Catherine Bickley

The applicant, a maternal grandmother and kin caregiver, filed an application 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 matters raised were currently before the Superior Court of Justice in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns, primarily regarding the children's access with extended family, were central issues before the court and not separate and different from the substantive issues in the court proceeding.

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

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the safety of his child in the mother's care.

The Board found that the issues raised were substantially the same as a previous application and were currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

Additionally, requests for personal information about the mother and her partner fell under Part X of the CYFSA, which is outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant grandparent sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's actions regarding her grandchildren, seeking their return to her care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant was not seeking or receiving a service from the society, but rather complaining about the society's actions regarding the children.

The Respondent Children's Aid Society requested a variance of the CFSRB's confidentiality rules to permit the use of documents from a settled CFSRB application in its defence against a related application brought by the Applicant before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The Applicant opposed the disclosure.

The CFSRB granted the request, finding that the HRTO requires the relevant documents to determine whether the issues raised had already been resolved in the CFSRB proceeding.

The confidentiality order was varied to allow specific documents to be used in the HRTO proceeding, with children's names redacted.

The appellant appealed the revocation of their child's registration as a non-resident international student with the respondent school board.

The registration was revoked due to excessive absenteeism in breach of the International Student Agreement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that absenteeism is not an activity that permits or requires suspension and expulsion under the Education Act.

Therefore, the revocation was not an expulsion, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The applicant parent filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her child's wellbeing in the care of the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent questioned the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the Superior Court of Justice in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns, including the child's wellbeing, access with the father, and a psychological report, were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, arguing the issues were subject to an ongoing child protection proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice.

Applying the test from Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., the Board found that complaints regarding the child's wellbeing in foster care, delays in kinship placement, and access visits were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court and could proceed.

Complaints regarding the reasons for the child's removal were dismissed as being substantive issues before the court.

The applicant mother sought a review by the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding her concerns about the respondent society's handling of her allegations that the child's father posed a safety risk.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction on the basis that the same issues were before the Superior Court of Justice in a parenting dispute.

The Board found that the issues raised in the application were not separate and different from those considered and decided by the Court, which had recently ordered parenting time for the father.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to promote her gifted child by only one grade instead of the requested two grades, arguing it constituted a placement decision.

The Ontario Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that grade promotion is not a 'placement decision' under the Education Act or Regulation 181/98.

As there was no dispute regarding the child's identification or special education placement, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appellants appealed the school board's decision to promote their child to Grade 7, which required a move to a new school, seeking instead to have the child retained in Grade 6 at his current school.

The school board argued the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellants had not exhausted their appeal rights to the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) and because the decision was not an identification or placement decision.

The tribunal found it could take jurisdiction despite the lack of a SEAB appeal because the school principal had provided incorrect information to the appellants.

However, the tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because promotion to a new grade and the physical location of a school are not 'placement' decisions within its statutory mandate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint against the respondent child welfare agency under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging a breach of confidentiality, failure to disclose her file, and failure to provide meaningful reasons regarding a potential conflict of interest involving her ex-partner, who was employed by the respondent.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found insufficient evidence of a confidentiality breach and noted the respondent had eventually disclosed the file and explained its jurisdictional transfer.

However, the Board found the respondent failed to provide the applicant with a meaningful explanation of how it handles potential conflicts of interest.

The application was upheld in part, and the respondent was ordered to provide a written explanation of its conflict of interest procedures.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 after two foster children were removed from her care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The Board held that foster parents are typically considered service providers rather than service recipients, and since the applicant was not subject to a child protection investigation, she was not eligible to seek a review under section 120.

The appellant appealed the respondent school board's decision to expel their child.

Prior to a scheduled mediation, the respondent advised the Child and Family Services Review Board that the matter had settled.

The appellant failed to respond to communications from the Board, did not attend the mediation, and failed to comply with a Case Management Direction requiring them to confirm their intention to proceed.

Consequently, the Board found the appeal to be abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Board found the application ineligible for review because the applicant failed to demonstrate that they had sought or received a service from the respondent children's aid society, and the complaint did not relate to any such service.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed to the Child and Family Services Review Board after a school board issued a trespass notice preventing her children from attending school.

The children had been suspended pursuant to an order from the local health unit under the Immunization of School Pupils Act.

The Board found that the trespass notice did not constitute an expulsion under the Education Act, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant mother filed an appeal to the Ontario Special Education Tribunal regarding her child's special education placement.

The child's father, who held interim sole decision-making authority over education pursuant to a Superior Court order, had previously cancelled the prerequisite Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the statutory prerequisite of exhausting all other avenues of appeal, specifically the SEAB process, had not been met.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

During a pre-hearing, the applicant stated an intention to breach the Board's confidentiality rules and speak to the media.

The Board directed the applicant to provide a written commitment to follow the rules, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant refused to comply.

The Board dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising concerns about a child previously in her care and the respondent society's conduct.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because foster parents are considered service providers rather than service recipients under the Act.

The applicant sought an oral, video-recorded hearing for their application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging criminal negligence by the respondent.

The respondent requested a written hearing, noting the reliance on email exchanges.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered a written hearing, finding it more efficient and noting that the Board lacks jurisdiction to investigate alleged crimes.

The applicant sought an in-person hearing for her application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact on her rights.

The respondent requested a written hearing.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered that the hearing proceed in writing, finding that an in-person hearing was not necessary to accommodate a Human Rights Code-related need or to ensure fairness, and that a written format would be more efficient given the procedural focus of the application.