CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

RK

Applicant

-and-

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk Date: November 25, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 140 Indexed As: RK v Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

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”). The Applicant is the father of the Child.

BACKGROUND

2At an August 15, 2023 Pre-Hearing (held by teleconference), the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in the Application.

3The Agreement contained nineteen terms. The parties agreed to an implementation date of November 17, 2023 and a non-compliance date of December 8, 2023.

4On December 10, 2023, two days after the non-compliance date, the Applicant sent an email to the CFSRB alleging non-compliance by the Respondent with the Agreement.

5The CFSRB directed the parties to make written submissions as to whether it should proceed with the non-compliance process given the late delivery by the Applicant of his allegations of non-compliance by the Respondent with the Agreement. After considering the parties’ written submissions, the CFSRB directed that a Non-Compliance Hearing be held by way of videoconference on January 5, 2024.

6An Interim Order was made by the CFSRB on January 5, 2024 providing that:

a. The Respondent will provide the Applicant with an unredacted copy of his file on or before Friday, January 19, 2024.

b. The Applicant will provide his letter of disagreement to the Respondent on or before April 12, 2024.

c. The Respondent will confirm in writing with the Applicant and the CFSRB that it has placed the letter of disagreement on the Applicant’s file on or before April 15, 2024.

d. The Applicant will provide his written non-compliance allegations (if any) to the Respondent and the CFSRB on or before Friday, April 19, 2024.

7On February 27, 2024, the CFSRB received correspondence from the Applicant expressing dissatisfaction with the disclosure he had received from the Respondent and alleging non-compliance with the Agreement at pages 1–16 of his correspondence.

8A Case Management Direction was issued by the CFSRB on February 28, 2024 requiring the following:

a. The Respondent will provide the CFSRB and the Applicant with its written responses to the non-compliance allegations (pages 1-16). The Response will address the completeness of the unredacted disclosure provided to the Applicant, as well as his allegations that he could not provide a letter of disagreement as outlined in the Agreement as he was not provided with adequate information in the disclosure.

b. Given the voluminous nature of the non-compliance allegations, the Respondent will provide its written response on or before Friday, April 5, 2024.

c. The CFSRB will review the response and the non-compliance allegations and decide next steps, which may include deciding the issue of compliance.

9A second Non-Compliance Hearing was held on April 18, 2024 to clarify the status of the disclosure and the compliance issues in general. The Applicant confirmed receiving unredacted disclosure, in accordance with Term 3 of the Agreement, on April 4, 2024. However, it was the position of the Applicant that the disclosure was incomplete. The Respondent indicated that it would work with the Applicant to locate any alleged missing notes and requested the Applicant provide a specific list as to what he alleged was missing from the disclosure he had been provided.

10The CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction on April 19, 2024 requiring the parties do the following:

a. The Applicant will provide the Respondent with a detailed list of missing documents on or before May 20, 2024. The Applicant will confirm with the CFSRB that the list has been submitted.

b. The Respondent will provide its written response to the 18 non-compliance allegations (less Term 3) to the CFSRB on or before May 20, 2024. The CFSRB will then determine next steps.

c. The Respondent will accept a letter of disagreement from the Applicant and place it on the file anytime that it is ready.

d. The Respondent will work with the Applicant to address any alleged missing documents in its records. The Respondent will provide the CFSRB with a written report on its efforts to locate the missing documents. The CFSRB will then determine how to address Term 3.

11The CFSRB received two submissions from the Applicant on May 20, 2024. One of the submissions included identification of the documents the Applicant was alleging had not been included in the disclosure provided to him.

12On May 20, 2024, the Respondent filed its response to the 18 non-compliance allegations (less Term 3 of the Agreement), in accordance with the April 19, 2024 Case Management Direction.

13The April 19, 2024 Case Management Direction required the Respondent to provide a written report by May 20, 2024 of its efforts to locate the documents the Applicant alleged were missing from the disclosure provided by the Respondent. The Respondent did not provide this report in breach of the April 19, 2024 Case Management Direction.

14The CFSRB could not make a determination on the status of compliance by the Respondent with the Agreement without the Respondent’s report in relation to the missing documents and, to the extent they had not been provided, its efforts to locate the documents.

15On October 2, 2024, the CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction as follows:

The Respondent will provide the Applicant and the CFSRB with a written report on the status of its disclosure of the documents it was required to produce by the Agreement on or before October 11, 2024. The written report will specifically address the documents the Applicant indicated were missing in his May 20, 2024 submissions.

16At the request of the Respondent, the CFSRB extended the deadline for the Respondent’s written report required by the October 2, 2024, to October 18, 2024.

17On October 18, 2024, the Respondent provided the following to the Applicant and the CFSRB:

a) A letter at 10:57 a.m. stating that the Respondent had searched its system at least twice and provided the result to the Applicant, and that any information that was not included in that disclosure was not known to the Respondent or did not exist; and,

b) An email at 3:09 p.m. stating, “I can confirm that the Society has found the missing records and will be providing them forthwith”.

18On October 22, 2024, the Respondent sent an email to the Applicant and the CFSRB stating, “The Society confirms that the complete disclosure has been sent to the Applicant”.

19On October 24, 2024, the Applicant sent a letter dated October 23, 2024 to the CFSRB and the Applicant that there continued to be documents missing from the record provided to him by the Applicant on October 21, 2024. The Applicant stated that this was the sixth version of his record provided by the Applicant, and the third version of his record provided to him since he filed the Application.

ISSUES

20Has the Respondent complied with the terms of the Agreement?

RESULTS

21After reviewing the documents and submissions before me, I find that the Respondent has met its commitments and obligations as set out in the Agreement and as required by the Act in relation to all the terms of the Agreement with the exception of Term 3. Term 3 will be fulfilled through additional disclosure by the Respondent as set out in the Order below.

ANALYSIS OF NON-COMPLIANCE ALLEGATIONS

22In an allegation of non-compliance, an Applicant’s statement of disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society does not negate or invalidate those reasons.

23The May 20, 2024 submission by the Applicant, sent further to the April 19, 2024 Case Management Direction, included allegations unrelated to the issue of compliance as well as new requests for information. The only issue before the CFSRB is compliance with the Agreement. I have not considered the allegations and claims unrelated to the issue of compliance.

24I have reviewed the written material supplied by the parties related to each term of the Agreement.

25These are the reasons for my findings.

Terms of the Agreement

Term 1 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Respondent will make a request to the Play Therapist (Ms. Swigger-Applicant will provide the contact information for Ms. Swigger) for copy of the Therapist’s written report which was basis for Ms. Swigger’s verbal report to the Respondent. The Respondent will place the Play Therapist’s report on the Applicant’s file on or before September 15, 2023, if it is received.

26The Respondent’s May 20, 2024 response states that it communicated with the play therapist, Heddy Swigger, on May 21^st and June 23^rd, 2023. During both conversations, Ms. Swigger provided a detailed account of her concerns with were documented in CPIN.

27On September 11, 2023, a copy of the Play Therapy Progress Report dated May 25, 2023 was uploaded to the Applicant’s CPIN.

28The Applicant is not satisfied with the response. He makes allegations about the Respondent based on the contents of the play therapist’s report and takes the position the Respondent should be required to provide further information.

29The Applicant’s allegations are not relevant to the issue before me which is whether or not the Respondent has complied with the Agreement.

30I find that the Respondent has complied with Term 1 of the Agreement. It obtained a copy of the play therapy report and placed it in the Applicant’s file which is what it was required to do.

Term 2 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Respondent will explain in writing why Meghan Mason did not reach out to the play therapist to verify the Applicant’s and the Therapists’ concerns with the Child. The Respondent will provide this explanation on or before September 15, 2023.

31As discussed in this Decision in relation to Term 1, Meghan Mason spoke with the play therapist, Heddy Swigger, on two separation occasions regarding the therapist’s concerns.

32The Applicant wants to know what steps were taken in the investigation having regard to the Child Protection Standards of Ontario, what decisions were made and requests the Respondent provide him with the reasons for its decisions.

33Term 2 of the Agreement required the Respondent to explain the reason it had not reached out to the play therapist to verify the Applicant and therapist’s concerns about the Child.

34The Respondent indicated that it had, in fact, spoken twice with the play therapist.

35I find that the Respondent complied with the requirement it provide an explanation regarding its communications with Ms. Mason.

Term 3 of the Agreement (“Term 3”) reads as follows:

The Applicant will be provided with the full disclosure of his file from November 2020 until the present. The Respondent will provide a non-redacted copy of the file once the Applicant obtains a second signed consent from the Child’s mother for unredacted disclosure. The Respondent will also provide the Applicant with an explanation of its redaction policy (e.g. Part X of the Act). The Respondent will provide the full disclosure on or before November 17, 2023, in accordance with the terms of Part X of the Act.

36On December 28, 2023, the Respondent acknowledged to the CFSRB that it had not provided the disclosure required by Term 3 within the timelines in the Agreement. The Respondent asserted that it had since provided the Applicant with the disclosure required by Term 3.

37The Applicant provided the CFSRB with a letter from the Respondent dated December 22, 2023, along with what appeared to be approximately 74 pages of redacted notes. The December 22, 2023 letter referred to a disclosure request made on June 23, 2023 and stated that “there is no information relating to a child welfare service provided to the Requestor. As such, the requestor is not a person who has a right of Access as contemplated by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017”. It was unclear to the CFSRB whether the 74 pages of redacted CPIN notes were disclosed to the Applicant, when, and for what purpose.

38At the non-compliance hearing held on January 5, 2024, the Respondent acknowledged that the disclosure it had provided to the Applicant did not conform to the wording of Term 3. Counsel for the Respondent indicated that the disclosure required by Term 3 would be provided to the Applicant within 10 days. The January 5, 2024 Interim Order required that the Respondent provide the Applicant with an unredacted copy of his file on or before January 19, 2024.

39On February 27, 2024, the CFSRB received a letter, with attachments, from the Applicant alleging that the Respondent had not provided him with his complete record in breach of the January 5, 2024 Interim Order.

40The CFSRB Case Management Direction issued on February 28, 2024 required that the Respondent provide the Applicant and the CFSRB with its written responses to the Applicant’s non-compliance allegations, including addressing the completeness of the unredacted disclosure it provided to the Applicant, by April 5, 2024.

41After reviewing the non-compliance allegations and the Respondent’s response, the CFSRB determined that a second non-compliance hearing was required. That hearing took place on April 18, 2024 and a Case Management Direction was issued on April 19, 2024.

42The April 19, 2024 CFSRB Case Management Direction included a requirement that the Applicant provide the Respondent with a detailed list of the documents he alleged were missing from the disclosure he had received by May 20, 2024, and that the Respondent work with the Applicant to address any alleged missing documents in its records. The Respondent was directed to provide the CFSRB with a written report of its efforts to locate the missing documents. Once it had received this report, the CFSRB would determine how to address Term 3.

43On May 20, 2024, the Applicant provided the Respondent and the CFSRB with a list of documents and portions of documents he alleged were missing from the disclosure he had received. On this same date, the Respondent conceded that there had been issues with its compliance with Term 3 of the Agreement and indicated that it was working with the Applicant to rectify this to his satisfaction.

44The Respondent did not provide the CFSRB with a report of its efforts to locate the documents the Applicant alleged were missing, thereby breaching the April 19, 2024 Case Management Direction. After reviewing the material filed by the parties, the CFSRB held on October 2, 2024 that it could not determine the status of compliance with the Agreement without the Respondent’s report.

45The October 2, 2024 CFSRB Case Management Direction required the Respondent to provide the Applicant and the CFSRB with a written report on the status of its disclosure of the documents it was required to produce by the Agreement on or before October 11, 2024. The Respondent was directed to specifically address the documents the Applicant indicated were missing in his May 20, 2024 submissions. The October 11, 2024 deadline was subsequently extended to October 18, 2024.

46The Respondent’s October 18, 2024 report of the status of its disclosure and its efforts to locate the documents the Applicant alleged were missing, was comprised of a one page letter sent to the CFSRB in the morning followed by an email to CFSRB sent in the afternoon. The two communications were inconsistent. The letter in the morning indicated that the Applicant had been provided with his complete record while the email in the afternoon stated that the missing records had been found and would be provided to the Applicant forthwith.

47On October 22, 2024, the Respondent reported to the CFSRB that complete disclosure had been sent to the Applicant, however, the Applicant disputed this by way of email correspondence on October 24, 2024 indicating there were still records missing from the Respondent’s disclosure.

48Having regard to all the material including the Respondent’s conflicting communications of October 18, 2024, its failure to provide a written report of its efforts to locate the missing document in breach of the April 19, 2024 Case Management Direction, its failure to provide a written report that specifically addressed the documents the Applicant alleged were missing from the disclosure provided to him in breach of the October 2, 2024 Case Management Direction, and the Applicant indicating that documents are still missing from the Respondent’s disclosure, I find that the Respondent has not complied with Term 3 of the Agreement.

49The Applicant’s May 20, 2024 submissions included allegations unrelated to the issue of compliance with the Agreement and new requests for information. The only issue before me is compliance with the Agreement. As such, I have not considered the allegations by the Applicant unrelated to this issue or any new requests for information.

50I have reviewed the May 20, 2024 submission of the Applicant for references to specific documents he alleges there are missing from the disclosure he received. I am requiring the Respondent provide these documents to the Applicant if they have not already been provided, they were records pertaining to the period required by Term 3, and the Respondent does not assert the documents cannot be provided including for reasons of privilege.

51For clarity, the Respondent is only being required to provide the Applicant with missing notes and recordings from his file.

Term 4 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Respondent will place on the Applicant’s file a letter of disagreement in relation to the Respondent’s records. The Applicant will provide the letter after he receives disclosure. The letter will be sent to the Respondent on or before December 1, 2023.

52As of May 20, 2024, the Applicant had not provided the Respondent with his letter of disagreement. His explanation for this is that he could not complete his letter of disagreement until he had fulsome disclosure from the Respondent.

53The Respondent indicated it was agreeable to receiving a letter of disagreement from the Applicant and placing it on the Applicant’s CPIN record and to not imposing a deadline for the receipt of the letter.

54I find this to be a satisfactory resolution of Term 4 of the Agreement. The Applicant remains at liberty to provide the Respondent with a letter of disagreement which the Respondent will place on his CPIN record.

Term 5 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Applicant indicated that he and the Child’s mother do not fight, and do not have conflict in front of the Child. The Respondent will provide the Applicant with a detailed explanation of its concerns regarding the Applicant’s parenting and what led to the verification of harm (exposure to adult conflict). In addition, the Applicant will be provided with directions on what is required of him to prevent the Respondent from lodging any child protection applications in relation to the Applicant. The Respondent will provide this information on or before September 15, 2023.

55In its May 20, 2024 submission, the Respondent provided particulars of the protection concerns that were verified in relation to the Applicant, and the basis for those concerns. The Respondent also detailed its current protection concerns in relation to the Applicant, the goals of its case plan, and what the Respondent is requiring from the Applicant to prevent it from commencing a child protection proceeding.

56The Applicant asks that the Respondent be required to provide him with information related to concerns about third parties, steps taken by the Respondent in its investigation and decisions that it made. All these requests are new and beyond the scope of the Agreement.

57The May 20, 2024 submission of the Respondent is very detailed in setting out the protection concerns that were verified, its ongoing protection concerns, the work it hopes to do with the Applicant, and what the Applicant needs to do to avoid a child protection proceeding. I find that the Respondent has complied with Term 5 of the Agreement.

Term 6 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Respondent will accept and place on the Applicant’s file a report from his therapist regarding the Applicant’s parenting and co-parenting on or before September 15, 2023.

58The Respondent indicated that it had received a copy of the therapist’s report on September 25, 2023 and placed it on the Applicant’s CPIN record.

59The Applicant alleges non-compliance with this term of the Agreement by the Respondent. He takes the position that the Respondent should be required to provide him with information as to the reason it was not known to the Respondent that he had a therapist and other related questions.

60This term of the Agreement required the Respondent to place the Applicant’s therapist’s report in his file. It did so. I find that the Respondent has met its commitments under Term 6 of the Agreement.

Term 7 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Respondent will provide in writing on or before September 15, 2023, an explanation as to why there was no mention or documentation related to Cathy VanDerWerff in the first disclosure the Applicant received from the Respondent.

61In its response, the Respondent confirmed that Ms. Vanderwerff was the child protection worker for the historical investigation which commenced in May 2021. It states that the record for that investigation included the recordings by Ms. Vanderwerff for that period of time (2021).

62In alleging non-compliance, the Applicant states that Ms. Vanderwerff’s recordings were omitted from the first version of disclosure provided to him. The Applicant seeks additional disclosure from the Respondent including the steps taken in the investigation conducted by Ms. Vanderwerff and another individual, Awa Ibrahim, and what decisions were made. The Applicant’s additional requests include a ‘statement of accountability’ for decisions made by the Respondent.

63The Applicant’s requests are outside the scope of the Agreement.

64With regard to the content of its response to Term 7, I find that the Respondent has met its commitments made in the Agreement.

Term 8 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Respondent will provide a written explanation on or before September 15, 2023, as to why Respondent Workers indicated in their case notes that the Applicant’s Child was non-verbal.

65The Respondent’s response is that if the term “non-verbal” was used by any of its child protection workers, it was incorrect. The Respondent states that the Child has been described as quiet and unwilling to speak at times with workers when they attempted to interview her.

66The Applicant is not satisfied with the Respondent’s response. He seeks a statement of accountability for the Respondent’s decision not to interview the Child. There is no requirement that the Respondent provide a ‘statement of accountability’ in the Agreement.

67With regard to the content of its response to Term 8, I find that the Respondent has acknowledged that any reference it may have made to the child as “non-verbal” was incorrect. I find that the Respondent has met its commitment with respect to Term 8 of the Agreement.

Term 9 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Respondent will provide a written explanation on or before September 15, 2023, regarding why there is no mention of a call to the Respondent by Ms. Laurie Forget (friend of the Applicant) regarding allegations of physical abuse to the Child; and why the Applicant’s file does not contain images that were texted to the Emergency Case Manager on May 31, 2021.

68In its response, the Respondent states that there is a record of a telephone call from the Applicant’s sister on May 30, 2021 to the Intake Department in which the sister reiterated concerns the Applicant had already expressed about bug bites on the child. The Respondent states that Ms. Vanderwerff attempted to contact the Applicant’s sister but was unsuccessful.

69Regarding the alleged photographs, the Respondent indicates there are no photo attachments on the record. The Respondent represents that, in the context of this matter, it conducted another search and found no photographs.

70The Applicant makes numerous allegations in relation to the Respondent’s response. He requests a ‘statement of accountability’ and the Respondent’s internal procedure for record checks. The Applicant’s requests are not terms required by the Agreement.

71With regard to the content of its response to Term 9, I find that the Respondent has met its commitments under the Agreement.

Term 10 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Respondent will provide the Applicant with a written explanation regarding the first investigation into the “magic wand” disclosure to the Respondent pursuant to restrictions in Part X of the Act:

• Explanation of the investigation process and methodology

• Why Ms. Cornaccia did not speak with any collaterals in her investigation of the allegations?

• Who Ms. Cornaccia spoke to in her investigation?

• Why police were not contacted and involved in relation to the allegations?

• How reports of historical abuse by the Child’s grandparent factored into the analysis of the current concerns?

• Why Ms. Cornaccia did not find that there were no child protection concerns related to the “magic wand reports”?

72In its response, the Respondent stated that:

a. This was a Face-to-Face Community Link to be completed with the mother. It was not an investigation. The purpose of a Face-to-Face Community Link is to meet with the family, gather more information and provide community resources and information to the family;

b. Collaterals were not contacted as this was not an investigation;

c. The child protection worker assigned met with the mother and the Child. She attempted to interview the Child, however the Child refused to speak with the child protection worker;

d. Police were not contacted as there was no disclosure by the Child. The initial report made to the Respondent were speculations;

e. Historical concerns for the maternal grandfather were considered; the mother denied any sexual abuse by her father and the Respondent does not have any record of the mother being abused by her father;

f. Regarding the “magic wand”, the Applicant’s therapist reported to the Respondent that the Applicant had expressed concern that the Child told him her maternal grandfather had a “magical wand” and he was questioning if the grandfather was starting to groom and possibly sexually touch the Child;

g. The mother reported that the grandfather had purchased a Frozen Princess Wand for the Child and she believed the Child may have referred to it as a ‘magical wand’.

73The Applicant does not agree the Respondent has complied with this term of the Agreement. He takes issue with the Respondent’s handling of the referrals and maintains the Respondent did conduct an investigation. The Applicant makes allegations of recklessness and gross negligence by the Respondent, poses several questions he wants answered by the Respondent including querying whether the Respondent has records of verified or alleged maltreatment of various individuals.

74The questions to be answered by the Respondent under this term of the Agreement are specific and each was answered by the Respondent. This does not appear to be disputed by the Applicant. Instead, he is asking for additional information that is beyond the scope of the Agreement.

75I find that the Respondent has met its commitments under Term 10 of the Agreement.

Term 11 of the Agreement reads as follows:

Subject to Part X of the Act, the Respondent will provide the Applicant in writing on or before September 15, 2023, an explanation as to why the first sexual abuse allegations were investigated (report by someone named Paula on April 25, 2023), while the Applicant’s second report of sexual abuse was not investigated at all.

76The Respondent’s response is that the concerns reported on May 15, 2023 were the same as the concerns reported on April 24, 2023. The concerns had been addressed following the April 24, 2023 report. As there were no new sexual abuse allegations, there were no grounds to open another investigation.

77The Applicant seeks a “statement of accountability” for the decision made by the Respondent not to investigate what he refers to as two mandated reported concerns of sexual abuse, and the reason the Respondent did not physically inspect the Child or interview her outside of the abusive residence and outside the presence of the abusive parent.

78I find that the additional relief requested by the Applicant is just that, ‘additional relief’. None of this relief was agreed upon during mediation and it is beyond the scope of the Agreement.

79I find that the Respondent has fulfilled its commitments under Term 11 of the Agreement.

Term 12 of the Agreement reads as follows:

Subject to Part X of the Act, the Respondent will provide the Applicant an explanation in writing on or before September 15, 2023, why an intake call regarding the Child being taken to her mother’s boyfriend’s trailer was not included in the disclosure he received; and why the Worker chose to follow-up the report with a telephone call rather than in in-person visit as recommended by the Applicant?

80In its response, the Respondent states that there was an after-hours call made by the Applicant to the Respondent on December 29, 2021 that the mother and Child were staying in a trailer with the mother’s boyfriend. A child protection worker attended the mother’s residence for a home visit on December 30, 2023 but the mother was not home. The child protection worker was able to reach the mother over the phone and scheduled an office visit for that same day.

81As to the reason this record was not included in the disclosure previously provided, the Respondent indicates this could have been the result of an error by its disclosure department. The Respondent notes that the Applicant had previously advised the Respondent there were case notes missing from his disclosure. The child protection worker involved at the time, Anthony Sara, contacted the disclosure department in the Fall of 2022 about this. The issue was rectified and the Respondent provided the Applicant with a fulsome record.

82The Applicant alleges non-compliance. It is his position that the Respondent was required to provide the steps taken in the investigation, information as to the decisions it made and by whom. He also asks for a statement of accountability by the Respondent.

83The additional requests by the Applicant are not terms of the Agreement.

84With regard to the content of its response to Term 12, I find that the Respondent answered the question in this term and has therefore met its commitment under the Agreement.

Term 13 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Respondent will explain why there is no record of 10 requests by the Applicant to speak with senior management between December 2022 and May of 2023. The Applicant will provide the Respondent with evidence of such requests (e.g. dates of requests). The Respondent will provide the explanation on or before September 15, 2023.

85It its response, the Respondent states that there is a record of the Applicant’s requests to speak with a Service Manager as follows:

• On December 16, 2022 the Applicant asked to meet with a Service Manager, CPW Sarah Foster advised that the Service Manager was away until December 28th, 2022 and asked to schedule a time for a meeting to discuss;

• On January 10, 2023, CPW Ms. Foster met with Service Manager for the purpose of supervision and advised that the Applicant wanted to meet;

• On January 12, 2023, CPW Sarah Foster sent another email asking to confirm whether the Applicant received the previous email regarding attempts to schedule a home visit to discuss concerns. The Applicant responded on January 14, 2023, again requesting a meeting with Service Manager;

• On January 18, 2023, the Applicant emailed to request a meeting with a Service Manager. CPW Ms. Foster and the Applicant spoke over the phone on the same day and confirmed a home visit for the following week;

• On February 13, 2023, the child protection worker received an email from the Applicant regarding medical follow-ups for the child. On the same day, a Service Manager and CPW Ms. Foster held a supervision meeting at which time the decision was made to close the file as there were no current child protection concerns, the Child’s mother had requested the file be closed, and there were concerns about the impact of the Society’s involvement on the Child;

• On February 15, 2023, CPW Ms. Foster spoke with the Applicant over the phone to hear his concerns and to discuss the Respondent’s intention of providing information in a closing letter for the Children’s Lawyer who it anticipated would resume working with the family;

• On March 1, 2023, CPW Ms. Foster received an email from the Applicant requesting a meeting with her and her Service Manager. Ms. Foster apologized and clarified that she was not aware the Applicant still wanted a meeting with a Service Manager as he had been corresponding about various other matters regarding the Child and had not raised this request since January. The worker provided the contact information for Service Manager Samuel Tusuubira to the Applicant.

• On March 2, 2023, Service Manager Samuel Tusuubira emailed the Applicant and copied CPW Ms. Foster about a meeting and asked if the Applicant had any new protection concerns. Without receiving further correspondence from the Applicant, the Ongoing file was closed on March 14, 2023, and closing letters were sent out to both parents. The correspondence between the Applicant and CPW Ms. Foster that took place after March 14, 2023, was not documented in the Ongoing file as the file was closed.”

86The Applicant claims the Respondent is not compliant with the Agreement. He asks that the Respondent be required to provide him with the steps it took with each escalation attempt and the steps taken by the Respondent to close the file each time it was closed having regard to the Child Protection Standard 8. He also asks that the Respondent be required to provide a statement of accountability.

87The explanation required by this term of the Agreement was provided by the Respondent. The new requests by the Applicant are outside the scope of the Agreement.

88With regard to the content of its response to Term 13, I find that the Respondent has met its commitments under the Agreement.

Term 14 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Applicant e-mailed the Worker a list of concerns with the Child on February 15, 2023. The Respondent concluded that no child protection concerns were noted and closed the file. Subject to Part X of the Act, the Respondent will provide the Applicant with a written explanation on or before September 15,

2023, as to why the Applicant’s concerns not investigated before the file was closed.

89In its response, the Respondent states that it did not receive the February 15, 2023 email on that date. CPW Ms. Foster asked for a copy of the email on August 16, 2023. Ms. Foster consulted with her supervisor and determined that the email would not have altered the decision to close the Ongoing file.

90The Respondent includes in its response the Contact Log prepared by the child protection worker involved regarding a conversation she had with the Applicant on July 25, 2023 regarding his concerns. The Respondent informed the Applicant that it had spoken with the Child on several occasions, and with several collaterals. The child protection worker advised the Applicant of the Respondent’s concern that constant interviewing of the Child, videotaping and reporting to the Respondent was causing emotional harm to the Child.

91With regard to the content of its response to Term 14, I find that the Respondent has met its commitments under the Agreement.

Term 15 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Applicant had arranged for his daughter to meet with 2 police officers to show her that the police were not to be feared. The Applicant reported this to Meghan Mason (the Applicant will provide the Respondent with a copy of the communication). The Respondent will provide the Applicant with an explanation as to why this fact had not been included in the Applicant’s file. The explanation will be provided on or before September 15, 2023.

92In its response, the Respondent states that case notes added to child protection investigations in CPIN include pertinent information regarding child protection concerns and investigations. This piece of information did not seem pertinent in relation to the investigation and child protection concerns and it was therefore not added to the record.

93With respect to Term 15, I find that the Respondent has fulfilled its obligations under the Agreement.

Term 16 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Applicant was concerned with the Child’s disclosure of an assault between her mother and her then partner (June 18, 2023). Subject to Part X of the Act, the Respondent will provide to the Applicant on or before September 15, 2023, an explanation as to the investigation process of this allegation; and what safety plans (if any) were implemented to protect the Child from exposure to domestic violence.

94In its response, the Respondent states that a child protection worker attended the home of the mother on June 29, 2023 to assess this concern. Based on the information received during the meeting, the Respondent determined that there was no evidence to suggest that an assault took place in front of the child and there was no indication that a safety plan was required. The Respondent states there was no evidence on which to substantiate the need for an investigation.

95The Respondent included information in its response regarding the steps taken by a society in the verification process including processes for determining eligibility, investigations, and the verification decision.

96The Applicant raises multiple questions about the investigation for which he requests a response from the Respondent including the persons it contacted during its investigation, whether particular evidence was considered, and steps taken by the Respondent to interview the child privately. The Applicant also requests a ‘statement of accountability’.

97With regard to the content of its response to Term 16, I find that the Respondent has complied with this term of the Agreement. It has provided the Applicant with information as to this investigation including the reason a safety plan was not formulated.

Term 17 of the Agreement reads as follows:

Meghan Mason has indicated that the Child shuts down and this is evidence of exposure to adult conflict. The Applicant argues that the Child only shuts down after she has reported abuse, and been asked about any allegations, and that the Child has been scared by her mother if she discloses any allegations. The Applicant would like to know on what basis Respondent staff have verified the allegations that the child has shut down, and how they have factored in the reports of the Child’s mother threatening the child if she makes any disclosures. The Respondent will provide a written explanation on or before September 15, 2023, subject to Part X of the Act.

98In its response, the Respondent explained that its basis for saying the Child has shut down during interviews is the following: child protection workers have tried to interview her on numerous occasions and she does not speak; she appears nervous as evidenced by burying her face into her mother, running away from workers as well as looking at her mother and saying “no” when a worker has asked to meet with her.

99Regarding the reasons for the Child shutting down, the Respondent states there is no evidence to support that this is the result of the mother threatening the Child not to speak about any allegations. The Respondent notes that there could be many reasons for the Child to shut down when interviewed by a child protection worker. The Respondent indicates that it has significant concerns that the continual allegations by the Applicant against the mother, the Applicant’s continual interviewing of the Child regarding allegations, the messaging the Child receives from the Applicant about her mother as well as her likely conflicted feelings of love towards her mother, lead her to shut down when questioned by third parties. The Respondent also cites considerations regarding her age and how much she is able to articulate.

100The Applicant takes the position that the Respondent is not compliant with this term of the Agreement. He is critical of the Respondent’s conduct and poses numerous questions arising from the information provided by the Respondent. The Applicant indicates he was not provided with an opportunity to be heard and alleges that the Respondent had failed to investigate according to the Child Protection Standards of Ontario.

101With regard to the content of its response to Term 17, I find that the Respondent has provided the information required by this term of the Agreement. It provided the basis for indicating the Child shuts down including factoring in the allegation of threats by the mother.

Term 18 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Respondent will provide the Applicant with a written explanation on or before September 15, 2023, as to why Meghan Mason verified harm to the Child without speaking to the Applicant or the family doctor (most recent investigation). Subject to Part X of the Act, the Respondent will provide a written explanation for its investigation process and outcome.

102In its response, the Respondent states that the investigation was conducted by Ms. Mason between May 15, 2023 and July 21, 2023. During the course of the investigation, the Respondent interviewed the Applicant on four occasions, once during a home visit and on three occasions by phone, as well as various email correspondences. The investigating child protection worker also spoke with the Child’s pediatrician, Dr. Hanson.

103As noted in this Decision under Item 16, the Respondent provided general information as to the steps taken by child protection agencies during an investigation, including providing links to the Child Protection Standards of Ontario.

104The Applicant asks that the Respondent be required to provide additional information regarding the investigation including the evidence it considered and if a registered social worker or other registered professional was involved or consulted in the investigation.

105This term of the Agreement was specifically for an explanation as to the reason the Respondent verified harm without speaking to the Applicant or the family doctor, and to provide an explanation for its investigation, process and outcome. The Respondent provided this explanation.

106With regard to the content of its responses to Term 18, I find that the Respondent has complied with its obligation under the Agreement.

Term 19 of the Agreement reads as follows:

The Applicant requested a referral to York Hills Community Consultation and Assessment Services in June and July of 2023. Ms. Mason refused to make the referral. The Respondent will provide the Applicant with an explanation as to why he has to wait until his file is moved to ongoing services for the referral to be made. The Respondent will provide this explanation on or before September 15, 2023.

107In its response, the Respondent states that it did not provide a referral to York Hills Community Consultation and Assessment Services (“York Hills”) as its assessment did not suggest the Child met the criteria for this service.

108The Respondent explained that York Hills offers clinical support for social, emotional, and behavioural concerns through various forms of therapy, including play therapy. The Child is currently working with a play therapist and has been enrolled in school. It is the Respondent’s view that these both offer the opportunity for the Child to continue developing her emotional and social skills. It does not believe the Child requires additional professional supports at this time.

109The Applicant requests additional information as to steps taken by the Respondent, the assessments it made and who made them, and the steps taken to determine the eligibility criteria for York Hills.

110With regard to the content of its response to Term 19, I find that the Respondent has complied with its commitment under the Agreement. The Respondent was required to provide an explanation as to why a referral to York Hills had not been made and the reason he had to wait for a referral until his file was moved to ongoing services. The response by the Respondent provided the explanation required by Term 19.

ORDER

111In response to Term 3 of the Agreement, the Respondent will provide the Applicant with the following from the Applicant’s May 20, 2024 list of missing disclosure by November 30, 2024 if the documents form part of the Applicant’s record for the period November 2020 to August 15, 2023:

a. Unredacted pages 109, 115, 120, 166, 176 and 269 of version 5 of the CPIN provided to the Applicant by the Respondent (Paragraph 1);

b. The interview notes and notes related to the Applicant reporting concerns that investigative steps were not followed (Paragraph 8);

c. The notes referenced in Paragraphs 9 and 12, 13 (contemporaneous notes), 17, 20(b), 21, 23, 29 (notes from monthly meetings), 30 (contemporaneous notes), 32 (interview notes), 36 (interview notes by Meghan Mason), 38, 61 (call note), 67, 68, 69(b) and (c), 71 (contemporaneous notes and CPIN record), 72 (contemporaneous notes);

d. Notes and recordings related to the “magic wand” investigation in 2023 and the other investigations referenced by Meghan Mason (Paragraph 15);

e. The service plans referenced in Paragraph 31;

f. The notes related to the decision to close the file referenced in Paragraph 34; and,

g. The contemporaneous notes in relation to the entry on 06/10/2023 referenced in Paragraph 37(a).

112To the extent the disclosure in Paragraph 111 has already been provided to the Applicant, the Respondent will direct the Applicant to where it can be found in the disclosure provided to him.

113If the Respondent takes the position that any of the disclosure in Paragraph 111 of this Order cannot be disclosed due to privilege or for other reason, it will provide the reason to the Applicant.

114The file will be closed once the Respondent has complied with this Order. Until then, I will remain seized of this matter.

115The Applicant shall notify the CFSRB by December 15, 2024 of any alleged breach of this Order.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

116Pursuant 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.