Catherine Bickley

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order from a previous compliance decision so that the decision could be used in family court proceedings.

The Board denied the request, finding that the applicant had not provided exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the usual practice of maintaining confidentiality.

The Board noted that the applicant could seek an order from the family court, which would be better positioned to determine the relevance and necessity of the decision in those proceedings.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to give reasons for decisions and refused to proceed with a complaint.

The applicant acknowledged being involved in ongoing court proceedings regarding the custody of his children.

The Board found that the issues raised in the application were the same as those currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.

Pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board is barred from reviewing complaints that are the subject of court proceedings.

The application was dismissed as ineligible for review.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns with a children's aid society, including the transfer of his file to a new worker.

The Board found that most of the issues had already been dismissed in a previous decision.

The Board also determined that the issue of the file transfer was currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.

As a result, the Board was barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 from reviewing the application, and it was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's failure to take sufficient steps to protect his daughter's half-sister.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the applicant was not complaining about services he himself had sought or received.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's alleged failure to conduct a kinship home study.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not receiving services and the matter was currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, it is barred from reviewing issues that are before the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board concerning the removal of her grandchild.

After the grandchild was returned to the applicant's home, a case management teleconference was scheduled to determine next steps.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference and subsequently failed to confirm whether she wished to proceed with the applications, despite multiple warnings.

The Board dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

He alleged the society failed to hear his concerns regarding injuries his son sustained while in the maternal grandparents' care and failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the society only partially met its obligation to hear the applicant's concerns, as it inappropriately minimized his ongoing safety concerns.

The Board also found the society failed to provide timely and meaningful reasons for its verification decision and ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant.

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 failing to attend a scheduled pre-hearing teleconference, the applicant repeatedly requested extensions of time due to health and housing issues but failed to provide a current mailing address or an estimated timeframe for her participation as directed.

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

The applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing their application to adopt their two foster children, who had lived with them since shortly after birth.

The Society had approved an adoption plan from another family who had previously adopted the children's half-sisters, prioritizing sibling reunification.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's refusal, finding that the children had formed a secure attachment to the applicants and that the risks of disrupting this continuity of care outweighed the benefits of placing them with half-siblings they barely knew.

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

The applicant repeatedly failed to attend scheduled case management teleconferences and provided excuses that the adjudicator found not credible.

After being warned that failure to communicate with the Board could result in dismissal, the applicant did not respond.

The Board found the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's actions and decisions concerning her grandchildren.

The respondent society submitted that the applicant had not sought or received services from it, as she was not assessed as a kinship caregiver.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions challenging this position.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints were not about services she sought or received, but rather about the society's actions regarding her grandchildren.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a former foster parent, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking to quash a society's decision verifying that she caused physical harm to a former foster child.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the substantive decisions of the society or to grant the requested remedy of quashing the verification decision.

Furthermore, the statutory right to be heard applies only to children, young persons, and their parents, not to foster parents.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her complaint.

The applicant alleged the society did not follow its complaint review process or timelines.

The Board dismissed the application because the applicant had not first made a written complaint to the society using the required formal complaint form, rendering the application ineligible for review under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, which was placed on hold pending ongoing court proceedings.

Despite multiple Case Management Directions requesting details about the nature and stage of the court proceedings to determine if the Board had jurisdiction under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the applicant failed to provide the required information.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant had effectively abandoned the application 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, raising historical concerns and access issues regarding her grandchild.

The Board found that the issues had already been addressed in a previous decision, were currently before the court, or did not relate to a service sought or received from the respondent society.

The application was dismissed as ineligible for review.

The applicant, a transitional support counsellor, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the unprofessional conduct of a society worker toward the applicant and her client.

The Board determined that the complaint was ineligible for review under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant was not seeking or receiving services within the meaning of the Act, nor did she fall within the category of persons entitled to be heard under section 15(2).

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's actions concerning her grandchildren.

A previous identical application was dismissed because the applicant was not seeking or receiving services from the society.

The Board found nothing in the new application to alter the previous analysis and dismissed the application as ineligible for review.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking the return of her two sons, who had been removed from her care by the respondent children's aid society.

The applicant acknowledged that the issue of whether her sons would be returned to her was currently before the court, with a hearing adjourned to July 2020.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 bars the Board from reviewing a complaint if the subject matter is an issue that has been decided by or is currently before the court.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her grandson's safety and her daughter's child protection case.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the applicant's complaints related to services provided to her grandson and daughter, not services she herself had sought or received.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions following an incident in 1995.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that because the applicant had already engaged and exhausted the society's internal complaint review procedure and a Director's Review prior to November 30, 2006, the transitional provision in subsection 68(13) of the former Child and Family Services Act barred the Board from reviewing the application.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.