JK v. York Region Children’s Aid Society, 2023 CFSRB 65

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JK

Applicant

-and-

York Region Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: August 1, 2023

Citation: 2023 CFSRB 65

Indexed As: JK v York Region Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) pursuant to section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2This decision explains why the CFSRB is dismissing the Application.

BACKGROUND

3The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under section 120(4)4 of the Act.

4A Zoom pre-hearing was scheduled in this matter for July 24, 2023; from 9 – 5 p.m.

5The Notice of Video Conference Pre-Hearing was sent to the Applicant on July 17, 2023, at the e-mail address recorded on his Application, and used in all previous correspondence. The Notice was not returned as undelivered. In addition, the Applicant returned a signed Participation Agreement on July 20, 2023, regarding the pre-hearing/mediation proceedings.

6The Applicant did not join the proceedings at 9 a.m. A Case Processing Officer (CPO) attempted to call the Applicant at 9:05 a.m.; however, she was unable to get through to him.

7An e-mail was sent to the Applicant indicating that attendance at the pre-hearing/mediation was compulsory, and that, if he did not join the Zoom conference by 9:45 a.m., his Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

8The Applicant did not join the proceedings.

9The Applicant communicated with the CFSRB at 12:36 on July 24, 2023, indicating that he had tried to call the CPO and that he requested to reconfirm the pre-hearing time. At 2:38 p.m., the Applicant sent an e-mail to the CPO indicating that he had recovered the CPO’s e-mail from his junk e-mail folder. He had also found the Zoom meeting invite labeled as spam.

10Given the Applicant’s communication with the CFSRB, a second pre-hearing/mediation videoconference was scheduled for August 1, 2023.

11On July 29, 2023, the Applicant sent an e-mail to the CFSRB which indicated that he understood that the pre-hearing would be held on August 2, 2023. On July 31, 2023, the CPO sent the Applicant a reminder that the pre-hearing would be held on August 1, 2023, and not on August 2, 2023, as he had indicated in his e-mail. I note that the Applicant was sent a Notice for the second pre-hearing on July 27, 2023, which clearly indicated that the pre-hearing would be held on August 1, 2023, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

12Both Notices of Video Conference Pre-Hearing stated the following:

“All parties are expected to attend and participate in the pre-hearing. You may attend with your legal representative and/or a support person. If a party does not attend the pre-hearing after receiving notice, it may proceed in their absence. If the Applicant does not attend after receiving notice, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.”

13The Applicant also requested a Cantonese interpreter for the second pre-hearing/mediation. The CFSRB arranged for an interpreter to attend.

14The Applicant did not attend the August 1, 2023, pre-hearing. The CPO sent the Applicant an e-mail and he failed to respond. In addition, the CPO also called the 2 telephone numbers provided by the Applicant. She was unable to leave a message as the voice mails were not initialized. The CPO did not receive any e-mail or telephone communication by the Applicant.

15At 9:45, I asked the Respondent for submissions regarding whether the Application should be declared abandoned. The Respondent submitted that the Application should be abandoned as the Applicant received notification of both proceedings from the Board. In addition, the Applicant returned the Participation Agreement which he copied to the Respondent. The Applicant was also sent a reminder from the CFSRB that the pre-hearing would be held at 9 a.m. on August 1, 2023, and he was provided a link to the Zoom videoconference. He also requested the participation of an interpreter.

16The Applicant has been provided with 2 opportunities to have his matters heard by the CFSRB and he has failed to participate.

17I remained on the Zoom line until 9:50 a.m. The Applicant did not join.

ANALYSIS

18The Applicant failed to join the Zoom proceedings as directed in the e-mail sent to him on July 24, 2023, and as directed in the 2 Notices of Video Conference Pre-Hearings. Proceedings were rescheduled to August 1, 2023, and he was provided with an e-mail reminder as well as the link to the Zoom videoconference.

19The Applicant has been able to communicate with the CFSRB by e-mail, as evidenced in his 2 e-mails of July 24, 2023. He was aware that e-mails may have gone to his junk folder, and therefore it was his responsibility to ensure that he monitored this folder for communication from the CFSRB.

20At both pre-hearings, I verified with Ms. Garside (Intake and Assessment Worker) if the Applicant had the ability to communicate in English. She confirmed that all communications between the Applicant and the Respondent were in English and that there were no communication issues. In addition, I note that the Applicant was able to communicate with the CFSRB in English in writing through the various e-mails he has sent over the past.

21As noted in the Notices, and the e-mail sent to the Applicant on July 24, 2023, participation in pre-hearings is compulsory.

22Given the Applicant’s failure to join the proceedings on July 24, 2023, despite an e-mail directing him to join before 9:45 a.m., given the Applicant’s failure to join the proceedings on August 1, 2023, despite being sent a reminder and Zoom invitation; and given the e-mail and telephone calls from the CPO on August 1, 2023, I find that the Applicant has not complied with the requirement to communicate with the CFSRB when directed. He has also failed to participate in the pre-hearing proceedings as required.

23As such, I conclude that the Applicant has abandoned the Application.

order

24The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

25Pursuant 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 on-line. 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.