MH v. York Region Children’s Aid Society, 2024 CFSRB 113

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MH Applicant

-and-

York Region Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Malcolm M. MacFarlane Date: October 22, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 113 Indexed As: MH v York Region Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

MH, Applicant Self-represented

York Region Children’s Aid Society, Respondent Alison Moonsie-Mohan, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application which the CFSRB found eligible to proceed under sections 120(4) 4 & 5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1.

2On July 16, 2024, the parties participated in a mediation facilitated by the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB). The parties reached a settlement with six terms. The Settlement Agreement had an implementation date of Friday, August 9, 2024 and a non-compliance date of Friday, August 16, 2024.

3On Wednesday, August 7, 2024, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB alleging that terms 1 and 2 of the Settlement Agreement were not met. There was no dispute regarding the remaining four terms. On August 22, 2024 the Respondent replied to the Applicant’s allegations of non-compliance in the form of a five page letter.

4A non-compliance hearing was held on September 24, 2024 where the CFSRB Member who facilitated the mediation acted as an adjudicator to hear and decide the allegations of non-compliance.

ISSUES

5The issues in dispute are:

i. Did the Respondent’s closing letter satisfy Term 1 by clarifying that the child did not allege any physical abuse by father and indicated a positive relationship with both parents.

ii. Did the Respondent’s meeting with the Applicant satisfy Term 2 by providing the Applicant with an opportunity to explain and clarify aspects of Islamic culture that may have impacted his situation and the investigation.

RESULT

6I find that Term 1 was not met as the revised closing letter included unnecessary details that rendered the letter unfit for the agreed upon purpose.

7I find that Term 2 was met as I find the key elements of this term have been met.

ANALYSIS

Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with a revised closing letter fit for the intended purpose?

8I find that this term was not met. The Respondent did provide a revised closing letter within the required time frame, but this revised closing letter included unnecessary details prejudicial to the Applicant that rendered the letter unfit for the agreed upon purpose.

9The Applicant argues that the revised closing letter repeats baseless non-verified details. The Respondent argues that additional details in the revised closing letter were needed to provide balance and clarity regarding the reasons for verification based on a balance of probabilities.

10The original closing letter dated November 21, 2023, was one page and contained five paragraphs. It was not clear in that closing letter that the Applicant’s child did not allege any physical abuse by father and indicated a positive relationship with both parents. The purpose of the revised closing letter was to provide this additional clarifying information. The parties were clear that the Applicant hoped this clarifying information would be helpful to him in family court. This purpose for the letter was clear from the language in Term 1 that, “this letter shall be exempt from the confidentiality provisions of the CFSRB mediation process and may be used by the Applicant in court as required.”

11The revised closing letter dated August 1, 2024 expanded to two pages and ten paragraphs. In providing “context” this letter included unnecessary prejudicial information that effectively rendered it unfit for the purpose for which it was intended. For this reason, I find that Term 1 has not been met.

12In an attempt to facilitate an agreed upon outcome for this issue, during the non-compliance hearing I discussed with the parties a revised version of the original November 21, 2023 letter which included a single clarifying paragraph from the revised August 1, 2024 letter stating that the child did not report concerns of physical abuse by the mother or the father. While the Respondent was agreeable to this proposed language and was amenable to it being included in an Order, the Applicant was not in agreement.

13I find that including the paragraph from the August 1, 2024 letter in the original November 21, 2023 letter would address the shortcomings of the revised August 1, 2024 closing letter and clarify that the child did not report concerns of physical abuse by the mother or the father. In my view, adding this paragraph would bring the closing letter into compliance with Term 1.

Did the Respondent arrange for a meeting where the Applicant could explain and clarify aspects of Islamic culture that may have impacted his situation and the investigation?

14I find that Term 2 has been met.

15The required meeting did take place virtually on July 31, 2024, which was within the required time frame. The Respondent’s Equity, Diversity and Inclusion specialist did attend this meeting as required by Term 2.

16The Applicant and the Respondent presented conflicting views of this meeting during the non-compliance hearing. The Applicant reported experiencing some Respondent staff as condescending and uninterested and had issues with the demeanour of the Respondent staff participating in the meeting. The Respondent stated that they were impressed with the Applicant’s sharing and that they experienced the meeting as resulting in a good generative conversation regarding how aspects of Islamic culture had influenced their investigation.

17During the non-compliance hearing, the Respondent’s Equity, Diversity and Inclusion specialist spoke about the learnings the Respondent took from the Applicant’s description of his experiences during the investigation and emphasized the importance to the Respondent of hearing from clients who have been impacted by faith issues. I find the EDI specialist’s description of learnings supports the conclusion that the Respondent did make a genuine effort to hear and understand the Applicant’s experiences.

18While I recognize that the Applicant may continue to feel his concerns have not been fully heard and appreciated by the Respondent, I find that the key elements of Term 2 have been met. For the above reasons, I find that Term 2 has been met.

ORDER

19By November 1, 2024 the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with a revised copy of the original November 21, 2023 closing letter. The text of the new revised closing letter shall be the same as the original November 21, 2023 closing letter except that following the third paragraph in the November 21, 2023 closing letter which ends “which placed them at risk” the following language from the Respondent’s August 1, 2024 letter shall be inserted as a new paragraph between paragraphs 3 and 4:

“F did not report concerns of physical abuse by either you or Ms. N and spoke of having a positive relationship with both of you. She also stated that she missed you and wanted to see you.”

For greater clarity, the text of the new revised closing letter shall read:

“… which placed them at risk.

F did not report concerns of physical abuse by either you or Ms. N and spoke of having a positive relationship with both of you. She also stated that she missed you and wanted to see you.

We have concluded this investigation…”

20The CFSRB’s file is now closed.