CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
JL
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley
Indexed As: JL v Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
JL, Applicant
Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay, Respondent
Mary Catherine Chambers, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
background
2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)1, 120(4)2, 120(4)3, 120(4)4 and 120(4)5.
3In its Response, the Respondent questioned the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application.
4After earlier pre-hearing dates were adjourned as a result of challenges due to COVID-19, pre-hearings were held by teleconference on May 27, 2020 and June 18, 2020. At these pre-hearings, the parties engaged in mediation with the assistance of a CFSRB member but did not reach a resolution.
5In a July 15, 2020 Interim Decision, the CFSRB decided that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Application under sections 120(4)1, 120(4)2 and 120(4)3 but did have jurisdiction to review the Application under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5. The Interim Decision also decided the hearing would be held primarily in writing with the hearing adjudicator retaining the discretion to hear limited oral evidence by teleconference or videoconference.
6Case Management Directions (“CMDs”) were issued on July 15, 2020, July 17, 2020, August 31, 2020, October 15, 2020, March 3, 2021, and March 8, 2021. These CMDs set out directions aimed at identifying uncontested facts and scheduling a two hour videoconference to hear oral evidence from the Applicant. The July 17, 2020 and August 31, 2020 CMDs also granted the Applicant additional time to respond to the directions in earlier CMDs.
7The CMDs of October 15, 2020, March 3, 2021 and March 8, 2021 directed the Applicant to provide her available dates for the two hour videoconference portion of the hearing. A February 2021 email from the CFSRB’s Case Processing Officer also requested the parties provide available dates.
8In response to the October 15, 2020 CMD, the Applicant sent a lengthy email complaining about the Respondent and the CFSRB. The email includes a statement that “the matter is being transferred to a court of law for various reasons as already given.”
9The Applicant’s only response to the February 2021 email requesting dates was to forward the email she had sent in response to the October 15, 2020 CMD.
10The March 3, 2021 CMD directed the Applicant to “advise whether she wishes her Application to continue through the CFSRB process” in light of her statement that “the matter” was being transferred to court and warned that failure to respond could result in the Application being dismissed as abandoned. The Applicant replied to the CMD but her reply was not responsive to the direction in the CMD, i.e., she did not state whether she wished her Application to continue through the CFSRB process. Instead, she repeated statements from several previous emails about her concerns with the Respondent and the CFSRB.
11The March 8, 2021 CMD directed the Applicant to provide four dates in April 2021 on which she was available for the two hour videoconference portion of the hearing. It also directed the Respondent to make itself available for at least one of the dates the Applicant was to provide.
12The March 8, 2021 CMD warned:
If the Applicant does not provide four dates, as directed, by March 15, 2021, her Application may be dismissed as abandoned.
13The Applicant did not respond to the March 8, 2021 CMD by the deadline of March 15, 2021.
14On March 19, 2021, the Respondent requested the Application be dismissed due to the Applicant’s failure to provide dates.
15Later the same day, the Applicant sent an email to the CFSRB that was not responsive to the direction in the March 8, 2021 CMD, i.e., she did not provide any dates on which she was available for the two hour videoconference portion of the hearing.
ANALYSIS
16Despite being directed to provide hearing dates by the CMDs of October 15, 2020, March 3, 2021 and March 8, 2021 and the February email from the Case Processing Officer, the Applicant has failed to do so. Instead, she has sent lengthy emails complaining about the Respondent and the CFSRB.
17The CRSRB is aware that the Applicant is a single parent with a full time job. When an individual file an application with the CFSRB, they start a process which engages the resources of not only the respondent but also the CFSRB. Family and work commitments may need to be rearranged so an applicant can participate in the process. The Applicant has more than once been accommodated by being given additional time to comply with the CFSRB’s directions.
18The Applicant has not cooperated in scheduling a hearing. Rather, she continues to repeat complaints about the Respondent and the CFSRB and refuses to provide her availability for a two hour videoconference despite being offered a wide range of possible dates.
19For these reasons, I conclude the Applicant has effectively abandoned her Application and it must be dismissed.
order
20The Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
21Pursuant 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.
Dated at Toronto, March 19, 2021.
Catherine Bickley
Catherine Bickley
Vice-Chair