Anaïs Lussier-Labelle

The applicant mother filed an application under s. 120 of the CYFSA alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The CFSRB dismissed allegations outside its jurisdiction, including those related to family court orders, privacy breaches, and a perceived multi-party conspiracy.

For the remaining issues, the CFSRB found that the respondent had adequately heard the applicant's concerns through multiple in-person meetings and correspondence, and had provided meaningful written reasons explaining the outcomes of its child protection investigations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a third complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the apprehension of her children and their care.

The Board found that the issues raised had already been decided by the court or in previous Board decisions.

The Board dismissed the application in its entirety and found that the repeated filing of substantially similar applications constituted an abuse of process, warning the applicant that further similar applications could result in her being declared a vexatious litigant.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society regarding communication issues and the suspension of his supervised access with his child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined the hearing would proceed in writing due to the applicant's history of abusive communication with staff.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the respondent had adequately heard and responded to the applicant's communication concerns, and had clearly communicated valid reasons for suspending supervised access based on the applicant's inappropriate behaviour and failure to follow guidelines.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of his access to his child, allegations of parental alienation, and staff conduct.

The respondent argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court.

The adjudicator found that issues 1 through 9 of the complaint had been squarely before the family court in a child protection application and were therefore outside the CFSRB's jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Those issues were dismissed, and directions were given for written submissions on the remaining two issues concerning staff interactions.