Catherine Bickley

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order from a pre-hearing report to allow her to use a mediated settlement agreement in her family law proceedings.

The Board denied the request, noting its jurisdiction is limited to service issues and it only waives confidentiality in exceptional circumstances.

The Board advised the applicant to seek an order from the family court instead.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

Despite multiple case management directions and extensions of time, the self-represented applicant failed to provide available dates for a videoconference hearing and instead sent emails complaining about the respondent and the Board.

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

The applicant filed a second application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising substantially the same issues as a previous application that had already been decided.

The Board found that the second application relied on the same documents, covered the same time period, and raised concerns that were already addressed in the prior decision.

The Board dismissed the application, concluding that allowing it to proceed would violate the principles of judicial economy and finality, and would constitute an abuse of process.

Three family members filed applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding their interactions with the Children's Aid Society following a child's apprehension in Germany and return to Canada.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the complaints did not relate to reviewable services and were barred because the matter had been before a court.

The Board found that the Society's actions constituted services under the Act, but ordered the Society to provide relevant court documents to determine if the review was barred by section 120(8)(a).

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with three terms of a settlement agreement reached at a pre-hearing.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined the matter in writing after the applicant failed to attend a scheduled teleconference.

The Board found that the respondent had complied with the terms regarding the service plan and communication model, but had failed to provide a clear written outline of the reasons why it viewed there to be ongoing parental conflict.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the required written outline within 14 days.

The applicants filed an application to review the respondent's decision refusing to place a child with them for adoption.

A preliminary issue arose regarding whether the application was filed within the 10-day statutory timeline.

The Board determined that because the applicants experienced technical difficulties opening the required form attached to the refusal notice, the notice was not fully received until the issue was resolved.

Consequently, the application was filed within the statutory timelines and is eligible for review.

The applicants filed an application to review the respondent's decision refusing to place a child with them for adoption.

The application was filed after 5:00 p.m. on the final day of the 10-day statutory limitation period, making it technically one day late under the Board's rules.

The Board issued an interim decision directing a teleconference hearing to determine whether the respondent's notice of refusal met the statutory requirements, which would dictate whether the application was out of time.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of a children's aid society's decision refusing to place a child with her for adoption.

The Board issued an interim decision noting potential issues with the society's notice of refusal and the timeliness of the application.

The Board scheduled a teleconference to address these preliminary issues and set directions for the hearing.

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order from a previous compliance decision so that the decision could be used in family court proceedings.

The Board denied the request, finding that the applicant had not provided exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the usual practice of maintaining confidentiality.

The Board noted that the applicant could seek an order from the family court, which would be better positioned to determine the relevance and necessity of the decision in those proceedings.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to give reasons for decisions and refused to proceed with a complaint.

The applicant acknowledged being involved in ongoing court proceedings regarding the custody of his children.

The Board found that the issues raised in the application were the same as those currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.

Pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board is barred from reviewing complaints that are the subject of court proceedings.

The application was dismissed as ineligible for review.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns with a children's aid society, including the transfer of his file to a new worker.

The Board found that most of the issues had already been dismissed in a previous decision.

The Board also determined that the issue of the file transfer was currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.

As a result, the Board was barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 from reviewing the application, and it was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's failure to take sufficient steps to protect his daughter's half-sister.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the applicant was not complaining about services he himself had sought or received.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's alleged failure to conduct a kinship home study.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not receiving services and the matter was currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, it is barred from reviewing issues that are before the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board concerning the removal of her grandchild.

After the grandchild was returned to the applicant's home, a case management teleconference was scheduled to determine next steps.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference and subsequently failed to confirm whether she wished to proceed with the applications, despite multiple warnings.

The Board dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

He alleged the society failed to hear his concerns regarding injuries his son sustained while in the maternal grandparents' care and failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the society only partially met its obligation to hear the applicant's concerns, as it inappropriately minimized his ongoing safety concerns.

The Board also found the society failed to provide timely and meaningful reasons for its verification decision and ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant.

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 failing to attend a scheduled pre-hearing teleconference, the applicant repeatedly requested extensions of time due to health and housing issues but failed to provide a current mailing address or an estimated timeframe for her participation as directed.

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

The applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing their application to adopt their two foster children, who had lived with them since shortly after birth.

The Society had approved an adoption plan from another family who had previously adopted the children's half-sisters, prioritizing sibling reunification.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's refusal, finding that the children had formed a secure attachment to the applicants and that the risks of disrupting this continuity of care outweighed the benefits of placing them with half-siblings they barely knew.

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

The applicant repeatedly failed to attend scheduled case management teleconferences and provided excuses that the adjudicator found not credible.

After being warned that failure to communicate with the Board could result in dismissal, the applicant did not respond.

The Board found the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's actions and decisions concerning her grandchildren.

The respondent society submitted that the applicant had not sought or received services from it, as she was not assessed as a kinship caregiver.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions challenging this position.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints were not about services she sought or received, but rather about the society's actions regarding her grandchildren.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a former foster parent, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking to quash a society's decision verifying that she caused physical harm to a former foster child.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the substantive decisions of the society or to grant the requested remedy of quashing the verification decision.

Furthermore, the statutory right to be heard applies only to children, young persons, and their parents, not to foster parents.