Catherine Bickley

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

Following a pre-hearing teleconference, the parties provided written submissions on whether the hearing should be held in writing or by videoconference.

The applicant preferred a hybrid format, citing lack of access to a secure internet connection, while the respondent requested a written hearing.

The adjudicator ordered the hearing to proceed in writing, finding that the applicant's proposed hybrid format would not allow for a fair and focused hearing and that a written hearing would be more expeditious given the parties' availability.

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.

After being directed to provide submissions on whether the Board was barred from reviewing the application, the applicant failed to file submissions despite multiple extensions and follow-up communications.

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

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, regarding the proposed removal of a child.

During a case management teleconference, it was clarified that the child was not in extended society care.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter because the child was not in extended society care.

The applicant, the grandmother of a child in extended society care, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the society's handling of government funding for the child.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant had not filed a complaint with the society in the required format and, as a grandmother of a child in extended society care, was not herself seeking or receiving a service.

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order from a previous decision so she could file it as evidence in an ongoing child protection proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Board denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from its usual practice of maintaining confidentiality.

The Board noted that the applicant could seek an order from the Court permitting the use of the decision, as the Court was better positioned to determine its appropriateness.

The applicant, a step-parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her step-children's wellbeing and the respondent society's response to her concerns.

The application indicated that the society refused to proceed with her complaint.

The Board found that the applicant had not submitted her complaint to the society using the mandatory 'Formal Complaint to a Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel' form as required by the legislation.

Consequently, the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the application and dismissed it.

The applicants, who had cared for the child since 2014, filed an application to review the removal of the child from their care.

During a case management teleconference, it was clarified that the child was not in extended society care.

As the child was not in extended society care, the Child and Family Services Review Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the application.

The application was dismissed.

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

Prior to the scheduled pre-hearing, the applicant informed the Board she would not attend.

After failing to respond to a case management direction requiring her to confirm whether she was withdrawing the application, the Board concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order from a previous decision.

The applicant sought to share the decision with the Office of the Children's Lawyer for family court proceedings and with government officials to prompt a review of the respondent society's record-keeping.

The Board denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from its usual practice of maintaining confidentiality, and noted that the family court is better positioned to determine if the decision should be admitted in those proceedings.

The applicant sought to be a kin care provider for her grandson and filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and follow its complaint review process.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is limited to children, young persons, and their parents.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to submit her complaint to the society using the required formal complaint form, which is a prerequisite for Board review.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to protect her son.

The applicant had not made a written complaint to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel in the required form.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 because the prerequisite of a formal written complaint to the society under section 119 had not been met.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to properly manage her file and address her concerns regarding her child's mental health.

The Board found that the applicant had not first made a complaint to the society using the prescribed 'Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel' form, as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and its regulations.

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

The applicant, a former foster mother of the child, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse her adoption application.

The respondent had notified the applicant that another adoptive applicant was matched with the child.

The Board found that the application was filed within the 10-day statutory time limit under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board directed that the matter proceed to a hearing and scheduled a teleconference to address preliminary issues and set timelines.

The applicants filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the respondent society's investigations.

The parties reached a settlement agreement at a pre-hearing.

The applicants subsequently alleged that the respondent failed to comply with the agreement by providing unsatisfactory answers to agreed-upon questions.

The tribunal found that the respondent had answered the questions as required and therefore complied with the settlement agreement, closing the file.

The applicants, foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after their foster child was removed from their care.

They alleged the children's aid society failed to give them a chance to be heard and failed to follow its complaint review process.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that foster parents do not fall within the definition of 'parent' under the Act for the purposes of the right to be heard, and the applicants had not filed their complaint in the required format.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after their foster child was removed from their home.

The applicant alleged that the society failed to give them an opportunity to be heard when decisions affecting their interests were made, contrary to section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the right to be heard under section 15(2) is limited to children, young persons, and their parents.

As the definition of 'parent' in the Act does not include foster parents, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the application.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove a foster child who had lived continuously in the applicant's home for over two years.

The child was removed without the required 10 days' written notice under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application was filed within the statutory 10-day period and directed that the matter proceed to an expedited hearing.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's proposed removal of two children who had lived in her home for over two years.

The applicant had only received verbal notice of the removal, whereas the statute requires 10 days' written notice.

The Board issued an interim decision scheduling an initial hearing to determine whether it has jurisdiction to proceed with the application in the absence of written notice.

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

The applicant was subject to a criminal release order prohibiting contact with the respondent.

The Board directed the applicant to provide evidence that the non-contact condition had been varied and to cease sending abusive emails.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and continued to send numerous abusive emails.

The Board dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicants, who are foster parents, applied to review the respondent Society's refusal of their adoption application.

The proposed adoptive parents, with whom the Society planned to place the child, requested to be added as parties to the proceeding.

The Society opposed the request, arguing the issue was strictly between the Society and the foster parents.

The Board granted the request, finding that the proposed adoptive parents' participation was necessary to decide the child's best interests, as the hearing would involve a comparison of the two potential placements.