Catherine Bickley

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent's handling of a file disclosure request.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, but the applicant subsequently alleged the respondent failed to comply with its terms.

The adjudicator found that the respondent had provided the required explanations regarding disclosure timelines and practices before the agreed deadline.

The adjudicator concluded the respondent complied with the settlement agreement and closed the file.

The applicants, foster parents of a child, submitted an adoption plan which the respondent Society refused in favour of another family.

The Society subsequently removed the child from the applicants' home.

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

In this interim decision on preliminary issues, the Board found that the Society failed to provide the mandatory written notice required under sections 109(7) and 192(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Consequently, the applications were deemed timely and the removal of the child was found to be in contravention of the Act.

The matters were ordered to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant grandparent sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove their grandchild from their kinship care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board issued an interim decision setting a first day of hearing to determine preliminary issues, including whether the application met the eligibility criteria under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

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

The society had provided written notice of its refusal, and the applicants filed their application for review within the required 10-day statutory period under section 192(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the application was eligible to proceed to a hearing.

The Board issued directions scheduling a teleconference to address preliminary issues and set timelines for the hearing.

The applicants, who had fostered a four-year-old child since birth, sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove the child from their care and refuse their adoption application.

The child had significant developmental delays and was at risk for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

The Society intended to place the biracial child with another family who had adopted the child's half-sister, arguing the other family could better meet the child's racial and cultural needs.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the applicants had met all of the child's needs, including her racial and cultural needs.

The Board concluded that removing the child from the only parents she had known would disrupt her secure place in the family and be contrary to her best interests.

The applicants, foster parents of a child in extended society care, filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove the child from their home.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application eligible to proceed to a hearing because the child had lived continuously with the applicants for more than two years and the application was filed within 10 days of receiving written notice.

The Board issued directions for a teleconference to set timelines and schedule the hearing, noting that the child cannot be removed pending the review.

The applicants, who are foster parents, filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

They alleged the society failed to comply with a court order and psychiatric reports regarding a foster child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that as foster parents, the applicants provide a service to the society rather than receive a service from it, making their complaint ineligible for review.

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

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

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application eligible for review as it was filed within 10 days of the notice of permanent removal.

The Board issued an interim decision setting a first hearing date to address preliminary issues, including whether the society complied with the statutory prohibition against removing the child during the appeal period.

The applicant grandparent sought to adopt their grandchild.

The respondent children's aid society refused to place the child with the applicant for the purpose of adoption.

The applicant filed an application for review with the Child and Family Services Review Board within the required 10-day statutory period.

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

The applicants, foster parents of a child who had been in their care continuously for over two years, filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove the child from their home.

The Board noted that it was unclear whether the child was in extended society care, a prerequisite for the review.

The Board scheduled a first day of hearing to determine the child's status and set procedural directions, noting that the child could not be removed pending the review unless likely to suffer harm.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide updates after the applicant reported child protection concerns regarding a friend's child.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review.

The Board held that merely reporting concerns about a child's welfare does not create a service relationship, and therefore the applicant had not sought or received services from the Society as required by the Act.

The applicant filed an application to adopt her grandson, which was refused by the respondent children's aid society.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the refusal under section 192(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board found that the application was filed within the required 10-day statutory time limit and directed that the matter proceed to a hearing.

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

The Board noted that it was unclear whether the child was in extended society care, a prerequisite for the review.

The Board issued directions scheduling a first day of hearing to determine the child's status, potential joinder with a sibling's application, and other preliminary matters.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints about the respondent children's aid society's involvement with her grandchildren.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction because the applicant had not sought or received services from the society, had not filed a written complaint with the society, and the issues raised had already been decided by a court.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of her concerns about her cousin's safety and an alleged breach of confidentiality.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was ineligible to bring a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because she had not sought or received services from the society.

The applicant filed multiple applications against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

After failing to participate in case management and mediation, the applicant sought to withdraw her current applications just after the deadline for submissions on whether she should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Child and Family Services Review Board granted the withdrawal but proceeded to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant due to her history of filing repetitive, unfounded applications for improper purposes and her failure to comply with tribunal processes.

The applicant is required to obtain permission before filing future applications.

The appellant appealed the respondent school board's decision to expel her daughter.

After indicating that a settlement was near and relinquishing her right to a hearing, the appellant ceased communication with the Child and Family Services Review Board and failed to attend a scheduled case management teleconference.

The adjudicator concluded that the appeal was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for supporting the placement of her child with the child's father.

Following a pre-hearing teleconference where the applicant hung up, she posted confidential child protection information online and sent over 100 inappropriate and threatening emails to the Board and respondent's counsel.

The Board found the respondent had met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide meaningful reasons, and dismissed the application due to the applicant's lack of cooperation and breach of confidentiality.

The Respondent sought permission to use documents from a settled CFSRB proceeding in a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) summary and preliminary hearing.

The HRTO proceeding involved applications by the Applicant that the Respondent argued raised the same allegations as the settled CFSRB application.

The Applicant opposed the request, claiming the documents were illegally obtained.

The adjudicator granted the Respondent's request, varying the CFSRB's confidentiality rules to allow the use of the documents, with the children's names redacted, so the HRTO could make an informed decision.

The applicants, who were the foster parents of a two-and-a-half-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove the child from their care and place him with a maternal kin family out of province.

The child had lived with the applicants since he was three days old, along with his half-sister.

The Board considered expert evidence on attachment and the potential trauma of disrupting the child's bond with the foster family.

The Board determined that it was in the child's best interests to remain with the applicants, where he could be adopted alongside his half-sister, and directed the Society not to carry out the proposed removal.