CITATION: Chatham-Kent Children’s Services v. Bolton, 2012 ONSC 6443
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 257/12
DATE: 20121114
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
PARDU, KITELEY AND SWINTON JJ.
BETWEEN:
CHATHAM-KENT CHILDREN’S SERVICES
Applicant
– and –
HELEN BOLTON and the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
Respondents
John K. Downing, for the Applicant
Thomas G. Chalmers, for the Respondent, Helen Bolton
Margaret Leighton, for the Respondent, Child and Family Services Review Board
HEARD at Toronto: November 14, 2012
pardu j. (orally)
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Child and Family Services Review Board determining that it had jurisdiction to deal with a complaint on one basis but not on another. The Board has not embarked on a hearing on the merits because of the judicial review application.
[2] According to Volochay v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, Ontario Court of Appeal, August 20, 2012, a Court should not interfere with ongoing administrative proceedings until they are completed, absent exceptional circumstances. As noted at paragraph 67 of Volochay, even a true question of jurisdiction is not, by itself, an exceptional circumstance.
[3] We see no such exceptional circumstance here. We draw no conclusions as to whether or not the decision challenged raises a true question of jurisdiction.
[4] The effect of the application for judicial review at this stage has been to fragment and delay the proceedings before the Tribunal.
[5] The applicant will have the opportunity to challenge jurisdiction on the basis of a full record, should it choose to do so after a decision on the merits.
[6] The order of Marshman J. did not specifically address the issue of prematurity nor whether there were exceptional circumstances. Even where parties consent, there are good reasons why this Court should not intervene partway through administrative proceedings.
[7] Accordingly, the application is dismissed for prematurity and a stay of February 3, 2012 is lifted.
COSTS
[8] Costs to the respondent against the applicant fixed at $3,000, all inclusive.
PARDU J.
KITELEY J.
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 14, 2012
Date of Release: November 20, 2012
CITATION: Chatham-Kent Children’s Services v. Bolton, 2012 ONSC 6443
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 257/12
DATE: 20121114
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
PARDU, KITELEY AND SWINTON JJ.
BETWEEN:
CHATHAM-KENT CHILDREN’S SERVICES
Applicant
– and –
HELEN BOLTON and the CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PARDU J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 14, 2012
Date of Release: November 20, 2012