TEK v. Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, 2023 CFSRB 96

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

TEK Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ivana Vaccaro

Date: November 17, 2023

Citation: 2023 CFSRB 96

Indexed As: TEK v Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

TEK, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel Deana DeGrace, Counsel

Introduction

1The Applicant filed an Application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched. 1 (“the Act”).

2The Child and Family Services Review Board (“the CFSRB”) found the Applications eligible under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. In the Application, the Applicant alleged that the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (“the Respondent”) failed to provide them with

a. an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests were made, or a chance to be heard when they raised concerns about the services they were receiving; and

b. reasons for decisions it made which affected their interests.

3The CFSRB must decide whether the Respondent met its obligations under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act regarding the Applicant’s complaints.

4The Applicant is the biological parent of KA (“the Child”). The Applicant and the Child’s mother are separated. The Child resides primarily with her mother and her current partner, while the Applicant visits with the Child each weekend. The Applicant and the Child’s mother are currently involved in family court proceedings, with each party tabling serious allegations against the other.

5Starting in June 2022, the Applicant reported concerns to the Respondent related primarily to the mental, emotional, and physical wellbeing of the Child while in the care of her mother and her mother’s current partner. Specifically, the Applicant has reported concerns regarding the Child’s exposure to intimate partner violence in the mother’s home, and the mother’s drug use.

6In the Application, the Applicant specifically alleged that:

i. the Applicant was not consulted about the involvement of the Respondent with the Child prior to their own report to the Respondent in June 2022;

ii. the Applicant was not informed about incidents in the Child’s home at the end of January and on February 14, 2023, during which the Respondent was involved with the Child and her mother;

iii. the Respondent has not provided reasons to the Applicant for not intervening with the Child to protect her from harm since April 2022; and,

iv. the Respondent did not provide reasons to the Applicant for not allowing them to record the interview they had on or around July 10, 2023 with Child Protection Worker Charles Thomas (“Thomas”) at the Respondent’s office.

7The hearing was held on October 19, 2023. The hearing was conducted virtually, and the Applicant’s participation at the hearing was facilitated through the use of a Mobile Access Terminal. Both parties filed documentary evidence in advance of the hearing. The Applicant testified on their own behalf. Child Protection Worker Thomas and Child Protection Supervisor Peter Vambe (“Vambe”) testified on behalf of the Respondent. Each of the Respondent’s witnesses adopted their sworn Affidavits as part of their testimony and they were entered into evidence at the hearing. I have considered the oral testimonies of the Applicant, Thomas and Vambe, as well as the documentary evidence filed by the parties, and their closing statements.

8For the following reasons, the CFSRB finds that while all concerns raised by the Applicant were heard by the Respondent, the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for all decisions it made which affected their interests.

The Respondent’s Requests for An Adjournment

(a) First Request

9At the commencement of the hearing the Respondent’s Counsel sought an adjournment of the hearing, or in the alternative, additional time to prepare for the cross-examination of the Applicant during the hearing.

10The Respondent submitted that the Applicant failed to comply with the directions of the CFSRB in its Pre-Hearing Report dated August 24, 2023 (“the PHR”) and its Case Management Direction dated September 22, 2023, which required that each party provide their Witness Statements and all arguably relevant documents in advance of the hearing.

11The Respondent’s Counsel submitted that it would be procedurally unfair for the CFSRB to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Applicant’s documents, particularly given that it was unable to properly prepare for the Applicant’s testimony.

12The Applicant submitted that, although they did not provide a Witness statement, they did provide the Respondent with a copy of the documents they intended to rely upon at the hearing, which the Respondent conceded.

13I find that the Applicant provided sufficient detail in the Application to enable the Respondent to properly prepare for their testimony without the necessity for a Witness Statement, and the issues to be dealt with at the hearing were specifically outlined in the PHR, all of which was available to the Respondent in advance of the hearing. Moreover, any procedural unfairness for the Respondent could be easily remedied by providing the Respondent with additional time during the hearing to prepare for cross-examination.

14Accordingly, the Respondent’s request for an adjournment was denied; however, its request for additional time to prepare for cross-examination was granted. During the hearing, the Respondent’s Counsel was provided with additional time to review their documents prior to the Applicant providing their testimony, and the matter was held down for 45 minutes, after the Applicant testified, to allow the Respondent’s Counsel additional time to prepare for the cross-examination of the Applicant.

(b) Second Request

15After the Applicant had concluded their testimony and prior to their cross-examination, the Respondent’s Counsel requested a second adjournment of the hearing to call Child Protection Worker Charlotte Wood (“Wood”) as a witness to provide rebuttal evidence. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant had provided oral evidence regarding statements allegedly made by Wood during a phone call with them, and that the Respondent should be provided with an opportunity to question Wood regarding that call. Submissions were not required from the Applicant.

16The PHR indicated that the Respondent would call Wood as a witness at the hearing and moreover, that the issues to be determined at the hearing included the involvement of the Respondent with the Child during the time that Wood was the assigned worker. Subsequently, the Respondent did not provide a Witness Statement or sworn Affidavit for Wood and limited its witnesses to Thomas and Vambe only.

17The Respondent should have turned its mind to the necessity for Wood as a witness prior to the hearing, particularly with respect to addressing the first issue to be determined at the hearing. The Applicant had provided the Respondent with disclosure in advance of the hearing which included the CPIN case notes prepared by Wood while she was the assigned worker that spoke to the first issue.

18Finally, irrespective of whether Wood was called to provide rebuttal evidence, the Respondent could still cross-examine the Applicant on their testimony, without adjourning the hearing. Parties are expected to be prepared to proceed on the day of the hearing, and that includes preparing your witness list and witness statements in advance. If a decision is made not to call a witness, the CFSRB assumes that the party making that decision has carefully considered the necessity for that witness in advance of the hearing and determined their evidence is not necessary.

19Accordingly, the Respondent’s second request for an adjournment of the hearing was denied.

ANALYSIS

20The relevant provisions of the Act are set out below:

Subsection 15(2) of the Act provides:

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.

Section 120(4) of the Act provides:

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

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.

Section 120(7) of the Act provides:

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;

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

(e) dismiss the complaint.

21In PO v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara 2012 CFSRB 38 at paras. 14 -15, the CFSRB described the purpose of provisions equivalent to subsections120(4)4 and 5 of the Act in its predecessor legislation, i.e., subsections 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990, C.11, as follows:

The obligations under s.68.1(4)4 and 5 reflect the importance of active participation for parents, providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. This is facilitated through genuine communication, giving applicants the opportunity to have input into decision making and to have enough information to make informed responses to, or accept decisions.

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 her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

22This description of the purpose applies to the current legislative scheme.

23The “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.

24The Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Respondent and for which the Respondent is giving reasons under subsection 120(4)5 of the Act.

ISSUES

25The CFSRB must determine whether the Respondent met its obligations under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act in relation to the issues enumerated in paragraph 6 of this Decision. The key questions which need to be answered are: Was the Applicant given an opportunity to be heard when they raised the enumerated issues? Was the Applicant provided with reasons for decisions the Respondent made which affected their interests?

26I will deal with each issue in the order set out in paragraph 6 of this Decision.

i. The Applicant’s allegation that they were not consulted about the involvement of the Respondent with the Child prior to their own report to the Respondent in June 2022.

27At the beginning of the hearing, in its opening statement, the Respondent conceded that it did not provide the Applicant with reasons why the Applicant was not consulted regarding the Respondent’s involvement with the Child prior to their own report in June 2022. The Respondent maintained, however, that (a) this concern was not raised by the Applicant to the Respondent until they filed an Application with the CFSRB, and (b) the Respondent did not have an obligation to provide notice to the Applicant of its involvement with the Child and her mother prior to June 2022.

28During their testimony, the Applicant stated that they and the Child’s mother had a verbal agreement to co-parent the Child and make decisions together, even though they did not live together, and as such, the Respondent had an obligation to notify them of its involvement with the Child before the Applicant made its own report in June 2022, at which time the Child’s mother had allegedly failed to pick her up from school owing to her drug use.

29The Applicant pointed to the Respondent’s CPIN case notes which covered the period from April 2022 to June 2022 to emphasize that, at the time of its involvement, the Respondent was aware the Applicant was the Child’s father and that the Applicant and the Child’s mother had an informal “custody” arrangement. The Applicant also pointed to the CPIN case notes which disclosed the mother’s drug use and the Child’s exposure to domestic violence in her mother’s home. The Applicant emphasized the entries in the CPIN case notes which referenced the mother’s fear of her partner, her relapse into drug use, her neglect of the Child, and her attempted suicide. The Applicant testified that the Child’s mother had consistently lied to the Respondent and that as a result, the Respondent should not have believed her when she told the Respondent that the Applicant had no involvement with the Child but instead contacted the Applicant to notify them of its involvement so that they could provide their input in the preparation of a safety plan for the Child.

30The Applicant testified that they raised this concern to Wood, while speaking with her over the phone in June 2022. The Applicant stated that Wood heard their complaint, apologized to them for not having consulted with them and indicated that the Respondent should have notified them of its involvement with the Child prior to their report in June 2022. The Applicant further testified that although Wood apologized, she did not and could not provide any explanation as to why the Applicant was not contacted by the Respondent.

31During the Respondent’s cross-examination of the Applicant, the Applicant maintained that the Respondent did not disclose its prior involvement with the Child and her mother until they reported their concerns in June 2022, and that although they raised this concern to Wood, Wood was unable to provide any explanation for why the Applicant was not consulted about their prior involvement with the Child.

32Vambe’s evidence contradicted the Respondent’s assertion in its opening statement that the Applicant did not raise this concern until their complaint to the CFSRB and as such could not have provided reasons. Vambe’s evidence was that the first and second issues were raised during the Applicant’s meeting with Thomas on July 10, 2023, prior to the Applicant filing its complaint with the CFSRB. Thomas’ evidence differed from Vambe’s on this point, in that Thomas’ evidence was that the Applicant did not raise the first and second issues as specified in their complaint to the CFSRB but did raise not being informed of the Respondent’s prior involvement with the Child at the meeting. As to whether this issue was raised in advance of the Applicant’s complaint to the CFSRB, I accept the Applicant’s evidence that this issue and/or concern was raised by them to Wood in June 2022, when she notified the Applicant that the Respondent was already involved with the Child prior to their report. Moreover, as the Act places a positive obligation on the Respondent to provide reasons for the decisions it made which affected the Applicant’s interests, whether the Applicant raised this concern before or after its complaint to the CFSRB does not negate the Respondent’s obligation to provide reasons, even if the Applicant did not ask for reasons.

33I am satisfied from the Applicant’s testimony that Wood did hear their concern regarding the Respondent’s failure to consult the Applicant during their involvement with the Child prior to June 2022. However, given the Respondent’s concession at the outset of this hearing that it did not provide reasons to the Applicant for its decision not to consult with him and the Applicant’s testimony that Wood did not provide them with an explanation as to why they were not consulted but apologized nonetheless, I find the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons why they were not consulted regarding the Respondent’s prior involvement with the Child.

ii. The Applicant’s allegation that they were not informed about incidents in the Child’s home at the end of January and on February 14, 2023, during which the Respondent was involved with the Child and her mother.

34As with the first issue, the Respondent’s Counsel conceded that it did not provide the Applicant with reasons regarding its decision not to consult with the Applicant regarding the incidents which took place in the Child’s home at the end of January and on February 14, 2023, but maintained this issue was only raised by the Applicant in their complaint to the CFSRB and as such it was not provided with an opportunity to address it or provide reasons. I note, however, that the evidence provided by Thomas and Vambe, both witnesses for the Respondent, contradicted this assertion. It was Vambe’s evidence that the first and second issues were raised by the Applicant during their meeting with Thomas, and it was Thomas’ evidence that the Applicant raised not being notified of the Respondent’s prior involvement with the Child at their meeting.

35Moreover, and as previously stated, the Act imposes a positive obligation on the Respondent to provide reasons to the Applicant for the decisions it made which affected their interests. This obligation is not conditional on the Applicant requesting reasons from the Respondent for its decisions.

36The Applicant testified that they did not learn of the incidents of domestic violence witnessed by the Child in her mother’s home until after they received the Respondent’s disclosure in June 2023 and that they raised this issue to the Respondent immediately after learning of it. The Applicant asserted that they had previously provided the Respondent with an authorization letter signed by the Child’s mother in January 2023 for the Respondent to release any and all information to them concerning the Child. As such, the Applicant maintained that the incidents which took place in January and February 2023 should have been disclosed by the Respondent earlier, and if they had, the Applicant would have raised the concern sooner.

37The Applicant testified that they met with Thomas in July 2023 to discuss their concerns regarding the Respondent’s failure to disclose the Child’s exposure to domestic violence in the mother’s home, and specifically at the hands of her mother’s abusive partner in January and February 2023. The Applicant testified that Thomas did not have an explanation for why the Applicant was not notified of the incidents which involved the Child.

38During his testimony, Thomas confirmed that a meeting did take place between himself and the Applicant on July 10, 2023 and that the meeting was scheduled so that the Applicant would be able to express all their concerns to the Respondent regarding its involvement with the Child and he could address his concerns. Thomas also testified that during the meeting he explained to the Applicant that the Child remained in her mother’s care because the Respondent was satisfied that: (a) a safety plan was in place, (b) the mother was connected to community resources, (c) the Child was undergoing child play therapy, (d) there was no concern the mother would relapse into drug use, (e) he was working with the mother, and (f) when Thomas met with the Child in person, she did not report any concerns but appeared to be in good spirits and health. He also explained to the Applicant that if they were not happy with the explanation he had provided, they could contact their supervisor Vambe, which the Applicant subsequently did. Thomas also testified that the meeting was ended by the Applicant after he became angry and agitated with Thomas after hearing his explanation.

39During the Applicant’s cross-examination of Thomas, the Applicant asked Thomas why he did not tell them about the incidents involving the Child in January and February 2023, and Thomas responded that he was not permitted to share information concerning the Child’s mother since she had not given him permission to do so, including information regarding her address.

40Vambe produced a letter written to the Applicant by the Respondent’s Privacy Department dated August 22, 2023 which explained to the Applicant that the authorization previously signed by the Child’s mother was no longer valid and that the Respondent was not permitted to release information concerning third parties. The letter did not, however, state that the Applicant was not entitled to information concerning the Child, which presumably would have included the incidents involving the Child in January and February 2023.

41It is clear from the evidence before me that the Applicant was afforded an opportunity to be heard regarding their concern that the Respondent did not consult with them regarding the incidents which took place in the Child’s home at the end of January and on February 14, 2023, and specifically that a meeting was held between Thomas and the Applicant at the Respondent’s office to address this concern, among others. However, the Respondent did not provide fulsome reasons as to why it did not consult with or notify the Applicant of the incidents which took place in the Child’s home during the said time, particularly since the explanation provided only spoke to its reason for withholding information concerning the Child’s mother or other third parties. This, coupled with the Respondent’s concession that it did not provide the Applicant with reasons, satisfies me that while the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to be heard, the reasons provided by the Respondent, were insufficient to address the Applicant’s concern that they were not consulted regarding the incidents which took place in the Child’s home in January and February 2023.

iii. The Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent did not provide reasons to the Applicant for not intervening with the Child to protect her from harm since April 2022.

42As noted, it is not the role of the CFSRB to determine the clinical wisdom or validity of the decisions made by the Respondent and for which the Applicant alleges he was not provided with reasons. The question the CFSRB needs to answer in respect of this issue is whether the Applicant was provided with reasons why the Respondent did not intervene to protect the Child from harm since April 2022.

43It was clear from the Applicant’s testimony that they fervently disagreed with the decisions made by the Respondent regarding the Child’s protection and even accused the Respondent of colluding with other child protection agencies to cover up the mistakes of its child protection workers and supervisors, and of outright harming the Child rather than protecting her from harm. The fact that the Applicant does not agree with the Respondent’s decisions, does not mean that the Applicant was not provided with reasons. The reasons, however, need to be meaningful so that the Applicant can understand why decisions were made.

44The Applicant testified that, even after they spoke and met with child protection workers, including Wood and Thomas, regarding their concerns and the Respondent’s involvement with the Child, there was never any explanation provided which gave the Applicant any understanding of why the Respondent did not intervene to protect the Child and remove her from her mother’s care. The Applicant maintained that while the Respondent asserted it provided them with reasons, they were simply excuses for mistakes which they characterized as “professional misdeeds” and served only to prejudice the Applicant in the family court proceedings, over and above leaving the Child in an abusive household with a “meth user” as a caregiver. Moreover, during cross-examination, the Applicant admitted that there was no possible reason the Respondent could ever provide which would satisfy the Applicant that the Respondent had carried out its mandate to protect the Child from harm.

45Thomas provided detailed testimony on the reasons he provided to the Applicant after the file was transferred to him in July 2022 regarding the Respondent’s decision not to remove the Child from her mother’s care, and he described attempts to continue to follow up with the Applicant and engage with them to provide support even during the time the Child was residing with the Applicant and not her mother. Thomas testified that the Child was eventually returned to the care of her mother by a court order in the family law proceedings, and at the time of the hearing, the Child’s protection file had been transferred to another jurisdiction.

46During various phone calls and their meeting of July 10, 2023, Thomas explained to the Applicant that he was involved with and supporting the Child and her mother, visiting with the Child on a regular basis, and that he had assisted the Child and her mother in securing supports within the community including play therapy for the Child and safety planning for her mother. Thomas also explained that, when he met with the Child, she was in good health and spirits and did not report any concerns. Thomas emphasized that the steps taken by the Respondent reflected its mandate to try and keep children in their homes while ensuring their safety.

47Thomas also described the various documented communications between Wood and the Applicant during the time that Wood was the assigned worker, wherein she explained to the Applicant (a) why the Child had not been removed from her mother’s care, including that the Respondent did not have the authority to place the Child in the Applicant’s care where the Child’s mother had made appropriate safety arrangements for the Child through familial supports, and (b) that the Respondent continued to assess the safety risk to the Child. The Applicant, however, was dissatisfied with the reasons provided and repeatedly sent Wood text or voice message complaining about the mother’s inability to care for the Child or was confrontational with her when they spoke which made it difficult for Wood to explain her reasons.

48I am satisfied by the evidence before me that the Respondent did explain to the Applicant why it did not intervene to protect the Child from harm since April 2022. Ultimately, the Applicant wanted the Child removed from her mother’s care and placed in their own, after they brought their protection concerns to the Respondent. The Applicant took the position that by the Child remaining in the care of her mother, the Respondent did nothing to protect the Child from harm. It is clear from the evidence that the reasons provided by the Respondent to the Applicant for the steps it did take, and specifically why it chose not to remove the Child from her mother’s care since April 2022, were focussed on helping the Applicant understand its decisions. The Respondent explained how its continued involvement with the Child and her mother through ongoing services enabled it to ensure that the Child was safe and that her safety risk was regularly assessed while she remained in the care of her mother. However, the Applicant was simply not satisfied, nor would they likely ever be, with the reasons provided, and this was obvious given their testimony that nothing the Respondent could say would help them understand or justify the Child remaining in her mother’s care rather than being placed in theirs.

iv. The Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent did provide reasons to the Applicant for not allowing them to record the interview they had on or around July 10, 2023 with the child protection worker Thomas at the Respondent’s office.

49The Applicant testified that Thomas was unable to provide them with “a legal reason” as to why they could not record the meeting on July 10, 2023, but simply refused it and provided false reasons. However, during cross-examination the Applicant admitted that both Thomas and Vambe had provided them with reasons why they were not permitted to record the meeting, but insisted their reasons were a cover up for the Respondent’s mistakes.

50Thomas testified that he was uncertain as to the specific policy regarding recordings and that he wanted to check with his supervisor; however, he explained that it was his understanding that recordings were not permitted to ensure confidentiality, all of which he explained that to the Applicant during their meeting. Thomas also testified that he told the Applicant that if they were not satisfied with his reasons, they could complain directly to his supervisor Vambe.

51Vambe testified that he was contacted by the Applicant on July 11, 2023 who wanted to know whether their meeting with Thomas could be recorded, and specifically whether there was a policy in place which spoke to whether he could do so. During this call, Vambe testified that the Applicant was aggressive and hostile towards him, as he had been with Thomas, cutting him off and not allowing him to speak. Vambe testified that he wanted to be certain of the policy, so he followed up with the Respondent’s privacy specialist before providing reasons in writing to the Applicant. Vambe subsequently sent an email to the Applicant on July 13, 2023 which clarified that the Applicant would be permitted to record meetings; however, only outside of the Respondent’s building to protect the privacy of others.

52It is apparent from the evidence before me that the Applicant’s concern was heard, and they were provided with reasons by both Thomas and Vambe regarding whether they were permitted to record meetings. While there was obviously some initial confusion as to whether the Applicant was permitted to record the meeting with Thomas, that confusion was soon clarified by Vambe in his subsequent email to the Applicant. Although the Applicant may not agree with the reasons provided, that does not negate that reasons were in fact provided.

DECISION

53Regarding issue (i), while I am satisfied that the Applicant was given an opportunity to be heard by the Respondent, I am not satisfied based on the evidence before me that Respondent provided the Applicant with meaningful reasons regarding why it did not consult with the Applicant regarding their involvement with the Child, prior to the Applicant’s own report in June 2022.

54Regarding issue (ii), while I am satisfied that the Applicant was given an opportunity to be heard by the Respondent, I am not satisfied based on the evidence before me that the Respondent provided the Applicant with meaningful reasons why it did not notify them of incidents which took place in the Child’s home in January and February 2023, and impacted her that time.

55Regarding issue (iii), based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Applicant was given an opportunity to be heard and that the Respondent did provide fulsome reasons regarding its decision not to intervene to protect the Child from April 2022, even though the Applicant may not have agreed with or accepted its reasons. Accordingly, there is no reason for the Respondent to provide any further explanation.

56Regarding issue (iv), based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that although there may have been some initial confusion regarding the Respondent’s policy on recording meetings, such that an explanation was not immediately forthcoming, the Applicant was heard and ultimately provided with an explanation by the Respondent regarding whether they were permitted to record meetings. Accordingly, there is no reason for the Respondent to provide any further explanation.

ORDER

57My remedial powers in this matter are restricted to those options in section 120(7) of the Act as set out in this Decision.

58Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with the following:

(a) With respect to issue (i), written reasons why the Respondent did not consult with the Applicant regarding its involvement with the Child prior to their own report of concerns in June 2022; and,

(b) With respect to issue (ii), written reasons as to why the Respondent did not notify the Applicant of the incidents which took place in the Child’s home at the end of January and on February 14, 2023, during which time the Respondent was involved with the Child and her mother.

Confidentiality Order

59Pursuant 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.