WARNING
This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
87(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.
COURT FILE NO.: FC-09-350-4
DATE: 20210319
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1
AND IN THE MATTER OF B.L., […]/2008, S.L. […]/14, J.L., […]/2016, N.L., […]/17, A.L., […]/19.
BETWEEN:
THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant/Moving Party
– and –
J.L. and A.C.
Respondents
– and –
T.P. and M.C.
Third-Party Respondents
Brian Fisher, for the Applicant/Moving Party
Cedric Nahum, for the Respondent, J.L.
Mellington Godoy, for the Respondent, A.C.
Annemarie Roodal, for the Respondents, T.P and M.C.
Sheldon Cherner, counsel for the child, B.L.
HEARD: March 21, 2021
REASONS FOR decision
Audet J.
[1] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“the Society”) brings a motion seeking an order for the production of records from 15 different parties including the Ottawa Police Service, health care providers, schools and psychologists, regarding J.L.(”mother”), A.C. (“father) and their five children. More specifically, it seeks the following records:
All records in control of the Ottawa Police Service regarding the mother and the father, including but not restricted to any reports prepared by the investigating officers and witness statements, police occurrence reports, criminal records (as a young offender and as an adult).
All records in control of the family doctor, Dr. Claudette Picard and/or Eastern Ottawa community Family Health Team, regarding the mother, including but not restricted to any assessments, notes and summaries.
All records in control of Ms. Nicole Martin and/or Eastern Ottawa community Family Health Team regarding the mother including but not restricted to any assessments, notes and summaries.
All records in control of Kara Stringer and/or Rideauwood Addiction and Family Services regarding the father including but not restricted to any assessments, notes and summaries.
All records in control of Dr F J McDonald Catholic School regarding S.L. (7) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes and summaries.
All records in control of Dr. Anna Goss, psychologist, and/or Children's Hospital Eastern Ontario (CHEO) regarding S.L. (7) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
All records in control of St. Michael School, Fitzroy regarding J.L. (5) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
All records in control of the family doctor, Dr. Timothy George Bell and/or Appletree Medical Centre (Baseline) regarding S.L. (7), N.C. (3) and A.L. (1) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
All records in control of Mr. Richard Voss and/or Turning Corners Psychological Services regarding B.L. (12) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
All records in control of École Samuel Genest regarding B.L. (12) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
All records in control of Dr. Allison Bunney, specialist for weight management, regarding B.L. (12) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
All records in control of Mara Rotshchild and/or Ottawa Centre for Resilience regarding S.L. (7) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
All records in control of St. Catherine Elementary School Ottawa regarding S.L. (7) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
All records in control of Dr. Krish Malaviarchchi and/or Westend Family Care Clinic regarding B.L. (12) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
All records in control of Sam Cabrillana, the pre-charge Diversion Caseworker and/or the Salvation Army regarding the mother including, but not limited to reports, notes, and other documents.
[2] The respondents, T.P. and M.C. (“the kin”), bring a cross-motion seeking an order permitting the Society to release to their counsel its complete file involving the parents, including all of the records that I might order to be disclosed to the Society today (as part of the Society’s own motion), subject to certain conditions to address the parents’ and the children’s privacy concerns.
[3] The mother and father seek to have both motions dismissed.
[4] The Society, the parents and the kin have filed affidavit material.
Background
[5] The family consists of the mother, the father and five children namely, B.L. (12), S.L. (7), J.L. (5), N.L. (3) and A.L. (1). B.L. (12)’s biological father is K.C., whose whereabouts are unknown. The father, A.C., has acted as a parent for B.L. (12) for many years now.
[6] B.L. (12) has resided with kin since February 2020. J.L. (5) is placed in foster care. The remaining three children, S.L. (7), N.C. (3), and A.L. (1), reside with the parents. The parents have access to the two children not in their care.
[7] Prior to being reintegrated in her parents’ care in the Fall of 2020, A.L. (1) was placed in the care of her kin, T.P. and M.C. Following a motion heard on October 2, 2021, the kin were added as parties to this application for the purpose of advancing their claim for access to A.L. (1). They have filed an Answer and Plan of Care in which they are seeking ongoing access to A.L. (1) as well as an order designating them as safety caregivers to care for her and to act as a safe and protective place for her, as may be needed.
[8] In its Fresh as Amended Protection Application dated January 28, 2021, the Society is seeking the following relief;
a) that all five children be found to be children in need of protection;
b) that S.L. (7), N.L. (3) and A.L. (1) be placed in the care of their parents under a supervision order for a period of six months;
c) that B.L. (12) be placed in the care of kin under a custody order (s. 102) with access to his parents and siblings;
d) that J.L. (5) be placed in the extended care of the Society, with access to his parents and siblings.
[9] The parents seek the return of the four younger children to their care. They consent to B.L. (12) remaining in his kin’s care provided that the custody order includes a proper access schedule between him and his parents and siblings. The parents dispute that the younger four children are in need of protection.
[10] The trial in this matter was originally scheduled to begin in November 2020, but it was adjourned on consent of the parties. It is now set to begin on April 19, 2021, for two weeks.
[11] The Society brings this motion to obtain all pertinent information regarding each family member to have a complete and accurate picture of the parents’ and the children’s needs, as well as of the challenges and concerns received by the Society from different collaterals and professionals.
[12] The Society’s concerns are as follows:
a. The parents’ inability to meet B.L. (12)’s needs and the pattern of reoccurring circumstances which led to the child being returned to the Society’s care on July 19, 2018.
b. The parents’ parenting abilities and historical inappropriate discipline towards B.L. (12) and J.L. (5).
c. The mother’s mental health issues as it relates to her ability to parent.
d. The mother and father’s inability to work cooperatively with the Society and their lack of insight into the child protection concerns and their children’s needs.
e. The father’s ongoing drug use and failure to follow safety plans made in agreement with the Society.
[13] The parents’ position is that the sheer number of records requested by the Society and the vague wording of the requests indicate that the Society has embarked upon a fishing expedition. Further, they argue that the sheer quantity of records will waste resources and distract from the ultimate issue of whether the children are in need of protection and what is the appropriate disposition for them. Further, they state that the Society has failed to seek the records from the third parties prior to bringing their motion and, since they have not been refused those records, its motion is premature.
[14] The parents also strongly object to the kin’s motion for the Society’s file and third-party records being released to them. They state that this information is not relevant to their claim for access to A.L. (1), and that their obtaining access to such private information about them, which makes them deeply uncomfortable, is a significant intrusion of their privacy.
The Society’s Records Motion
Legislative and jurisprudential framework
[15] Section 130 (3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14 Schedule 1 (“CYFSA”) provides:
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 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.
[16] Section 130 (6) of the CYFSA provides that no person who obtains information by means of an order made under ss. (3) or (4) shall disclose the information except,
(a) as specified in the order; and
(b) in testimony in a proceeding under this Part.
[17] The case law has developed certain principles that are at play when addressing a records motion brought by a society in a child protection proceeding. Since s. 130 of the CYFSA is virtually identical to s. 74 of the now deceased CFSA, the legal principles that developed under s. 74 of the CFSA is equally applicable to s. 130 of the CYFSA. These principles were described in detail by Sherr J. in Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto v. H.B.S., 2012 ONCJ 663, and by Chappel J. in Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. L.K., 2016 CanLII 15148 (ON SC). In the following paragraphs, I will only reproduce the most relevant principles, borrowing extensively from both decisions:
The court’s authority under subsection 130(3) of the Act is discretionary. The court may order the production of evidence that may be relevant, but it is not required to do so.
The phrase “may be relevant” is not an onerous test. The society requires full disclosure to properly meet its mandate to investigate protection concerns. Some courts have defined the test as meaning a “semblance of relevance”. A document may be relevant for production and investigation purposes but may not be admissible at trial.
Where the best interests of the child at are issue, the court has a positive obligation to ensure that the most helpful and relevant information is before the court.
Police records, notes and incident reports are relevant under subsection 130(3) of the Act.
The court does not weigh privacy interests in a s. 130 hearing other than the privacy interests already provided for in the section (including in relation to privileged documents, records of personal health and records of a mental health disorder, for instance).
A party who raises concerns about privacy interests in the context of a production motion brought pursuant to s. 130(3) of the CYFSA cannot simply raise the specter of possible harm in defense of the motion. The court is not expected to carry out the task of balancing the competing interests that may arise in these motions in an evidentiary vacuum. Concerns about the impact of impinging on privacy interests will only form part of the analysis under s.130(3) if there is an evidentiary basis to support those concerns.
Considerations relating to privacy interests come into play under s. 130 of the CYFSA not only in determining whether disclosure to the Society should be ordered, but also in deciding whether a disclosure order should include terms regarding the use of the information, and if so, in formulating those terms. Subsection 130(6) gives the court a broad discretion to craft an order that is uniquely tailored to the needs of the particular case before it, so as to achieve an appropriate balance between privacy interests, public policy interests, the importance of Societies obtaining important information to carry out their functions, and the importance of the information to the parties and the children involved in the proceeding.
Analysis
[18] The parents previously signed consents allowing the Society to obtain most of the records it seeks today. However, the consents were signed – except for two – more than one year ago. The Society’s practice is to ask parents to renew their consent after one year to ensure their ongoing agreement with the Society’s intrusion in private information related to them and their children.
[19] In January 2021, and in preparation for the forthcoming trial, the Society asked the parents to sign new consents allowing them to obtain records (or updated records) from third parties. Existing temporary court orders require that the parents sign consents as requested by the Society and Counsel for the child B.L. (12), allowing the Society and other service providers to share information, upon consultation with counsel if desired.
[20] On January 14, 2021, the Society sought the mother’s consent to the release of information from a program she was required to engage in (the Diversion Program). The mother’s counsel’s response was “I told you we wouldn’t sign this. We’re not speaking to Ms. Chabot [former child protection worker on the file] about the matter and don’t consent to her speaking to others about it”. As a result, the parties were made aware that the Society would be scheduling a records motion.
[21] Today, the parents do not take the position that the records being sought are irrelevant. They take the position that the Society does not need a court order to access third-party records because the parents have not revoked the consents they previously gave, even if they are more than one year old. The mother further adds that because the Society did not attempt to obtain the records it now seeks from third parties before bringing its motion (and therefore, those records were not refused to it), the condition set out in s. 130(1) has not been met and this motion is premature.
[22] I find this position completely counterproductive. With a trial proceeding in less than five weeks, the parents’ position, in my view, is pure semantics. The records sought by the Society, with the exceptions specifically discussed below, are clearly relevant to the issues in this case and must be produced. While the parents argue that this potentially “voluminous documentary disclosure” being sought weeks before trial is imposing an unreasonable burden on these unsophisticated parents and on defence counsel, who will now be required to sort through all this evidence prior to trial, I find that it is their own refusal to expressly consent to their earlier release which is the cause of the delay. Had they agreed to sign new consents as requested by the Society back in January 2021, they would have had access to the records three full months before trial.
[23] As stated before, the parents do not argue that the records being sought are irrelevant. They take the position that they have already given consent for their release, and that many of the records being sought in relation to the children are accessible to the Society without their consent because they were created while the children were in the care of the Society. For my part, and subject to certain restrictions in relation to the records listed immediately below, I am not prepared to take the risk that these records will not be available to the court and the parties for the purpose of trial. Therefore, the Society’s motion is granted in its entirety, with the exceptions listed below:
a. With respect to the parents’ police records, these records are clearly relevant to this proceeding and an order for their production to the Society will be made in the form prescribed and approved by the OPS Legal Services on February 24, 2021.
b. With respect to the records in control of Kara Stringer and/or Rideauwood Addiction and Family Services regarding the father, all records including but not restricted to any assessments and summaries shall be provided, but not the notes taken during the father’s counselling sessions.
c. With respect to records in control of Mr. Richard Voss and/or Turning Corners Psychological Services regarding B.L. (12), all records including but not restricted to any assessments and summaries shall be provided, but not the notes taken during the child’s counselling sessions.
d. With regards to the records in control of Sam Cabrillana, the pre-charge Diversion Caseworker and/or the Salvation Army regarding the mother, the only records to be provided shall be those confirming the specifics of the programming required to be completed by the mother, including those confirming her attendance at these programs and any reports or summaries confirming whether the mother successfully completed those programs and/or describing her progress and/or level of engagement in these programs.
The Respondent Kin’s Motion for Disclosure
Legislative and jurisprudential framework
[24] Section 130 of the CYFSA is only available to a society. It is not available to other litigants including parent litigants in child protection proceedings (Children Aid Society of Algoma v. J.R., 2018 ONCJ 835). The wide and enhanced production order made available to societies by virtue of s. 130 of the CYFSA is meant to assist societies in carrying out their mandate, which is primarily the protection of children.
[25] Pursuant to subsection 130(6) of the CYFSA, no person who obtains information by means of an order under s.130 (which includes societies) shall disclose the information except as may be permitted in the order itself, and in testimony in the child protection proceeding. Clearly, the court has the power to require a society to produce the records in question to the other participants in the case pursuant to this section. In Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. L.K., Chappel J. stated at para. 15:
On a motion for production pursuant to s.74 of the CFSA [now s. 130 of the CYFSA], the issues of whether materials may be relevant, whether they should be produced, the proper extent of any production and conditions that should attach to disclosure are matters for the judge to decide. If possible, these issues should be determined on the basis of the motion record and submissions of counsel.
[26] The kin do not have access to the investigative powers provided to societies by virtue of s. 130 of the CYFSA. The scope of the disclosure that they are entitled to receive from the Society in this case is framed by Rules 19 to 22 of the Family Law Rules and is dependent on the records being relevant to the claim they are advancing.
[27] The kin rely on the decision of Chappel J. in Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. L.K., as conclusive of their right to receive all of the records currently in the possession of the Society, as added parties to this case. In Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. L.K., the society was seeking an order for extended society care (at the time called crown wardship) of two children age 4 and 8, without access to the parents. The maternal grandmother had been added as a party to the proceeding and had filed an Answer and Plan of Care. In the context of a motion by the society under s. 74(3) of the CFSA to obtain records in the possession of non-parties, the mother consented to the release of the records to the society but was seeking to restrict the disclosure of those records to the maternal grandmother and the child’s counsel. In particular, she sought an order that the disclosure be subjected to a preliminary vetting by the court, by her counsel or by counsel for the society before being handed over to the maternal grandmother and counsel for the child to ensure their relevance. Chappel J. concluded:
16 I do not consider it necessary or appropriate in this case for me to vet the records in question prior to considering an order for production to W.T. and counsel for the children. The evidence does not raise any concerns in my mind as to whether the documents in question may be relevant or not. The Society's materials document a long-standing history of concerns respecting the mother's mental health status. The documents relate to recent monitoring and treatment which L.K. has received in relation to her mental health. This information is clearly relevant to the issues of whether the children are in need of protection, and if so, the disposition that is in their best interests. […]
17 With respect generally to the scope of disclosure that should be made to [the grandmother] and [the children’s counsel], they are entitled to receive all of the records in question. Respondents and counsel for children in child protection cases should receive the same disclosure that Societies receive from non-parties pursuant to orders made under s. 74 of the CFSA. This principle applies to all non-party records, and not simply to police records (Children's Aid Society of Halton (Region) v. B. (T.C.), 2012 ONCJ 69 (Ont. C.J.)). Having regard for this principle, production orders made under s. 74 should ideally address the issue of disclosure to the other participants in the litigation, regardless of whether the participants have specifically requested this relief.
[28] I am unaware as to what claims the maternal grandmother was making in that particular case. It is not clear whether she was granted party status to seek an order that the children be placed in her care, or whether she was granted party status for another limited purpose. Regardless, I do not agree with the kin’s submissions that Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. L.K., stands for the principle that all records obtained by a society by virtue of a s. 130 order must in all cases be shared with all parties in a child protection case. While Chappel J. deemed it appropriate to do so in that case, her conclusion was undoubtedly based on her preliminary finding that all of the records in question (namely, extensive medical records of the mother’s mental health treatment) were relevant to the claims being advanced by all the parties in the case, including by the maternal grandmother.
[29] In the case at hand, the kin were granted party status for the limited purpose of advancing their claim for access to A.L. (1) only. In my (unpublished) decision of October 4, 2020, in which I added the kin as parties to this case, I specifically stated:
The evidence before me at this stage in the proceeding convinces me that ongoing access between A.L. and her kin is in her best interest. The evidence before me also strongly suggests that there is clear tension between the parents and the kin, and that the parents will not be prepared to promote ongoing contact between A.L. and her kin if she is returned to their full-time care (failing an order to that effect).
It was made clear to me during oral submissions that the parents and the Society are very close to a final settlement with regards to four of the five children (J.L.’ s faith remains uncertain). If [the kin] is not made a party to this proceeding, her ability to present evidence and seek access to A.L. (in the context of this child protection proceeding) will be entirely defeated and/or unreasonably delayed by any settlement reached by the other parties in the case in relation to A.L.
Based on the above, I find that the addition of [the kin] as party to this proceeding is in the best interest of A.L., but only for the purpose of advancing their claim for access to her.
Both parents and the Society expressed concerns during this motion hearing about potential delays that might result from this late addition of the kin as parties. It is important to note that the kin have not sought an adjournment of the trial, which is set to proceed in November 2020. Further, and while they are entitled to disclosure from the Society and the parents, their entitlement to same is circumscribed by the claim that they are advancing in this proceeding, namely, the right to have access to A.L.
[30] In my view, the kin’s request to obtain disclosure of the Society’s entire file, including all records that I have ordered produced today pursuant to s. 130 of the CYFSA which relate to the parents and each of the five children, is clearly a fishing expedition. None of that disclosure is relevant to their limited claim for access A.L. (1).
[31] Counsel for the kin argues that her client’s claim for access to A.L. (1) in the context of this child protection proceeding is dependent on A.L. (1) being found to be a child in need of protection. As such, she submits, they are required to address the issue of the children’s need for protection, as it relates to the court’s ability to grant them access to A.L. (1), which in turn makes all of the evidence supporting such a finding relevant to their claim.
[32] I disagree. While it is true that the court’s ability to grant access to the kin in this child protection proceeding is incumbent on a preliminary conclusion that A.L. (1) is a child in need of protection, the kin’s ability to seek access to her is not limited to the confine of the CYFSA. If their claim for access under the CYFSA is defeated by the trial judge’s finding that A.L. (1) is not a child in need of protection, they will still have the ability to seek a contact order with her pursuant to the CLRA.
[33] The limited participatory rights granted to the kin in this child protection proceeding significantly narrow the scope of the disclosure and the evidence that is relevant to them. They were made parties to the case for the purpose of advancing their claim that it would be in A.L. (1)’s best interests to preserve her relationship with them on a long term basis, despite the parents’ objections, and that this relationship needs to be fostered and protected by way of an access order being made at the disposition stage. The kin’s claim for access to A.L. (1), therefore, will be assessed at the second stage of the court’s analysis mandated by Part V of the CYFSA, the disposition stage, if A.L. (1) is first found to be in need of the Court’s protection. The limited participatory rights granted to the kin does not give them the right to participate in the first stage of the court’s analysis, namely, whether A.L. (1) is a child in need of protection.
[34] There have been several motions heard in this matter since February 2020, including several hearings related to the temporary care and custody of all five children. Extensive evidence, in the form of multiple affidavits from all parties, is contained in the court’s voluminous (virtual) Continuing Record, to which the kin have and continue to have access. They are fully aware of the protection concerns which led to the five children being placed in care, of the progress made by the parents which led to three of the children being placed back into their care and, by virtue of their access to this voluminous material, they are fully aware of any medical, educational or behavioural issues related to any of the five children. They participated in the Settlement Conference held before Engelking J. in November 2020. Up until the Fall of 2020, A.L. (1) was in their full-time care and, therefore, they were fully aware of and had full access to all records related to A.L. (1), including from any professionals involved in her care.
[35] In my view, this is more than sufficient for the kin to be able to fully prepare for trial and to pursue their claim for ongoing access to A.L. (1). The only exception to this is that the kin will be entitled to receive all records in control of the family doctor, Dr. Timothy George Bell and/or Appletree Medical Centre (Baseline) regarding A.L. (1) only, including but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
Disposition
[36] I order as follows:
The Ottawa Police Service shall release to the Society all records in their control regarding the mother and the father, including but not restricted to any reports prepared by the investigating officers and witness statements, police occurrence reports, criminal records (as a young offender and as an adult), on the terms and conditions and in the form approved by it in the draft approved order provided.
Dr. Claudette Picard and/or Eastern Ottawa community Family Health Team shall release to the Society all records in their control regarding the mother, including but not restricted to any assessments, notes and summaries.
Ms. Nicole Martin and/or Eastern Ottawa community Family Health Team shall release to the Society all records in their control regarding the mother including but not restricted to any assessments, notes and summaries.
Kara Stringer and/or Rideauwood Addiction and Family Services shall release to the Society all records in their control regarding the father including but not restricted to any assessments and summaries, but not the notes taken during the father’s counselling sessions.
Dr F J McDonald Catholic School shall release to the Society all records in their control regarding S.L. (7) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes and summaries.
Dr. Anna Goss, psychologist, and/or Children's Hospital Eastern Ontario (CHEO) shall release to the Society all records in their control regarding S.L. (7) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
St. Michael School, Fitzroy shall release to the Society all records in their control regarding J.L. (5) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
Dr. Timothy George Bell and/or Appletree Medical Centre (Baseline) shall release to the Society all records in their control regarding S.L. (7), N.C. (3) and A.L. (1) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries. They shall also release to counsel for the kin, T.P. and M.C., all records in their control regarding A.L. (1) only.
Mr. Richard Voss and/or Turning Corners Psychological Services shall release to the Society all records in their control regarding B.L. (12) including, but not restricted to any assessments and summaries, but not the notes taken during the child’s counselling sessions.
École Samuel Genest shall release to the Society all records in its control regarding B.L. (12) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
Dr. Allison Bunney, specialist for weight management, shall release to the Society all records in her control regarding B.L. (12) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
Mara Rotshchild and/or Ottawa Centre for Resilience shall release to the Society all records in her control regarding S.L. (7) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
St. Catherine Elementary School Ottawa shall release to the Society all records in its control regarding S.L. (7) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
Dr. Krish Malaviarchchi and/or Westend Family Care Clinic shall release to the Society all records in their control regarding B.L. (12) including, but not restricted to any assessments, notes, and summaries.
Sam Cabrillana, the pre-charge Diversion Caseworker and/or the Salvation Army shall release to the Society any records in her control confirming the specifics of the programming required to be completed by the mother including records, if any, confirming her attendance at these programs, whether the mother successfully completed those programs and/or describing her progress and/or level of engagement in these programs.
Madam Justice Julie Audet
Released: March 19, 2021