RE v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2024 CFSRB 21

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

RE Applicant

-and-

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tracy Foster Date: March 04, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 21 Indexed As: RE v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

RE, Applicant Self-Represented

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Rachel Buhler, Legal Counsel

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”).

BACKGROUND

2The Applicant and the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Respondent”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation held on November 17 and 22, 2023 providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in the application submitted on October 17, 2023 to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

3The Agreement consisted of eight terms expressed as topics by the Applicant, which sought reasons and/or explanations from the Respondent. Three additional terms included:

• the Respondent to arrange an in-person meeting with the Applicant and her support person within five (5) business days to explain the written reasons and/or explanations that were sent;
• a commitment by the Respondent to make its best efforts to communication with the Applicant within the receipt of communications from them; and
• the Applicant to summarize in writing details of what she disputes in her file, and to provide this to the Respondent within five (5) business days. The Respondent would review the information provided by the Applicant and advise the Applicant whether it was possible to add the information to her file, and if so, provide the Applicant with details on how to do this.

4An implementation date of December 18, 2023, and a compliance date of December 27, 2023 were agreed by both parties. The Respondent provided detailed responses to the terms in a letter dated December 14, 2023.

5On December 27, 2023 the Applicant sent an email outlining the reasons why she did not believe the Respondent complied with the Terms.

6The CFSRB held a hearing by videoconference on February 8, 2024 to determine whether the Respondent had complied with the Agreement.

DECISION

7After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, and hearing their arguments during the videoconference, I find that the Respondent complied with Terms 1c, 1e, 1f, 1g and 1h of the Agreement. The Applicant conceded that the Respondent complied with terms 1a and 1b. I find that the Respondent partially complied with Term 1d and was not in compliance with Terms 2 and 3. I have issued Orders below. The Applicant did not complete her requirement for the Respondent to comply with Term 4, therefore I find that Term 4 is not subject to the non-compliance allegations. The reasons for my findings follow.

ANALYSIS

Term 1c: Why is the Applicant’s access limited?

8In its response, the Respondent indicated that the frequency of access has been determined to be in the child’s best interest and that the Respondent is complying with the minimum access as ordered by the Court. The Respondent submitted that there is no plan for reunification and does not see any benefit in extending access.

9During the videoconference and in written materials, the Applicant attempted to give specific examples of the limitations of her access. The agreed upon Term was for the Respondent to explain why the Applicant’s access has been limited and not to address specific situations.

10Though the Applicant may not agree with the Respondent’s decision, she has been provided a sufficient explanation as to why her access has not been extended. I find that based on the above information, the Respondent complied with Term 1c.

Term 1d: How was the assessment of the Applicant’s parenting style reviewed and verified and why did sections on the end risk reunification documentation appear blank?

11The Applicant submitted that she was not provided an answer as to how the assessment was completed and why her parenting skills were deemed “abusive and disruptive in nature.”

12The Respondent indicated the form is automated and did not allow the worker to continue populating the form based on the Applicant’s score on the risk assessment at the outset of the form.

13The Respondent acknowledged during the videoconference that how the assessment was completed was not answered. The Respondent explained that the Applicant’s parenting style was reviewed and assessed over many months, through a long process. The Respondent notes all of this has been documented and sent to the Applicant previously, and it would be a matter of re-sending the materials, which they are able to do.

14I find that the Respondent partially complied with Term 1d but has not provided the Applicant with an adequate explanation and materials in response to the Term in the Agreement. Rather than re-sending previous materials to the Applicant, the Respondent shall also provide a short summary of the process in which the assessment was completed, and conclusions made of the Applicant’s parenting style.

Term 1e: Why was there no initial reunification assessment completed, or if one was completed, why was it not disclosed?

15The Respondent responded that no reunification assessment is completed when a child is in a parent’s care – rather there is a Safety Assessment and then an Ontario Strength and Needs Assessment completed at that stage (when child was still in Applicant’s care). The Respondent also provided a copy of the completed reunification assessment.

16The Applicant argued that the child was removed from her care at the age of six months, over two years ago and said she did not receive any documentation at the time.

17I find the Respondent complied with Term 1e. The Respondent’s answer to the Applicant was direct, and explained the process for what predicates a reunification assessment.

Term 1f: Why did the Respondent not proceed with random drug testing or hairstrand testing of the Applicant and why was the Applicant not reimbursed for the hairstrand testing she paid for?

18The Respondent reported that on April 15, 2015, the Ministry provided direction that the children’s aid societies were no longer allowed to rely on hairstrand testing for alcohol and drug use. They further indicated, given this direction, the branch manager would not have agreed to reimburse the costs. The Respondent also explained the Society’s current practices regarding concerns surrounding substance abuse concerns.

19The Applicant submitted that during a collaboration of services meeting with the Parents of Black Children and the Society’s team, the operations manager made a promise to assist her with the cost of filing her taxes and reimbursement for the hairstrand test. The Applicant further said that she had emails supporting her statement with regards to reimbursement of the drug testing. The Applicant was asked to forward these emails to the Respondent and the CFSRB following the videoconference, and sent copies of the emails on February 9, 2024. One email dated March 1, 2023 to the Respondent from a representative of the Collective of Child Welfare Survivors Black Legal Action Centre, who acted as an assistant for the Applicant with the Respondent, stated: “…you recently responded to [the Applicant] to let her know that she cannot be reimbursed for the cost of the drug test she purchased. However, it appears that drug testing is already part of the Service Plan. Therefore, CCAS-T has to cover this cost.” A subsequent email dated March 6, 2023 from the Respondent to the Applicant and her assistant stated: “With respect to the drug testing, this is not part of the CCAS service plan, and we will not be able to reimburse you for this.”

20I find that the Respondent complied with Term 1f, and provided a sufficient explanation as to why the costs were not covered. Additionally, emails provided by the Applicant clearly state that the Respondent would not cover the costs.

Term 1g: Outstanding child protection concerns with the Applicant

21The Respondent submitted that it is not working with the Applicant to address outstanding protection concerns due to the child being in the Extended Care of the Society as ordered by the Court. In its settlement letter, the Respondent also included excerpts from the trial decision that referenced the child protection concerns at the time.

22The Applicant submitted that because her matter is under appeal she would like to address any ongoing concerns to fix them.

23The Respondent was clear that it is not working toward reunification between the child and Applicant. I find that the Respondent complied with Term 1g and provided sufficient detail in their explanation.

Term 1h: Why was the Applicant not informed of the transfer of her worker?

24The Respondent submitted that the worker went on unexpected leave and based on the worker’s caseload, there was not time to inform the Applicant prior to this happening.

25The Applicant indicated that she had to hear from another worker and that someone should have told her in advance. She also stated that she was told the worker would be returning.

26I find the Respondent complied with Term 1h. Although the manner in which the Applicant found out about the transfer of her worker may not have been ideal, the Respondent explained the leave was unexpected. Further, I have no evidence before me from the Respondent indicating that the worker was to return to work with the Applicant. The Applicant continued to receive services through the Respondent with a different worker, which is its discretion.

Term 2: Within five (5) business days of the Applicant’s receipt of the Societies responses to Terms 1a through 1h, the Respondent shall arrange an in-person meeting with the Applicant to review and explain the written document.

27The Applicant stated in their allegation of non-compliance email dated December 28, 2023 that the meeting agreed upon in Term 2 did not occur, nor did the Respondent attempt to set up the meeting. The Applicant indicated during the videoconference that she sent emails to her family service worker, and the worker’s supervisor, to follow up on the meeting but did not receive a response. The Applicant also stated she left a voicemail for the worker’s supervisor which was not returned, and attempted to leave a message for the family service worker but the voicemail was not initiated.

28The Respondent confirmed during the videoconference that they did not comply with this term. The Respondent explained they believe there was some confusion between them and the Applicant meeting regarding Term 2 in which they would explain their responses, versus Term 4 in which the Applicant would provide information for the Respondent to review and respond to. The Applicant did not provide the information required for Term 4.

29During the videoconference, the Respondent indicated that they would arrange for a meeting to occur as soon as possible.

30The CFSRB was copied in an email from the Respondent to the Applicant on February 14, 2024, confirming the meeting to review the settlement letter contents had taken place with the Applicant on that day.

31I find that while the Respondent conceded they did not comply with Term 2, I am satisfied that the meeting has now taken place and I will not be making any further orders regarding this Term.

Term 3: The respondent will make its best efforts to respond to the Applicant within 48 hours of communications made by the Applicant

32As noted within Term 2, the Applicant contacted the Respondent to arrange for a meeting and did not receive a response.

33The Respondent submitted that there have been other communications and that there was some confusion given the ongoing litigation with the Applicant’s Court appeal.

34I find that the Respondent did not comply with Term 3. Although the Respondent submitted there have been ongoing communications, it did not communicate regarding the settlement agreement. Between the date the Applicant alleged non-compliance and the non-compliance videoconference, there was a period of almost six weeks in which to communicate with the Applicant.

Term 4: The Applicant shall provide to the Respondent, in writing, details of what she disputes in her file. Within five (5) business days the Respondent will review these details and provide the Applicant an answer on whether it is possible to add this to the Applicant’s file, and at that time provide her with details for how to have the information added to her file.

35The Respondent submitted that the Applicant did not provide this information to the Respondent, and therefore the Applicant did not complete her requirement in order for the Respondent to comply with this term.

36The Applicant indicated during the hearing she did not send this information but believed that was what the meeting referred to in Term 2 was regarding.

37These Terms were reviewed and explained during the mediation meeting and were agreed to by both parties. A follow up pre-hearing report followed clearly outlined the steps required by both the Applicant and the Respondent, with dates associated to each party. I find that the Applicant did not comply with her requirements in order for the Respondent to follow through and therefore no further orders will be made regarding this Term.

SUMMARY

38After having reviewed the response and allegations of non-compliance, I have found that the Respondent has complied with Terms 1c, 1e, 1f, 1g and 1h. The Respondent partially complied with Term 1d. The Respondent did not comply with Terms 2 and 3. The Applicant did not complete her requirement in order for the Respondent to comply with Term 4.

39As noted above, regarding Term 2, the Respondent committed to convening a meeting as soon as they were able following the videoconference and the CFSRB received a confirmation email from the Respondent that this meeting took place on February 14, 2024.

ORDER

40I direct that the Respondent provide the Applicant with the following on or before March 25, 2024.

1. In relation to Term 1d, the Respondent will provide the Applicant with a short summary of the process in which the assessment was completed, and conclusions made of the Applicant’s parenting style.
2. In relation to Term 3, The Respondent will make its best efforts to respond to the Applicant within 48 hours of communications while it has an open file.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

41Pursuant 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.