Catherine Bickley

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

The Board found that the application was filed within 10 days of the applicant receiving written notice under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

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

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the removal of an 18-year-old youth from their home.

The respondent Children's Aid Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction on the basis that the youth was no longer a child under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and the extended society care order had expired.

The Board agreed, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the youth had reached the age of majority.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, who had been foster parents to a child for almost two years, applied to adopt the child but were refused by the respondent children's aid society on the basis that another family met the child's racial and religious needs.

The applicants filed an application for review with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Board found that the application was filed within the statutory 10-day period and was therefore eligible to proceed to a hearing.

The Board issued directions for a teleconference to set timelines and identify preliminary issues.

The applicants, who are foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

They disagreed with the respondent society's plan to enter into a customary care agreement with another family and raised concerns about their interactions with a worker.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that as foster parents, the applicants were providing a service to the society rather than seeking or receiving services, making their complaint ineligible for review.

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, alleging the respondent society failed to adequately ensure her safety when she was a child.

The Board found that the applicant had not made a formal written complaint to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel as required by section 119(1) of the Act and section 56 of Ontario Regulation 156/18.

Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the application.

The application was dismissed.

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

After the applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing teleconference and did not respond to attempts to contact her, the adjudicator concluded that the application had been abandoned.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her child's wellbeing while in the father's care and her dissatisfaction with the children's aid society's response.

The Board found that the applicant had not made a written complaint to the society in the required form as mandated by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

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

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

The child had lived continuously with the applicant for over two years.

The society removed the child without providing 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 eligible to proceed to a hearing and issued directions for a teleconference and document filing.

The applicants, foster parents of a child, sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove the child and refuse their adoption application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the child had not lived with the applicants continuously for two years prior to the notice of removal.

Furthermore, the application was filed outside the mandatory 10-day statutory timeline for reviewing an adoption refusal.

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, alleging the respondent society failed to follow its complaint review process.

The Board noted that the applicant had not made a written complaint to the society in the required form, as mandated by section 119(1) of the Act and section 56 of Ontario Regulation 156/18.

Because a formal written complaint is a prerequisite for the Board's review under section 120(4), the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicants, who were foster parents to a child, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the removal of the child from their home following an investigation by the respondent society.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that 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, and the definition of 'parent' in the Act does not include foster parents.

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.

A pre-hearing teleconference was scheduled after the parties failed to reach a settlement at mediation.

The applicant failed to attend the pre-hearing and did not respond to the Board's attempts to contact him by telephone and email.

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

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order from a pre-hearing report to allow her to use a mediated settlement agreement in her family law proceedings.

The Board denied the request, noting its jurisdiction is limited to service issues and it only waives confidentiality in exceptional circumstances.

The Board advised the applicant to seek an order from the family court instead.

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

Despite multiple case management directions and extensions of time, the self-represented applicant failed to provide available dates for a videoconference hearing and instead sent emails complaining about the respondent and the Board.

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

The applicant filed a second application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising substantially the same issues as a previous application that had already been decided.

The Board found that the second application relied on the same documents, covered the same time period, and raised concerns that were already addressed in the prior decision.

The Board dismissed the application, concluding that allowing it to proceed would violate the principles of judicial economy and finality, and would constitute an abuse of process.

Three family members filed applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding their interactions with the Children's Aid Society following a child's apprehension in Germany and return to Canada.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the complaints did not relate to reviewable services and were barred because the matter had been before a court.

The Board found that the Society's actions constituted services under the Act, but ordered the Society to provide relevant court documents to determine if the review was barred by section 120(8)(a).

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with three terms of a settlement agreement reached at a pre-hearing.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined the matter in writing after the applicant failed to attend a scheduled teleconference.

The Board found that the respondent had complied with the terms regarding the service plan and communication model, but had failed to provide a clear written outline of the reasons why it viewed there to be ongoing parental conflict.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the required written outline within 14 days.

The applicants filed an application to review the respondent's decision refusing to place a child with them for adoption.

A preliminary issue arose regarding whether the application was filed within the 10-day statutory timeline.

The Board determined that because the applicants experienced technical difficulties opening the required form attached to the refusal notice, the notice was not fully received until the issue was resolved.

Consequently, the application was filed within the statutory timelines and is eligible for review.

The applicants filed an application to review the respondent's decision refusing to place a child with them for adoption.

The application was filed after 5:00 p.m. on the final day of the 10-day statutory limitation period, making it technically one day late under the Board's rules.

The Board issued an interim decision directing a teleconference hearing to determine whether the respondent's notice of refusal met the statutory requirements, which would dictate whether the application was out of time.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of a children's aid society's decision refusing to place a child with her for adoption.

The Board issued an interim decision noting potential issues with the society's notice of refusal and the timeliness of the application.

The Board scheduled a teleconference to address these preliminary issues and set directions for the hearing.