Finn v. Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society, 2023 ONSC 6742

CITATION: Finn v. Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society, 2023 ONSC 6742

DIVISONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-22-2710

DATE: 2023/12/13

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

ELLIES R.S.J., SACHS AND GIBSON JJ.

BETWEEN:

PAUL FINN Applicant

– and –

HIGHLAND SHORES CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY Respondent

Counsel:

Robert J. Reynolds, Counsel for the Applicant

Candice Pilgrim, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: At Ottawa on June 1, 2023, via videoconference

ENDORSEMENT

gibson j.:

[1] The Applicant Father Paul Finn, a Roman Catholic priest, sought judicial review of the Respondent Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society (the “CAS”) decision dated April 20, 2022, reaffirming its reasons dated September 20, 2018, “coding” the Applicant as a risk to children.

[2] The application for judicial review was granted and the decision set aside because there was a denial of procedural fairness. The Respondent was ordered to cause a fresh investigation to be conducted. In our reasons for decision (2023 ONSC 5495), as submitted by the Respondent, we suggested that it would be best if the conduct of such an investigation was referred to another CAS, and indicated that if there are difficulties with this referral, counsel might contact the court in writing for further directions.

[3] Counsel for the Respondent has now written to the court seeking direction. She indicates that the CAS holds reservations about causing a fresh investigation with the same children, reopening a part of their lives that was thought to be closed with the original investigation. She asks whether the CAS can elect not to cause a fresh investigation.

[4] Counsel for the Applicant has also now written to the court indicating his response to the questions posed by the Respondent. He submits that the court’s decision should not be construed as requiring the CAS to conduct a new investigation; rather, it is up to the CAS to determine whether it will conduct a further investigation into the complaint against the Applicant with appropriate procedural safeguards. Further, he confirms the Applicant’s position that if there is going to be a new investigation by a new agency, it would be appropriate for information from the CAS file to be shared with the new agency.

[5] We agree with the Applicant that, in these circumstances, the CAS is not obliged to commence a new investigation. As the court indicated in Chapman v. York Region Children’s Aid Society, 2021 ONSC 2620, at paragraph 93, while the CAS decision must be set aside, it is up to the Respondent to determine whether it will conduct a further investigation into the complaint with appropriate procedural safeguards.

[6] If a fresh investigation is conducted, as we indicated in our decision, it would be best if it were conducted by another agency.

Gibson J.

I agree _______________________________ Ellies R.S.J.

I agree _______________________________ Sachs J.

Released: December 13, 2023