BM v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2024 CFSRB 138

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

BM

Applicant

-and-

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tracy Foster

Date: November 22, 2024

Citation: 2024 CFSRB 138

Indexed As: BM v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

BM, Applicant

Self-Represented

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Rachel Buhler, Legal Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1This Application consists of complaints under section 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (“Act”).

BACKGROUND

2On September 16, 2024, the parties participated in a mediation and entered into a Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement required the Respondent to provide the Applicant with responses to six questions and to “facilitate delivery of the Applicant’s disclosure on or before October 16, 2024.”

3The Respondent sent the Applicant a five-page letter on October 15, 2024 addressing the six questions and confirming that disclosure had been sent to the Applicant on September 27, 2024.

4The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has not complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

5In his initial allegation of non-compliance, the Applicant did not identify specific Terms of the Agreement which he alleged had not been complied with. Following direction from the CFSRB, the Applicant submitted a lengthy (21-page) letter on October 22, 2024 expressing various concerns but still not referring to specific Terms of the Agreement.

ISSUE

6Has the Respondent complied with the Terms of the Agreement?

HEARING FORMAT

7Rule 8.1 in the CFSRB Rules of Procedure indicates that the CFSRB may conduct hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or video-conference.

8Based on the detailed response provided by the Respondent and the letter provided by the Applicant I find that I can decide the issue of non-compliance in writing. Given that no additional evidence is needed for me to decide the matter, it is the most efficient and expeditious approach.

RESULT

9I find that the Respondent has complied with all of the Terms of the Agreement. The reasons for my findings are as follows.

ANALYSIS

10In an allegation of non-compliance, an Applicant may disagree with an explanation given by the Respondent; however, this does not negate those reasons.

Term 1a: The Applicant alleges Worker Sibi Saji denied access to her Supervisor, Stella Boiani, and “hastily” transferred the file to another Worker, Jayashri Kothvale, who immediately went on vacation for one month. The Applicant alleges he was not heard and provided reasons for why a Supervisor meeting was not arranged and the delay in his file due to the file transfer, which he believes put the child at risk.

11In its response, the Respondent indicated that the Applicant emailed Worker Sibi Saji (Investigation Worker) on May 6, 2024, and stated it was no longer a priority to meet with her Supervisor, Stella Boiani. Ms. Saji relayed the message and forwarded the email to Ms. Boiani. On May 9, 2024, the Applicant was offered an opportunity to speak and to meet with Ms. Boiani by Ms. Saji and was provided Ms. Boiani’s telephone number and email address. This communication was followed up to the Applicant in an email the same day.

12The Applicant indicated that he did not decline an in-person meeting, however he did not contact Ms. Boiani “out of respect, [because he] felt it was inappropriate to pressure either Ms. Sibi or [Ms. Boiani] for this meeting.”

13The Respondent submitted that on May 31, 2024, a virtual transfer meeting of Workers took place with the Applicant and included the Investigation Worker, the Ongoing Worker his file was transferred to, and the Supervisors of both Workers. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the Applicant to the Ongoing Worker. The Applicant was informed at this meeting that the Ongoing Worker had a pre-scheduled holiday and was offered the option to contact the Investigation Worker or the Ongoing Worker’s Supervisor in the Ongoing Worker’s absence.

14I find that the Respondent has provided a sufficient explanation that the Applicant was offered an opportunity to contact the Supervisor and provided information to set up a meeting, but he chose not to. I also find that the Applicant was given a sufficient explanation and provided information to contact the Intake Worker or the Ongoing Worker’s Supervisor during the Ongoing Worker’s holidays. Based on the above information, the Respondent complied with Term 1a.

Term 1b: The Applicant alleges he was not provided information for how the child’s safety would be addressed given her mother’s history of mental health issues. How was the child’s mother assessed to have no further safety concerns, to the point the file is to be closed by the Respondent, after only a two-month period?

15The Respondent submitted that it reviewed the ongoing mental health concerns of the child’s mother as alleged by the Applicant and that these concerns were not verified. The Respondent also stated that because the child’s mother acknowledged she was “stressed” due to the strains in her relationship, the file was transferred to Ongoing Services in the event that there were mental health concerns. The Respondent determined that the mother’s mental health was not a risk factor impacting her parenting abilities and made a decision to terminate its involvement with the family. A letter was provided to the Applicant on October 7, 2024, confirming the termination of the file due to no further child protection concerns.

16Although the Applicant may disagree with the conclusion of the Respondent, the Respondent heard his concerns and provided reasons for its decision. I find that the Respondent complied with Term 1b and has provided the Applicant with a sufficient explanation.

Term 1c: The Applicant alleges he was not heard or provided reasons for why Worker Sibi Saji was assigned this file given that she is from the same town in Kerela where he and his wife are from. The Applicant alleges the Worker was biased and she should have recused herself. The Applicant is concerned that there are many instances of child protection concerns with men in their home community, and this could create confirmation bias.

17The Respondent responded that the Applicant did not raise this issue with Ms. Saji’s Supervisor, Ms. Boiani, at the time. However, the Respondent acknowledges the Applicant now raises a valid overall concern regarding worker bias. The Respondent further stated that had he raised his concern at the time, the Applicant would have been informed and assured that Respondent Workers receive a series of mandatory training addressing Worker cognitive bias, and that Respondent Supervisors receive training to ensure that they provide a clinical supervisory model allowing them to provide consultation as to how to address the bias.

18I find the Respondent was not advised of the Applicant’s concerns at the time and that the Respondent sufficiently explained its process had this issue been raised. I find the Respondent complied with Term 1c.

Term 1d: The Applicant alleges he was not heard when he asked for a meeting with Worker Jayashri Kothavale so he could provide her with insight and background regarding his concerns about the mental health of the mother of the child. He met by videoconference with Ms. Kothavale and her Supervisor, Luc Drouin, Worker Saji and her Supervisor, Stella Boiani, as part of a file transfer meeting. The Applicant did not receive any follow up communication regarding the requested meeting with Worker Kothavale.

19The Respondent reported that Ms. Kothavale met with the Applicant by telephone on July 10, 2024 to discuss his file. The Respondent stated the Applicant was verbally confrontational and did not allow the Respondent to ask questions and respond accordingly and the call was ended.

20The Applicant acknowledged a meeting took place with Ms. Kothavale on July 10, 2024. However, he characterized the meeting differently and was not satisfied with their conversation.

21I find that the Respondent provided a sufficient explanation regarding the attempt by Ms. Kothavale to meet with the Applicant to discuss his file subsequent to the file transfer meeting. I find that the Respondent complied with Term 1d.

Term 1e: The Applicant alleges that during the Worker transfer meeting, Supervisor Luc Drouin commented that if “[the Applicant] can abuse his child once, he could have done it in the past.” The Applicant alleges that he was not provided reasons for why the Supervisor made this allegation, which he perceives to be a biased statement, given there was no conviction of abuse by the Applicant.

22The Respondent submitted in its response that Mr. Drouin does not recall a specific statement but acknowledges he may have said something similar. He indicated that the statement would have been based on his extensive work experience that if a person acknowledges one incident of abuse, there is a high probability of additional incidents.

23Although the Applicant characterized the meeting differently than the Respondent. the Respondent did provide reasons for why Mr. Drouin acknowledges why he may have made the statement. I find that the Respondent complied with Term 1e.

Term 1f: The Applicant alleges he was provided conflicting information regarding engaging in the programming with the Male Engagement Worker (MEW) recommended by worker Sibi Saji after only one meeting. These included sessions with the MEW: ‘Mindful fathering program’, Partner Assault Response Program (PARS), and Anger Management through CAMH. The Applicant alleges he was later advised by the MEW that he should not engage in this programming because it may be construed as an admission of guilt in court. The Applicant alleges he was not provided reasons for why he was given contradictory information.

24The Respondent reported that the Applicant met with Ms. Saji in March 2024 and that various programs were discussed. The Applicant indicated his interest in attending the “Being a Dad” program. The MEW Worker confirmed he also later met with the Applicant, though a date was not provided in the response. The Respondent indicated that the Applicant did not advise it at the time that he believed he was receiving conflicting information between Ms. Saji and the MEW Worker. The Respondent stated that the MEW Worker relayed that the Applicant had many questions, one of them being if he participated in the “Being a Dad” program, would this reflect an admission of guilt. The MEW worker explained to the Applicant that the program is geared towards men who want to find accountability in their actions and the program requires participants to acknowledge their role in the conflict in their intimate relationship. The MEW Worker stated he informed the Applicant that the program was voluntary, and it would be up to him to speak with his lawyer if he had any concerns about participating in the program.

25The Respondent explained that they were unaware that the Applicant he felt he was receiving conflicting information and that the MEW Worker informed the Applicant about the voluntary nature of courses and advised him to seek legal counsel if he had concerns about taking them. I find that the Respondent has complied with Term 1f.

Term 2: The Respondent shall facilitate delivery of the Applicant’s disclosure on or before October 16, 2024

26There is no dispute that the Respondent sent a completed disclosure to the Applicant via courier on September 27, 2024.

SUMMARY

27I find that the Respondent has complied with all of the Terms of the Agreement.

ORDER

28The Application is closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

29Pursuant 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.