CITATION: I.K. v. Child and Family Services Review Board, 2020 ONSC 4890
COURT FILE NO.:
DATE: 20200814
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - DIVISIONAL COURT - ONTARIO
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
This matter is subject to a publication ban pursuant to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Services Act, 2017 deal with the consequences of failure to comply with the statutory publication ban. Those sections provide:
87(8) Prohibition re identifying child — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.
(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.
142(3) Offences re publication — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
RE: I.K. v. Child and Family Services Review Board
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
COUNSEL: I.K. self-represented
DATE: August 14, 2020, In Chambers, In Writing
CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT
[1] The applicant has sent the court what purports to be a fresh application seeking police assistance to return his children to him. This fresh application is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process on its face: it raises issues already raised in an application before this court, which is being addressed by this court. This second application is stayed pending further order of this court.
[2] The applicant seeks to set aside orders for Crown Wardship made under the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11. The children who were the subject of the wardship orders have subsequently placed for adoption and have been adopted.
[3] The respondents Child and Family Services Review Board and Children’s Aid Society of Toronto have provided the court with copies of the following decisions finally determining the issue of Crown wardship:
(a) Child J: Order for Crown wardship without access, made by Waldman J. dated October 15, 2014 (OCJ File C57964/12), affirmed in the Superior Court of Justice by Mesbur J. dated April 13, 2015 (2015 ONSC 2702), and affirmed in the Court of Appeal (Simmons, Pardu and Roberts JJ.A.) dated January 8, 2016 (2016 ONCA 16). The applicant was shown as being present in person and participating before each of these courts.
(b) Child R: Order for Crown wardship without access made by Nevins J. in the Ontario Court of Justice on August 18, 2015. The parents did not appear at this hearing and filed no material in advance of the hearing. The court found the parents in default and that the record established that the statutory test for Crown wardship without access was established. The applicant sought a review of the order of Nevins J., which was heard in the Ontario Court of Justice on October 31 and November 1, 3 and 4, 2016. The applicant was represented by counsel during this review hearing. Paulseth J. heard extensive evidence during this application, including evidence from the applicant. Paulseth J. dismissed the review application and confirmed the order for Crown wardship without access. The applicant then appealed the decision of Paulseth J. to Superior Court. On June 8, 2017, the Children’s Aid Society moved to dismiss that appeal for delay. The applicant did not appear at the motion. For brief written reasons, Horkins J. dismissed the appeal.
(c) The applicant took further review proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice, which were dismissed by Scher J. (2017 ONSC 717 and 2017 ONSC 725). The applicant was a party to and participated in these proceedings.
[4] The Children’s Aid Society argues that orders respecting adoption of the children are confidential and are not to be disclosed to the Applicant. See Child, Youth and Family Services Act, ss. 222(2) and (3), 224(2), 225(2) and 227, the text of which are set out in the Children’s Aid Society’s response to this court’s request for further information.
[5] In his Notice of Application, the applicant asks this court to set aside the Crown wardship decisions. In this court’s endorsement directing the R.2.1.01 notice, it asked the applicant to identify the Crown wardship decisions and to explain why this court would have jurisdiction to interfere with them. In his response, the applicant denied that there were any Crown wardship decisions and took the position that his children had been “kidnapped”. This court then directed the respondents to identify the Crown wardship decisions. When the respondents had not responded to this direction within seven days, the applicant took this as showing that there are no orders for Crown wardship, and served his second application asking this court to order police to apprehend his kidnapped children.
[6] Crown wardship decisions have been made on a final basis as reflected in the history set out above. The applicant is directed to advise the court as follows:
(a) Since he was present at most of the steps involved in the Crown wardship proceedings, and was an appellant in respect to decisions for both children, why is it he has told this court that there are no Crown wardship orders in respect to his children?
(b) The basis on which he says this court has jurisdiction to review the Crown wardship decisions set out above. It appears from the record of decisions that all appeal periods have long since expired, and that in any event no appeal lies to this court in respect to these Crown wardship decisions.
[7] The Children’s Aid Society’s submissions respecting the adoption of the children appear to be correct. That is, the children be placed for adoption without access to the applicant. The applicant had no right to notice and no right to appeal or to contest the adoption application since at that time the children were Crown Wards without access. Section 156(1) of the CFSA provided that the proposed adoptive parents and the CAST Director or local director are the only parties with the ability to appeal an adoption order:
156 (1) An appeal from a court’s order under section 146 may be made to the Superior Court of Justice by,
(a) the applicant for the adoption order; and
(b) the Director or local director who made the statement under subsection 149 (1).
[8] The adoption orders are final and the applicant had and has no right to contest the validity of the adoption in this Court by virtue of s. 157(1) of the CFSA:
157 (1) An adoption order under section 146 is final and irrevocable, subject only to section 156 (appeals), and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court by way of injunction, declaratory judgment, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus or application for judicial review.
[9] Finally, the applicant is no longer considered to be a parent of the children by operation of s. 157(2) of the CFSA:
(2) For all purposes of law, as of the date of the making of an adoption order,
(a) the adopted child becomes the child of the adoptive parent and the adoptive parent becomes the parent of the adopted child; and
(b) the adopted child ceases to be the child of the person who was his or her parent before the adoption order was made and that person ceases to be the parent of the adopted child, except where the person is the spouse of the adoptive parent.
[10] In this court’s endorsement directing notice pursuant to R.2.1.01, the court set out a series of questions for the applicant to address. If the applicant has any further submissions to make respecting whether the court should dismiss his applications as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, in light of the information provided by the respondents and this endorsement, he shall have a further 15 days from the date that this endorsement is sent to him by email in which to respond.
[11] Finally, the court is concerned that the applicant is litigating vexatiously and taking positions which he knows to be factually incorrect and legally untenable. This puts the administration of justice and the respondent agencies to unnecessary expense, apparently without justification. The court is considering making an order restricting the applicant’s access to the courts in respect to issues concerning these children, since he has no standing by virtue of the final adoption order; he is no longer considered to be a parent of these children by operation of law as set out above. The applicant should explain why his conduct respecting the two recent applications he has brought should not lead the court to make such an order against him.
D.L. Corbett J.
Date: August 14, 2020