Tracy Foster

The applicant, a foster parent, sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a child from their care.

The applicant alleged they did not receive proper written notice of the removal as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Board found that an email sent by the respondent to another agency did not constitute valid notice because it lacked mandatory statutory references and information about the right to seek a review.

Consequently, the 10-day time limit to apply for a review had not commenced, and the application was deemed eligible to proceed to a hearing.

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.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and subsequently failed to respond to the Board's directions to provide an explanation and availability for a rescheduled pre-hearing.

Consequently, the Board found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The Applicant, a youth detained on multiple charges, applied to the Custody Review Board for a review of his placement at a secure detention facility.

He sought a transfer to a different facility to be closer to his family and to access structured programming for substance abuse and anger management.

The Board found that the current facility lacked structured programming and was too far from the Applicant's family to allow for regular visitation and in-person support.

The Board concluded that the current placement was not appropriate to meet the Applicant's needs and recommended his transfer to the requested facility.

The applicant father filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about his interactions with the respondent children's aid society and alleging the society refused to proceed with his complaint.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction because the applicant did not file his complaint to the society using the mandatory 'Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel' form required by the regulations.

The Applicant, a youth charged with multiple offences including robbery and breach of house arrest, applied to the Custody Review Board for a review of his placement at a secure detention facility.

He sought a transfer to an open detention facility to be in a less restrictive environment.

The Board considered the Applicant's needs, including his diagnoses of autism and ADHD, his need to maintain family relationships, and his educational requirements.

The Board found that a transfer to open custody would potentially increase the risk to the community and that the structure and supervision of the secure facility were appropriate to meet his needs.

The Board recommended that the Applicant remain at the secure facility.

The applicant, a young person serving a custody sentence for manslaughter, applied to the Custody Review Board for a review of his placement at a secure custody facility.

He sought a transfer to a different facility to be closer to his family and to access more programming and trades education.

The Board found that the current facility was not appropriate to meet his needs for education, programming, peer interaction, and family proximity.

The Board recommended that the applicant be transferred to a facility closer to his family that offers access to trades programs and a more suitable peer group.

The applicants, foster parents of a child in extended society care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the removal of the child from their care.

The removal was ordered by a judge, rather than proposed by the respondent children's aid society.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the Board can only review a society's proposed removal, not a court-ordered removal.

The applicant father filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society refused to proceed with his complaint.

The Board found that the society had in fact proceeded with the complaint and convened an internal review panel.

As the applicant only selected the ground that the society refused to proceed, the application was deemed ineligible for review and dismissed.

The applicant father filed an application against the respondent children's aid society under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed identical complaint details and support materials for this application and a separate application against a different society, without separating the allegations.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it contained insufficient information to determine eligibility.

The applicant filed an application against the respondent society under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant also filed a separate application against another society, but provided identical complaint details and support materials for both.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the application did not separate the allegations against the respondent, and therefore contained insufficient information to determine eligibility.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society.

The Board issued multiple Case Management Directions requiring the applicant to provide written submissions detailing her complaints.

After the applicant failed to provide the required submissions by the specified deadlines, the Board concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a grandfather of a child placed in kinship care by the respondent society, filed an application complaining that his concerns were not heard and his complaint was not processed.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the right to be heard under the Act is limited to children and parents, and the applicant had not sought or received a 'service' from the society as defined by the Act.

The applicants filed an application to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a child from their foster care and halt the adoption process.

The tribunal found that the child had lived with the applicants for less than the two years required under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Consequently, the application was deemed ineligible for review and was dismissed.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child placed in their foster care and to remove the child from their home.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined that the application was eligible for review because it was filed within the required 10-day period after receiving written notice of the refusal.

The Board scheduled a first day of hearing to address preliminary issues and directed that the child not be removed pending the review.

The applicants, foster parents of a child who had lived with them continuously for over two years, sought a review of the children's aid society's decision to remove the child from their care and refuse their adoption application.

The society provided notice of removal on November 4, 2025, and the applicants filed their application with the Child and Family Services Review Board on November 13, 2025.

The Board found the application eligible for review as it was filed within the 10-day statutory timeframe following the required notice under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017.

The applicants filed an application to review the respondent's decision refusing to place a child with them for adoption.

The respondent had issued a notice of proposed removal of the child from the applicants' foster care.

The adjudicator found the application was filed within the required 10-day period and was therefore eligible for review.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to address procedural matters and a motion to hear multiple applications together.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt two children who had been residing with them.

The Child and Family Services Review Board considered whether the application was eligible for review under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board found that the application was filed within the required 10-day period and was therefore eligible to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent agency failed to provide support.

The Child and Family Services Review Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions to establish whether she sought or received services from the respondent, a threshold requirement for jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide the submissions and instead requested an adjournment to obtain legal counsel.

The Board denied the adjournment and dismissed the application without prejudice, noting it lacked sufficient information to determine jurisdiction.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent's decision not to place two sibling children with her for adoption.

The respondent raised preliminary issues regarding the Board's jurisdiction over one child and the potential involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision regarding the first child, as that child had already been placed for adoption with another family.

The Board also declined to request the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer for the second child, finding the child was too young to express views and preferences.

The applicant filed an application under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt two foster children.

The respondent had closed the applicant's foster home and denied the permanency plan.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined that the application was eligible for review because it was filed within the required 10-day period after receiving written notice of the refusal.

The Board scheduled a first day of hearing to address preliminary issues and directions.