S.S. v. Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, 2017 CFSRB 4

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

S.S. v. Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: February 7, 2017 Citation: 2017 CFSRB 4 Indexed as: S.S. v. Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1This application, made under s.68(4)5 of the Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990, c.C.11 as amended (“the Act”), was filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board ("Board") on November 3, 2015. The Board determined the application was eligible on November 12, 2015 and the Respondent Society filed its response on November 26, 2015. The Board advised the parties the application would proceed to a hearing by letter dated December 2, 2015.

2The application is dismissed as abandoned. My reasons for this decision follow below.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3On filing its response the Society offered to meet with the Applicant to discuss her concerns. The Board accommodated this request but when, after several months, it became clear the discussions were not succeeding the Board began to move the application forward through its hearing process.

4On June 14, 2016 the Board issued notice of a Pre-Hearing Settlement Facilitation Conference (“PHSFC”) to be held July 8, 2016. The Applicant asked that the date be adjourned. The Board agreed and, on August 1, 2016, issued a second PHSFC notice to be held September 30, 2016. The Applicant asked the Board to adjourn this PHSFC as well despite having consented to both the date and the location.

5The PHSFC was finally held on November 18, 2016. The parties were unable to resolve the dispute.

6A Pre-Hearing Teleconference was held December 20, 2016 during which hearing dates were canvassed. At that time both parties agreed to hold a hearing on any one of January 20, February 2, or February 3, 2017.

7The Board's Pre-Hearing Report was forwarded to the Applicant and the Society on December 21, 2016.

8On January 5, 2017 the parties were given notice, by email, that the hearing was scheduled for January 20, 2017. The Board had consistently and successfully communicated with the parties by email throughout these proceedings. The email sent to the Applicant on January 5, 2017 did not bounce back to the sender.

9On January 19, 2017 the Case Processing Officer phoned both parties to confirm the hearing would proceed the following day.

10At that time I understand the Applicant claimed she had not received the January 5, 2017 Notice of Hearing. The Applicant later advised the Case Processing Officer that she was moving and could not attend the hearing.

11During the telephone conversation the Applicant requested an adjournment. She was directed to the Board's Rules and advised to attend the hearing and request the adjournment in person.

12The Applicant did not attend the hearing. She sent an email to the Board on the morning of January 20, 2017 renewing her request to adjourn.

13The Applicant did not inform the Society of her request to adjourn. The Society appeared at the hearing and opposed the request to adjourn.

ANALYSIS

14I am satisfied the Applicant received notice of the hearing. The notice was sent to her at her correct email address and did not bounce back to its sender.

15I am also satisfied the Applicant agreed to the three proposed hearing dates on December 20, 2017. I find that, having agreed to those dates, she was available on any one of them. Had the Applicant become unavailable on one or more of those dates after December 20, she was very familiar with the process for advising the Board about her matters relating to her file. She was also very familiar with the process for making a timely adjournment request to the Board in accordance with its Rules.

16Despite being advised to attend the hearing and make her request to adjourn in person the Applicant did not attend or send a representative to attend on her behalf.

17Moreover, she did not advise the Society of her request or seek its consent to adjourn. The Society opposed the last minute request to adjourn.

18I find the Applicant failed to appear at the hearing despite having received notice. Her failure to appear in these circumstances amounts to an abuse of process and abandonment of the application.

19The application is therefore dismissed as abandoned.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

20The hearing was conducted in private and was not open to the public. Pursuant to Rules 30.1 and 30.2 of the Board's Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board documents or any other documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including through the media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside the Board's proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the Board as appropriate.