Anthony Snider

The applicant mother brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns regarding her child's welfare while in the father's care.

The mother had reported multiple head injuries sustained by the child during unsupervised access visits.

The Board reviewed the Society's actions, including its investigations, safety checks, and communications with medical professionals.

The Board concluded that the Society had meaningfully engaged with the mother, investigated her concerns, and provided sufficient reasons for its decision not to require supervised access.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order finding her nine-year-old child in need of protection and granting Crown wardship with access.

The child had been apprehended five times due to the mother's serious mental health decompensations and lack of a viable safety plan.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the predictable interruptions in care caused a risk of emotional harm to the child.

Finding no reviewable errors of fact or law, the court dismissed the appeal.

The applicant brought a preliminary motion regarding disclosure during a hearing under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant argued that key documents had not been disclosed by the respondent society.

Both parties consented to an adjournment until further disclosure took place and the applicant's complaints were more clearly specified.

The Board ordered the society to make best efforts to locate and disclose specific case notes and records, and ordered the applicant to provide a clear list of enumerated complaints.

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.