Catherine Bickley

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns about her child's safety in the father's care and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that while the society did investigate the concerns, it failed to provide the mother with meaningful reasons for its conclusion that the child was safe.

The society incorrectly believed the mother was a non-custodial parent and therefore not entitled to the information.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed letter explaining its investigative actions.

The applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board requesting a review of the respondent's removal of two children from their care.

The applicants were directed to provide written submissions on preliminary questions but failed to do so, even after being granted an extension and warned that their application could be dismissed.

The Board concluded that the applicants had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging a conflict of interest regarding the presence of the respondent's former Executive Director on its Board of Directors.

The respondent clarified that the former Executive Director was not on its Board.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the complaint did not relate to a service sought or received by the applicant, but rather to the internal structure and processes of the respondent.

The applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

The Board found that the application was filed within the required 10-day statutory time limit.

The Board issued an interim decision confirming the application's eligibility to proceed and set a date for the first day of the hearing to address preliminary issues and procedural directions.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to implement a prior settlement agreement.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to notify the Board of the alleged non-compliance by the specified deadline in the settlement agreement, and failed to submit a formal complaint to the society using the required form under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent's decision to refuse their application to adopt their foster child.

They brought a motion seeking an order to allow an expert to conduct an attachment assessment of the child.

The respondent opposed the assessment, arguing that section 98 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 applied and that its own staff could provide better information.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that section 98 did not apply to a section 192 proceeding and concluded that the proposed assessment would assist the hearing panel.

The motion was granted, but the request for costs was denied as the Board lacked the authority to award them.

The appellant appealed the permanent dismissal of her child from a school for the Deaf operated by the Provincial and Demonstration Schools Branch (PDSB).

The Child and Family Services Review Board considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 311.7 of the Education Act.

The Board found that its jurisdiction is limited to expulsion decisions made by a 'board' as defined in the Act, which does not include schools operated by the PDSB.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant brought a motion regarding the respondent children's aid society's disclosure in a service complaint proceeding under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant argued the respondent provided heavily redacted records without reasons or a copy of its disclosure policy.

The Board found the respondent failed to meet its disclosure obligations as set out in J.S. v. Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, noting the redactions were significant rather than minimal.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide amended disclosure, including removing redactions made on the mistaken belief that the applicant lacked custody of her child.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Following a pre-hearing teleconference, the parties provided written submissions on whether the hearing should be held in writing or by videoconference.

The applicant preferred a hybrid format, citing lack of access to a secure internet connection, while the respondent requested a written hearing.

The adjudicator ordered the hearing to proceed in writing, finding that the applicant's proposed hybrid format would not allow for a fair and focused hearing and that a written hearing would be more expeditious given the parties' availability.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

After being directed to provide submissions on whether the Board was barred from reviewing the application, the applicant failed to file submissions despite multiple extensions and follow-up communications.

The Board concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, regarding the proposed removal of a child.

During a case management teleconference, it was clarified that the child was not in extended society care.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter because the child was not in extended society care.

The applicant, the grandmother of a child in extended society care, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the society's handling of government funding for the child.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant had not filed a complaint with the society in the required format and, as a grandmother of a child in extended society care, was not herself seeking or receiving a service.

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order from a previous decision so she could file it as evidence in an ongoing child protection proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Board denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from its usual practice of maintaining confidentiality.

The Board noted that the applicant could seek an order from the Court permitting the use of the decision, as the Court was better positioned to determine its appropriateness.

The applicant, a step-parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her step-children's wellbeing and the respondent society's response to her concerns.

The application indicated that the society refused to proceed with her complaint.

The Board found that the applicant had not submitted her complaint to the society using the mandatory 'Formal Complaint to a Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel' form as required by the legislation.

Consequently, the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the application and dismissed it.

The applicants, who had cared for the child since 2014, filed an application to review the removal of the child from their care.

During a case management teleconference, it was clarified that the child was not in extended society care.

As the child was not in extended society care, the Child and Family Services Review Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Prior to the scheduled pre-hearing, the applicant informed the Board she would not attend.

After failing to respond to a case management direction requiring her to confirm whether she was withdrawing the application, the Board concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order from a previous decision.

The applicant sought to share the decision with the Office of the Children's Lawyer for family court proceedings and with government officials to prompt a review of the respondent society's record-keeping.

The Board denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from its usual practice of maintaining confidentiality, and noted that the family court is better positioned to determine if the decision should be admitted in those proceedings.

The applicant sought to be a kin care provider for her grandson and filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and follow its complaint review process.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is limited to children, young persons, and their parents.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to submit her complaint to the society using the required formal complaint form, which is a prerequisite for Board review.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to protect her son.

The applicant had not made a written complaint to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel in the required form.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 because the prerequisite of a formal written complaint to the society under section 119 had not been met.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to properly manage her file and address her concerns regarding her child's mental health.

The Board found that the applicant had not first made a complaint to the society using the prescribed 'Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel' form, as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and its regulations.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter and dismissed the application.