DD v. Children’s Aid Society for the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound, 2018 CFSRB 6

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

DD

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society for the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: March 29, 2018

Citation: 2018 CFSRB 6

Indexed as: DD v Children’s Aid Society for the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound (CFSA s.68)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

DD, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the applicant, whom the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) declared to be a vexatious litigant with respect to the respondent, should be granted leave (permission) to file a new application against the respondent.

background

2On May 18, 2016, the Board issued a Decision, 2016 CFSRB 17, which made the following findings at paragraphs 38-42:

In this particular case, looking “at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action”, I find that the Applicant brought her current Application “for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties”. This is consistent with her ongoing harassing behavior towards the Society and its employees over the last two years; which has resulted in her multiple convictions and ongoing prohibitions to be in contact with these individuals.

Moreover, concurrently with her personal harassing behaviour towards the Society and its employees, the Applicant has embarked upon “multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights” in a number of forums, all of which have been summarily dismissed.

Furthermore, the Applicant had already filed an application with the Board in 2013 regarding the exact same issues that was dismissed in 2013 for her failure to participate in the scheduled pre-hearing teleconference without a valid reason. Additionally, she waited three years to bring the issues back to the Board after the original dismissal of her application. It is not fair to the Responding Society to be denied finality on these issues.

Finally, most of the issues that the Applicant is asking the Board to review relate to Society employees with whom the Applicant is court ordered not to have any contact. The Board finds that the Applicant is attempting to circumvent the no contact court order by bringing back these issues before the Board. The Board will not be used for this purpose.

The Board finds that it would be vexatious to entertain the Applicant’s complaint and that this application is an abuse of the Board’s process. The Board also finds that the Applicant has behaved in a vexatious manner towards the Respondent Society and that her application before the Board is yet another attempt before another body to continue to harass the Society employees that she was involved with more than three years ago.

3Following these findings, the Board ruled the applicant was not permitted to file any further applications regarding any aspects of her involvement with the respondent without prior permission from the Board.

4On February 5, 2018, the applicant sent a new application to the Board under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”). The applicant did not set out the details of her complaint against the respondent. Instead, she filed a series of documents including: correspondence to the Ontario College of Social Workers; court orders, rulings and endorsements; correspondence to the applicant’s probation officer and the Crown Attorney; correspondence to the Ontario Judicial Council; and press releases.

5Most of the documents provided by the applicant have nothing to do with services sought or received from the respondent, a precondition for a complaint to the Board under section 68.1 of the Act. Instead, they detail a number of complaints against individuals who are unrelated to the respondent. There is one document that contains complaints about the respondent’s staff.

analysis

6The onus rests with the applicant to satisfy the Board that the new application should be accepted and processed.

7As stated above, the applicant has not set out the details of her complaint against the respondent in the application. Rather, she has simply filed documents and complaints that she has made to other individuals or regulatory bodies. The applicant is using the Board’s processes to duplicate complaints that have been made elsewhere.

8The complaints against the respondent and its staff in the application repeat the behaviour which was identified in the Board’s decision declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant and are without merit. For this reason, I am not satisfied the new application against the respondent is a legitimate assertion of the applicant’s right to make a service-related complaint against the respondent, and is not vexatious and/or an abuse of process.

9The applicant has not established that the new application should be processed and as such, the applicant is denied leave to file a new application against the respondent.

confidentiality order

10Pursuant 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 decisions 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 of the Board’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the Board, as appropriate.