Catherine Bickley

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

During a videoconference pre-hearing, the child disrupted the proceeding, and the appellant disconnected and failed to return.

After the appellant failed to respond to a subsequent case management direction, the adjudicator dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

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

The applicant subsequently failed to attend three scheduled pre-hearing/mediation sessions, providing either very late notice or no notice at all.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's repeated failure to attend and lack of timely notice wasted the time and resources of the tribunal and the respondent.

Consequently, the adjudicator dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

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 directed the applicant to provide written submissions regarding whether she had sought or received services from the respondent.

The applicant failed to provide the submissions or contact the Board by the deadline.

Consequently, the Board concluded the application was 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.

Following a pre-hearing mediation where the applicant requested an adjournment, the Board directed the applicant to submit a written request specifying the length of the adjournment.

The applicant failed to respond to the initial direction and a subsequent Case Management Direction warning of potential dismissal.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicants filed an application under section 192(1)(b) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the proposed removal of a child placed for adoption.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application because the child had not been placed with the applicants for adoption, making the section inapplicable.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a child in extended society care from their home.

The Board found that the child had lived continuously with the applicant for more than two years and the application was filed within the required 10-day notice period.

The Board determined the application was eligible to proceed to a hearing and issued directions for a first day of hearing.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent society's refusal of her application to adopt a child.

The respondent planned to place the child with their current foster parents for adoption.

The foster parents requested to be added as parties to the proceeding, which the respondent consented to but the applicant opposed.

The Board found that the foster parents had an important interest in the outcome and that their participation was necessary to determine the child's best interests.

The foster parents were added as parties to the proceeding.

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

After attending an initial pre-hearing/mediation, the applicant failed to attend a subsequent scheduled pre-hearing and did not respond to a Case Management Direction requiring an explanation.

The adjudicator concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

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

Following a pre-hearing mediation, the applicant was directed to advise the Board of their intentions regarding the matter by a specified date.

The applicant failed to contact the Board as directed.

Consequently, the adjudicator concluded that the application had been abandoned and dismissed it.

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 complained about the removal of the applicant's child, a matter that was already before the courts.

The Board denied permission to file, finding that the subject matter was outside its jurisdiction and that filing a fourth application on the same issue would constitute an abuse of process.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The applicant conceded she had a mental disorder and had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, but argued the remaining statutory criteria were not met.

The Board found that the secure treatment program would be effective, appropriate treatment was available, and no less restrictive method was appropriate given the applicant's escalating aggressive behaviours and the exhaustion of community resources.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns about her child's safety in the father's care and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that while the society did investigate the concerns, it failed to provide the mother with meaningful reasons for its conclusion that the child was safe.

The society incorrectly believed the mother was a non-custodial parent and therefore not entitled to the information.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed letter explaining its investigative actions.

The applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board requesting a review of the respondent's removal of two children from their care.

The applicants were directed to provide written submissions on preliminary questions but failed to do so, even after being granted an extension and warned that their application could be dismissed.

The Board concluded that the applicants had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging a conflict of interest regarding the presence of the respondent's former Executive Director on its Board of Directors.

The respondent clarified that the former Executive Director was not on its Board.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the complaint did not relate to a service sought or received by the applicant, but rather to the internal structure and processes of the respondent.

The applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

The Board found that the application was filed within the required 10-day statutory time limit.

The Board issued an interim decision confirming the application's eligibility to proceed and set a date for the first day of the hearing to address preliminary issues and procedural directions.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to implement a prior settlement agreement.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to notify the Board of the alleged non-compliance by the specified deadline in the settlement agreement, and failed to submit a formal complaint to the society using the required form under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent's decision to refuse their application to adopt their foster child.

They brought a motion seeking an order to allow an expert to conduct an attachment assessment of the child.

The respondent opposed the assessment, arguing that section 98 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 applied and that its own staff could provide better information.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that section 98 did not apply to a section 192 proceeding and concluded that the proposed assessment would assist the hearing panel.

The motion was granted, but the request for costs was denied as the Board lacked the authority to award them.

The appellant requested an order compelling the respondent school board to retrieve and produce recordings of a Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) hearing.

The recordings had been deleted after 120 days in accordance with the respondent's policy, though the appellant's counsel had previously received links to them.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that discussions between counsel and the SEAB were not relevant or admissible evidence for the Tribunal proceeding, and that issues regarding the Health Care Consent Act and Human Rights Code raised by the appellant were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the permanent dismissal of her child from a school for the Deaf operated by the Provincial and Demonstration Schools Branch (PDSB).

The Child and Family Services Review Board considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 311.7 of the Education Act.

The Board found that its jurisdiction is limited to expulsion decisions made by a 'board' as defined in the Act, which does not include schools operated by the PDSB.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant brought a motion regarding the respondent children's aid society's disclosure in a service complaint proceeding under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant argued the respondent provided heavily redacted records without reasons or a copy of its disclosure policy.

The Board found the respondent failed to meet its disclosure obligations as set out in J.S. v. Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, noting the redactions were significant rather than minimal.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide amended disclosure, including removing redactions made on the mistaken belief that the applicant lacked custody of her child.