HC v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2024 CFSRB 147

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

HC Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: December 10, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 147 Indexed As: HC v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

HC, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent Diana Castillo, Counsel

Overview

1This is an Application filed on July 22, 2024, 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”).

2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The Applicant is the father of the child, R (the “Child”). The Application relates to concerns the Applicant has about a community caregiver investigation the Respondent conducted in April 2024 at the Child’s school involving allegations of physical harm to the Child. The concerns were not verified.

ISSUES

4The CFSRB’s Pre-Hearing Report dated September 12, 2024, sets out five (5) issues for the Hearing:

1. The Applicant alleges that he was not heard by the Respondent regarding his concerns that his child had experienced abuse at the hands of school staff.

2. The Applicant alleges that he was not heard regarding his concerns that the Respondent’s investigating worker was biased by a presumption that abuse had not occurred.

3. The Applicant alleges that he was not provided with an opportunity to be heard by the Respondent through a formal interview process.

4. The Applicant alleges that he was not heard regarding his concerns about the lack of credibility of the alternative explanation of dermatitis as an explanation for marks on the child’s thighs.

5. The Applicant alleges that he was not provided with reasons by the Respondent for why they did not verify abuse by school staff or with in depth details of the investigation to allow him to understand why abuse by school staff was not verified.

5At the Hearing the Applicant asked to add the following issues:

• The Applicant alleges that the Society failed to protect his child by having an arbitrary risk assessment and therefore failed to follow sections 125(1) and 126(1) of the Act.

• The Applicant alleges the violation of sections 15(2), 15(4), 3(2), 8(2), and 8(1) of the Act.

6After hearing submissions from the parties, I determined that the Hearing would be confined to the issues identified in the Pre-Hearing Report dated September 12, 2024, and that I would not be adding additional issues for consideration consistent with the CFSRB’s practice of setting out issues at a pre-hearing for the hearing. I would necessarily be considering section 15(2) of the Act as part of my analysis relating to whether the Applicant was heard under subsection 120(4)4 of the Act.

7After reviewing a complaint under subsections 120(4)4 and 5 of the Act, the CFSRB is limited in the orders it may make. It may order a society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant or dismiss the complaint.

8The Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Respondent. The Applicant submitted that he wants the CFSRB to direct corrective or remedial actions, including ordering the Respondent to reopen their investigation and to reassess risk. The CFSRB does not have the authority to order such remedies.

Result

9I find that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns that his child had experienced abuse at the hands of school staff. Issue 1 is dismissed.

10I find that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns that the Respondent’s investigating worker was biased by a presumption that abuse had not occurred. Issue 2 is dismissed.

11I find that the Applicant was not heard by the Respondent through a formal interview process, but that an interview is not required to be heard. Issue 3 is dismissed.

12I find that the Applicant was heard regarding his concerns about the lack of credibility of the alternative explanation of dermatitis as an explanation for marks on the child’s thighs. Issue 4 is dismissed.

13I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with meaningful reasons for why they did not verify abuse by school staff or with sufficient details of the investigation to allow him to understand why abuse by school staff was not verified.

procedural issues

Preliminary issue: Disclosure

14In a Pre-Hearing Report dated October 7, 2024, the CFSRB directed that on or before October 23, 2024, the parties were to disclose all arguably relevant material to each other and confirm in writing to the CFSRB that they had done so. The parties were not required to provide this material to the CFSRB.

15At the October 1, 2024, Pre-Hearing the Applicant expressed concern that the Respondent would not provide enough disclosure of its records. The CFSRB brought to the parties’ attention the CFSRB decision JS v. Windsor-Essex Children Aid Society, 2017 CFSRB 33. This decision explains at paragraphs 19 to 24 that “an applicant must be provided with sufficient information to enable them to make out the complaint and to respond to the case put forward by the children’s aid society.”

16The CFSRB noted in the Pre-Hearing Report dated October 7, 2024, that, if, after receiving disclosure of the file, the Applicant had a concern, he should put it in writing and the CFSRB would address it.

17On October 26, 2024, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB, copying the Respondent stating that he was not given sufficient disclosure by the Respondent to address the case. He explained that he was unaware of the statements made by the Toronto District School Board, the teacher/assistant, or any other school personnel.

18On November 5, 2024, the CFSRB communicated to the Applicant by email that his concerns regarding the Respondent’s disclosure would be addressed at the Hearing.

19At the Hearing on November 14, 2024, the Applicant acknowledged that he had been provided disclosure regarding his interactions and communication with the Respondent. He argued that he had not been provided disclosure including the in-depth details of the Respondent’s community caregiver investigation into school personnel.

20The Respondent argued that they had provided sufficient disclosure to the Applicant to address the issues before the CFSRB and that he was seeking disclosure regarding their investigation, including personal information of school staff that cannot be released under Part X of the Act. The Respondent argued that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction under Part X and that to obtain this information the Applicant would have to seek a remedy through the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

21On hearing from both parties, considering the issues set out in the Pre-Hearing Report dated September 12, 2024, and bearing in mind the remedies available to the Applicant under section 120(7) of the Act I determined that further disclosure was not required and that the Hearing would proceed.

Preliminary Issue: Witnesses

22At the October 1, 2024, Pre-Hearing before the CFSRB, the parties identified witnesses they intended to call at the Hearing. The Applicant identified that he intended to testify and would call one witness and the Respondent’s Legal Counsel identified that the Respondent intended to call two witnesses. The CFSRB’s Direction related to that Pre-Hearing directed the parties to file witness statements on or before November 1, 2024, that contained a detailed summary of what their witnesses would say if they testified at the Hearing. The Applicant filed an Affidavit sworn by him and a witness statement for his wife, DSB. The Respondent filed an Affidavit sworn by Society Worker, MS.

23Paragraph 10 of the Pre-Hearing Report dated October 8, 2024, set out “at the hearing, the CFSRB member will determine whether any particular witness will be heard based upon relevance and other usual considerations”.

24At the Hearing, the Respondent’s Legal Counsel identified that she would only be calling one witness, Society Worker MS.

25The Applicant challenged the admissibility of MS’s affidavit stating:

• Lack of Authority – The Applicant alleged MS was a child welfare worker, not a child protection worker.
• Procedural Fairness – The Applicant alleged MS did not follow proper protocols during her investigation, which undermined the reliability of her affidavit.
• Inadequate Investigation – The Applicant alleged that MS’s affidavit was based on an investigation that failed to explore all relevant avenues, therefore, it lacked credibility.
• Hearsay – The Applicant alleged that MS. affidavit contained statements based on hearsay, rather than direct observation or facts.
• Insufficient Detail – The Applicant alleged that MS’s affidavit lacked sufficient detail or substantiation regarding the facts or findings in presented and, therefore should be considered less credible.
• Bias or Conflict of Interest – The Applicant alleged that MS’s affidavit suggests that she had a bias or conflict of interest that would affect the credibility of her testimony.
• Expertise or Qualifications – The Applicant alleged that MS’s qualifications as a child welfare worker as opposed to a child protection worker and lack of specialized training compromised the integrity of her testimony.

26I found on my review of MS’s affidavit that MS’s evidence was relevant to several of the issues before me at the Hearing. I informed the parties that I would consider their submissions related to the weight I should attribute to the evidence. I admitted the Affidavit of MS into evidence.

27I found on my review of DSB’s witness statement that she did not have independent information related to any of the five Issues at the Hearing. Accordingly, I found that while the Applicant’s proposed witness may have information related to the Child and the Applicant, the Applicant’s proposed witness was unable to provide relevant evidence related to any of the issues at the Hearing and her evidence would be repetitive. I, therefore ruled that DSB would not testify.

Preliminary Issue: Qualification of MS as a child protection worker

28Throughout the Applicant’s submissions and evidence, he expressed the concern that MS was a “child welfare worker” and not a child protection worker and therefore in violation of the Ontario Child Protection Standards in conducting an investigation.

29MS testified that she is an authorized Child Protection Worker and has been for ten (10) years. She explained that her job title is Senior Child Welfare Worker – Community Caregiver Assessments.

30I accepted MS’s sworn testimony and find as a fact that MS is a Child Protection Worker.

Preliminary Issue: Exhibits

31Throughout the Hearing both the Applicant and the Respondent referred to documents that they asked to be filed as Exhibits that had not previously been filed with the CFSRB. I admitted these Exhibits, which were Exhibits 2 through 10 and 13 through 16. Given that the Respondent had a complete record of communications between the parties available the Respondent offered to provide these exhibits on behalf of itself and the Applicant. I directed the Respondent to file these Exhibits with the CFSRB no later than November 21, 2024, and to copy the Applicant.

32The Respondent filed a “Book of Documents”, including the outstanding exhibits on November 21, 2024.

Analysis

Issue 1: The Applicant alleges that he was not heard by the Respondent regarding his concerns that the Child had experienced abuse at the hands of school staff

33I find that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns that his child had experienced abuse at the hands of school staff.

34Section 120(4)4 of the Act provides that allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2) may be reviewed by the CFSRB. Section 15(2) of the Act states that:

Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.

35The CFSRB has explained the right to be heard under section 120(4)4 of the Act as follows:

To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33 (para 14).

36The Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Respondent.

37The burden of proof on whether he was heard sits with the Applicant. The Applicant must show on a “balance of probabilities” that it was more likely than not that facts occurred as he has alleged.

38MS stated that on April 19, 2024, the Child’s school reported to the Respondent that the Applicant had reported concerns to the school administration that the Child had returned home from school on April 18, 2024, with 2 large red marks or bruises on the backs of his thighs. She stated that the Respondent immediately opened a community caregiver investigation. The Respondent consulted with the Toronto Police Service, who declined to participate in the initial investigation.

39The Applicant testified that MS telephoned him at 1:20 on April 19, 2024, explaining that the Respondent had opened an community caregiver investigation in response to the report received from the school and asking that the Applicant attend with the Child at the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (“SCAN”) Clinic at Sick Kids Hospital. MS stated that during this 15-minute call, the Applicant provided her with an overview of his concerns. Following this call the Applicant sent MS updated photos of the marks.

40The Applicant stated that at approximately 3:09 on April 19, 2024, MS again contacted him by telephone to confirm the appointment with the SCAN clinic and offered to pay for a taxi to transport him to Sick Kids Hospital.

41The SCAN clinic assessment occurred at approximately 5:00 pm on April 19, 2024. The SCAN physician provided a written report to the Respondent of her assessment and left a voicemail advising MS of her findings that day.

42The Applicant testified that MS called him on April 22, 2024, to inquire about his SCAN clinic experience. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the SCAN clinic, especially the doctor’s viewpoint regarding the use of chemicals and dermatitis. The Applicant said that he advised MS to get a second opinion and to engage a private forensic investigator. Following this phone conversation, the Applicant emailed MS a URL including information regarding other technology that might be used to examine the bruises.

43On April 25, 2024, MS met with the Child alongside the Applicant in the parking lot near their home. The Child was not interviewed as he is non-verbal. MS testified that this was a 45-minute meeting. A Contact Log authored by MS documents this meeting. MS stated that the Applicant told her that he was confident that the educational assistant or classroom teacher hit his son with great force and that an argument that the Applicant had with the staff the morning of April 18, 2024, was the motive for the physical abuse. The April 26, 2024 Contact Log documents that the Applicant told MS about concerns he had the previous year when his son would not allow anyone to touch him when he returned from school. The Applicant testified that he told MS that physical assault was a crime and that while he would let her conduct an independent investigation, he would pursue it further if she “was unsuccessful”. He also raised his concerns about SCAN completing only a “naked eye” examination.

44The Applicant testified that following this meeting he emailed MS. His email states, “I strongly believe that both the teacher and the assistant teacher/the person who changed the diaper are involved in my child’s physical injury. Both of them knew the incidents and they did it in a joint collaboration.”

45MS testified that following this meeting, on April 25, 2024, she gathered statements from five (5) classroom staff and two (2) administrators regarding the Child and his routine and care on April 18, 2024.

46The immediate opening of a community caregiver investigation and the response time by the Respondent demonstrate that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns that his child had experienced abuse at the hands of school staff, took those concerns seriously, and investigated accordingly.

47I find that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns that his child had experienced abuse at the hands of school staff.

Issue 2: The Applicant alleges that he was not heard regarding his concerns that the Respondent’s investigating worker was biased by a presumption that abuse had not occurred

48I find that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns that the Respondent’s investigating worker was biased by a presumption that abuse had not occurred.

49The Applicant testified that during his meeting with MS on April 25, 2024, he became concerned that MS doubted the Applicant’s insistence that the marks on the Child were caused by the Child’s classroom teacher and/or his educational assistant in retaliation for an argument that the Applicant had with the same staff on the morning of April 18, 2024. The Applicant, therefore, told MS that physical assault was a crime that could result in an indictment. He informed MS that although he would let her conduct an independent investigation, he would pursue it further if she was unsuccessful.

50MS testified that during the first phone conversation with the Applicant on April 19, 2024, she provided an overview of the community caregiver investigation process and possible outcomes to the Applicant. The Applicant consented to the community caregiver investigation. On April 25, 2024, during their meeting, MS explained to the Applicant that the Respondent was proceeding with an unbiased lens and would be examining all aspects of the Child’s care that day, including other staff caring for him, in addition to the teacher and educational assistant and the possibility of a chemical reaction.

51The overview of the investigative process provided by MS and her explanations to the Applicant regarding her intention to proceed with an unbiased lens demonstrated that she heard the Applicant and responded to his concerns.

52I find that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns that the Respondent’s investigating worker was biased by a presumption that abuse had not occurred.

Issue 3: The Applicant alleges that he was not provide with an opportunity to be heard by the Respondent through a formal interview process

53I find that the Applicant was not heard by the Respondent through a formal interview process, but that an interview is not required to be heard.

54As noted above the Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Society.

55MS testified that community caregiver investigations in institutional settings utilize a “traditional” approach to investigation. MS testified that pursuant to Standard #2 of the Ontario Child Protection Standards the investigative steps for a community caregiver investigation differ from those of a family-based investigation. Interviews with the alleged victim(s), staff witnesses (current and former), child witnesses, facility administrator, supervisor of the alleged perpetrator and the alleged perpetrator are required. The standards do not require an interview with the caregiver of the victim child.

56While MS did not interview the Applicant, she did have a phone conversation with him on both April 19, 2024, and April 22, 2024, and a face-to-face meeting on April 25, 2024, during which time the Applicant had an opportunity to be heard.

57I find that a formal interview was not required for the Applicant to be heard.

Issue 4: The Applicant alleges that he was not heard regarding his concerns about the lack of credibility of the alternative explanation of dermatitis as an explanation for marks on the child’s thighs

58I find that the Applicant was heard regarding his concerns about the lack of credibility of the alternative explanation of dermatitis as an explanation for marks on the child’s thighs.

59I find that this issue is addressed in the evidence of MS. On April 22, 2024, MS spoke with the Applicant by phone. During this 20-minute call, the Applicant shared with her that he did not agree with the SCAN clinic’s assessment as they use the “naked eye examination” and did not use the correct technology. During the call, he emailed MS a link to a website that explained technology involving a camera with illumination that can see below the skin’s surface. MS testified that she reviewed this information. MS testified that during the conversation on April 22, 2024, she explained to the Applicant that SCAN works with the Toronto Police Service and that SCAN’s assessments are often used as evidence that is presented in Court proceedings.

60On April 29, 2024, MS spoke to the SCAN physician. She discussed the Applicant’s concerns regarding the SCAN assessment and that illumination lights were not used. The doctor advised MS that she was unfamiliar with illumination lights and that they do not use this technology to assess. They rely on academic literature and follow recommendations in the literature. She stated that other SCAN doctors also consulted on the case as well.

61The Applicant shared his views regarding the SCAN assessment with MS and sent her information about other assessment methods, which MS testified she reviewed. She also reviewed the Applicant’s concerns and his suggestions with the SCAN physician, demonstrating not only that she heard the Applicant’s concerns, but followed up on them with diligence.

62I find that the Applicant was heard regarding his concerns about the lack of credibility of the alternative explanation of dermatitis as an explanation for marks on the child’s thighs.

Issue 5: The Applicant alleges that he was not provided with reasons by the Respondent for why they did not verify abuse by school staff or with in depth details of the investigation to allow him to understand why abuse by school staff was not verified

63I find that the Applicant was not provided with meaningful reasons by the Respondent for why they did not verify abuse by school staff or with sufficient details of the investigation to allow him to understand why abuse by school staff was not verified.

64Section 120(4)5 of the Act states that the CFSRB may review allegations that a society has failed to provide a complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests. The “right to reasons” under the Act is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. In J.G. v Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held at para 13 that:

A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how a decision was made.

65At the Hearing, the Applicant and MS recalled their speaking on the phone on April 19 and April 22 and meeting on April 25, 2024. Thereafter, there was no communication between the Respondent and the Applicant until June 3, 2024, when the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent requesting an update on the investigation. The Applicant testified that he was waiting to see MS’s final decision on the case. The Applicant’s email stated, “I would like an update on your investigation of my child’s incident that occurred at (school) on April 18, 2024. Kindly let me know the names of the teachers and assistant teachers who were assigned to my child’s class on April 18, 2024. I would be very appreciative if you could provide me with a timeframe of your inquiry.”

66MS testified that on June 6, 2024, she met with Community Caregiver Supervisor SSJ for a verification conference. A decision was made by MS and SSJ not to verify the allegation of “physical force and/or maltreatment” as the Respondent did not find sufficient evidence to support this verification.

67MS testified that later on June 6, 2024, MS spoke with the Applicant by telephone and explained that the investigation was completed. This conversation is documented in her Contact Log dated June 6, 2024. MS explained to the Applicant that a thorough investigation was completed including speaking with all the staff who interacted with the Child on April 18, 2024, including the people the Applicant had identified. MS advised the Applicant that SCAN had told her that the marks could be skin irritation. She explained that based on all the information collected and using their scale, which is a balance of probability, that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the marks on the Child were the result of child abuse. The Applicant requested the SCAN report. MS advised him to seek it from Sick Kids directly. The Applicant also requested the names of the caregivers of the Child on April 18, 2024. MS advised the Applicant that she could not provide that information, but that the school might be able to. MS advised the Applicant that she would send him information on their disclosure and complaint process. The Applicant requested an outcome in writing.

68MS sent an outcome letter to the Applicant dated June 11, 2024, and filed as Exhibit 13. The letter stated, “This is to inform you that the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto was investigating an allegation that [the Child] had red marks on the back of [their] thigh and this was caused by staff caregiving for [them]. At the time of the allegations [the Child] was attending…..School. The allegation of physical harm was not verified. If you have any further questions, please contact me at….”

69The letter did not provide any information as to the details of the verification process, for example how the historical information the Applicant provided was considered; how the Child’s vulnerability factors were considered; and the setting related factors that were considered, which may have included the investigation into alternative explanation of dermatitis as an explanation for marks on the child’s thighs.

70Supervisor SSJ spoke to the Applicant by phone on June 12, 2024, which is documented in a Contact Log authored by SSJ on that date.. She explained in general the structure of a community caregiver investigation, explaining they look for details, context and consider credibility. The Applicant asked for details on what this means. SSJ explained they look for details, consistency, clarity of statements, and consulting with school administration who can advise if there is any history of staff not providing accurate information. SSJ’s Contact Log says that she told the Applicant she was sorry “they couldn’t get information of what exactly led to his son sustaining the marks or what the marks even were”, but that that was the purpose of conducting a full investigation and they had reached a conclusion and were not able to reinvestigate. The Applicant raised his concerns about the SCAN assessment. SSJ confirmed that SCAN is the clinic the Respondent consults with, they are leaders in child abuse and neglect, and they did not have information to suggest that they needed other opinions. SSJ welcomed the Applicant to follow the complaints process, noting though that the complaints process itself would not re-investigate or be able to say or find out what happened to the Child.

71The Applicant attended an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting with the Respondent on July 15, 2024. The Applicant received a letter dated July 19, 2024, with a summary from the meeting from Manager of Client Services, TP.TP’s letter acknowledges the Applicant’s dissatisfaction with the investigation the Respondent conducted regarding alleged physical harm to the Child, specifically citing that the Applicant was not interviewed nor consulted prior to the closing of the investigation case. The letter states,

We appreciate that, from your perspective, you would have liked the worker to speak with you again prior to making a verification decision, but the Society is restricted from sharing certain information due to privacy laws…The reasons for the Society’s decision to not verify physical harm were explained to you in a phone call you had with the worker on June 6, 2024. The verification decision was made “on the balance of probabilities,” which is the threshold that children’s aid societies are required to use in accordance with the Ontario Child Protection Standards (2016)…While the Society is limited in the amount and type of information we can share with parents regarding community caregiver investigations, I will review our process to determine if there are ways in which we can be more transparent with caregivers whose children are the focus of these investigations.

72Even if the Respondent felt constrained in providing some information to the Applicant about its determination due to its interpretation of particular sections under Part X of the Act, the Applicant was entitled to know the factors that the Respondent would consider as part of any institutional community caregiver investigation so that the Applicant would have had at least some understanding of how the Respondent concluded that there was insufficient information to verify that child abuse had taken place. Moreover, when a children’s aid society asserts that it is prevented from providing certain information to a parent due to legislation, it needs to identify in plain language what that legislation says and how it constrains it. (GA v Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services, 2022 CFSRB 46 para. 25)

73It is not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to determine whether a request by the Applicant for at least some information to help him understand the lack of verification is a request that ought to be denied due to the application of sections of Part X of the Act. Those determinations are made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

74The Respondent cannot merely cite “Part X” as a reason for not providing information to the Applicant. The Respondent has an obligation to provide meaningful reasons about the substance of an issue, or at least a meaningful explanation as to why the Applicant’s questions about decisions made by the Respondent cannot be provided. (GA v Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services, 2022 CFSRB 46 para 31)

75In my view, based on the evidence of the Applicant and the Respondent, I find that he was not given sufficient explanation of the Society’s community caregiver investigation and how it was conducted. No one explained to the Applicant the various aspects of a community caregiver investigation and how these were considered at the culmination of the investigation and taken into consideration in the verification process. While the outcome may have been the same and the Applicant may still have been unsatisfied, he reported very concerning information about his son’s treatment at school. Greater care and attention were needed in the feedback given to him after the investigation. MS completed her interviews with school staff on April 25, 2024, and spoke to the SCAN physician on April 29, 2024. She made no contact with the Applicant thereafter to explain anything to him, until he initiated contact on June 3, 2024. Thereafter MS had a single telephone conversation with the Applicant and sent a cursory closing letter.

76For the above reasons, I find that the Applicant was not provided with meaningful reasons by the Respondent for why they did not verify abuse by school staff or with sufficient details of the investigation to allow him to understand why abuse by school staff was not verified.

order

77Issues 1, 2, 3, and 4 are dismissed.

78Issue 5 is upheld. Within 30 days the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant containing the following:

a) A general explanation of how a community caregiver investigation works; what verification means and what factors are considered in reaching a verification decision; what the process is to provide feedback to the reporting person/parent; and what authority the Respondent has to direct or make recommendations to a school or school board, including what follow up they do.

b) A clear and understandable explanation regarding its investigation process regarding the April 19, 2024 report, including what steps were taken by the investigating worker, what consideration was given to the history provided by the Applicant regarding difficulties with the Child’s school; how the Child’s vulnerability factors were considered; and the setting related factors that were considered, including details of the investigation into the alternative explanation of dermatitis as an explanation for marks on the child’s thighs.

c) Where the Respondent takes the position that it is limited in its ability to respond in part or fully the Respondent shall: (a) set out the specific section(s) of the Act that, in its view, impact(s) its ability to respond to the question; and (b) provide an explanation in plain language to the Applicant about how, in its view, the section(s) apply in relation to the Respondent’s inability to provide partial or full information.

confidentiality order

79Pursuant 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.