Catherine Bickley

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint 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 protect her grandchildren from their mother's substance abuse.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant was not seeking or receiving services for herself, but rather complaining about the Society's actions regarding her grandchildren.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Board found that the society had largely met its obligations, noting that many communication issues were of the applicant's own making.

However, the Board ordered the society to provide written reasons explaining why it did not promptly inform the applicant of an alleged sexual assault of his son and the factors considered in concluding the allegation was not verified.

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, seeking the return of her daughter who had been made a Crown Ward and adopted, as well as compensation.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the issue of the child's care had already been decided by the courts, and the remaining allegations did not fall within the reviewable matters under section 120(4).

The applicants filed an application alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decision to stop sending them photographs of two children who were crown wards.

The Board found that the respondent had provided sufficient reasons by explaining that the adoptive families refused to provide pictures and the respondent was respecting their wishes.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the respondent children's aid society's handling of child protection concerns regarding her grandson.

The Board dismissed the application because the applicant was not seeking or receiving services herself, but rather complaining about services provided to her daughter and grandson.

Furthermore, as a grandparent, she did not fall within the statutory definition of a parent entitled to the right to be heard under the legislation.

The application was deemed ineligible for review.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking the return of her child, who had been placed in the temporary care of the father by a court order.

The respondent children's aid society requested the application be dismissed.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints regarding access were not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the court.

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

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding the protection of and access to her grandchildren.

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

The Board concluded that the issues raised by the applicant were not separate and distinct from the substantive issues that had already been decided by or were currently before the court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The applicant sought a review of the children's aid society's decision to refuse his application to adopt his 17-month-old niece, who had been diagnosed with Global Developmental Delay.

The society refused the application based on concerns regarding the applicant's commitment, parenting skills, executive functioning, and financial stability, noting he had missed over half of his scheduled access visits and failed to complete mandatory training.

The tribunal confirmed the society's refusal, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated the requisite parenting skills or commitment to meet the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs, and that further delaying the child's permanent placement was not in her best interests.

The applicants, whose children were previously made crown wards, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to provide them with pictures of the children.

The respondent brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction.

The adjudicator dismissed the applicants' motion alleging bias.

On the jurisdictional motion, the adjudicator found that because the applicants no longer had legal custody, they were not 'parents' under the Act and could not proceed under s. 120(4)4.

However, the adjudicator held the application could proceed under s. 120(4)5, as the applicants were entitled to meaningful reasons for the decision to stop providing pictures, a service they had been receiving.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent children's aid society had not allowed her to see her children.

The applicant acknowledged that the issue of access had been dealt with and was currently before the court.

The Board found that the subject matter of the application was not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the court.

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

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her concerns about her son's behaviour.

The son was facing criminal charges and there were ongoing custody and access proceedings before the court.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns were closely connected to the ongoing court proceedings and did not raise separate and distinct service concerns.

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

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions in a child protection proceeding.

The court had previously ordered the applicant's children into the temporary care of the respondent and directed that they remain in Ontario, despite the family's plans to move to Nova Scotia.

The applicant raised issues regarding mobility rights and the fairness of the court process.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the complaints related to substantive issues before the court and were therefore barred from review under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant, a counsellor at a youth treatment centre, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about a children's aid society's lack of communication regarding a youth in their care.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant was not seeking or receiving services herself, nor did she qualify as a child, young person, or parent under the Act.

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

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 seeking or receiving services for herself, and the right to be heard under section 15(2) applies only to children, young persons, and parents.

The applicants, foster parents of a child in extended society care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove the child from their home.

The society provided written notice of the removal on December 13, 2019, which included information about the ten-day statutory deadline to apply for a review.

The applicants filed their application on March 2, 2020, more than two months after the deadline.

The Board found that the notice satisfied the statutory requirements and that the Act does not provide any exception to the ten-day filing deadline.

The application was dismissed as ineligible for review.

The applicants, former foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the closure of their foster home, inaccuracies in their file, and a denial of their right to be heard.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

Complaints about file inaccuracies fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, and the statutory right to be heard applies only to 'parents' as defined in the Act, which does not include foster parents.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking access to her grandchild.

The applicant acknowledged that the respondent society was currently in court regarding the matter.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that subsection 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 bars the Board from reviewing issues that are before the court.

Furthermore, jurisdiction over custody and access lies with the court under the Children's Law Reform Act, not the Board.

The applicants, who were the child's foster parents for nearly three years, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their adoption application and remove the child from their home.

The Society had decided to place the child with another foster family who was caring for the child's half-siblings, prioritizing sibling reunification.

The Board found that the Society failed to provide proper notice of the removal and failed to make full disclosure.

On the merits, the Board determined that it was in the child's best interests to be returned to the applicants' home and adopted by them, given the child's strong attachment to the applicants, the trauma of the disruption, and concerns about the alternative family's commitment to adopting the siblings.

The applicant foster parent filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board challenging the respondent children's aid society's apprehension of a child and alleged oral refusal of her adoption plan.

Because the applicant had not received written notice of the refusal as required by section 192(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to determine whether the respondent had in fact refused the application and to set directions for the hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the services received from the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent challenged the Child and Family Services Review Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the Ontario Court of Justice in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the allegations in the application were strikingly similar to those raised in the applicant's court affidavit and were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act.