Cheryl Patricia Buehler

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by a children's aid society and the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The applicant had alleged that the child was physically abused by school staff.

The society conducted a community caregiver investigation and concluded the allegations were not verified.

The Board reviewed the society's handling of the complaint and ordered the society to provide better written reasons, but otherwise dismissed the applicant's procedural complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that both the society and the Board afforded the applicant procedural fairness and that their decisions were reasonable.

The applicant, acting as litigation guardian for his child, brought three preliminary motions within an application for judicial review of decisions by the Children's Aid Society and the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The applicant sought unredacted disclosure of the Society's investigation records, the production of a hearing transcript by the Board, and the disqualification of the Board's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.

The court dismissed the request for unredacted records and the motion to disqualify counsel, finding no basis for either.

The court ordered the Board to release an informal audio recording of the hearing to the applicant so he could arrange for his own transcript, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

This costs endorsement relates to a child protection appeal where the non-party foster parent, T.N., sought costs against the maternal grandmother, M.T., following the dismissal of M.T.'s appeal.

The court declined to order costs against M.T., reiterating that in child protection cases, cost awards are rare and require more than mere success.

The court found that M.T.'s appeal, though unsuccessful, did not demonstrate unreasonable conduct or bad faith sufficient to warrant a costs order, aligning with the principle that the right to oppose child protection proceedings should not be lightly interfered with.

The biological mother brought a motion to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent her two biological children in her underlying application to set aside an adoption order.

The underlying application was based on the reliance on flawed Motherisk drug testing reports in the original Crown wardship proceedings.

The Children's Aid Society and the adoptive parents opposed the motion as premature.

The court granted the motion, finding that the children's rights to participate and be heard were paramount, and appointed the Children's Lawyer pursuant to section 89(3.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The maternal grandmother appealed an order granting the foster parent expanded rights of participation and disclosure in a focused hearing regarding the grandmother's access to the child, who had been made a Crown Ward.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge reasonably exercised her discretion and properly applied the relevant factors in determining that the foster parent's participation was in the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended the respondent mother's children and placed them in foster care.

While a child protection application was pending before the court, the mother filed a service-related complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Society's failure to place the children with willing family members and its refusal to provide reasons.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing all matters should be heard by the court.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board correctly assumed jurisdiction, as the specific service-related complaints had not been decided by and were not before the court, interpreting section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant children's aid society sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Child and Family Services Board.

The Board had assumed jurisdiction to hear a parent's complaints regarding procedural fairness and kinship placement decisions made by the society during ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and held that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Court found that because the child protection proceedings were before the court, all substantive issues and related procedural fairness concerns were ultimately subject to the court's jurisdiction, precluding the Board from conducting a review.

The application was granted and the Board's decision was set aside.