Christina M. Budweth

The applicant grandmother applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the care of her three grandchildren and sought retroactive compensation.

The respondent Children's Aid Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues had already been decided by the court or fell under a Customary Care Agreement with the Walpole Island First Nation.

The Board found that the complaints related to matters already adjudicated in child protection proceedings or governed by the Customary Care Agreement's dispute resolution process.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed a complaint against the respondent under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

At the hearing on the merits, the applicant requested to withdraw her application, stating she was now working constructively with her new case worker.

The applicant also raised concerns about the children's current caregiver, but the Board found it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8) as the issue was squarely before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The application was withdrawn and the file closed.

The applicant mother applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests, specifically regarding the apprehension and adoption of her child.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the issues had already been decided by a court.

The Board found that the child was made a Crown ward in 2017 and the applicant's review application was dismissed in 2019.

Concluding that the application was an attempt to relitigate issues decided by the court almost a decade ago, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant mother filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board raising concerns about the respondent society's reunification plan and access to her children.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the Superior Court of Justice in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board agreed, finding that the issues of access and extended society care were squarely before the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant mother submitted an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a society's handling of her complaint and an Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) process.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board found that the relief sought, including declaring the ICRP recommendation invalid and directing the society to reinstate a finding of sexual harm, was outside its statutory jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Board found that the issues raised had already been decided by the Superior Court of Justice in a family law proceeding, making the application an impermissible collateral attack.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints against a children's aid society.

The society sought to dismiss the application on preliminary jurisdictional grounds, arguing res judicata, lack of jurisdiction, and abuse of process.

The Board found that the core issues were identical to a previous application and thus barred by res judicata, and that some requested relief fell outside its jurisdiction.

However, the Board found the application was not an abuse of process and ordered the society to provide the applicant with an Internal Complaints Review Panel hearing, as she was previously unable to participate due to trauma.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that a Children's Aid Society employee made inappropriate comments to her after she requested her disclosure file.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the complaint was merely a request to review perceived mistreatment.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, characterizing the complaint as a failure by the respondent to hear the applicant's concerns in a circumstance where her livelihood could be at risk.

Despite the applicant's failure to attend a scheduled pre-hearing, the Board declined to dismiss the application, finding she had an honestly held belief that she had communicated her unavailability, and ordered the matter to proceed to a rescheduled pre-hearing.