|
Family - Childrens' Aid Services (CAS). H.C. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
In H.C. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, here against a CFSRB order limited to ordering the Toronto CAS (CAST) "to provide a letter explaining the investigation and why it was unable to disclose more information gathered in the investigation".
Here the court illustrates functions, investigations and review procedures of a Childrens' Aid Society:[5] CAST is a designated children’s aid society under s. 34(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (“CYFSA”). Under s. 35(1)(a), one of its functions is to investigate allegations or evidence that children may be in need of protection. In doing that, it follows the requirements in ss. 119 and 120 of CYFSA, ss. 30, 31 of General Matters under the Authority of the Minister, O. Reg. 156/18, and Ontario Child Protection Standards, 2016, Standard 1, Standard 2, and Appendix A. (the “Standards”).
[6] A person may make a complaint to a children’s aid society. If they are not content with the outcome of the complaint review procedure, they may bring an application for relief at the CFSRB: CYFSA, s. 120. The CFSRB may review the following matters, which are listed in s. 120(4):1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119 (1) as required under subsection 119 (2).
2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.
4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15 (2).
5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
6. Such other matters as may be prescribed. [7] With respect to s. 120(4)6, no such other matters have been prescribed: General Matters under the Authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, O. Reg. 155/18.
[8] With respect to the fourth listed ground, s. 15(2) provides as follows:s. 15(2) Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving. ....
2. The CAST Investigation
[10] After receipt of H.C.’s complaint, CAST commenced a community caregiver investigation into the matter. H.C. stated his concerns to M.S., who was responsible for carrying out the investigation (the “Investigator”). As per protocol, the Investigator consulted with the Child and Youth Advocacy Bureau of the Toronto Police Services to determine whether a joint investigation was required. A Detective reviewed the information and advised CAST that police involvement did not appear warranted but to advise if the CAST investigation revealed any criminality.
[11] On April 19, 2024, the Investigator spoke with H.C. by telephone and obtained information about H.C.’s concerns. This was a 15-minute call. She advised H.C. of the investigation process and possible outcomes. H.C. confirmed that R.’s marks were almost gone but he sent photos of the marks.
[12] The Investigator requested H.C. to take R. to the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect clinic (“SCAN”) at the Sick Children’s Hospital. Dr. Yeung of the SCAN team examined R. that day and provided an opinion that the mark could be a bruise or dermatitis. Dr. Yeung recommended that CAST inquire whether the school had started using any new chemicals and to gather information regarding any incidents or injuries that day. Dr. Yeung noted that if they were bruises, they were concerning due to the location and size.
[13] On April 22, 2024, the Investigator had another 20-minute phone call with H.C. who disagreed with the SCAN clinic’s assessment. H.C. complained that the examination was only done with the doctor’s “naked eye” and asserted that CAST should insist on a more thorough examination or get a second opinion. He provided a link to a website about a camera with intense lighting that could see below the skin’s surface that could be used for such examinations.
[14] On April 25, 2024, the Investigator met with R. in accordance with the Standards. This was a 45-minute meeting. H.C. was present and participated in the meeting as R. is non-verbal. H.C. provided information about R.’s experience at the school. He strongly argued that whoever was responsible for changing R.’s diaper used physical force that left bruises likely due to retaliation for an argument H.C. had had with the staff that morning.
[15] On April 29, 2024, the Investigator spoke with Dr. Yeung about H.C.’s concerns about the adequacy of the SCAN clinic’s assessment. Dr. Yeung advised that she was unfamiliar with the illumination technology suggested by H.C. The SCAN clinic did not use it. Dr. Yeung further advised that in formulating her opinion, she relied upon the academic literature and had consulted with other SCAN physicians about the case.
[16] From April 20, 2024, to May 9, 2024, the Investigator interviewed all staff members who spent time in R.’s classroom on April 18, 2024. The Investigator inquired about any concerns about child abuse or neglect, the relationship between school staff and R., any chemicals used in R.’s classroom, the staff’s conduct with R. on April 18, 2024, the interactions between the staff and H.C. that day, and anything that could have caused the marks. The Investigator also observed the classroom and its physical layout to assess the credibility and sufficiency of the information received from the staff. Thus, in addition to the medical investigation and the police contact, the investigation included information from two school administrators, five school staff, an on-site visit, and an inspection of classroom logs.
....
3. The Procedural History and the Decisions Under Review
The Verification Decision of CAST
[18] On June 6, 2024, the Investigator held a verification conference with her supervisor. They reviewed the information gathered during the investigation and concluded that it was more likely than not that R. was not harmed by school staff and the complaint was not verified. They considered the fact that the medical assessment was inconclusive, the absence of any observed incidents between staff and R. that day, and the existence of alternative explanations for the markings. If the marks were bruises, they could have been caused by unobserved physical interactions between R. and other children that day.
[19] That same day, the Investigator orally informed H.C. of the verification decision. She explained the balance of probabilities threshold and the fact the public school was to conduct their own internal investigation and would continue to work with H.C. about his child’s safety.
[20] In a letter dated June 11, 2024, CAST informed H.C. that the allegation of physical harm to R. was not verified. The letter was signed by the Investigator, who was identified as a “Senior Child Welfare Worker” and her Intake Supervisor.
The Internal Complaints Review Panel Decision of CAST
[21] On June 12, 2024, the Intake Supervisor spoke with H.C. by phone as H.C. strongly disagreed with the investigation outcome. The Intake Supervisor explained the general nature of a community caregiver investigation and listened to H.C.’s concerns including past incidents with the school. H.C. relayed his view that he had not known until April 18, 2024, that the staff would beat his child and his view that the principal and the staff were collectively involved. The Intake Supervisor advised H.C. about the complaints process but told him it would not result in a re-investigation.
[22] On June 14, 2024, H.C. filed a police report. After speaking with the Investigator who provided an overview of the CAST investigation, the Detective addressing the matter agreed with the CAST’s investigative steps and declined to re-open the police investigation.
[23] On June 14, 2024, H.C. took steps to initiate a complaint to CAST under s. 119 of CYFSA. H.C. spoke to the manager of Client Services, who helps with CAST’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”) process. H.C. strongly advocated for his child and insisted that the investigation was inadequate. H.C. was told the ICRP process would not result in re-investigation, but H.C. wished to proceed with his complaint.
[24] On June 14 and 21, H.C. provided emails about his concerns. Amongst his concerns were his views that the school failed to meet his child’s needs, he was not properly interviewed, and he was not consulted before the investigation was closed. He also complained that the worker on the investigation doubted his testimony and that CAST did not tell him what steps were taken to investigate the matter. A meeting was then held on July 15, 2024.
[25] On July 19, 2024, a letter was given to H.C. outlining ICRP’s conclusion that H.C. had an opportunity to provide information through in-person meetings, phone calls and email and his information was considered. They also concluded that the Investigator had objectively reviewed the information obtained during the investigation and that reasons for the conclusion had been given. The letter indicated that CAST was unable to provide more information to H.C. due to privacy laws.
....
[52] To provide context to the assessment of the reasonableness of the decision, the legal framework for an institutional community caregiver investigation requires CAST to:(a) Determine the appropriate response to information alleging that a child is or may be in need of protection within 24 hours of receiving such information,
(b) If the appropriate response is a child protection investigation, CAST must complete the following steps:. conduct a review of current and historical information;
. prepare an investigation plan;
. if information is received alleging a criminal offence, inform police and work with the police according to established protocols;
. interview the alleged victim(s), staff witnesses (current and former), child witnesses, facility administrator, supervisor of the alleged perpetrator, and the alleged perpetrator;
. examine the physical layout of the setting;
. complete a safety assessment; and
. complete a risk assessment if necessary. (c) Ensure the assigned worker has specialized skills and knowledge in the area of community caregiver investigations;
(d) Ensure the case is reviewed with a supervisor at least once during an investigation;
(e) Make the verification decision in a conference which includes, at minimum, the worker and their supervisor and uses a balance of probabilities threshold;
(f) When sufficient information is gathered to determine whether the child is safe and whether there is any longer-term risk of maltreatment, the verification decision is made. See CYFSA, s. 126; O. Reg. 156/18, ss. 30, 31; the Standards.
|
