Carole Jenkins

The appellant, a former foster parent, appealed the striking of his claims against child welfare agencies for negligence, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches arising from an investigation into allegations of sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the negligence and Charter claims, confirming that child welfare agencies do not owe a duty of care to foster parents.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, restoring the misfeasance in public office claim against one agency, finding that the pleadings and particulars sufficiently alleged bad faith and collaboration with malicious adoptive parents.

The applicant, a 16-year-old sibling of five children in foster care, filed an application alleging the respondent society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for restricting her in-person access to her siblings.

The society had suspended in-person access due to COVID-19 protocols and offered virtual access instead.

The adjudicator found that the society had provided a detailed response acknowledging the applicant's concerns and had given meaningful reasons for its decision based on pandemic restrictions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the apprehension of their children, sibling access, and the placement of the male applicant on the Child Abuse Register.

The respondent children's aid society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in child protection proceedings.

The Board agreed, finding that all issues raised in the complaints were squarely before the court, and dismissed the applications pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant, the adult sister of five children in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for its decision to terminate her in-person access and deny her request for unsupervised outdoor access.

The Board found that the Society did not provide meaningful reasons, as it relied on the applicant's father to relay information and failed to explain why access needed to be supervised or how outdoor access contravened COVID-19 restrictions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant filed two complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues raised in the complaints were already before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the materials and found that all the issues raised by the applicant, including concerns about access, disclosure, and staff conduct, had been presented to the court.

Consequently, the Board concluded it was precluded from reviewing the complaints under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the applications.

The respondent Children's Aid Society of Ottawa filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of related child protection proceedings.

The applicant supported reactivation, while the respondent Children and Family Services for York Region opposed it.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it inappropriate to reactivate the application or carve out the moving party while the court proceedings, which deal with the same facts and raise the potential for inconsistent results, remain ongoing.

The applicant, a black man of African origin, alleged racial discrimination in employment after being excluded from a collaborative pilot project by the respondent organizations.

The respondents claimed the exclusion was due to the applicant's inappropriate behaviour and the unworkability of the arrangement.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the factual disputes regarding the reasons for the applicant's exclusion required a full hearing to resolve.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services on the basis of disability and reprisal by the respondent children's aid society.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to accommodate her hip injury by refusing to change her visitation time to allow for closer parking, and that the respondent cancelled her visitations as a reprisal for filing the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond her own beliefs to support her claims, and dismissed the remaining allegations as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior settlement before the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the CFSRB's authority under s. 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act is limited to procedural matters and does not extend to hearing or remedying Code violations.

Therefore, the prior settlement did not appropriately deal with the substance of the discrimination allegations.

The respondent Children and Family Services for York Region requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of concurrent child protection proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the facts, legal issues, and remedies sought were different.

The Tribunal found that the proceedings dealt with the same facts and raised the potential for inconsistent results.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the court proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the apprehension of his child by the Children's Aid Society.

The child had subsequently been made a Crown ward by a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the issues associated with the apprehension and wardship were central to the court judgment, and permitting the human rights application to proceed would be tantamount to an appeal of that judgment.

The application was dismissed as having been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Children's Aid Society and its employees when they took his child into care.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, or alternatively, to defer it pending an ongoing child protection application before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Tribunal found that the same underlying events gave rise to both proceedings and that the child protection proceeding was well advanced.

To avoid inconsistent findings of fact, the Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the child protection proceedings.

The applicant estate filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding the deceased's treatment at the respondent mental health centre.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a coroner's inquest and a civil proceeding regarding the same events were underway.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the coroner's inquest to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached the minutes of settlement from a previous human rights application.

The settlement required the respondent to create a plain language information sheet outlining restrictions for youths applying for social assistance and to provide a copy to the applicant.

The applicant acknowledged receiving the document but objected to the substance of the respondent's policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent fulfilled its obligations under the settlement and was not required to seek the applicant's approval regarding the policy's substance.

The member was found guilty of professional misconduct for making an appalling sexual comment concerning a student in the presence of other students.

The Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a one-month suspension of the member's certificate, and imposed a condition requiring the successful completion of a course on student-teacher boundaries prior to returning to the classroom.

The Committee found this penalty appropriate given that only one of the several allegations was proven.

The Ontario College of Teachers alleged that the Member committed professional misconduct by making inappropriate and sexual comments in class and in the school hallway.

The Discipline Committee found insufficient evidence regarding the in-class comments due to flawed student interview procedures.

However, the Member admitted to making a highly inappropriate sexual comment about a female student in the hallway in the presence of other students.

The Committee found this conduct to be disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, and unbecoming a member, resulting in a finding of professional misconduct.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

The member consented to the withdrawal in exchange for resigning his membership, surrendering his certificate, and undertaking never to seek reinstatement.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal of the Notice of Hearing in exchange for the member's undertaking was reasonable and protected the public interest.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

The member did not appear but consented to the withdrawal.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, finding that the withdrawal was reasonable and served the public interest.

The member, an occasional teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after being criminally convicted of possessing child pornography and breaching a recognizance that prohibited contact with minors.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea.

Finding the member's conduct disgraceful and dishonourable, and noting the lack of forensic evidence suggesting he would not reoffend, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of his certificate of qualification and registration.

The Member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct before the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The Member admitted to making, possessing, and distributing child pornography, including superimposing students' faces onto explicit images, and using school equipment for these purposes.

The Member had previously pleaded guilty to related criminal charges and was sentenced to one year of incarceration.

The Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, finding the Member's actions deplorable and a breach of trust.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of qualification and registration.