CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JM

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: March 12, 2020

Citation: 2020 CFSRB 21

Indexed As: JM v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

JM, Applicant

Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent

Yvonne Fiamengo, 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”).

2On January 6, 2020, the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) received an Application from the Applicant. The Application was found eligible to proceed under sections 120(4) and 120(4)5 of the Act.

BACKGROUND

3The Applicant is the adoptive mother of 2 sons (“the Children”).

4The Applicant’s complaint focused on the following six issues:

1. The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (“the Society”) has denied or obstructed access between our adopted sons and their sister (“the Sister”) who is under the care of the Society.

2. The Society has failed to support access between the Applicant’s adopted sons and their brothers who were adopted separately.

3. The Society is severing the only connection the Children have to their Guyanese (Black) culture through connection to their biological siblings.

4. The Society’s Children’s Service Worker (CSW) and the Society’s Lawyer have made false statements to the Ontario Court of Justice.

5. The Society’s CSW and the Society’s Lawyer have refused to communicate with the Applicant.

6. The Society’s CSW permitted the Sister to be told it was “unsafe” for her to have visits with her brothers unless supervised.

5The Applicant indicated that she wanted Society staff held accountable for service failures such as: not hearing her complaints, not providing reasons for Society decisions, and being resistant to improving practices and correcting mistakes.

6In its Summary Response to the Application, the Society argued that the Applicant is not a person who has sought or received services from the Society within the meaning of section 120(1) of the Act and therefore is not entitled to request a review of her complaint to the CFSRB. In addition, the issue of contact between the Children and their Sister is before the Ontario Court of Justice and therefore the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint as per section 120(8)(a) of the Act.

7In the alternative, the Respondent argued that it provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and provided reasons why the Society has taken the position it has in relation to sibling access.

8In a Case Management Direction (CMD) dated February 5, 2020, the Respondent was asked to provide submissions and relevant documentation in support of its position that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the complaint based on section 120(8)(a). The Applicant was asked to provide written submissions on both jurisdictional issues (was the Applicant a recipient of service; were the issues before the Court) raised by the Respondent. Both parties were directed to comment on Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441 on the facts of the case.

9The Respondent submitted:

• The Applicant is not a person who has sought or received services within the meaning of section 120(1) of the CYFSA

• The complaint cannot be heard by the Board pursuant to section 120(8) of the CYFSA as the issue to be determined is currently before the Ontario Court of Justice

• A complaint about the conduct of a specific person employed by the Society cannot be heard as it is not a matter for Board review pursuant to section 120(4) of the CYFSA

10The Applicant submitted that, despite the fact that the matter of access is currently before the courts, the misconduct the Applicant raised in her complaint is not before the courts. The misconduct is a related, but entirely separate, matter. The Applicant also indicated that she had received permanency subsidy in the past and has a request for permanency funding pending with the Society.

THE LAW

11Subsection 120(8) of the Act states:

The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,

a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court

12The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441, that the mere existence of a child protection proceeding does not automatically bar the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint about the services an individual has received from a children’s aid society. In DD the Court found that complaints about how the children’s aid society had handled the temporary placement of the applicant’s children could proceed before the CFSRB. Those complaints “were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court” (para 35).

13Section 120 (1) of the Act provides that, if a person has “a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society [and the complaint] relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may decide” to make a complaint to either the society or the CFSRB.

14The Act defines “service” as follows:

“service” includes,

a) a service for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s

family

b) a mental health service for a child or the child’s family,

c) a service related to residential care for a child,

d) a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s

family,

e) a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others,

f) counselling for a child or the child’s family

g) a service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or

prevention and that is provided in the community,

h) a service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purposes of

the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or

i) a prescribed service; (“service”)

15A “parent” in the Act is defined as:

1. the person who has lawful custody of the child; or

2. if more than one person has lawful custody of the child, all of the persons

who have lawful custody of the child, excluding any person who is unavailable or unable to act, as the context requires.

16Section 15(2) of the Act ensures 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.”

17Section 120(4) of the Act states:

The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

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.

18H.L.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s. 68), 2012 CFSRB 4 (para. 51) examines the issue of who is in receipt of services.

Looking at the statute, the Society’s obligation to provide reasons in section 68.1 (4) 5 is not confined to “parents”. If that were the case, the obligation would be associated with section 2(2) (a) of the Act, like the right to be heard. The right to reasons for decisions that affect one’s interests is broad and recognizes that there may be persons other than parents who are involved with children under the Act and whose lives may be impacted by Society decisions. For example, the Board has held that foster parents or teachers who are the subject of an investigation by a society are receiving a service and are entitled to reasons relating to the decisions made in the investigation. The Board has also held that grandparents who have sought access to their grandchildren from a society that controls access have a right to reasons.

ANALYSIS

19My analysis of this interim decision focuses on four questions:

1. Can the CFSRB consider the mediation materials referred to in the Application and submissions?

2. Is the Applicant a recipient of service as per section 120(1) of the Act?

3. Does the CFSRB have jurisdiction to hear the aspects of the complaint which are currently before the Court?

4. Does the CFSRB have jurisdiction to deal with complaints about individual staff members of a Society?

Confidentiality of Mediation Materials

20The Respondent indicated that any reference to the mediation between the Applicant, Respondent and other parties should be stricken from the Applicant’s materials as the mediation was a closed process. The Applicant indicated that the Society referred to mediation in its own submissions. She believed that commenting on the mediation provided context and that confidentiality concerns are relieved by the fact that CFSRB are closed proceedings subject to a confidentiality order. The Applicant submitted that, if references to mediation should be struck, they should be stricken from both parties’ materials.

21I note that the Mediation Contract signed by the Applicant and Respondent on September 18, 2019 indicated that: “The mediation and the record thereof shall be private and confidential”. Neither party has requested to the mediator to waive the confidentiality provisions for use in the CFSRB process and the agreement does not provide for a waiver. The confidentiality provisions in the Act and CFSRB Rules of Procedure do not cover disclosure of information subject to confidentiality provisions outside the CFSRB process.

22I find that the parties are bound by the mediation confidentiality agreement. All information regarding the mediation shall be struck from the documents and submissions of both parties.

Recipient of Service

23The Respondent argued that the Applicant did not receive service and therefore the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to review the complaint.

24In paragraph 8 of her submissions, the Applicant argued that: “the legal parent of a child has standing to seek remedies on behalf of their children, including specifically, access between their child and a third party”.

25She cited S.R. v. Peel CAS (CFSAs.68) 2008 CFSRB 36 in support of her contention that a service provided to a minor child is also equally provided to the parent of the minor child, especially when it involves the care of a minor child that is in the care of the parents.

26In paragraph 14 of her submission, the Applicant further argued that the Respondent should not make an artificial distinction between service received by the children and those received by a parent. She sought the services of the Respondent in relation to the protection of the well-being of the Children and argued that access visits with the Sister contributed to the well-being of the Children. In paragraph 15, the Applicant indicated that: “This is a service provided to them”, referring to the Children. Any service the Applicant received was in the interests and on behalf of the Children.

27The Applicant argued that she sought the assistance of the Society in relation to the protection of the well-being of the children in respect to access visits with a third party. This is a service provided to them. The CFSRB has confirmed that where a service is provided to a minor child, it is also equally provided to the parents of the minor child, especially where it involves the care of a minor child that is in the care of the parents.

28Section 15(2) of the Act ensures that: “children, 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”.

29In this case I find that the Applicant and her children share an interest in the Respondent’s decisions dealing with access and the link between the Children, their siblings and their culture (issues 1 – 3 in paragraph 4 above). As per paragraphs 27 and 28 above, the Applicant argues that her interest is in the well-being of her Children. She argued that the access to their siblings is the vehicle through which the Respondent can positively impact the well-being of the Children. As such, the issues of access and the Children’s well-being are intertwined. The Applicant’s service issues do not relate to any other services provided by the Respondent outside of access.

30The Act’s definition of service includes e) a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others. By virtue of their adoption through the Respondent, the Children and the Applicant fall into this category.

31A review of the supporting materials to the Applicant provides many examples of the relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent’s agents: Ms. Beck, Ms. Mahesan, and Ms. Fiamengo. The documentation establishes a long history between the Applicant and the Respondent related to the approval, scheduling, and implementation of access visits between the Children and their siblings. The documentation speaks of the Applicant seeking the approval of the Respondent for sleep-overs, Christmas visits, birthday visits, exchanging gifts, in-person and Facetime visits. The documentation speaks to interactions between the Applicant and the Respondent in relation to her potential interest in adopting the Sister. Finally, the Applicant included in her documentation a quote from an e-mail from Ms. Beck dated December 24, 2019 which stated:

“Moving forward, it is in the best interest for all parties to settle openness as expeditiously as possible. That being said, we do not have a signed agreement, and recently learned of changes with Julie and Dave’s family. I acknowledge this process has been stressful for all parties.

Rhonda and myself are asking if Julie and Dave are willing to participate in a phone conference on Thursday January 9th at 10am, or Friday January 10th at 10am. The purpose of this call is to provide an opportunity for the parents of the respective children to discuss openness moving forward, and come up with an agreement that best fits all, given the demands of each family’s life. I will be on the call only for clarification if needed, and will provide notes of the call to both parties thereafter so that there is no discrepancy in what transpired.

Please respond if this is a process that you are willing to engage in.

32The Respondent’s Summary Response reflects the fact that the Respondent arranged contact between the siblings and the Sister approximately three to four times a year (paragraph 20); Ms. Mahesan had a conversation to clarify the Applicant’s intentions related to the Sister and that she was open to discussing a proposed adoption plan (paragraph 25); e-mails were exchanged in relation to a requested visit over Christmas (paragraphs 46-47).

33I considered whether the Respondent’s staff was engaging with the Applicant in their role as workers for the Sister. A review of the documentation reveals that the Applicant initiated most of the contact with the Respondent in relation to access. As such, I find that the Respondent was providing the Applicant and the Children with services related to access to their siblings in addition to acting on behalf of the Sister.

34Based on the evidence before me, I find that the Applicant and her Children sought and received services from the Respondent related to access to the Sister, and therefore the complaint falls within the purview of section 210(1) of the Act. In addition, I find that the service interests of the Applicant are inextricably linked to those of the Children. The Applicant viewed service resulting in improved well-being for the Children. In her complaint, she linked the outcome solely to the issue of access between the Children, the Sister, and the Children’s other siblings.

35With regard to complaint issues 2 and 3, I have not been provided with sufficient evidence to decide whether the issues related to access between the Applicant’s children and their adopted brothers, including maintaining links to the culture are issues for which the Applicant sought and/or received service from the Respondent. In addition, I do not have evidence before me of whether these are issues that have been or are before the Courts.

36Despite the fact that there is no time limitation on making complaints about past services (S.T. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CFSA s. 68)), I find that the Act requires that a person be in receipt of a particular service in order to make a complaint about the particular service provided by the Society. Section 120(1) of the Act indicates that:

“if a person has a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society [and the complaint] relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the serviced may decide to make a complaint to either the society or the CFSRB.”

37Subsection 4 relates to children, youth and parents being heard when decisions affecting their interests were made; subsection 5 relates to a recipient of service being provided with reasons for a decision that affects a complainant’s interests. These subsections require that a decision regarding an interest was made by a society and that a person be provided with reasons for the decision.

38I note that in 2016 e-mails were exchanged between the Applicant and Ms. Mahesan regarding visits between the Children and their other siblings. The Applicant’s Exhibit 8 relates to the Children being best matched with a family with similar racial or cultural characteristics. There is also a document that indicates that the Respondent is seeking a family who will keep the Children connected to the foster family and biological siblings. It is unclear how these documents relate to services sought or received by the Applicant.

39At present, I do not have enough evidence before me to ascertain whether the Applicant received services related to access between the Children and their remaining adopted siblings; that services related to cultural connection through siblings were requested or provided to the Applicant and the Children (complaint issues 2 and 3).

40I find that the Act precludes the Applicant from making a complaint about the services related to the Children’s adopted brothers if no service was sought or provided in relation to access between the Children and their adopted brothers and if no decision was made by the Respondent related to such access.

41Issue 6 in the complaint related to the Applicant’s concerns that the Children’s Sister was informed that it was unsafe for her to have unsupervised visits with her brothers.

42The Respondent argued that there were no particulars pertaining to the alleged statement that the CSW told the Sister that it was “unsafe” for her to have visits with her brothers unless they were supervised. This statement was hearsay. In addition, this issue relates to access which is before the Court.

43I find that this issue does not relate to a service sought or provided to the Applicant or her Children by the Society. This issue deals with alleged communication between the Sister and the Respondent. As such, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to consider this aspect of the complaint as per section 120(1) of the Act.

44Given that I have found that the Applicant was in receipt of services by the Respondent related to access issues, I do not need to address the arguments related to whether the Applicant sought or received services by virtue of her request and receipt of Ontario Permanency Funding; and whether being in receipt of services in the past gives the Applicant the right to complain about the services she received.

Issues before the Court

45On March 8, 2019, the Children submitted an Application to the Ontario Court of Justice seeking orders for in-person, video, and telephone access between the Children and their Sister. The Application sought temporary and final access orders.

46The Respondent argued that the Court Application deals with the issue of the Children’s access to their Sister, and not to a service provided to the Applicant. As such, the complaints relate to matters that are before the Court and the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the complaints. The relief sought has not been adjudicated.

47The Applicant submitted that there is no foundation to the Respondent’s argument that the matter is currently an issue before the Court. The Applicant is not a party to the proceedings and therefore none of her concerns can be addressed by the Court. The CFSRB is the only independent venue for these allegations to be heard. The litigation position and exercise of discretion in terms of access visits by the Society is an independent matter from the actual determination of access by a court. In addition, facilitation of access by the Society is a distinct issue from court ordered access.

48The Applicant argued that her complaints related to the services that she received from the Respondent and service failures by the Respondent. The Service failures include the Respondent’s refusal to facilitate access between the Children and their Sister, and the refusal of the Society to communicate with the Applicant as the legal parent of the children.

49The Applicant argued that the fact that the same conduct of the Society is raised in some manner before the Court, does not convert a service-related complaint into an issue before the Court. In addition, the fact that the ultimate goal of the complainant may be to have a certain access regime ordered, is not determinative of whether the issue is before the Court and therefore the CFSRB can review it.

50I find the Applicant’s submissions on the 2 legal issues (receipt of services, matters before the Court) were inconsistent. In defending her position that she was in receipt of service, the Applicant argued that her interests and the interests of the Children were the same and that in advocating for access she was acting on behalf of and in the interests of her children. For example, in paragraph 11 of her submissions, the Applicant indicated that: “the Applicant and her husband are the legal “parents” of the child. Therefore, they too have a direct interest in facilitating contact between the children and their biological siblings. This is a pure “service complaint related to a “service” provided to them.”

51In paragraph 14 of her submissions, the Applicant spoke about: “the inextricable link between the issues originally before the Society, and the interests of the Applicant and her husband as “legal” parents of the children, to see to the ongoing wellbeing of the children. The attempt to create an artificial distinction between the “service” received by the children and them in this manner is improper.”

52Finally, in paragraph 17, the Applicant states that: “the Board has confirmed that where a “service” is provided to a minor child, it is also equally provided to the parents of the minor child, especially where it involves the care of a minor child that is in the care of the parents”.

53In defending her position that her complaint was not before the Court, the Applicant argued that her interests were separate from those of her children, especially as they relate to issues of access, and therefore her issues were not before the Courts. She argued that the Respondent failed to hear and respond to her concerns regarding the well-being of her children. She argued that her complaint was focused on the communication between her and the Respondent and the Respondent’s conduct in its dealings with them.

54I find that the Applicant cannot hold both positions simultaneously. As outlined in paragraphs 27, 28, and 30 above, I find that the interests of the Applicant are the same interests of her Children (their well-being), and that the Applicant argued that the only way that this interest is addressed by the Respondent is through the issue of increased access.

55In assessing the issue further, I carefully considered the direction provided by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D..

56I find that issue 1 in the Applicant’s complaint relates directly to the actions of the Respondent in their role of facilitator/broker of access between the Children and their Sister. I also find that it is impossible to separate the interests of the Applicant from those of her Children in relation to aspects of the complaint that deal with access between the Children and their Sister. The Applicant’s interests in relation to access to their Sister are identical to those of the Children. The Applicant has been acting in the interests of the Children in her dealings with the Respondent.

57In the complaint, the Applicant alleged that she and the Children were not provided a chance to be heard when they voiced their concerns about decisions that affect their interests. Having reviewed the Court Application, I find that the concerns of the Applicant and her sons regarding the Society’s access decisions were placed before the Court. For example, paragraph 15 of the Court Application states:

“A and E have experienced the Society’s refusal to facilitate access between them and L as disrespectful and upsetting. They advise that no worker has ever asked them about the importance of continued contact with L and no worker has ever explained to them why terminating their contact with L is in their or their sister’s best interests. Both children, and particularly Al Donzo, feel silenced by the Society and they would like their voices heard. They are worried that their relationship with L will be cut off forever.”

58The Court Application covers the history of the Children’s access as well as decisions/actions of the Respondent in relation to access with the Sister. For example, paragraph 8 indicates that the Children: “do not understand why in-person visits were cut off after that point”. Other paragraphs speak about the Society’s role in permitting a video call; refusal of in-person Christmas visits; and alleged safety risks to L.

59The Court Application’s content clearly addresses the Applicant’s service concerns related to access to the Sister; the Respondent’s actions in relation to access decisions; and the Applicant’s children’s lack of voice in access decisions; and alleged safety risks of unsupervised access. These are the same concerns identified by the Applicant in issues 1 and 6 of her complaint. While the Applicant has attempted to explain that her interests are different than those of her children (well-being of the Children, and treatment by the Respondent), I find the interests of the Children in their Application to the Court and the interests outlined in issues 1 and 6 of the complaint to be the same.

60In paragraph 33 of her submissions the Applicant indicated that: “the issues enumerated in the Application relate solely to the communication by the Society to the Applicant and her husband, Mr. MacDonell, and the conduct of the Society overall in its dealings with them, rather than to the substantive issue of access. These issues are properly determined by the Board.”

61I note that issues related to the interaction (including communication) between the Applicant, Respondent staff, the Sister’s foster family and the Sister’s birth father have been included in the Respondent’s Answer to the Court. Issues relating to communication and the interaction between the Applicant and the Respondent in relation to access to the Sister have been placed squarely before the Court. As such, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address this aspect of the complaint.

62In addition, as parents to their minor children and as strong advocates for their children’s well-being, the Applicant and her husband will no doubt have an opportunity to provide evidence regarding access issues during the Court proceedings, including regarding the past and future role of the Respondent in relation to access.

63For these reasons, I find that the interests of the Applicant and the Children in relation to access to the Sister are the same. In fact, the Applicant has argued this same point in her submissions. The Applicant has not made out a case that her interests are separate and different from those of the Children and that they are not addressed in documents and actions before the Court. As such, I find that all the issues related to access between the Children and their Sister have been placed squarely before the Court.

64In addition, issues related to communication and interaction between the Respondent, the Applicant, the Sister’s foster parents, and the Sister’s birth father have been placed before the Court in the Respondent’s Answer to the Children’s Application to the Court.

65For these reasons, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear the aspects of the Applicant’s complaint that deal with access to the Sister, and communication and interaction between the Applicant, the Respondent, the Sister’s foster parents, and the Sister’s birth father.

Complaints Against Individual Society Staff

66I turned my mind to issues 4 and 5 of the complaint.

67The Respondent argued that the CFSRB does not have authority to review decisions of Societies, rather it considers the interaction between a society and the persons receiving services. Allegations of alleged misconduct by individual staff members are not within the purview of the Act nor within the CFSRB’s mandate.

68The Respondent argued that the allegations that the CSW made false statements to the Court are related to issues of access which are before the Court.

69The Applicant indicated that the Society’s position is non-sensical. The Society can only act through its agents and employees and therefore every complaint will necessarily engage the conduct of an employee in some manner. The behaviour of individual employees and the manner in which a Society treats its clients is within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB. The Society’s submission of false statements to the court relate to a service failure and not to access.

70In relation to alleged false statements made to the Court by Respondent staff, I find that the Court is the most appropriate venue to raise these issues and to seek an appropriate remedy.

71I considered the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent refused to communicate with her (issue 5). The Respondent explained that it has refused to communicate with the Applicant as the Society is not permitted to have communications with a non-party about a child welfare issue being determined by the Court.

72Given my findings above that access issues related to the Children and their Sister and communication between the Applicant and the Respondent are issues that are before the Court, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address the Respondent’s refusal to communicate with the Applicant as this directly relates to an issue that is before the Court.

SUMMARY

73In relation to complaint issue 1, I find that issues of access between the Applicant, her Children and their Sister are issues before the Court and, as such, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review these matters as per s. 120(8)(a) of the Act.

74In relation to complaint issues 2 and 3, I find that, at present, the CFSRB does not have sufficient information before it to decide whether the Applicant and her Children sought or received services to support access between the Children and their adopted brothers, or sought or received services aimed at maintaining links to their African-Canadian identity or culture through their siblings. In addition, I do not have sufficient evidence for me to know if these issues related to the adopted brothers have been raised before the Court or are currently before the Court. The Applicant is directed to provide further evidence and submissions to support her arguments, and the Respondent will be provided with an opportunity to respond to the submissions and evidence.

75In relation to complaint issue 4, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address alleged false statements made in Court proceedings. Such allegations are best taken up with the Courts who have appropriate remedies.

76In relation to complaint issue 5, I have found that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address issues related to access between the Applicant’s Children and their Sister as these issues are before the Court. The decision by the Respondent to cease communication on a matter before the Court falls outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction.

77In relation to complaint issue 6, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address this issue as it does not deal with a service sought or received by the Applicant and/or her Children.

DIRECTIONS

78All information regarding the mediation shall be stricken from the documents and submissions of both parties.

79The Applicant is directed to provide additional evidence and submissions regarding issues 2 and 3 to the Respondent on or before March 30, 2020. The Respondent will provide submissions by April 16, 2020.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

80Pursuant 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 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 or the CFSRB, as appropriate.