CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
RK
Applicant
-and-
Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicators: Donna A. Wowk
Indexed As: RK v Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
RK, Applicant ) Self-Represented
Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family ) Jeffrey Hustins, Counsel
Services, Respondent )
INTRODUCTION
1On April 8, 2025 CFSRB issued a Decision following a non-compliance hearing held on March 12, 2025. The alleged non-compliance was in relation to the Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties at a Pre-Hearing held on August 15, 2023.
2There have been four non-compliance hearings held arising from the 2023 settlement. The April 8, 2025 Decision found the Respondent to be non-compliant with the majority of the terms of an order made by the CFSRB on November 24, 2024 Order. The April 8, 2025 Order (“the Order”) required the Respondent to provide the Applicant with a list of documents.
3The Applicant alleged that the Respondent was in breach of the Order. On May 30, 2025, the CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction (“May 30, 2025 CMD”) that required the Applicant to provide specific allegations of non-compliance with the Order including specifically setting out each term he alleged had been breached, and to identify any actual response received from the Respondent and to provide the basis for his position that the Respondent was non-compliant.
4The May 30, 2025 CMD required the Respondent to respond in the following format:
a. It will specifically respond to the Applicant’s submissions for each term of the order he alleges there has been non-compliance;
b. It will include the response it provided to the Applicant for each alleged non-compliant term including the documents it provided to the Applicant and the reasons provided for not providing him with a document; and,
c. It shall provide its succinct submissions in support of its positon that it has complied with the disputed terms of the order.
5In his June 3, 2025 Submission, the Applicant stated that none of the documents the Respondent had been ordered to produce pursuant to the April 8, 2025 Order had been provided. He requested that the CFSRB issue a ruling of non-compliance and conclude this matter.
6The Respondent did not comply with the May 30, 2025 CMD. Instead of providing its response in the directed format, the Respondent delivered a one-page letter dated June 9, 2025 in which it included three electronic internet ‘links’, along with what appears to be a copy of the CPIN. The Respondent stated that these electronic links may or may not have been previously provided to the Applicant. The electronic links opened case records of the Respondent totaling approximately 675 pages. There was no indication which pages of the records provided by the Respondent corresponded to the terms of the April 8, 2025 Order the Respondent was alleged to have breached.
7The Respondent having failed to comply with the May 30, 2025 CMD, the CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction on July 4, 2025 (“July 4, 2025 CMD”). The July 4, 2025 CMD directed the Respondent to deliver to the Applicant and the CFSRB its response to the Applicant’s allegations of non-compliance, and that it ensure its responses complied with the May 30, 2025 CMD.
8At the request of the Respondent, the deadline for the response was extended by way of a further Case Management Direction dated July 8, 2025 (“July 8, 2025 CMD”). The July 8, 2025 CMD required that, in addition to complying with the format directed in the May 30, 2025 CMD, the Respondent identify and attach the document(s), and only those documents, that corresponded to the terms of the Order it was alleged to have breached.
9The Respondent’s response was comprised of two letters, one dated July 7, 2025 and a second dated July 21, 2025. The letters from the Respondent’s counsel stated that all the Applicant’s information was included in the electronic links attached to its June 9, 2025 correspondence. It further stated that counsel for the Respondent had spoken with the agency’s manager for disclosure and privacy and confirmed that, in counsel’s opinion, the Respondent had provided all disclosure to the Applicant and the CFSRB in accordance with the April 8, 2025 Order and the May 30, 2025 CMD.
RESULT
10I find that the Respondent did not comply with the May 30, 2025, July 4, 2025 and July 8, 2025 CMDs issued by the CFSRB.
11I further find that the Respondent is not compliant with the April 8, 2025 Order.
ANALYSIS
12During the course of this matter, the Respondent has provided the Applicant with numerous versions of the CPIN. The disclosure required by the April 8, 2025 Order was in relation to what the Applicant identified as Version 5 of the CPIN.
13The June 9, 2025 response by the Respondent to the non-compliance allegations provided links to a CPIN but it did not identify which version of the CPIN it was including. This, together with the Respondent’s non-compliance with the May 30, 2025, July 4, 2025 and July 8, 2025 CMDs, renders it extremely impractical, if not impossible without yet another hearing, for the CFSRB to determine whether the documents the Respondent was required to produce are amongst the 675 pages, approximately, that were provided through the June 9, 2025 links.
14As a result of the Respondent’s failure to follow the format identified in the May 30, 2025 CMD, the July 4, 2025 CMD and the July 8, 2025 CMD, and its sole reliance on electronic links, I find that the Respondent has not complied with the April 8, 2025 Order.
15Rule A3.1 (a) and (c) of The Child and Family Services Board Rules of Procedure provide as follows:
The rules and procedures of the tribunal shall be liberally and purposefully interpreted and applied to:
a. Promote the fair, just and expeditious resolution of disputes,
c. Ensure that procedures, orders and directions are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.
16The non-compliance issues in this case have been been ongoing since August 15, 2023. There have been multiple hearings, oral and written. I find that it would be disproportionate to the remaining issues to conduct yet another hearing and unfair to the Applicant, in particular, to further delay this matter being concluded on a final basis.
17The Applicant requests a ruling of non-compliance by the Respondent and that the file be closed.
18I am unable to determine with certainty whether or not the Respondent has provided the Applicant with the documents listed in the April 8, 2025 Order. I have found that the Respondent has not complied with the May 30, 2025, July 4, 2025 and July 8, 2025 CMDs. I further find that this non-compliance has so impeded a determination being made with respect to the Respondent’s compliance with the April 8, 2025 Order that it constitutes non-compliance with that Order.
ORDER
19The Respondent has not complied with the May 30, 2025, July 4, 2025 and July 8, 2025 Case Management Directions by the CFSRB.
20The Respondent has not complied with the April 8, 2025 Order.
21There will be no further order made in relation to compliance with the April 8, 2025 Order.
22This matter is concluded.
Donna A. Wowk
Donna A. Wowk
Vice-Chair