcripts provided to the Applicant as part of the proceedings in this Application. 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.