Heather Gibbs

The Director brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Greenpath Parties for failing to comply with a previous Tribunal order requiring full disclosure of relevant documents.

The Tribunal found that while the self-represented appellant failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain documents in his power or control, he did not show wilful disregard for the Tribunal's rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to dismiss the appeals, but ordered that the Greenpath Parties and their witnesses are prohibited from relying on any documents at the hearing that were not disclosed by the date of the order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference regarding appeals by the Concerned Citizens of Brant and the Corporation of the County of Brant against the issuance of a Permit to Take Water and an Environmental Compliance Approval to CRH Canada Group Inc. for an aggregate washing operation.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions and set a schedule for the exchange of documents, witness statements, and the hearing dates.

The appellant sought a stay of a Director's Order requiring the cleanup and removal of alleged asbestos waste on his property.

The Director consented to the stay pending a prehearing conference, provided the material remained safely tarped.

The Tribunal found that a stay would not result in danger to health or safety under s. 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act and granted the stay on consent.

The Director brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Greenpath Parties for failing to fulfill their disclosure obligations regarding a Director's Order for the removal of waste ash.

The Tribunal found that the Greenpath Parties had not disclosed all relevant documents or made reasonable efforts to obtain them from third parties.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the appeals at this stage, instead ordering the Greenpath Parties to provide full and complete disclosure by a specified deadline.

The Tribunal considered a consent request to adjourn an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval issued to the Approval Holder.

The parties consented to a 39-day adjournment.

Pursuant to s. 59(2)1.i of O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal granted the adjournment and extended the date of deemed confirmation of the approval to January 15, 2016.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The Tribunal found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland, but dismissed the other environmental and human health grounds.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the parties to provide submissions on the appropriate remedy under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellant appealed a renewable energy approval issued to the approval holder for a wind park.

During the hearing, the approval holder introduced new evidence regarding grassland and woodland compensation properties.

To allow sufficient time to consider this new evidence and the responding evidence, the Tribunal ordered a 14-day adjournment under O. Reg. 359/09, extending the statutory deadline for the disposition of the appeal.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society improperly included her personal information in an affidavit filed in a child protection proceeding involving her brother-in-law.

The society argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because it had never provided a service to the applicant or her children.

The Board agreed, finding that the inclusion of information from an Office of the Children's Lawyer report in a court affidavit did not constitute a service under the Child and Family Services Act.

Furthermore, the Board noted it lacked jurisdiction because the propriety of the evidence was a matter currently before the court.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging the Society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests regarding his daughter.

The Applicant raised issues concerning the Society's investigation of the mother, alleged bias of the family services worker, the Society's actions during his arrest, a lack of written directives, and delays in providing his file.

The Board dismissed most of the complaints, finding the Society had heard his concerns and adequately communicated with him.

However, the Board found the Society failed to provide reasons for its decision to deny the Applicant's request for a new family services worker, and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons.

The applicant filed complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding her treatment by the Children's Aid Society during access visits and the Society's failure to protect and support her child.

The Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the applications under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, as the issues raised in the complaints had already been decided by or were currently before the court in ongoing child protection and civil proceedings.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a kinship foster parent, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board after the respondent society removed her niece and nephew from her care.

The Board conducted a written review to determine if the applicant was eligible to bring a complaint under section 68.1(4) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that foster parents provide services to the society rather than receive services from it, and therefore the applicant did not fall within the statutory categories of persons eligible to apply to the Board.

The applicant father applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his treatment by the respondent children's aid society, alleging the society failed to hear his concerns or provide reasons for its decisions.

The society submitted that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the subject matter of the complaint was currently before the Superior Court in a child protection application.

The Board agreed, finding that the court proceeding encompassed the issues raised in the complaint.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a complaint against the society regarding child protection services.

The Board previously ordered the society to provide a written summary of an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting.

The applicant raised concerns about the society's compliance with the order.

The Board reviewed the correspondence and found that the society fully complied with the order by providing the required summary, steps taken, and conclusions.

The Board's file was closed.

The applicants, who were foster parents to a five-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing to consider their adoption application.

The Society had refused the application because the applicants were hesitant to adopt the child's younger brother without financial assistance, citing the Society's philosophy of keeping siblings together.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the child had formed a strong, secure attachment to the applicants over 19 months of care and that separating her from them would cause traumatic loss outweighing the long-term benefits of being placed with her brother.

The 14-year-old applicant child was admitted to a secure treatment program on an emergency basis.

She applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release.

At the hearing, after the respondent presented its evidence, the child brought a motion for non-suit.

The Board granted the motion, finding there was no evidence upon which it could reasonably be found that the child posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others, or that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to provide reasons for writing a letter stating it would have concerns if he had unsupervised access to his child.

The parties had previously reached a settlement agreement, but the board found the society had not complied with it.

Following a hearing on the merits, the board concluded that the society failed to provide written reasons for a decision affecting the applicant's interests.

The board ordered the society to provide written reasons addressing specific concerns raised by the applicant.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding supervised access and the children's safety with their mother.

The society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues of access and custody were currently before the court.

The Board dismissed the society's motion, finding it has jurisdiction to review whether the society met its statutory obligations to listen to the applicant and provide reasons for its own discretionary decisions, distinct from the court's determinations on custody and access.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's investigation into allegations of excessive use of force against his children.

The Applicant argued the Society failed to hear his concerns regarding parental alienation, failed to conduct a proper investigation, and failed to notify his Native Band promptly.

The Board found that the Society failed to follow mandatory child protection standards during its investigation by not interviewing other adults in the home, thereby failing to hear the Applicant.

The Board ordered a note reflecting this decision be placed on the Applicant's file.

The remaining complaints regarding reasons for decisions and Band notification were dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services she received from the Women Abuse program at the Jewish Family and Child Service.

The Board held an oral hearing to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the matter.

The Board found that its jurisdiction under the Child and Family Services Act is limited to complaints regarding services sought or received from a Children's Aid Society.

Because the complaint related to a community service program rather than the child protection arm of the agency, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant grandmother applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Catholic Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt her four-year-old grandson.

The child had been in foster care and a previous kinship adoption had broken down.

The Society had matched the child with a new adoptive family of a different cultural background who were ready immediately.

The majority of the Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the child's immediate need for a secure, permanent placement outweighed the benefits of a culturally matched placement with the grandmother, given the delay required to assess her application.

A dissenting member would have rescinded the decision to allow the grandmother's application to proceed.