JM v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2021 CFSRB 71

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JM

Applicant

-and-

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: October 19, 2021

Citation: 2021 CFSRB 71

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”).

2This decision explains why the Application is being dismissed.

3The 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.

BACKGROUND

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

5A Pre-Hearing Videoconference was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on October 14, 2021. The Applicant was sent a notice for the Videoconference on October 1, 2021 and acknowledged receipt of the Notice on the same day. The Applicant also accepted the electronic invitation to the Videoconference on October 8, 2021.

6The Applicant did not appear on the Videoconference on October 14, 2021. The Case Processing Officer (CPO) attempted to reach the Applicant at the two telephone numbers which the CFSRB had on file. She managed to leave a voice message at one of the telephone numbers.

7In addition, the CPO sent the Applicant an e-mail indicating the following:

“A pre-hearing is scheduled in this matter which commenced at 9 am this morning. I have been advised that you have not joined the videoconference as of yet. Please be advised that the videoconference will remain open until 9:20 am after that the proceedings may be abandoned.

This is also to confirm that I had unsuccessfully attempted to connect with you by telephone at approximately 9:11 am this morning. There was no option to leave a voice message for you at your primary number. I also attempted to contact you at your alternate number and have left a voice message to advise of the pre-hearing by videoconference this morning.”

8The CPO subsequently sent the Applicant an e-mail indicating that the Videoconference would remain open until 9:30 a.m.

9The Applicant failed to join the Videoconference or to communicate with the CPO or the CFSRB.

10At 9:30 a.m., the Respondent’s Counsel was asked to provide submissions on whether the Application should be abandoned. Counsel indicated that this was the third opportunity provided to the Applicant. The CFSRB has made accommodations to support the Applicant’s reported challenges and his request to have his mother attend as a support person. Counsel also indicated that the Regulations do not require the participation of a support person at pre-hearing proceedings; however, participation of support persons is at the discretion of the presiding member. Counsel closed by stating that the Application should be considered to be abandoned.

11I have held back issuing this decision until October 19, 2021, to see if the Applicant would communicate with the CFSRB regarding the October 14, 2021 Videoconference. The Applicant has not communicated with the CFSRB regarding the CPO’s e-mail or her telephone calls.

PRE-HEARING REQUIREMENTS

12The Notice of Pre-Hearing includes the following warning:

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

ANALYSIS

13The Applicant failed to participate in 3 scheduled Pre-Hearing events. The CFSRB accepted the Applicant’s explanations regarding his inability to attend the first two Teleconferences.

14A third Videoconference was scheduled. The Applicant failed to attend this Videoconference and failed to communicate with the CFSRB regarding his inability to attend, despite accepting the invitation and despite receiving telephone messages and an e-mail on the date of the Videoconference.

15The Applicant has not communicated with the CFSRB in the days after the Videoconference.

16I concur with Respondent Counsel that the Application should be dismissed. The CFSRB has accommodated the Applicant’s request to have his mother attend as a support person. The Applicant accepted the invitation to the Videoconference; therefore, I am satisfied that the Applicant received the Notice of Hearing as well as the ZOOM Invitation.

17The Pre-Hearing Notice as well as the e-mail from the CPO on October 14, 2021 included the following warning:

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

18The Applicant did not attend the Videoconference between 9:00 and 9:30 on October 14, 2021. The Applicant failed to communicate with the CFSRSB despite the CPO’s efforts to reach out to him in various formats.

19I conclude that the Applicant has abandoned his Application.

ORDER

20The Application is dismissed as abandoned.

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.