15 total
Application dismissed; aunt supporting service recipients did not seek or receive services herself under CYFSA.
The applicant, an aunt of a child receiving services from the respondent children's aid society, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not a service recipient.
The adjudicator found that while the applicant supported her sister and the child, she did not seek or receive a 'service' from the society as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Act.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Society ordered to provide written reasons after failing to adequately hear parent's concerns regarding parenting time.
The applicant filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging failures to hear her concerns regarding parenting time, counselling for her daughter, and a lack of timeliness and responsiveness.
The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the parenting time issue as it was before the courts, and over the information disclosure issue.
The counselling issue was resolved prior to the hearing.
However, the Board found the society failed to adequately hear the applicant's concerns regarding the timeliness of measures relating to time with her children following her completion of treatment.
The society was ordered to provide written reasons to the applicant regarding how it considered her views.
La société d'aide à l'enfance doit fournir des motifs écrits en français pour ses décisions.
Le requérant a déposé une plainte contre la société d'aide à l'enfance, alléguant un manque de consultation, de la partialité en faveur de son ex-conjointe, et une atteinte à son droit de recevoir des services en français.
La Commission a conclu que la société n'avait pas adéquatement entendu le requérant ni fourni des motifs suffisants pour ses décisions, notamment lors de la fermeture de dossiers et du retrait des enfants de la résidence familiale.
La Commission a également conclu que les services en français offerts étaient insuffisants.
La société a été ordonnée de fournir au requérant des motifs écrits détaillés et en français pour ses diverses décisions.
Children's Aid Society ordered to provide written reasons in French for child protection decisions.
The applicant father filed a complaint against the respondent Children's Aid Society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
He alleged that the Society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard, failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding his children, and infringed his right to receive services in French.
The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society's communications did not provide sufficient reasons for its decisions, including why he was not consulted to the same extent as his ex-wife, and that the Society did not offer appropriate French services.
The Board ordered the Society to provide clear and comprehensible written explanations in French for its various decisions.
CFSRB dismisses substantive child protection complaint as already decided by court, but allows service-related issues.
The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the respondent children's aid society.
The respondent argued the complaint should be dismissed as the issues were already decided by the court in family proceedings.
The Board found that while the applicant's concerns regarding child abuse and parenting were squarely before the court and thus excluded from review under s. 120(8) of the CYFSA, the service-related issues regarding staff interactions and French language services were not before the court.
The Board dismissed the first issue but allowed the service-related issues to proceed.
Board dismisses majority of parent's complaint against children's aid society for lack of jurisdiction.
The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding access, kin placement, and other issues related to her children who were the subject of ongoing child protection and criminal proceedings.
The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the CYFSA because the issues were already before the courts.
The Board found that 13 of the 14 issues raised were squarely before the courts in the child protection and criminal proceedings and were therefore dismissed.
The remaining issue regarding a request to transfer the file to another jurisdiction was found to be separate and permitted to proceed.
Child placed in permanent custody of extended family members due to parents' inability to safely parent.
The child protection agency sought an order placing a young Indigenous child in the custody of extended family members, while the parents sought the child's return to their care.
The child had been apprehended as an infant due to failure to thrive.
The court found that the mother, who has cognitive limitations, would be overwhelmed caring for three young children.
The court ordered that the child remain in the custody of the extended family members pursuant to section 102 of the CYFSA, with supervised access for the parents.
Summary judgment granted for Crown wardship, but parents successfully rebutted the presumption against access.
The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment on its status review application, seeking Crown wardship for four children.
The parents opposed, seeking the return of the children or a period of Society wardship.
The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding disposition, as the parents lacked insight and had not made sustained progress to meet the children's complex needs, and granted Crown wardship.
However, the court found the parents rebutted the statutory presumption against access, ordering sibling access and access between the parents and the children, with further submissions required for the youngest two children.
Court cannot fully dispense with service on parent in wardship application.
In a child protection proceeding, the mother brought a motion seeking an order dispensing with service of a society wardship application on the child’s father, citing serious safety concerns and the father’s history of sexual offences and absence from the child’s life.
The court considered the statutory framework under the Child and Family Services Act governing notice to parents in wardship proceedings.
The court held that the legislation strictly limits the circumstances in which service on a parent may be dispensed with and generally requires notice before a wardship order exceeding thirty days can be made.
While sympathetic to the mother’s concerns, the court concluded it lacked authority to fully dispense with service.
Service was temporarily dispensed with for thirty days under s. 39(7) of the Act pending further review after the Office of the Children’s Lawyer considered the matter.
Production order for incarcerated father to attend routine family court appearance was improperly obtained.
In a child protection proceeding, the incarcerated father's lawyer obtained a production order from the criminal court to have the father transported to family court for a routine appearance.
The family court convened a conference to address the process, finding that the order was improperly obtained without notice, was procedurally defective, and caused unnecessary logistical and security issues.
The court emphasized that prisoner production to family court is not an entitlement for routine appearances and must satisfy the necessity test under Family Law Rule 23(10).
Crown wardship without access granted on summary judgment.
In a child protection summary judgment motion, the Society sought Crown wardship without access for two special-needs children who had been in care well beyond the statutory time limits.
The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the mother conceded the children remained in need of protection, the history of chronic neglect and parental incapacity was longstanding, and the evidentiary record established no realistic prospect of reintegration.
The court further held that access could not be ordered under the governing statute because it would impair the children's future adoption opportunities.
Crown wardship without access was granted.
Crown wardship ordered where supervision order insufficient to protect child.
Child protection trial concerning a one‑year‑old child apprehended at birth.
The child protection agency sought Crown wardship, alleging the child was in need of protection under s. 37(2) of the Child and Family Services Act due to risk of harm in the mother’s care.
Evidence included prior child protection proceedings, psychological and parenting capacity assessments, concerns regarding the mother’s cognitive limitations, inconsistent access, and instability in her proposed caregiving plan involving a new partner.
The court found the child to be in need of protection and concluded that less disruptive alternatives, including supervision orders, would not adequately protect the child.
Crown wardship was ordered and the mother failed to meet the statutory test for post‑wardship access.
Court returns child to mother under supervision order despite society seeking Crown wardship.
Child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act where the applicant society sought a Crown wardship order with a view to adoption for a young child who had been in foster care with paternal relatives for more than two years.
The court found the child to be in need of protection due to earlier neglect, poor parental decision‑making, and developmental concerns.
However, the evidence showed significant improvement by the mother, including stable housing, consistent participation in services, and successful unsupervised access visits.
Applying the CFSA principle that the least intrusive order consistent with the child’s best interests must be made, the court concluded Crown wardship was premature.
The child was returned to the mother’s care under a 12‑month supervision order with detailed conditions and continued oversight by the society.
Children made Crown wards without access due to persistent parental instability.
In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether two children previously found to be in need of protection should be returned to the mother under a supervision order or made Crown wards without access.
The evidence demonstrated persistent substance use, untreated mental health issues including borderline personality disorder, hostility toward the child protection agency, refusal to cooperate with services, inconsistent participation in access visits, and inability to meet the children’s needs.
The court emphasized the statutory requirement for timely permanency planning and the lack of viable kinship placements.
Concluding that the mother could not safely parent the children and was unable to work with service providers, the court ordered Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.
Child returned to parents under supervision order; society's application for Crown wardship dismissed.
The applicant children's aid society apprehended the respondents' newborn child at birth and sought Crown wardship with no access, relying heavily on the parents' history of having previous children made Crown wards and an older parenting capacity assessment.
The parents opposed the application, arguing they had made significant positive changes, engaged in extensive prenatal and parenting programs, and were supported by community resources.
The court found the child in need of protection due to historical risks but rejected the society's plan for Crown wardship, finding the society had taken a monofocal view and ignored recent evidence of the parents' capacity.
The court ordered the child returned to the parents' care subject to a 12-month supervision order.
