NF v. Halton Children’s Aid Society, 2020 CFSRB 14

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

NF

Applicant

-and-

Halton Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: February 19, 2020

Citation: 2020 CFSRB 14

Indexed As: NF v Halton Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

Halton Children’s Aid Society ) Diane Skrow, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”). The Application was filed on December 4, 2019.

Abandonment BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

2On January 27, 2020, the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) scheduled a pre-hearing in this matter for February 14, 2020.

3The pre-hearing is a mandatory first step in the section 120 hearing process. At the pre-hearing, parties are given the opportunity to mediate an application. If parties refuse to mediate, case management for the hearing is done at the pre-hearing.

4On February 13, 2020, the Case Processing Officer (CPO) made a courtesy call to the parties to remind them of the pre-hearing scheduled for the next day. During the call, the Applicant informed the CPO that she would not be attending the pre-hearing and that she would no longer interact with the CFSRB. She also declined to withdraw her complaint.

5At 3:35 p.m., the CPO sent the Applicant an e-mail summarizing the Applicant’s statements and her intention not to attend the pre-hearing. The e-mail also included a direction from the member which indicated that: “all parties are expected to attend and participate in the Pre-Hearing. If a party does not attend after receiving the notice, it may proceed in the party’s absence. If you, as the Applicant do not attend after receiving the notice, your Application may be dismissed as abandoned”.

6The wording in the member’s direction is similar to the wording on the original Notice of Pre-Hearing (January 27, 2020) as well as the revised Notice of Pre-hearing dated February 13, 2020.

7The CPO then converted the in-person pre-hearing conference into a telephone conference scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on February 14, 2020. The parties were sent a revised Notice of Pre-Hearing.

8At 4:28 p.m. on February 13, 2020, the Applicant sent an e-mail to the CFSRB and the Respondent providing her reasoning for not attending the hearing. In the e-mail the Applicant accused the Respondent of failing to assist her in reuniting with her child, and of acting on opinion and not the law. The e-mail also indicated that the Applicant had reported her experiences to major news outlets and that she was willing to talk to them. She ended the e-mail with a vulgar emoji.

9On February 14, 2020, the pre-hearing teleconference was held. The Respondent participated; however, the Applicant did not participate. After 30 minutes, and after verifying that the Applicant had not joined the pre-hearing teleconference, the Respondent was asked to provide submissions as to whether the Application should be dismissed as abandoned.

10The Respondent submitted that the proceedings should be dismissed as abandoned given that the Applicant failed to participate in the scheduled pre-hearing conference. In addition, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s e-mail of February 13, 2020 amounted to a violation of CFSRB Rule A7 Courtesy and Respect which indicates that: “All persons participating in proceedings before or communicating with the tribunal must act in good faith and in a manner that is courteous and respectful of the tribunal and other participants in the proceeding.” The Respondent argued that the content, tone and emoji included in the Applicant’s e-mail were not respectful or courteous.

11This Application was filed in December of 2019 and no pre-hearing has taken place. The Applicant has refused to participate in the Board’s hearing process and in doing so, has effectively abandoned the Application. As a result, this Application is dismissed as abandoned.

12In addition, I find the Applicant’s e-mail of February 13, 2020 amounted to a violation of Rule A7 as it demonstrated a lack of respect for the Respondent and its actions in relation to its mandate. The e-mail’s tone and accompanying emoji was accusatory and disrespectful to the Respondent as well as to the CFSRB.

13I draw the Applicant’s attention to the Confidentiality Order in paragraph 15 of this decision and remind her that the CFSRB prohibits the disclosure, sharing, discussion or use of any of information in her Application or these proceedings with third parties, including the media.

ORDER

14For the above reasons, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

15Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions, or any other documents or information provided or used in the Application, with anyone including through the media or online. The CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court of the CFSRB, as appropriate.