BF v. Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services, 2024 CFSRB 67

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

BF

Applicant

-and-

Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services

Respondent

interim decision

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley

Date: June 17, 2024

Citation: 2024 CFSRB 67

Indexed As: BF 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”): CA22-0049, CA22-0107 and CA22-0108. The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed pursuant to sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

2Both parties have made written submissions setting out their respective views on the appropriate hearing format. The Applicant wants an in-person hearing while the Respondent wants a written hearing.

3This decision explains why the CFSRB has decided the hearing will proceed in writing.

ANALYSIS

4Rules 8 and 24 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure provide that the CFSRB may conduct hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or video-conference and may conduct a hearing in a combination of formats. For the reasons below, I have concluded that a written hearing is the appropriate format to hear and decide this Application.

The Applicant’s position

5The Applicant argues that an in-person oral hearing is essential due to “the risk to my children, the seriousness of the allegations against me, and the potential impact on mine and my kids’ rights.” She states that she is “facing accusations from [the Respondent] of serious crimes.” She submits that an oral hearing will allow her to “confront the accusations levied against me, and seek a just outcome for my children.” She proposes to call at least 14 witnesses.

The Respondent’s position

6The Respondent’s submissions refer to the time and travel required to travel to a venue for an in-person hearing. As noted below, in-person hearings are held only in limited circumstances which do not apply to this proceeding.

7The Respondent points to the extensive correspondence from the Applicant as evidence that she is able to express herself clearly in writing. The Respondent also notes that the focus of a hearing is not on allegations against the Applicant but on allegations that the Respondent has failed to comply with its obligations under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

8In addition, the Respondent states that it does not intend to call any witnesses if an oral hearing is held, it would concede the allegations deemed eligible to proceed by the CFSRB, and is willing to provide written reasons for decisions to the Applicant if she identifies the decisions for which she requires reasons.

A written hearing is appropriate

9Tribunals Ontario holds in-person hearings only in circumstances where doing so is necessary to accommodate a Human Rights Code-related need or when another hearing format would result in an unfair hearing. The Applicant has presented no persuasive argument that an in-person hearing is necessary for either of these reasons.

10I have considered whether an oral hearing by videoconference is required. I conclude that it is not for the following reasons.

11The focus of the hearing will not be on allegations against the Applicant. Thus, an oral hearing is not required in order for the Applicant to defend herself against what she characterizes as allegations of “serious crimes.” Nor will the hearing focus on the substantive actions (or inactions) of the Respondent. Instead, the focus will be on whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided her with meaningful reasons for decisions which affected her interests.

12In my view, a written hearing will be more efficient and focused than a videoconference hearing. It appears that the Applicant wishes to call witnesses at an oral hearing to address issues beyond the scope of a section 120 Application. The CFSRB does not have the ability to make findings about whether the Applicant’s children have experienced abuse or about the substantive decisions of the Respondent. Instead, determining whether the Respondent has satisfied its procedural obligations in providing services to the Applicant, the hearing will focus on communication between the Applicant and the Respondent. As noted by the Respondent, there has been extensive email correspondence between the parties.

13The Applicant has demonstrated an ability to communicate effectively in writing. A hearing in writing will provide her with the opportunity to identify the specific events with respect to which she feels her concerns were not heard and the specific decisions for which she alleges she has not received reasons.

14For these reasons, I conclude that a hearing in writing is the appropriate format for hearing and determining this Application.

order

15The hearing will proceed in writing.

confidentiality order

16Pursuant 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.