AA v. Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, 2025 CFSRB 70

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AA Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Lise Henrie Date: May 30, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 70 Indexed As: AA v Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

BACKGROUND

2The Applicant filed an Application on November 12, 2024. The CFSRB found this Application eligible to proceed under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The CFSRB issued an Interim Decision dated January 13, 2025 (“Interim Decision”), in which three complaints in the Application were found to be within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.

4At the January 28, 2025 Pre-Hearing, the parties agreed to mediation but did not reach a settlement.

5At the February 14, 2025 Pre-Hearing, the CFSRB refined the issues for the hearing in accordance with the Interim Decision and the eligibility determination, as follows:

1. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concern that the Respondent was biased against him in relation to his September 23, 2024, after-hours call to the Respondent with concerns about his children;

2. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns made during an after-hours call to the Respondent on September 23, 2024, about the need to protect his children from harm, and the Respondent did not provide reasons for its actions following those expressed concerns; and

3. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns that Respondent worker Sabrina Annett allegedly breached his confidentiality in or around May 2022 when she disclosed information about the Applicant to the children’s mother.

6The CFSRB heard the Application by videoconference on May 12, 2025.

ANALYSIS

September 23, 2024 After-Hours Call – Issues 1 and 2

7The first two issues for this hearing relate to the Applicant’s after-hours call on September 23, 2024. First, was he heard by the Respondent in relation to his concerns? Second, did the Respondent provide reasons for its actions?

8The Applicant is the father of three children. The Applicant is not living with the children’s mother. His testimony often referred to the situation at the time of the hearing, but the CFSRB reminded him to focus on the issues before it, dating back to September 2024. The Applicant said that he was in family court at the time and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was involved. The evidence shows that there was a lengthy court proceeding ending the month before the Applicant’s after-hours call, in August 2024, resulting in the termination of a supervision order which had placed the children in the parent’s shared care subject to the supervision of the Respondent.

9The Applicant testified that in September 2024, he contacted the Respondent because he said that his children’s mother was physically and verbally abusing their children. He testified that he reported the physical abuse of one of the children who was brought to the hospital. He said that he felt the Respondent did not listen to his concerns and he suggested their inattentiveness was due to bias. He said that the next day, his children told their teacher about the abuse. The Applicant acknowledged that the Respondent interviewed the children and then nothing happened. He said that the Respondent did not open a file. He thinks that the Respondent did not act because the mother is white. He said that he did not hear anything further from the Respondent and was given no report.

10One of the Respondent witnesses, Chelsea Renaud, was the assigned worker from August 8, 2024 until file closure. She said that on September 23, 2024, the Respondent’s after-hours worker received two calls regarding the Applicant’s children, one from the hospital and one from the Applicant. Ms. Renaud testified that she followed up with the hospital and was informed that there was no injury noted on the child’s x-rays. She said that she then spoke with the child’s mother, as well as with the Applicant. Ms. Renaud said that the children were interviewed at their school and shared historical concerns that had been previously investigated. She said that she reviewed the file with another child protection worker, Neville Solomon and the Service Manager, Kathryn Noonan. Mr. Solomon was the child protection worker assigned to assist from February 26, 2024 to file closure in October 2024. Ms. Renaud testified that following consultation, the decision was made not to open a file because the report was similar to previous reports.

11Ms. Renaud further testified that she and Mr. Solomon met with the Applicant at his home on October 10, 2024 and explained to him that the file was closed. She said that at this meeting, she also talked about the September 23, 2024 referral made by the Applicant.

12The CFSRB recognizes that it may be difficult for parents to process some of the information that is communicated orally. For this reason, it is helpful to have confirmation of decisions in writing. The testimony of Ms. Renaud is that the decisions of the Respondent were explained orally to the Applicant in October of 2024. There is no evidence that the Respondent provided written reasons to the Applicant around the time he raised his concerns in September 2024. However, as a result of this Application, the Respondent provided a letter to the Applicant dated February 11, 2025 which, upon review, clearly sets out that the Respondent did hear the Applicant and had followed up on his concerns. The letter also provided reasons for the Respondent’s decision not to open a file. While late, I find that the February 11, 2025 letter shows that the Applicant was heard and the reasons for the Respondent’s decisions, notably the decision not to open a file, are clearly set out. For these reasons, I dismiss the Application in relation to the complaints for issues 1 and 2.

Alleged Breach of Confidentiality – Issue 3

13The Applicant testified that one of the Respondent’s workers, Sabrina Annett, disclosed confidential information he shared with her. He said that in May 2022 he met with Ms. Annett and recorded the whole meeting. He said that she was the only person to whom he mentioned that he would hire a private investigator because he was not seeing his children as ordered by the Court. He said that his children were kept at the home of a friend of his children’s mother. He said that Ms. Annett contacted the children’s mother and told her that the Applicant was hiring a private investigator. He said that he then received a threatening text message from someone who he alleged was linked to the mother’s friend. The text message was admitted as evidence. The writer of the text message suggests that the Applicant is having his daughter followed by a private investigator and that if it does not stop, the writer would be paying the Applicant a visit. He also writes: “Try me tough guy!!!!” The language is threatening.

14The Applicant testified that he spoke with Ms. Annett’s manager, Debbie Smith, about two years ago, in early 2023. He did not explain why he waited so long, but he said that he told her about his concerns regarding Ms. Annett and said that her alleged breach broke the trust he had in the Respondent. The Applicant also raised issues that were not before the CFRSB, including another alleged breach by the Respondent regarding his struggles to find a home.

15Ms. Annett testified that she met with the Applicant on May 13, 2022 and that the Applicant was in family court at the time. She said that at their meeting, the Applicant was concerned that he was not seeing all the children regularly. She said that the Respondent was trying to assist in the visits to help the Applicant. She also said that she heard that the Applicant had recorded their conversation without her consent. Ms. Annett testified that the Applicant mentioned his plan to hire a private investigator but that she did not do anything with that information except to tell him that that was his business. She said that her focus was on the child protection concerns.

16When asked about her relationship with the children’s mother, Ms. Annett testified that she was her designated protection worker. When asked whether she shared any information the Applicant told her in confidence, she said that if he raised concerns, she would raise them. She also said that she met the mother’s friend a few times as part of the children’s mother’s support network.

17The Applicant also provided testimony about other concerns he had regarding Ms. Annett when she attended to the removal of the children with the police in July 2022. While the Applicant wished to show further events demonstrating bias, these were not before the CFSRB.

18It is also not within the scope of the CFSRB to determine whether there was a breach of confidentiality or a bias, only to determine whether the Applicant was heard about his concerns. The evidence shows that at least some of the Applicant’s concerns about Ms. Annett were heard. Ms. Annett testified that her supervisor told her that the Applicant had worries about her conduct, but she said the supervisor did not say anything about her alleged bias.

19The Applicant’s submissions that he raised concerns about Ms. Annett are reflected in the Respondent’s evidence, including Ms. Annett’s testimony. The supervisor raised these concerns with Ms. Annett. The supervisor was not one of the Respondent’s witnesses and for this reason, it is not clear what was considered and what action was taken. The evidence shows that Ms. Annett was no longer on the Applicant’s file in July 2022, after an order was made by the Court which makes this issue somewhat moot. However, to help the Applicant understand how his concerns were considered and what action, if any, the Respondent took as a result, the Respondent will provide him with an explanation of how his concerns were considered with respect to the breach of confidentiality.

20Regarding this third issue, for the above reasons, I am not satisfied based on the evidence before me that the Respondent provided the Applicant with information showing that his concerns were heard when he alleged that Ms. Annett breached his confidentiality in or around May 2022 by disclosing information about him to the children’s mother.

ORDER

21The Applicant’s complaints in issues 1 and 2 are dismissed.

22For issue 3, I direct the Respondent to provide the Applicant with information showing that it heard his concerns regarding Ms. Annett in the context of the alleged breach of his confidentiality in or around May 2022 by disclosing information about him to the children’s mother, within 45 days of this decision.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

23Pursuant 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.