Catherine Bickley

The Appellant appealed the special education placement of his child.

After repeatedly seeking to delay the hearing and failing to attend scheduled case management and hearing dates, the Appellant filed a last-minute motion for an indefinite adjournment.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment motion, finding no persuasive reason for delay and noting the Appellant's failure to provide supporting medical documentation.

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant had effectively abandoned the appeal through his non-attendance and dismissed the appeal.

An interim publication ban and sealing order were confirmed to protect the child's identity.

The appellant appealed the special education placement of his child to the Ontario Special Education Tribunal.

He subsequently brought a motion to stay the Tribunal's proceedings while he sought leave to appeal a related Divisional Court decision to the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for a stay, noting that the Court of Appeal had previously found no merit to the potential appeal and emphasizing that it was in the child's best interests for the matter to proceed to a hearing on the merits without delay.

The appellants appealed the school board's decision not to identify their child as Gifted.

The school board raised a preliminary issue, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to set aside the criteria for Giftedness set out in its Special Education Plan.

The Tribunal declined to decide the issue as a preliminary matter, finding that the interpretation of the criteria should be determined on a full evidentiary record.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicants, parents of two children, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear their concerns and provide meaningful reasons for its decisions.

The society had become involved following reports from medical professionals concerning caregiver-fabricated illness.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the society had held lengthy meetings with the applicants, heard their explanations, and provided clear, detailed reasons for its child protection concerns and its expectations for closing the file.

The appellant parent brought a pre-hearing motion requesting that the school board be ordered to pay for four assessments of the student and that certain documents be pre-emptively accepted as evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the request for assessments was late, inconsistent with the appellant's prior actions, and would delay the hearing.

The Tribunal also declined to pre-emptively accept documents into evidence, noting that exhibits are evaluated during the hearing.

The applicant's former spouse brought a motion to be added as a party to the applicant's proceeding against the children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The CFSRB dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed added party did not have a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding, which focused solely on the society's procedural obligations to the applicant.

The CFSRB also dismissed the applicant's request for costs against the proposed added party, as the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to award costs.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion requesting that the adjudicator recuse herself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant alleged unfair treatment during a pre-hearing and disagreed with various case management directions, including the adjudicator's refusal to make a final placement order prior to a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that an informed person would not conclude that the adjudicator's active case management, control of the pre-hearing process, or refusal to act outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society regarding its investigations into her allegations that the father was sexually abusing their child.

The parties were concurrently engaged in extensive family law litigation before the Superior Court of Justice.

The Board found that it was barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act from reviewing most of the applicant's issues because they had been placed before the court in the family law proceedings.

For the remaining issues, the Board concluded that the respondent had met its obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement requiring the respondent children's aid society to provide a letter explaining its decisions regarding the removal of the applicant's granddaughter, her placement in a group home, and the refusal to share contact information.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to comply with the agreement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent's letter adequately explained its limited role in the decisions, which were made by the child's mother as legal guardian, and was provided by the agreed deadline.

The Board concluded the respondent complied with the settlement agreement and closed the file.

The appellant requested a stay of their special education appeal proceedings pending the outcome of a proposed application for judicial review of an earlier interim decision that dismissed a bias motion.

The Tribunal denied the request for a stay, noting that no judicial review application had yet been filed and that delaying the proceedings would prejudice the child, who was currently being home-schooled, by delaying a final determination on their placement.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion requesting that the hearing panel recuse themselves due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant alleged bias after the panel chair directed that written submissions might be required on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to order the requested placement, and because the chair was cross-appointed to another tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that an informed person would not conclude that the panel's actions, which included attempting to assist the appellant in focusing on relevant evidence and exercising its authority to determine a jurisdictional issue, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant by the Child and Family Services Review Board, sought permission to file a new application against the respondent children's aid society.

The proposed application sought information about her son's whereabouts and repeated allegations that he was not adopted, despite multiple court rulings to the contrary.

The Board denied the request, finding that the proposed application was repetitive of previous proceedings and that allowing it would constitute an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's complaint regarding the level and quality of information provided about the child's wellbeing was separate and different from the court proceedings and could proceed.

However, issues regarding the child's safety, therapy, and school attendance were dismissed as they were substantive issues before the court.

The appellants appealed the identification and placement of their child by an Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC).

Following a subsequent IPRC meeting, the child's identification and placement were changed to match the appellants' request.

The respondent argued the appeal was moot.

The Tribunal agreed, finding no substantive dispute remained to be resolved, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the jurisdictional issues raised by the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking reasons for the decision to extend her child's commitment to a secure treatment centre.

The respondent children's aid society supported the treatment facility's request to the court for the extension.

The Board found that the issue of extending the child's secure treatment was squarely before the Ontario Court of Justice.

Applying section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the issue was not separate and different from the substantive issue before the court.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent failed to provide written reasons for cancelling a scheduled meeting.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the meeting was not cancelled by the respondent; rather, the applicant hung up the phone when the respondent called to start the meeting.

As there was no decision by the respondent requiring reasons, the application was dismissed.

The applicant mother filed an application under s. 120 of the CYFSA alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The CFSRB dismissed allegations outside its jurisdiction, including those related to family court orders, privacy breaches, and a perceived multi-party conspiracy.

For the remaining issues, the CFSRB found that the respondent had adequately heard the applicant's concerns through multiple in-person meetings and correspondence, and had provided meaningful written reasons explaining the outcomes of its child protection investigations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who has legal custody of her grandchild, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after allegedly being denied financial support and services by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was not a 'service recipient' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board permitted the applicant to amend her application to include allegations regarding the child's developmental and mental health issues.

The Board found that the applicant had sought or received services from the respondent, establishing jurisdiction for the application to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a children's aid society's handling of an internal complaint and its investigation into child protection concerns.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in a Children's Law Reform Act proceeding.

The Board found that the internal complaint process could not proceed as the society had not been given an opportunity to address it, and the remaining issues regarding the children's wellbeing and the investigation were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant parent filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about the safety of their children in the care of the other parent and the respondent society's handling of those concerns.

The respondent society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was subject to ongoing child protection proceedings in family court.

The Board found that the issues raised in the application were central to the ongoing court proceedings and were not separate and different.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.