Heather Gibbs

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to act when she raised concerns that her son had been sexually abused.

The respondent brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act because the issues were currently before the court in a related Crown wardship proceeding.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the court would decide custody and access, the specific issue of whether the respondent provided the applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding her abuse concerns was not a matter to be decided by the court.

The Board affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaint on its merits.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding its refusal to allow him access to his children, its failure to interview him, and inaccurate information in its files, following the withdrawal of sexual assault charges against him.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were subject to a separate Director's hearing regarding the Child Abuse Register.

The Board dismissed the jurisdictional motion, finding the complaints related to the Society's files and processes, not the Register itself.

On the merits, the Board found the Society breached the applicant's right to be heard by failing to interview him for its risk assessment, and ordered the Society to conduct an internal review of the file inaccuracies and provide the applicant an interview and written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Simcoe County regarding the handling of his child protection case.

The children had previously been made Crown Wards without access following a 63-day trial in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues raised had already been dealt with by the Court.

The Board agreed, finding that all of the applicant's complaints regarding the child protection worker and the Society's actions were either considered during the trial or fell outside the Board's statutory jurisdiction under the Child and Family Services Act.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society regarding the care and apprehension of her child.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters raised were before the Court in a Crown wardship application.

The Board held that while it lacked jurisdiction over issues directly before the Court, such as custody, access, and the accuracy of court filings, it retained jurisdiction to review whether the Society followed proper procedures in hearing the applicant's concerns and providing reasons for its decisions.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to investigate his concerns regarding the abuse and parental alienation of his daughters.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the matters were currently before the Court in an access dispute.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding that while the Court was dealing with access and the best interests of the children, the Board's jurisdiction pertained to how the Society responded to the father's complaints, which was not a matter before the Court.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society discriminated against him by imposing supervised access and withholding contact information for his children.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the matters were currently before the court in a status review application.

The Board granted the motion in part, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the terms of access and disclosure of contact information, as those issues were before the court.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the respondent's facilitation of visits and its obligation to allow the applicant to be heard regarding the services provided.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to respond to her complaints regarding a former foster parent's ongoing, unauthorized contact with her daughter.

The Board conducted a written review and found that the Society had actively investigated and responded to the applicant's oral complaints, even though the applicant disagreed with the Society's actions.

As the applicant had not filed a written complaint with the Society, there was no requirement to trigger the formal internal complaint review procedure.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against two Children's Aid Societies regarding their investigation into allegations against her son.

The Societies brought a preliminary motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the complaint was made prior to November 30, 2006, and thus fell under the transitional provisions of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the complaint was indeed made before the legislative change and that the Societies' internal complaint review procedures had been engaged.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint and granted the Societies' motion.