Catherine Bickley

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove a child who had lived continuously in the applicant's home for over two years.

The Board noted that it was unclear whether the child was in extended society care, a prerequisite for the review.

The Board issued directions scheduling a first day of hearing to determine the child's status, potential joinder with a sibling's application, and other preliminary matters.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints about the respondent children's aid society's involvement with her grandchildren.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction because the applicant had not sought or received services from the society, had not filed a written complaint with the society, and the issues raised had already been decided by a court.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of her concerns about her cousin's safety and an alleged breach of confidentiality.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was ineligible to bring a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because she had not sought or received services from the society.

The applicant filed multiple applications against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

After failing to participate in case management and mediation, the applicant sought to withdraw her current applications just after the deadline for submissions on whether she should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Child and Family Services Review Board granted the withdrawal but proceeded to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant due to her history of filing repetitive, unfounded applications for improper purposes and her failure to comply with tribunal processes.

The applicant is required to obtain permission before filing future applications.

The appellant appealed the respondent school board's decision to expel her daughter.

After indicating that a settlement was near and relinquishing her right to a hearing, the appellant ceased communication with the Child and Family Services Review Board and failed to attend a scheduled case management teleconference.

The adjudicator concluded that the appeal was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for supporting the placement of her child with the child's father.

Following a pre-hearing teleconference where the applicant hung up, she posted confidential child protection information online and sent over 100 inappropriate and threatening emails to the Board and respondent's counsel.

The Board found the respondent had met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide meaningful reasons, and dismissed the application due to the applicant's lack of cooperation and breach of confidentiality.

The Respondent sought permission to use documents from a settled CFSRB proceeding in a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) summary and preliminary hearing.

The HRTO proceeding involved applications by the Applicant that the Respondent argued raised the same allegations as the settled CFSRB application.

The Applicant opposed the request, claiming the documents were illegally obtained.

The adjudicator granted the Respondent's request, varying the CFSRB's confidentiality rules to allow the use of the documents, with the children's names redacted, so the HRTO could make an informed decision.

The applicants, who were the foster parents of a two-and-a-half-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove the child from their care and place him with a maternal kin family out of province.

The child had lived with the applicants since he was three days old, along with his half-sister.

The Board considered expert evidence on attachment and the potential trauma of disrupting the child's bond with the foster family.

The Board determined that it was in the child's best interests to remain with the applicants, where he could be adopted alongside his half-sister, and directed the Society not to carry out the proposed removal.

The applicant sought a review of the society's decision to refuse her application to adopt three First Nations children who had previously been placed in her care.

The society and the First Nation argued that it was in the children's best interests to remain in a customary care arrangement with a caregiver connected to their extended family and community.

The Board considered the expanded best interests test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, including the children's views and wishes, the importance of preserving their cultural identity, and the need for continuity of care.

The Board confirmed the society's decision, finding that remaining in customary care with their current caregiver was in the children's best interests.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a society's investigation into an interaction she witnessed between a supply teacher and a child.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because she had not sought or received services from the society.

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

The respondent challenged the Child and Family Services Review Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the Superior Court of Justice in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that most of the applicant's allegations were outside its jurisdiction as they were before the court.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over the narrow issue of whether the respondent heard the applicant's concerns and provided meaningful reasons for refusing to change the assigned family services worker.

The applicant, the aunt of a child, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the respondent society's response to her reports of abuse and neglect by the child's grandmother.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over custody disputes and that the applicant was ineligible to complain under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as she had not sought or received services from the society.