WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87.—(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication.— Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,

(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.

(8) Prohibition re identifying child.— No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.

(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged.— The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

142.—(3) Offences re publication.— A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

Children’s Aid Society of Peel v. C.B., 2021 ONCJ 237

CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Peel v. C.B., 2021 ONCJ 237

DATE: April 1, 2021

Court File: 20028/20

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

Applicant: Children’s Aid Society of Peel

Ms. A. Rozario, Ms. D. Robev, CPW, and Ms. A. Moakhan, counsel for the applicant Society

Respondents: C.B. – mother; J.B. – father

Ms. A. Mehta, counsel for the respondent mother, and agent today for Mr. A. Baratz, counsel for the respondent father

Additional Counsel: Ms. M. Leonard, counsel for the child S.B.

Ms. Nicola Simmons counsel for the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board was present to make submissions as her client was served with the motion.

P.J. Clay J:

IN COURT AND BY TELECONFERENCE ON MARCH 23/21

MOTION

Procedural background

[1] This is a motion brought within a child protection proceeding in which there has been no finding that a child is in need of protection. The child involved is 13 year old S.B. The Society did not become involved with the family until after the tragic death by suicide of S.B.’s sibling S.B. who was only 14 when he/she died on XXXX XX/20.

[2] There were concerns about the parenting plan for S.B. A without prejudice order was made on June 25/20 that the child reside in the temporary care of his/her parents subject to Society supervision. That order, which is still in place, provided that the parents shall sign consents for the chid to receive appropriate assessments and services as recommended by medical or educational professionals and consents for the sharing of information about the child between the Society and relevant community based service providers.

[3] The matter was adjourned on consent on a couple of occasions to await the results of a psychological assessment that was being prepared by Dr. L. Rowden. The assessment was delayed because the child missed appointments. The diagnoses arising from the assessment were shared with S.B. and his/her parents. S.B. rejected two of the four diagnoses and demanded a reassessment. Dr. Rowden met with the child again and while no report was written she did share the results of the assessment with school officials.

[4] S.B. supported by his/her parents refused consent to share the results with the Society.

[5] The Society then brought a Notice of Motion which is found at Tab 14 of the C.R. The motion sought an order for the release of a psychological assessment on the child S.B. and for disclosure orders with respect to employees of the school board.

[6] The motion was supported by the affidavit of the child protection worker Ms. A. Moakhan filed at Tab 15. Neither parent filed an affidavit. Ms. Leonard for the OCL filed a statement of law and argument on behalf of the youth.

Positions of the parties

[7] Ms. Simmons said that the Board does not take issue with the information sought in the motion. She asked that the wording of any order include some changes from the wording sought in the motion.

[8] In response to this request Ms. Rozario for the Society said that the wording of paragraph 3 can be changed to read that educational professionals:

… directly involved in providing services to the child shall have the authority to disclose information as it relates to the scope of their role.

[9] Counsel for the parents said that they support their child and adopt the position of his/her counsel Ms. Leonard. The mother clarified that the psychologist Dr. Rowden did not actually prepare a written assessment. Dr. Rowden was retained by the mother and her fee including a report would be $5,500. The mother has paid $3,000 and she is not prepared to pay for the report as she says the work expanded after the initial retainer.

[10] I will refer to the work product of Dr. Rowden as a report or assessment even though it may not be in that form. Once a decision is made as to production, I will address what, if anything, is to be produced given that there is not a single document involved.

THE LAW

[11] Ms. Rozario said that the section in the CYFSA that addresses the production of records is s. 130 the relevant portions of which read as follows:

Production of records

Definition

130 (1) In this section and sections 131 and 132,

“record of personal health information” has the same meaning as in the Mental Health Act.

Motion or application for production of record

(2) A Director or a society may at any time make a motion or an application for an order under subsection (3) or (4) for the production of a record or part of a record.

Order on motion

(3) Where the court is satisfied that a record or part of a record that is the subject of a motion referred to in subsection (2) contains information that may be relevant to a proceeding under this Part and that the person in possession or control of the record has refused to permit a Director or the society to inspect it, the court may order that the person in possession or control of the record produce it or a specified part of it for inspection and copying by the Director, by the society or by the court.

Court may examine record

(5) In considering whether to make an order under subsection (3) or (4), the court may examine the record.

Information confidential

(6) No person who obtains information by means of an order made under subsection (3) or (4) shall disclose the information except,

(a) as specified in the order; and

(b) in testimony in a proceeding under this Part.

Conflict

(7) Subsection (6) prevails despite anything in the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004.

Solicitor-client privilege

(8) Subject to subsection (9), this section applies despite any other Act, but nothing in this section abrogates any privilege that may exist between a lawyer and the lawyer’s client.

[12] Ms. Rozario stated that in a child protection matter there should be disclosure of all records pertaining to a child if they are relevant to a proceeding. The Society had expected disclosure of the psychologist’s report and were relying on the court order that required the parents to consent to the release of medical and educational information. The position of the child and the parents is that the record can be released to school officials for educational purposes, but that it should not be disclosed to the Society. While initially the parents provided a blanket refusal, Ms. Leonard has now provided some exceptions in her submissions.

[13] Ms. Leonard provided a very helpful written statement of law. She conceded that there was no class privilege that prevented the release of the report or information from the school. She also noted that s. 130 (3) appears to contemplate a situation in which the record holder is refusing to produce the records whereas in this instance it is the person who is the subject of the record that is refusing its release.

[14] Ms. Leonard referred to the Wigmore test. The four prongs of that test are as follows:

a) The communication must originate in confidence that they will not be disclosed;

b) The confidence must be essential to the relationship in which the communication arises;

c) The relationship must be one which should be ‘sedulously fostered” in the public good; and

d) If the above requirements are met, the court must consider whether the interests served by protecting the communications from disclosure would outweigh the benefit gained for the correct disposal of the litigation.

[15] Ms. Leonard also included case law with respect to the recognition of the privacy rights of children.

EVIDENCE

[16] There is really not much dispute about the basic facts. They are as follows:

1. S.B. and his/her sibling S.B. primarily resided with the mother in Brampton, but the mother who is a contractor spent most of her time working and staying in Belleville.

2. After the sibling S.B.’s death on XXXX XX/20 the mother took S.B. to Belleville where she was working.

3. The Society issued an Application returnable June 25/20 seeking a finding under s. 74 (2) (b) (ii) being a pattern of neglect in supervising the child.

4. The without prejudice order of June 25/20 provided that S.B. would be in the care of his/her parents subject to Society supervision. At that time, he/she was not to primarily reside with his/her mother as she needed to secure appropriate housing in Brampton.

5. S.B. divided his/her time between his/her parent’s homes and on September 25 the order was changed to permit the child to primarily live with his/her mother.

6. S.B. has always had numerous absences from school including 99.5 days in Gr. 5, 67 days in Gr. 6, 67.5 days in Gr. 7. The Society said that the sibling S.B. missed a similar amount of school.

7. S.B. has had an IEP for some time and the mother said he/she has always complied with it. His/her exceptionality is not entirely clear hence the issue over this assessment. The mother said he/she had a high I.Q, but also had an articulation delay and social phobia.

8. The mother retained Dr. L. Rowden to prepare a psychological assessment that could be presented to an IPRC to advocate for a change in S.B.’s learning environment to better accommodate his/her myriad of exceptionalities.

9. The preparation of a report was delayed over the summer and fall of 2020 as S.B. missed appointment with the assessor.

10. After the initial disclosure of Dr. Rowden’s findings then 12 year old S.B. insisted upon a re-assessment as he/she did not accept two of the four diagnoses (he/she accepted anxiety and depression).

11. The OCL was appointed. Ms. Leonard reported that S.B. will engage with her and he/she spoke about having good friends and described his/her interests in Japanese culture and building computers.

12. S.B. does not want to speak with Society workers who he/she believes are causing him/her and his/her mother unnecessary strife that is ruining his/her life. He/she refuses to converse with them and is rude to workers.

13. The parents consented to a child and youth worker being involved, but no connection has yet been made.

14. S.B. did not attend school daily as expected in September/20. His/her IEP was changed to having him/her attend 3 days a week. That has not happened and as the pandemic worsened in Peel, S.B. said he/she could not attend as he/she was “immuno-compromised.” No medical evidence of that has ever been provided, but in all of the circumstances the school has accommodated S.B. not attending online and then only attending about 1 day a week.

15. The planned IPRC meeting has never occurred because they are waiting for the psychological report.

16. The report has not been prepared and as the mother is not prepared to pay for its completion it likely never will be prepared.

SOCIETY SUBMISSIONS

[17] Ms. Rozario essentially said that s. 130 of is a complete code for how third-party records motions should by addressed under the CYFSA. She said that if the record is relevant it should be produced. She noted that this section is intended to provide a litigant in a child protection proceeding with the necessary information required to address the specific provisions of the Act.

[18] Ms. Rozario said that disclosure was particularly important in this matter as the disclosure relates to the subject child of the proceeding. She noted the provisions in the section that override the terms of other legislation such as PHIPA and the MHA. She also noted the protection that s. 130 contains with respect the non-disclosure of information outside of the actual child protection proceeding.

[19] Ms. Rozario argued that the case law with respect to third party disclosure in non- child protection cases does not apply and the only consideration is relevance. She concedes that the court retains the discretion to order that a report not be released and there may be a balancing of interests in the exercise of that discretion.

Relevance

[20] Counsel stated that this assessment is relevant because of the challenges that this child has that are mostly undiagnosed. What is known is that S.B. has missed a lot of school over the years.

[21] Initially the mother stated that her child had an articulation delay and social phobia. In February 2020 a Form 1 was issued under the Mental Health Act, but no assessment took place. The medical records that have been accessed set out that the child has social phobia. It is known that he/she is on an IEP.

[22] Counsel noted that on June 25/20 I required that the Society see S.B. weekly rather than every thirty days. I was very concerned that as there was no school occurring and both parents worked little was known about how S.B. was doing in the community after his/her sibling’s tragic death. Dr. Rowden then sent a letter that said that the involvement of the PCAS in the child’s life caused him/her significant stress. The Society visits went back to every 30 days, but the child was angry, rude and generally refused to communicate with Society workers.

[23] Dr. Rowden did hold a disclosure meeting with S.B. and his/her parents and she made four diagnoses. It is known that S.B. accepted that he/she had anxiety and depression, but he/she rejected the other diagnoses and requested that Dr. Rowden do a re-assessment. The parents supported the re-assessment.

[24] The Society does not know what position to take in this proceeding as they do not know what Dr. Rowden’s diagnoses were. Ms. Rozario said that the Society cannot know if the child’s needs are being met if they do not know what those needs are.

[25] Ms. Rozario said that while the child and his/her parents are prepared to consent to the release to the Society S.B.’s attendance record that that information is not sufficient. Ms. Rozario said that how the child is doing at school is not just related to attendance. Prior to the pandemic the child was attending school one day a week. In September he/she was supposed to attend daily then that was later changed to three days a week. Five months later there is still a three-day a week schedule, but the child is not complying with it.

[26] The Society did receive an update from the school in December 2020. It showed that there were many outstanding assignments. Due to his/her IEP S.B. was being accommodated and he/she was given more time to complete the work. The parents have not consented to the school sharing any educational information after the December update. The parents had consented to an order to provide medical and educational information and this matter was adjourned to receive the report. The parents changed their position and are now limiting the information that the Society can receive.

[27] It appears that the change in the parent’s position is due to the fact that S.B. does not want the information released. The mother is an advocate for her child. The father wants to remain actively involved with his child, so he is not opposing what his child wants. There is conflicting information on the mother/child relationship that the report might address.

[28] The Society cannot currently obtain any information from the school or the school board. S.B. is a vulnerable child who not only refuses to communicate directly with the workers, but he/she also insists that his/her parents not communicate with them or permit educators to do so either. The Society does not know what is going on and they need information in order to assess risk and make plans.

Balancing of interests

[29] Ms. Rozario said that if the court finds the report relevant the release of the report is still discretionary. Public policy and privacy interests need to be balanced against the need to protect the child.

[30] Ms. Rozario said that the report sought here is being opposed on the basis of the child’s right to privacy. In most cases it is the parent’s information that is sought to be protected. The Society’s position is that the purpose of the release of information inevitably does infringe on a child’s privacy rights, but that very information is necessary to make a determination as to whether the child needs to be protected. The only privilege recognized in s. 130 as being as being a barrier to the release is solicitor-client privilege. A child’s right to be protected from harm must trump a child’s right to privacy.

[31] Ms. Rozario noted that there is already a court order in place requiring the parents to share educational information. She said that without releasing the report by way of a disclosure order the Society cannot determine if the prior order is being followed. The Society wants to know whether the parents are working with the school to ensure he/she attends and that he/she follows recommendations. From what was released in the December update it is known that the third-party information contradicts the information provided by the father. The parents stated that they would sign a consent for the school board child and youth worker (CYW) to meet with the child, but it has now learned that that has not happened.

[32] The Society recognizes that S.B. does not want the information to be released, and it is clear that he/she is very strong minded. The challenge is how to get the child to do the things he/she does not want to do. The court must consider the child’s views and preferences, but the Society says that they can be but one factor in the analysis. Ms. Rozario said that the court should be cautious about truncating the information released to the Society because of the child’s views.

The OCL position

[33] The OCL took the position that s. 130 really addresses situations where third parties have records but are refusing to release them. That refusal may be based upon their own need to comply with the PHIPA or the MHA and s. 130 overrides those Acts.

[34] Ms. Leonard said that the non-chid protection case law is applicable to the facts of this case. She emphasized that the court needed to conduct a Wigmore analysis and ensure that all four prongs of the test are met.

[35] Ms. Leonard emphasized that this was an assessment that the mother commenced. The purpose of the requested report was to provide it to educators to support possible changes to the child’s educational plan based upon his/her diagnoses by a psychologist. OCL counsel said that Dr. Rowden’s recommendations were for the specific purpose of an IPRC committee so that they can do something with them that is practical and important.

[36] OCL counsel stated that all the Society required from the educators is whether S.B. is in compliance with the academic plan. This would address any concerns about truancy or whether the child is applying himself/herself diligently to completing his/her assignments. Ms. Leonard said that the Society did not need to receive any information from the school about S.B.’s behaviour as it can make its own observations about that.

[37] Prior to the motion the parents and the child had not consented to the release of any information from Dr. Rowden to the Society. In her statement of law and argument Ms. Leonard quite properly made an exception for child protection concerns. This applied both to the report and to the observations of educators.

[38] Ms. Leonard set out a plan for disclosure that she argued would permit the Society access to information about child protection concerns and would minimally intrude upon the child’s privacy rights.

ANALYSIS

Relevance

[39] I find that the report is clearly relevant to this proceeding. I set out the background to this matter because context is important in determining relevance and necessity. S.B.’s sibling committed suicide in the family home when the child was 14. By any definition S.B. is a vulnerable child. This is not a case where the Society has no objective reason for concerns and is seeking third party records to see if there are child protection concerns.

[40] S.B. does not attend school on a regular basis and both he/she and his/her mother say that he/she has psychological barriers that mean he/she cannot interact with others in a school setting and he/she cannot do online work in the same way most students do. S.B. has an IEP, but the evidence is that he/she has not complied with it. The mother’s response to non-compliance was to retain a psychologist who could explain to the board S.B.’s unique challenges and needs.

[41] This matter was adjourned on consent to await that report. Dr. Rowden was quite aware of S.B.’s concerns about the Society’s involvement. She/he extended the time for her assessment and it appears that she might have agreed to do a re-assessment when S.B. refused to accept her diagnoses. The chid clearly has psychological issues, but the child and the mother (with the father’s acquiescence) have blocked the Society from receiving any information about them. At the time the Society was first involved there was an issue about the mother’s ability to supervise S.B. given that she resided out of town. The Society is receiving reports, albeit denied, about the mother/child dynamic.

[42] S.B. refuses to provide any information to the Society. The mother initially somewhat cooperative is now opposed to working with the Society. She strongly objected to this matter being adjourned to May 21/21 as she wanted the Society to be out of her family’s life well before then.

[43] S.B. is not seen in the community other than when he/she attends school. The school has relevant information that the Society cannot access. The report is the only objective evidence that is available in this case. I find the report to be very relevant to the resolution of the issues in this proceeding.

[44] I will next address the proposed limited disclosure set out in the OCL submission.

Disclosure of child protection issues

[45] As noted, Ms. Leonard quite properly made an exception for child protection concerns. This applied both to the report and to the observations of educators. This means that the holders of the report, or information as to behaviour, have to make a distinction between a diagnoses or behaviour that only relates to educational concerns and one that relates to child protection concerns. The educators will not have any background on S.B.’s family or his/her life outside of the school environment. The educators are not trained child protection professionals. They will make observations in a vacuum without knowing how S.B. presents in other classrooms much less in the wider community. In my view it is not fair to place a burden on the educators to decide whether an observed action or behaviour is relevant to a child protection concern.

[46] Ms. Leonard made a good point in stating that the Society is not an expert with how a child with an exceptionality should be educated. This speaks to the fact that each discipline should share with the other with respect to the overall plans for S.B. The child protection workers opinions on best educational practices are outside the scope of their role in the same way as the educators’ views as to what is or is not a child protection issue is outside the scope of their role.

[47] The OCL counsel said that the Society did not need to receive any information from the school about S.B.’s behaviour as it can make its own determinations. The difficulty with that position is that the child totally opposes any PCAS involvement in his/her life and he/she refuses to speak to the workers and will not even look at them on the video calls. The parents understandably do not want to upset their child and the mother in particular refuses to speak to the Society at least partly because she knows it upsets her child if she does.

Release only to educational professionals

[48] One of the reasons for objecting to the Society receiving the information is that Dr. Rowden’s recommendations were for the specific purpose of an IPRC committee.

[49] I note that this is not a situation where the school board has refused accommodation to a child. It should be noted that S.B. was on an IEP in the 2019/20 school year. That IEP was revised in October 2020 without an IPRC being held. Ms. Simmons clarified that an IEP must be updated annually by the school. An IPRC meeting is not needed to either implement an IEP or update one. The IPRC looks not so much at the accommodations that a student will have within his school, but whether the child’s learning environment should be changed by a placement at a different school or in a special program.

[50] The evidence in this matter is that S.B. has always missed a lot of school and has been the subject of IEP’s each year. In requesting the psychological report, the mother sought to have the IPRC consider a different learning environment based upon the diagnoses and recommendations. The report was always going to be released outside of the family so that appropriate plans could be made for the child. The opposition of the child and the parents is not to the release of the report’s findings, but to whom it shall be released. They are prepared to waive any non class privilege in the report to obtain what they perceive will be a better learning environment, but they are not prepared to release if for the purpose of a review by child protection authorities.

The Society’s other evidence

[51] Ms. Leonard pointed out that there is evidence that S.B. has friends and interests outside of school. That evidence shows that he/she is not as socially isolated as it otherwise might appear.

[52] The difficulty with this position is that on February 24/21 the Society received a report from a friend’s mother about S.B. making comments to her child (the child’s best friend) about his/her mother punching and strangling him/her and his/her plan to commit suicide a year ago. S.B. strenuously denied saying this. His/her mother became angry with the Society workers and alleged that they were making things up so that they could remain involved with the family.

[53] The mother appeared to believe that there is a financial incentive for the workers to continue involvement with this family. Ms. Moakhan’s affidavit sets out a number of occasions when the mother has been angry and emotional with the Society. She has blamed them for S.B.’s current high level of stress. The affidavit also addressed situations wherein the school social worker Ms. Kimberley could hear the mother and S.B. in conflict with each other. The mother denied that she had been physically aggressive with her child, but she admitted that S.B. can be physically aggressive with her.

[54] There is other concerning evidence although most of it is hearsay at this point. If anything, the other evidence leads me to the conclusion that the court requires an objective report about S.B.’s diagnoses and needs to know what recommendations have been made by the psychologist.

Wigmore factors

[55] Even if s.130 was intended to be a complete code for third party disclosure in a child protection matter the court still retains discretion about what information should be released. I will review the Wigmore factors as an aid to the exercise of that discretion.

Confidence that it will not be disclosed

[56] The mother arranged the psychological assessment of her child for the express purpose of providing it to an IPRC to have her child’s learning environment changed. In March 2020 the mother told the school social worker Ms. Kimberley that S.B. should be responsible for his/her own education. It was always understood that the contents of the assessment would be released. In fact, in her letter of August 20, 2020 Dr. Rowden offered to provide the Society with weekly updates concerning her assessment. That did not occur as the Society and the psychologist did not agree for the Society to pay for those updates. The point is that the psychologist was not engaged on the basis that the Society could not access her information. Dr. Rowden was served with this motion, but she has not opposed the release of the report.

[57] The objection in this case is not to the release of confidential private information it is to its release to child protection authorities.

Confidence essential to the relationship

[58] Dr. Rowden was not retained to provide ongoing counselling to S.B. She was retained to write a report that the mother hoped would assist in her advocacy with respect to the right educational path for her child. It was anticipated when the assessment was

ongoing that the report would be released and then Dr. Rowden’s involvement with S.B. would end.

Fostering of the relationship

[59] Dr. Rowden was not involved in an ongoing therapeutic relationship with S.B. She was an assessor not a counsellor. There is a strong privacy interest argument to not

interfere with therapeutic relationships as a person has an expectation of privacy when they are discussing intimate personal details of their life with a professional. There is also a strong public policy argument that therapeutic relationships should not result in mandated disclosure. The knowledge that information could be disclosed may be a disincentive to vulnerable people seeking help.

[60] I accept Ms. Leonard’s argument, and the case law submitted in support of it, that children’s privacy rights are entitled to the same respect as those of adults.

[61] I find on the facts of this case that the assessment was conducted for the very purpose of proving to educational professionals that S.B. has limitations or exceptionalities that needed to be accommodated. Neither S.B. nor his/her mother could have had an expectation that the contents of the report would not be released.

Weighing of privacy interests v. benefits

[62] The privacy interests were waived at least as it concerned educational professionals. The Society knows that S.B. is a vulnerable child who is refusing to attend school and is not seen in the community. I find that the release of the report to the Society is required to allow them to conduct a full investigation and make decisions as to what, if any, steps they need to take to protect this child.

Form of order

[63] I find that the report should be released to the Society. As noted above though, I am advised that no “report” has been produced. I am advised that the mother provided a retainer to Dr. Rowden from some proceeds left over after the sibling S.B.’s funeral. With the extra meetings involved, including the disclosure meeting, the cost is up to $5,500. The mother is not prepared to pay for a report to be written.

[64] There are two options available to the Society. One is to enquire of Dr. Rowden the cost of completing a report that can be filed with the court. If the Society is prepared to pay that cost, then the report shall be released to all parties.

[65] If the Society is not prepared to pay for the report to be completed, then Dr. Rowden shall make her notes and records available to all parties. In that event, Dr. Rowden shall be entitled to make redactions where she feels it necessary to do so, but the redactions shall not include the information set out in paragraph 2 of the Notice of Motion.

[66] With respect to information from the school board, I am prepared to make an order that includes the information in paragraph 3 of the Notice of Motion but limited in scope in the manner agreed upon and set out above.

ORDER

1. The psychological assessment on the child, S.B., born XXX XX, 2008, authored by Dr. Lynda Rowden, shall be released in its entirety to the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, provided that the Society pays Dr. Rowden’s fees for the preparation of a report from her notes and records.

2. In the alternative, Dr. Lynda Rowden’s notes and records shall be released to the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, but may be redacted except that the following information shall be provided:

a) Information relating to all diagnosis made by Dr. Lynda Rowden of the child, S.B., born XXX XX, 2008, shall be released;

b) Information relating to all treatment recommendations made by Dr. Lynda Rowden of the child, S.B., born XXX XX, 2008, shall be released;

c) Any information relating to child protection concerns that Dr. Lynda Rowden has for the child, S.B., born XXX XX, 2008, in the care of either respondent parent, and any information relating to the respondent parents’ understanding of the treatment recommendations, shall be released.

3. From the date of this order, until this court proceeding is terminated, all teachers, staff, or representatives at XXXX School, in the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board directly involved in providing services to the child, S.B., born XXX XX, 2008, shall have authority to disclose the following information to the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel if such information is within the scope of their role:

a) Information relating to the child’s school attendance;

b) Information relating to the child’s academic performance, including but not limited to the completion of assignments and grading of assignments;

c) Information relating to the child’s physical, emotional, social, and behavioural presentation at school;

d) Information relating to any child protection concerns that the school may have for the child, in the care of either respondent parent;

e) Information relating to the child’s work the school based Child and Youth Worker, including the child’s participation and any child protection concerns the Child and Youth Worker may have, but not including the content of the Child and Youth Worker’s conversations with the child, unless the content constitutes a child protection concern; and

f) Information on the follow through of the child and the respondent parents with the child’s academic needs, including recommendations from the child’s psychological report authored by Dr. Lynda Rowden, and recommendations from Identification Placement and Review Committee.

4. The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel shall notify XXXX School when this court proceeding is terminated, and the representatives of the school are no longer subject to this order.

5. This matter is adjourned to May 21/21 at 2:00 p.m. for a TMC. 60 minutes set aside. The parties will receive a Zoom invitation from the TC closer to the date.

6. The Society shall provide this endorsement to all parties and to Dr. Rowden.

__________________

Justice Philip J. Clay