CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
LS
Applicant
-and-
Child and Family Services of Grand Erie
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ivana Vaccaro
Indexed As: LS v Child and Family Services of Grand Erie (CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
LS, Applicant
Self-represented
Child and Family Services of Grand Erie, Respondent
Alex Kinnear,
Counsel
Introduction
[1]
Introduction
This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched. 1 (the “Act”).
2For the following reasons, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.
BACKGROUND
[3]
Background
The CFSRB found the Application eligible under subsections 120(4)4 and 5 of the Act.
4A hearing was held on September 6, 2023 by video conference.
5The following persons attended the hearing: the Applicant, the Applicant’s support person MP; Counsel for the Respondent; and the Respondent’s instructing witness Dawn Veino.
6Martina Dwyer, CFSRB Member, attended as an observer.
7The hearing commenced at 9:30am.
8As part of explaining the hearing process, the Member explained to the parties that if they wished to enter a document as evidence, they would need to share their screen using the Zoom App, so that each party and the Member would be able to view the document. At that time, the Applicant notified the Member that she would not be able to share her documents on screen, since she was on her mobile/cell phone. The Applicant asked to switch devices from her mobile/cell phone to her computer, in order to be able to share her screen, and the Member permitted her to do so.
9The Applicant then disconnected from the hearing and re-joined at 9:41am on her computer.
10During the Applicant’s testimony, an issue arose when the Applicant sought to submit as evidence a document which appeared to be screen shots of various, fragmented text messages the Applicant claimed were exchanged between herself and a child protection worker with the Respondent over a certain period of time. The text messages were not in chronological order; they were snippets of larger messages; and it was difficult to identify who the author of the messages was other than what the Applicant stated.
11While the Applicant was able to share the document on her screen using the Zoom App, she was unable to identify the document in the Disclosure Brief she submitted to the CFSRB or the Respondent prior to the hearing. In addition, the Respondent’s Counsel confirmed, by comparing the document being shared on screen and the document she did receive, that it was not the same document, albeit some of the text messages were included.
12At that time, the Member asked the Applicant to email the document she was sharing on screen to both the CFSRB and the Respondent’s Counsel if she wished to enter it as evidence. At this point, the Applicant became visibly upset and began raising her voice, using inappropriate language addressed at the Member and the Respondent. The Applicant would not listen to the Member or allow her to speak and began to mock the Member and the process of the CFSRB, alleging that the CFSRB was aligned with the Respondent.
13The Applicant then walked away from the camera, albeit she remained connected to the hearing and could be heard making inaudible comments in the background. The Applicant’s support person could no longer be seen on camera or heard. The Member repeatedly asked the Applicant if she was prepared to rejoin the hearing and return to the camera; however, the Applicant did not respond, nor did her support person. The Applicant then turned off her camera and shortly thereafter, at approximately 11:45am, disconnected from the hearing altogether.
14At that time the Member adjourned the hearing until 12:00pm to allow CFSRB staff to contact the Applicant and determine whether she would be rejoining the hearing.
15CFSRB staff contacted the Applicant by phone to ask whether she would be rejoining the hearing. The Applicant was upset and refused to rejoin the hearing. CFSRB staff notified the Member.
16The hearing resumed at 12:00pm. The Member notified the Respondent that the Applicant would not be rejoining the hearing and asked the Respondent for submissions regarding next steps in the proceeding.
17The Respondent submitted that the Application should be dismissed as abandoned under the circumstances. The Respondent also stated that it remained open to hearing from the Applicant and providing her with an explanation for any decisions made which may have affected her interests.
18The Applicant then sent the CFSRB an email at 12:10pm, advising she would be proceeding to the Supreme Court.
19CFSRB staff subsequently sent a follow up email to the Applicant at 3:22pm confirming her refusal to rejoin the hearing and asking her to confirm her intentions with respect to the Application.
20The Applicant responded with further emails on September 7, 2023 at 8:31am and 8:33am, each confirming she did not wish to proceed with the Application and that she would be taking further steps in different forums to address the issues arising from the Application and the hearing.
ANALYSIS
[21]
Analysis
Prior to the hearing, the Applicant was provided with a Notice of Video Conference Hearing (the “Hearing Notice”). In the Hearing Notice, it specifically states: “All parties are expected to attend and participate in the hearing” and it cautions that, “[i]f the Applicant does not attend after receiving notice, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.”
22While the Applicant did attend the hearing on the day of hearing, her participation diminished to the point where she refused to listen to the Member or allow the Member to speak, and eventually went off camera and disconnected from the hearing altogether. When CFSRB staff contacted the Applicant to determine whether she would rejoin and participate in the hearing, she refused to do so. In fact, the Applicant did not rejoin the hearing at any time thereafter, and in a subsequent email to the CFSRB, the Applicant confirmed she would no longer proceed with the Application but pursue other avenues.
23It is clear from the Applicant’s conduct during the hearing, and the communication received from her afterwards, that she does not intend to participate in the hearing or in the CFSRB process any further. I conclude therefore that the Applicant has abandoned her Application.
ORDER
[24]
Order
The Application is dismissed as abandoned.
Confidentiality Order
[65]
Confidentiality Order
Pursuant 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, Ontario on September 29, 2023.
Ivana Vaccaro
Ivana Vaccaro
Member```