Alison Moonsie-Mohan

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging that the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons regarding its involvement with her 16-year-old son.

The son had entered into a Voluntary Youth Services Agreement and was placed in a group home.

The applicant alleged her son was "kidnapped" and abused.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had repeatedly listened to the applicant, addressed her concerns, and provided reasons for its involvement, but the applicant simply refused to accept the explanations.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with two terms of a settlement agreement reached at a pre-hearing.

The terms required the respondent to provide information about drug testing methods and to discuss the child's return to counselling.

Following a non-compliance videoconference, the Board found that the respondent had provided sufficient information regarding the drug testing and had adequately supported the child's counselling.

The Board concluded the respondent complied with the settlement agreement and closed the application.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with two terms of a settlement agreement reached during a mediation.

The adjudicator found that the respondent failed to comply with the first term, as the revised closing letter provided to the applicant contained unnecessary prejudicial details that rendered it unfit for its intended purpose in family court.

However, the adjudicator found that the respondent complied with the second term by holding a meeting with an Equity, Diversity and Inclusion specialist to hear the applicant's concerns regarding the impact of Islamic culture on the investigation.

The adjudicator ordered the respondent to provide a newly revised closing letter with specific language.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent agency failed to give him an opportunity to be heard regarding a report made about his family.

The respondent worker had reported concerns of domestic violence to another children's aid society, which then conducted a brief investigation.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the applicant was not a parent of the youth involved and did not seek or receive services from the respondent.

Consequently, the respondent owed no duty to the applicant under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the matter.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the society conspired with his ex-wife, altered records, and ignored his concerns regarding the ongoing abuse of his children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the allegations of conspiracy and altered records, as those matters were either before the family court or fell under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

However, the Board found that the society failed to provide the applicant with an adequate opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding his requests to escalate concerns to senior management.

The Board ordered the society to provide a written explanation to the applicant.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the York Region Children's Aid Society failed to hear his concerns and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests during a child protection investigation.

Following a full hearing, the Board found that the Society had met its obligations to hear the Applicant and provide reasons for most of its decisions, including the verification of child protection concerns and the transfer of the file to another jurisdiction.

However, the Board found that the Society failed to provide sufficient reasons regarding its finding that the caseworker's notes were objective, given an admitted error in the file.

The Board ordered the Society to review the case notes for bias and rectify any issues.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging bias, misrepresentation, and failure to protect her child from abuse.

The society argued the Child and Family Services Review Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the courts.

The adjudicator agreed, finding that the applicant's concerns regarding bias, false documents, and child protection had been raised in ongoing court proceedings since 2015.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The applicant Society brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order, seeking to remove the child from the respondent mother's care and place him with his paternal uncle.

The Society alleged that the mother was alienating the child from the respondent father and had fabricated allegations of sexual abuse.

The court found a material change in circumstances and that the child was at risk of emotional harm in the mother's care.

The court ordered the child placed in the temporary care of the paternal uncle, with supervised access for the mother and reunification therapy for the father.

The applicant Children and Family Services for York Region brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the two subject children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship with no access.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking the return of the children.

The children, who have complex needs including Autism Spectrum Disorder and suspected Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, were apprehended due to severe neglect and lack of medical care.

The parents had not exercised access in 14 months and failed to provide evidence raising a genuine issue for trial.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding the children in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship with no access, and dismissed the father's motion.

The York Region Children's Aid Society brought a motion to designate the respondent parents, J.H.V. and N.B., as special parties due to alleged mental incapacity in child protection proceedings.

The father, J.H.V., also brought a motion for various relief, including an extension of time to file an Answer and Plan of Care.

The court dismissed the Society's motion to designate the father as a special party, finding he possessed the mental capacity to represent himself, despite his argumentative and unfocused behaviour.

However, the court granted the motion to designate the mother, N.B., as a special party, citing her history of mental illness, disengagement, and inability to understand the risks and consequences of the proceedings.

The father's request for an extension of time for filing an Answer and Plan of Care was granted for both parents.

The Children and Family Services for York Region (CFS) brought motions seeking temporary care and custody of four children (J.F.1, S.C., S.L.F., P.C.) from their mother, M.F. The father, R.C., brought a cross-motion for the children to remain in M.F.'s care with a gradual transition of S.C. and P.C. to his primary care, and for the removal of a family support worker.

The court dismissed both the CFS motions, finding that while parents had significant parenting deficits, the evidence did not meet the "required" test under s.64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act for the older children, nor the "reasonable grounds to believe harm" test under s.51(3) for the youngest child, provided appropriate supervision conditions were in place.

R.C.'s cross-motion was also dismissed, including his request to remove the family support worker due to lack of jurisdiction and merit.

The children remained in M.F.'s temporary care and custody under strict supervision conditions.

On a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding, the society sought an order placing the child in the care and custody of the father and stepmother under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother opposed the motion but did not attend, relying on filed affidavits.

The court held that the society met its burden under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules by establishing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the child’s best interests.

Evidence demonstrated significant improvement in the child’s stability, well-being, and development while residing with the father and stepmother, while the mother failed to present a viable parenting plan or evidence of improved capacity.

Summary judgment was granted placing the child in the permanent care and custody of the father and stepmother, with conditional supervised access available to the mother upon meeting specified requirements.

In a child protection proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking the return of four children from foster care to her temporary care and custody under the supervision of the Society.

The children had been apprehended following concerns about neglect, lack of supervision, and exposure to domestic violence involving the mother’s partner.

Evidence showed a history of domestic violence, inconsistent statements by the mother to police and the court, and indications she intended to resume a relationship with the abusive partner despite a non-contact order.

Applying s. 51(2)(c) and (3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court found reasonable grounds to believe the children faced a risk of harm if returned to the mother.

The motion was dismissed as the children could not be adequately protected in her care at that time.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and a deemed custody order placing the child with her paternal aunt and uncle.

The child had been apprehended due to medical and developmental concerns, and the parents' failure to follow medical advice.

The parents opposed the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the child's dramatic improvement in kinship care, the parents' failure to participate in a court-ordered parenting capacity assessment, and the mother's lack of contact with the child for nearly a year.

The court granted summary judgment, found the child in need of protection, and ordered deemed custody to the aunt and uncle with reasonable access for the parents.