CG v Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, 2024 CFSRB 105

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CG

Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan

Date: October 07, 2024

Citation: 2024 CFSRB 105

Indexed As: CG v Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

CG, Applicant

Self-represented

Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, Respondent

Nyasha Size, Counsel

OVERVIEW

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, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

ISSUE

2The issue is:

a. Did the Applicant breach the Confidentiality Order contained in paragraph 10 of the CFSRB’s August 19, 2024 Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report (“PHMR”)?

RESULT

3The CFSRB finds that Applicant did not breach the Confidentiality Order.

ANALYSIS

4On August 16, 2024, the parties attended a pre-hearing at which a mediation was held. The parties reached a settlement of the Application with an implementation date of October 2, 2024.

5On August 19, 2024, the CFSRB sent the parties the PHMR related to the August 16, 2024 pre-hearing and mediation that contained a Confidentiality Order at paragraph 10. The Confidentiality Order provides as follows:

10Pursuant 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.

6On August 23, 2024, Counsel for the Respondent sent an email to the CFSRB referencing the paragraph 10 Confidentiality Order in the PHMR and stating that:

It is our understanding that there has been a non-compliance of the confidentiality Order by CG, and the Society would like [sic] schedule a meeting, if possible, with the CFSRB to discuss this matter. Alternatively, the Society is seeking direction from CFSRB on how to proceed.

7In a Case Management Direction dated August 27, 2024, the CFSRB directed the parties at paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows:

5By Wednesday, August 28, 2024 at 5:00 p.m., the Respondent shall email the CFSRB setting out the specific details relating to the Applicant’s alleged breach of the Confidentiality Order and attaching any documents/things relevant to those allegations. The Respondent shall copy the Applicant on the email.

6By Friday, August 30, 2024 at 5:00 p.m., the Applicant shall email the CFSRB setting out her response to the Respondent’s allegations. The Applicant shall copy the Respondent on that email.

8The Respondent provided a letter to the CFSRB dated August 28, 2024 in which she suggested that the Applicant had shared information with the Applicant’s sister-in-law (“SIL”) during the pre-hearing/mediation. The letter did not include any details of what the Applicant allegedly shared with the SIL. The letter focused on the SIL’s communication to the Respondent; the SIL had shared concerns that the Respondent Counsel knew that the Applicant was at the SIL’s home during the pre-hearing/mediation. The SIL informed the Respondent that “she was not in the room” with the Applicant.

9The Applicant did not respond to the Respondent’s August 28, 2024 letter.

October 4, 2024 Submissions

10On October 4, 2024, the parties attended a videoconference and were each provided with an opportunity to provide further details and submissions related to the Respondent’s allegations.

11The Respondent again stated that the SIL was concerned because the Applicant identified the SIL by name during the pre-hearing/mediation and that the Applicant was at the SIL’s home during the pre-hearing/mediation.

12The Respondent was unable to provide any further details related to the Applicant’s alleged breach of the Confidentiality Order and what the Applicant allegedly told her SIL.

13The Applicant stated that she did not tell her SIL about anything that occurred during the pre-hearing/mediation. The Applicant stated that near the beginning of the pre-hearing, when she was asked where she was located, her SIL came into the room. The Applicant stated that she moved elsewhere to maintain privacy. The Applicant stated that she did not breach any confidentiality.

14Allegations that a party has breached a Confidentiality Order is a serious accusation. The Respondent had opportunities to provide further details about the Applicant’s alleged breach, both in writing and orally at the October 4, 2024 videoconference, but did not do so.

15The fact that the SIL may have heard the Applicant identify where she was located during the beginning of the pre-hearing/mediation does not constitute a breach of confidentiality as contemplated in the Confidentiality Order. There was no information provided by either party to suggest that the SIL heard anything else that occurred during the pre-hearing/mediation or that the Applicant disclosed information protected by the Confidentiality Order to the SIL.

16For these reasons, the CFSRB cannot find that the Applicant has breached the Confidentiality Order.

ORDER

17Finding no breach of the Confidentiality Order, the CFSRB makes no further order.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

18Pursuant 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.