Catherine Bickley

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her complaint.

The applicant alleged the society did not follow its complaint review process or timelines.

The Board dismissed the application because the applicant had not first made a written complaint to the society using the required formal complaint form, rendering the application ineligible for review under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, which was placed on hold pending ongoing court proceedings.

Despite multiple Case Management Directions requesting details about the nature and stage of the court proceedings to determine if the Board had jurisdiction under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the applicant failed to provide the required information.

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

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, raising historical concerns and access issues regarding her grandchild.

The Board found that the issues had already been addressed in a previous decision, were currently before the court, or did not relate to a service sought or received from the respondent society.

The application was dismissed as ineligible for review.

The applicant, a transitional support counsellor, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the unprofessional conduct of a society worker toward the applicant and her client.

The Board determined that the complaint was ineligible for review under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant was not seeking or receiving services within the meaning of the Act, nor did she fall within the category of persons entitled to be heard under section 15(2).

The application was dismissed.

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

A previous identical application was dismissed because the applicant was not seeking or receiving services from the society.

The Board found nothing in the new application to alter the previous analysis and dismissed the application as ineligible for review.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her grandson's safety and her daughter's child protection case.

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's complaints related to services provided to her grandson and daughter, not services she herself had sought or received.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking the return of her two sons, who had been removed from her care by the respondent children's aid society.

The applicant acknowledged that the issue of whether her sons would be returned to her was currently before the court, with a hearing adjourned to July 2020.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 bars the Board from reviewing a complaint if the subject matter is an issue that has been decided by or is currently before the court.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions following an incident in 1995.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that because the applicant had already engaged and exhausted the society's internal complaint review procedure and a Director's Review prior to November 30, 2006, the transitional provision in subsection 68(13) of the former Child and Family Services Act barred the Board from reviewing the application.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent Society failed to protect her grandchildren from their mother's substance abuse.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant was not seeking or receiving services for herself, but rather complaining about the Society's actions regarding her grandchildren.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Board found that the society had largely met its obligations, noting that many communication issues were of the applicant's own making.

However, the Board ordered the society to provide written reasons explaining why it did not promptly inform the applicant of an alleged sexual assault of his son and the factors considered in concluding the allegation was not verified.

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, seeking the return of her daughter who had been made a Crown Ward and adopted, as well as compensation.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the issue of the child's care had already been decided by the courts, and the remaining allegations did not fall within the reviewable matters under section 120(4).

The applicants filed an application alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decision to stop sending them photographs of two children who were crown wards.

The Board found that the respondent had provided sufficient reasons by explaining that the adoptive families refused to provide pictures and the respondent was respecting their wishes.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the respondent children's aid society's handling of child protection concerns regarding her grandson.

The Board dismissed the application because the applicant was not seeking or receiving services herself, but rather complaining about services provided to her daughter and grandson.

Furthermore, as a grandparent, she did not fall within the statutory definition of a parent entitled to the right to be heard under the legislation.

The application was deemed ineligible for review.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking the return of her child, who had been placed in the temporary care of the father by a court order.

The respondent children's aid society requested the application be dismissed.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints regarding access were not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the court.

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

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding the protection of and access to her grandchildren.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board concluded that the issues raised by the applicant were not separate and distinct from the substantive issues that had already been decided by or were currently before the court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The applicants, whose children were previously made crown wards, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to provide them with pictures of the children.

The respondent brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction.

The adjudicator dismissed the applicants' motion alleging bias.

On the jurisdictional motion, the adjudicator found that because the applicants no longer had legal custody, they were not 'parents' under the Act and could not proceed under s. 120(4)4.

However, the adjudicator held the application could proceed under s. 120(4)5, as the applicants were entitled to meaningful reasons for the decision to stop providing pictures, a service they had been receiving.

The applicant sought a review of the children's aid society's decision to refuse his application to adopt his 17-month-old niece, who had been diagnosed with Global Developmental Delay.

The society refused the application based on concerns regarding the applicant's commitment, parenting skills, executive functioning, and financial stability, noting he had missed over half of his scheduled access visits and failed to complete mandatory training.

The tribunal confirmed the society's refusal, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated the requisite parenting skills or commitment to meet the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs, and that further delaying the child's permanent placement was not in her best interests.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent children's aid society had not allowed her to see her children.

The applicant acknowledged that the issue of access had been dealt with and was currently before the court.

The Board found that the subject matter of the application was not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the court.

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

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her concerns about her son's behaviour.

The son was facing criminal charges and there were ongoing custody and access proceedings before the court.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns were closely connected to the ongoing court proceedings and did not raise separate and distinct service concerns.

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

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions in a child protection proceeding.

The court had previously ordered the applicant's children into the temporary care of the respondent and directed that they remain in Ontario, despite the family's plans to move to Nova Scotia.

The applicant raised issues regarding mobility rights and the fairness of the court process.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the complaints related to substantive issues before the court and were therefore barred from review under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.