JM v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2021 CFSRB 62

Child and Family Services Review Board

Between:

JM Applicant

-and-

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: September 16, 2021 Citation: 2021 CFSRB 62 Indexed As: JM v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

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”).

2The Complaint included the following allegations:

1. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear and investigate his concerns about risks to his daughter due to his ex-girlfriend’s behaviour (smoking marijuana and tobacco while she was pregnant, and after the Child was born); her mental health diagnosis with Narcissistic Personality Disorder; lifestyle choices; criminal charges; and their refusal to drug test his ex-girlfriend; to do sufficient visits with her; and testing the Child for exposure to marijuana and nicotine;
2. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns regarding neglect by his ex-girlfriend of her other children;
3. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff did not hear his concerns regarding their failure to follow-up on his referral to the York Regional Police regarding an incident involving his ex-girlfriend.
4. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to hear his concerns regarding the appointment of a Jamaican caseworker to the family;
5. The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent did not hear his concerns that Dianne Harding accused him of abusing his ex-girlfriend without these allegations being proven in court; and that staff treated him with bias because of the non-proven allegations; and
6. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns that he was treated with disrespect by Respondent staff because of allegations of domestic violence and other criminal issues.

3This decision explains why the Application is being dismissed.

BACKGROUND

4The Applicant failed to participate in 2 Pre-Hearing Teleconferences due to alleged health incidents involving his mother who is his support person.

5The Applicant did not join the Pre-Hearing Teleconference on August 24, 2021, at 9 a.m. as scheduled. The Applicant was sent an e-mail indicating that the Teleconference would remain open until 9:45 after which the Application may be abandoned. The Applicant called the Case Processing Officer (CPO), and joined the Teleconference at 9:19 a.m. The Applicant indicated that he had a cognitive/learning delay and that he needed his mother’s assistance throughout the Pre-Hearing Mediation. He indicated that he had taken his mother to the hospital with suspected COVID the night before and returned home at 5 a.m. He requested a postponement of the proceedings.

6The Respondent’s Counsel indicated that it would be reasonable to re-schedule the Teleconference based on the Applicant’s request.

7The second Teleconference was scheduled for 9 a.m. on September 3, 2021. The Applicant did not join the Teleconference at 9 a.m. The CPO was directed to e-mail and call the Applicant to remind him of the Teleconference. In addition, the CPO was directed to inform the Applicant that, if he did not join the Teleconference by 10 a.m., his Application may be abandoned.

8The Applicant informed the CPO by telephone that his mother was experiencing an asthma attack and that he had called an ambulance to have her taken to the hospital. He did not join the Teleconference by 10 a.m.

9At no time before the Pre-Hearing Teleconferences did the Applicant inform the CFSRB that he could not attend the Teleconference because of his mother’s medical issues. The CFSRB only learned of the issues as a result of the CPOs’ calls to the Applicant.

10Given that the Applicant has not been able to participate in the Teleconference on two occasions because of alleged health issues relating to his support person, in a Pre-Hearing Report dated September 3, 2021, I directed the Applicant to provide the CFSRB with written evidence (hospital discharge form, medical record, ambulance documentation etc.) indicating that his mother (Wendy Crocker) was seen at the hospital for suspected COVID on August 23 or 24th, 2021. In addition, the Applicant was ordered to provide evidence that Ms. Crocker was taken to emergency by ambulance and treated for a suspected asthma attack on September 3, 2021. The Applicant was informed that he did not need to provide the documentation to the Respondent given that it contains the private health information of the Applicant’s mother.

11The Applicant was asked to provide the documentation on or before Friday, September 10, 2021.

12The Pre-Hearing Report also indicated that, if the Applicant failed to provide the documentation by September 10, 2021, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

13The Applicant has failed to provide the CFSRB with the documentation and has not communicated with the CFSRB regarding the request.

PRE-HEARING REQUIREMENTS

14The Notice of Pre-Hearing includes the following warning:

If the Applicant does not attend after receiving notice, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

15Rule 23.5 in the CFSRB Rules of Procedure allows for a support person of the applicant’s choosing to attend the pre-hearing.

ANALYSIS

16The Applicant failed to participate in 2 scheduled Pre-Hearing Teleconferences. The Applicant did not contact the CFSRB regarding any potential health issues related to his mother until after the start-time set for the Teleconferences and only after being contacted by telephone an e-mail by the Case Processing Officer. The Applicant failed to provide evidence to support his mother’s inability to participate in the two Pre-Hearing Teleconferences. Finally, the Applicant has failed to communicate further with the CFSRB regarding his Application after the issuance of the September 3, 2021 Pre-Hearing Report.

17For these reasons, I conclude that the Applicant has abandoned his Application.

ORDER

18The Application is dismissed as abandoned.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

19Pursuant 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.