CK v. Kenora-Rainy River Child and Family Services, 2020 CFSRB 79

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CK

Applicant

-and-

Kenora-Rainy River Child and Family Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley

Date: August 26, 2020

Citation: 2020 CFSRB 79

Indexed As: CK v Kenora-Rainy River Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.109 & s.120)

Introduction

1These are Applications filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under sections 109 (CA19-0228) and 120 (CA19-0223) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”). Both Applications concern the Respondent’s removal of the Applicant’s grandchild, TSS, from the Applicant’s home.

2This Decision explains why the CFSRB is dismissing the Applications.

background

3The Applications were placed on hold for several months while the issue of where TSS would live was dealt with through a status review in the Ontario Court of Justice. TSS was represented by a lawyer appointed by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer in that proceeding.

4In June 2020, TSS returned to the Applicant’s home.

5The CFSRB scheduled a Case Management Teleconference for August 20, 2020 to discuss next steps in the process, including whether the section 109 Application (CA19-0228) is moot now that TSS has returned to the Applicant’s home. The date and time of the teleconference was set in consultation with both the Applicant and the Respondent.

6The Respondent attended the teleconference. The Applicant did not attend nor did she communicate with the CFSRB in advance of the teleconference to say she could not attend.

7On August 20, 2020, the CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction (“CMD”), directing the Applicant to advise by no later than August 24, 2020 whether she wished to proceed with one or both of the Applications. The CMD warned that if the Applicant did not communicate her intentions by August 24, 2020, the Applications may be dismissed as abandoned.

8The Applicant sent the CFSRB two brief emails shortly after receiving the CMD. The first stated “I got it” and the second stated “[h]ad a family emergency and missed the meeting”. Neither email gave any indication whether the Application wished to proceed with either Application.

9On August 25, 2020, the Case Processing Officer sent the Applicant an email reminding her of the CMD’s direction to communicate her intentions regarding the Applications. The email requested the Applicant “advise clearly by no later than end of day today, August 25, 2020 whether or not you wish to proceed with one or both [of] your applications” and again warned that in the absence of communication from the Applicant, the Applications may be dismissed.

analysis

10The Applicant acknowledged receiving the CMD. The follow up email on August 25, 2020, was sent to the same email address the Applicant has used throughout her communication with the CFSRB. It was not returned as undeliverable.

11Both the CMD and the August 25, 2020 email warned the Applicant that if she did not respond, the Applications may be dismissed as abandoned.

12As of the date of this decision, the Applicant has not advised the CFSRB of her intentions with respect to the two Applications. Nor has she requested an extension of time in which to do so.

13I conclude it is appropriate to dismiss the Applications on the basis that the Applicant has abandoned them.

order

14The Applications are 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 these Applications 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.