AB v. The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, 2024 CFSRB 146

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AB Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan Date: December 10, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 146 Indexed As: AB v The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (CYFSA s.120)

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”). The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

2Further to the CFSRB’s Case Management Direction dated November 25, 2024, both parties made written submissions setting out their respective views on the appropriate hearing format. The Applicant wants the hearing to proceed by videoconference while the Respondent wants a written hearing.

ISSUE

3The issue is whether the hearing in this Application should proceed in writing or by videoconference.

RESULT

4The hearing will proceed in writing.

ANALYSIS

5Rule 8.1 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure provides that the CFSRB may conduct hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or videoconference and sets out the factors the CFSRB will consider in determining the format of a hearing.

The Applicant’s Position

6The Applicant provided four pages of single-spaced submissions relating to her position that the hearing should proceed by videoconference.

7In her submissions, the Applicant provided several general statements about why videoconferences should be preferred over written submissions. The Applicant identified that she was unrepresented and stated that a videoconference hearing would be more accessible and “ensure that [she was] fully supported throughout the hearing”.

8The Applicant submitted that a videoconference would enable her to participate more “emotionally” and in “a more interactive process”. She stated that a videoconference “allows people to react to statements made by others” and provides “for a more thorough discussion” or “conversation”, and that a written hearing “does not allow for immediate back-and-forth interaction”. The Applicant submitted that “[v]ideoconferencing allows a person to express their emotions and concerns in a more personal, human way. The emotional weight of a person’s testimony can be weighed…”.

9The Applicant noted that in written hearings, “you may only get one chance to explain something and a person could inadvertently leave out critical details”. She expressed worry that in a written hearing non-verbal “cues are absent, which may result in misinterpretation of your feelings or intent”.

The Respondent’s Position

10The Respondent states that a written hearing “would be appropriate and in the best interests of both parties”. The Respondent points to the Applicant’s many submissions in the Application and the Applicant’s “ability to express herself clearly in writing”. The Respondent submits that the Applicant has not demonstrated “how or why a written process would be inaccessible to her”.

11The Respondent also submits that the parties and the CFSRB have spent significant time and effort over several months toward “streamlining and addressing the Applicant’s complaint”. The Respondent notes that the Applicant has “focused much of her efforts on outlining issues outside the jurisdiction” of the CFSRB and requested remedies that the CFSRB cannot provide.

12The Respondent notes that there are extensive written submissions already before the CFSRB from the parties that can be used by the parties in a written hearing. The Respondent expresses concern that an oral hearing would be lengthy, prolong the resolution of the matter, and “exacerbate” the Applicant’s confusion related to the hearing.

A Written Hearing is Appropriate in the Circumstances

13Rule 24.2 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure sets out that a hearing under section 120 of the Act may proceed by any format that the CFSRB considers appropriate “unless a party satisfies the CFSRB that there is good reason not to proceed in writing or that proceeding by telephone or other technology will cause significant prejudice”.

14The Applicant has not satisfied me that there is a good reason not to proceed in writing. While she provided submissions on each of the 10 factors that the CFSRB considers under Rule 8.1 of its Rules of Procedure, many of these were generalizations and did not squarely address the factor that must be considered.

15While the Applicant is unrepresented, the written hearing process will allow her time to prepare and review her submissions before filing them with the CFSRB. The Applicant has demonstrated through previous correspondence in the file, and in responding to the November 25, 2024, Case Management Direction, that she can express herself well in writing and within imposed timelines.

16The Applicant appears to misunderstand, at least in part, the process of a CFSRB hearing under section 120 of the Act. A videoconference hearing is not an opportunity for discussion or dialogue between the parties or for the parties to demonstrate the emotional weightiness of their concerns. The hearing in this Application is a formal legal proceeding where the Applicant presents her case, including documentation relevant to the issues, followed by the Respondent presenting its case, including documentation relevant to the issues.

17As referenced by the Respondent, the Applicant seeks relief outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB, including that the CFSRB make determinations about how the Respondent conducted its investigations, carried out its statutory mandate and allegedly violated other legislation, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The focus of the hearing will only be on whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided her with meaningful reasons for decisions that affected her interests. Only evidence and submissions that relate to this focus will be considered by the CFSRB.

18The parties have already filed with the CFSRB many documents that relate to the issues for the hearing. The parties can easily rely upon and reference these in further submissions, thus improving the efficiency of the hearing. While the opportunity for cross-examination would be lost in a written hearing, it does not appear that oral testimony is likely to be needed and the Respondent is content to rely on its written record in response to the Applicant’s allegations. A written hearing will be more efficient than a lengthy videoconference hearing where it appears the Applicant would seek to introduce testimony irrelevant to a CFSRB hearing under section 120 of the Act.

19Accordingly, in balancing all the above, I conclude that the most appropriate format for the hearing is in writing.

ORDER

20The hearing will proceed in writing.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

21Pursuant 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.