Court File and Parties

Citation: I.K. v. Child and Family Services Review Board, 2020 ONSC 4591

Court File No.: CVD-TOR-48-20JR

Date: 20200729

Superior Court of Justice - Divisional Court - Ontario

Re: I.K. v. Child and Family Services Review Board

Before: D.L. Corbett J.

Counsel: I.K. self-represented

Date: July 28, 2020, In Chambers, In Writing

Case Management Endorsement

[1] The applicant brings an application for judicial review seeking, among other things, to “overturn/set aside”… “court decisions making J and R (C)rown wards” together with an order “nullifying… the adoption process or adoption placement pertaining to J and R….”

[2] The applicant has not identified any specific decision declaring J and R to be Crown wards or authorizing the adoption of J and R. The litigation history is set out in paras. 7 and 8 of an interim decision of the Child and Family Services Board dated April 9, 2020 (2020 CFSRB 32). Crown wardship decisions were contested, one having been appealed to the Court of Appeal (2016 ONCA 16), and the other having been ordered in 2015, with a status review dismissed in 2016, an appeal from which was dismissed in 2017. It appears from this history that the issue of Crown wardship and adoption of the children have been finally determined and are not now subject to judicial review in this court.

[3] The only issue that appears to be a live controversy today is the applicant’s request to receive current pictures of the children and to furnish presents to the children. The Children’s Aid Society took the position before the Board that the children have been adopted with no access with the applicant. The CAS reports that the adoptive families do not wish to provide pictures or to receive gifts for the children from the applicant.

[4] The Board found that the only issue before it was whether the Children’s Aid Society provided reasons to the applicant in respect to the issue of pictures and presents. In a decision dated May 7, 2020, the Board concluded that the CAS had provided sufficient reasons.

[5] The Registrar is directed to give notice to the applicant that the court is considering dismissing the Application as frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process, pursuant to R.2.1.01. The Applicant shall have fifteen days to respond to this notice, and should address the following issues:

a. The Crown wardship decisions were completed and all appeals exhausted by 2017. On what basis does the applicant say that this court has jurisdiction to entertain judicial review of these decisions now?

b. Adoption of the children without access with the applicant was authorized by court order and implemented several years ago. On what basis does the applicant say that this court has jurisdiction to entertain judicial review of these decisions now?

c. On what basis does the applicant claim a right to receive pictures or to send presents to the children, given that the children have been declared Crown wards and have been adopted without access with the applicant?

d. The recent decision of the Board is limited to the issue of whether the CAS has provided reasons for not transmitting pictures of the children to the applicant. On what basis does the applicant challenge this decision?

[6] The Divisional Court office has scheduled a case management teleconference in this case for August 13, 2020. That teleconference is cancelled. A case management teleconference will be scheduled in due course once the court has decided the R.2.1.01 issue directed by this endorsement.

[7] This endorsement is effective from the time it is sent to the parties by email. A signed copy of the endorsement shall be provided to the parties in due course.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: July 28, 2020