CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
DP
Appellant
-and-
Simcoe County District School Board
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Caroline Sand
Indexed As: DP v Simcoe County District School Board
Introduction
1This is an Appeal filed under section 311.7 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E2, as amended, (the “Act”).
ISSUE
2Has the Appellant abandoned the Appeal?
RESULT
3The Appellant has abandoned the Appeal and it must be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
4A pre-hearing was scheduled on June 24, 2025. A Notice of Pre-Hearing was emailed to the parties on May 13, 2025. This Notice (and earlier Notices provided to the Appellant) states in part:
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. [emphasis added]
5The Appellant emailed the CFSRB on the evening of June 22, 2025. The email stated:
Due to the fact that we feel Simcoe County School Board has negotiated in bad faith and bent the rules for their convivence. We will not sign the contract provided, because when we finally received the paperwork with the requirements of the Expulsion program Austin had already completed 80% of it, and is now finished all of it. He now has every right to go back to school.
We will not be giving up any right to sue David Brooks, and the Simcoe County District School Board.
The more disclosure that our lawyer has been receiving from the Crown Prosecution shows us more information in Austin's favor. We are waiting to go to court so that Austin will be proved innocent. After the count has made their ruling, we will then continue the expulsion appeal process to have it be removed from his record.
6The Appellant did not state whether he intended to attend the pre-hearing on June 24, 2025. The Appellant states that “After the count (sic) has made their ruling, we will then continue the expulsion appeal process…”
7On the morning of the pre-hearing on June 24, 2025, the CFSRB sent an email to the parties confirming that it expected their attendance at the pre-hearing.
8The Appellant did not attend the pre-hearing.
9Counsel for the Respondent attended the pre-hearing and provided submissions requesting that the Appeal be dismissed as abandoned, or alternatively, as an abuse of process.
10Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant has been attempting to drag out this Appeal from the start of the process.
11The Appellant has Failed to Attend Three Pre-HearingsAs set out in the Case Management Direction (“CMD”) of March 3, 2025, this Appeal was filed on February 14, 2025. In accordance with the timelines set out in the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, which direct that the hearing of the matter will begin within 30 days of receiving the Appeal, the CFSRB scheduled a Pre-Hearing for February 20, 2025. The CFSRB sent a Notice of Video-Conference Pre-Hearing to the parties on February 18, 2025.
12The Appellant emailed the Tribunal in the early morning hours before the pre-hearing on February 20, 2025, indicating he was unable to attend and requesting that the pre-hearing be rescheduled.
13On the Appellant’s request, the CFSRB rescheduled the one-hour pre-hearing to March 5, 2025, and sent the Notice of Rescheduled Video-Conference Pre-Hearing to the parties on February 24, 2025. In response to that Notice, on February 25, 2025, theAppellant emailed the CFSRB that he would like to adjourn “towards April or May.”
14The CMD of March 3, 2025 denied the Appellant’s request to adjourn, explaining the CFSRB’s requirement to hold hearings within 30 days, and confirming the pre-hearing would proceed as scheduled on March 5, 2025.
15The Appellant did not attend the second scheduled pre-hearing on March 5, 2025. Respondent counsel and a representative attended.
16Following the pre-hearing, on March 6, 2025, the CFSRB issued a Pre-Hearing Report in which it directed the Appellant to explain why he did not attend the pre-hearing, if he intends to proceed with the Appeal, and if so, if he is agreeable to attempt mediation.
17On March 10, 2025, the Appellant responded as directed, stating that he did not receive the emails, and he “did not have a visual cue of when the zoom was announced.” The Appellant went on to state:
As mentioned before, we are not office people, we do not spend our whole lives on the computer constantly checking and sending emails. The last email we sent to everybody was that we would like the meeting to be pushed to late spring, early summer. If you want to host it earlier than the proposed dates I require two weeks notice in order to book a day off or they must be after 5 pm.
18The CFSRB eventually scheduled a mediation on April 25, 2025 using its discretion under Rule 34.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to schedule it beyond the 30-day timeframe. The Appeal did not resolve in mediation. The pre-hearing was scheduled a third time for June 24, 2025, to accommodate the parties’ availability, almost two months after the mediation.
19As set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, the Appellant did not attend the pre-hearing.
20The Appellant in his email dated June 22, 2025 stated that he would proceed with the Appeal after a court has made a “ruling” related to criminal proceedings. In doing so, the Appellant presumes that he maydictate the terms upon which the Appealwill proceed.
21The CFSRB directs its processes, and not the parties who come before it.
22Moreover, when an Appellant files an Appeal, they are commencing a formal process, and the Appellant is required to comply with this process.
23The Appellant disregarded the CFSRB’s direction to attend the pre-hearing on June 24, 2025. The CFSRB provided him with notice in its Notice of Pre-Hearing dated May 13, 2025 (and two earlier Notices), that a failure to attend may result in a dismissal of the Appeal as abandoned.
24The Appellant has now thrice failed to attend scheduled CFSRB pre-hearings, despite having had notice, and repeatedly disregarded the CFSRB’s directions. In so doing, he has wasted the Respondent’s and the CFSRB’s resources.
25I find the Appellant has abandoned the Appeal.
ORDER
26The Appeal is dismissed.
confidentiality order
27Pursuant 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 Appeal, 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.
Caroline Sand
Caroline Sand
Vice-Chair