Chithika Withanage

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed, arguing the board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in a child protection proceeding.

Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in D.D., the adjudicator found that while the board cannot review matters exclusively within the court's jurisdiction, it retains jurisdiction to review separate service-related complaints.

The respondent's request to dismiss was granted in part, and the matter was directed to proceed on the service-related issues.

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

After multiple scheduled pre-hearings were cancelled or unattended by the applicant, the Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to participate and the significant delay exceeding procedural timelines.

The mother appealed a trial judge's finding that her child was in need of protection due to a risk of sexual abuse or exploitation.

The risk stemmed from the mother's brother, who lived in the home and was convicted of luring and child pornography offences involving his students.

The mother argued the trial judge erred by making the finding without expert evidence, by rejecting an expert report filed on consent, and by not requiring the risk to be present at the time of the hearing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and upholding the flexible approach to the timing of risk in child protection matters.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a child is in need of protection due to risk of sexual abuse or exploitation.

The respondent mother acted as surety for her brother, who was charged with multiple counts of luring, sexual exploitation, and child pornography involving teenage female students.

The court found the child to be in need of protection based on the mother's failure to recognize or protect against the risk posed by the maternal uncle, despite overwhelming evidence of his predatory conduct.

The court made a finding of need for protection but declined to make a further order, noting that the maternal uncle's incarceration had ameliorated the imminent risk.