SA v. Toronto District School Board, 2019 CFSRB 24

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SA Appellant

-and-

Toronto District School Board Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: May 09, 2019 Citation: 2019 CFSRB 24 Indexed As: SA v Toronto District School Board (EA s.311.7)

Introduction

1This is an Appeal filed under section 311.7 of the Education Act, R.S.O.1990, c. E2, as amended, (the “Act”).

Background

2On April 3, 2019, the Appellant filed an Appeal of the Respondent’s decision to expel her daughter, DRA, from all schools of the Respondent. The Appellant identified possible jurisdictional issues regarding the expulsion.

3During an April 10, 2019 pre-hearing teleconference, the parties advised that they were very close to reaching a settlement. Accordingly, the pre-hearing was adjourned to April 15, 2019.

4During the April 15, 2019 pre-hearing teleconference, the parties again advised that they were very close to reaching a settlement. The Appellant was directed to advise the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) by the end of the day on April 17, 2019 whether she would be withdrawing her Appeal or, if she was not, on what basis she was asking the CFSRB to remain seized.

5In an April 17, 2019 letter the Appellant advised that she was “relinquishing her right to a hearing to resolve this matter.” She provided details of the agreement reached with the Respondent and stated that there was one outstanding issue, the identification of a suitable placement for DRA. She asked that the CFSRB remain seized “should a need for mediation arise to resolve the placement issue.” Finally, she stated that by April 24, 2019 she would either provide an update or withdraw the Appeal.

6The CFSRB has received no communication from the Appellant since April 17, 2019.

7The CFSRB’s case processing officer left a telephone message for the Appellant’s counsel on May 1, 2019. No response was received.

8A May 6, 2019 Case Management Direction (“CMD”) directed the Appellant to advise the CFSRB by no later than 5 p.m. on May 7, 2019 whether she was withdrawing the Appeal. The CMD further directed that if the Appeal was not withdrawn, the CFSRB would hold a pre-hearing teleconference at 9 a.m. on May 9, 2019 “to discuss whether there is any basis for the CFSRB to remain seized and, if so, what is the appropriate next step”.

9Neither party called in to the teleconference at any time between 9 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. nor did they communicate with the CFSRB.

Analysis

10From the beginning, it has been unclear whether the CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear this Appeal.

11In her April 17, 2019 letter, the Appellant relinquished her right to a hearing. She has not communicated with the CFSRB since April 17, 2019 despite a commitment to do so.

12Neither party attended the May 9, 2019 teleconference. The May 6, 2019 CMD was sent to the email addresses provided by each of the parties and did not bounce back as undeliverable. I am satisfied that both parties received notice of the teleconference.

13I conclude that the Appellant has abandoned her Appeal.

Order

14The Appeal is dismissed.

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 this Appeal 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 or the CFSRB, as appropriate.