Christine Staley

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after the respondent children's aid society refused to sign her Special Priority Program housing application and subsequently refused to process her internal complaint.

The Board found that the applicant was seeking a service under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and that the respondent had refused to proceed with the complaint.

However, the Board dismissed the application because the respondent had provided adequate written reasons explaining that it could not sign the housing application as the required information fell outside the scope of its child protection investigation.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent children's aid society's decisions regarding her parental decision-making and medical supports for her children.

The respondent argued the Child and Family Services Review Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints regarding medical and therapeutic decisions were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Act.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, challenging the respondent society's decision to close his file and the findings made during its investigation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the respondent provided the applicant with a meaningful opportunity to be heard, it failed to provide adequate written reasons for its verification decisions and for closing the file.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide detailed written reasons within 30 days.

The Board declined to review the evidence relied upon by the respondent, as it fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant father filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding his child in care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent provided an opportunity to be heard and reasons for most concerns, appropriately balancing the child's privacy wishes.

However, the Board upheld the application in part, finding the respondent failed to hear the applicant's concern about a worker discussing a potential mental health diagnosis with the child, and failed to provide reasons for initially placing the child in an unlicensed home.

The respondent was ordered to provide written reasons regarding the placement.

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

The respondent argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because the matters were already before the courts.

The adjudicator found that allegations of human rights violations and unethical conduct by the respondent's lawyer were not separate from ongoing court and tribunal proceedings, and thus outside the CFSRB's jurisdiction.

However, the CFSRB retained jurisdiction to review the respondent's alleged failure to intervene in a recent incident, as it was separate and distinct from the matters before the court.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society, alleging the society failed to hear her concerns and failed to provide reasons regarding the closure of two child protection files, a delayed home assessment of the father's residence, and a delayed child interview.

The Board found that the society failed to provide an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons regarding the December 2024 file closure, the delayed home assessment, and the delayed interview.

However, the Board found the society did provide an opportunity to be heard and reasons for the July 2025 file closure.

The application was upheld in part, and the society was ordered to provide detailed written reasons.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns or provide reasons for speaking to her 15-year-old son about a Voluntary Youth Service Agreement without her involvement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent had provided multiple opportunities for the applicant to be heard through meetings and correspondence, and had provided sufficient written reasons for its decisions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her or provide reasons regarding several complaints about her son's care in a group home.

The tribunal found the hearing would proceed in writing.

The tribunal held that the respondent had heard the applicant and provided reasons for all issues except one incident where the son left the group home in August 2015.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to provide written reasons within 30 days explaining why it did not inform the applicant of the August 2015 incident sooner.

The remaining complaints were dismissed.

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

The Applicant alleged that the Respondent failed to properly address her concerns about an unsupported abuse report from several years prior.

The Board found the complaint eligible for review but ultimately dismissed the application, concluding that the Respondent had provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and had given reasons for its decisions regarding her requests for recourse.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for several decisions regarding his child.

The Board found that the respondent had provided reasons for its decisions to leave the child in the mother's care and regarding safety measures related to another individual.

However, the Board found that the respondent failed to provide written reasons explaining why it could not provide the applicant with a letter of support for Jordan's Principle funding.

The application was upheld in part, and the respondent was ordered to provide written reasons regarding the Jordan's Principle letter.

The applicant, the sister of a foster parent for a child, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society failed to provide reasons for several decisions regarding her foster care application and kinship assessment.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society had provided adequate reasons for its definition of kin, the commissioning of a therapist's report, the cancellation of a home assessment, and the closure of her foster care file.

However, the Board found the society failed to provide reasons for why it advised the applicant's counsel that its intentions regarding placement had not changed, and for its definition of an 'out of care' placement.

The application was upheld in part, and the society was ordered to provide written reasons for the outstanding issues.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the courts in child protection and criminal proceedings.

The Board found that four of the applicant's complaints—relating to a restraining order, the child's relationship with their father, allegedly coerced false allegations, and the applicant's mental health—were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

Consequently, the Board dismissed those four complaints for lack of jurisdiction and directed the remaining issues to a pre-hearing.

The applicant mother filed an application under s. 120 of the CYFSA alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns regarding her ex-partner's domestic violence, failed to provide reasons for its investigation outcomes, failed to investigate a tailbone injury to her child, and failed to provide requested counseling services.

The Board found that the society heard her concerns regarding domestic violence and provided details of the service plan, but failed to provide reasons for not investigating the second tailbone injury and for not providing requested services.

The application was upheld in part, and the society was ordered to provide written reasons on the outstanding issues.

The respondent school board brought a motion requesting particulars regarding the appellant's amended appeal of a student expulsion.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and overly detailed.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the motion for particulars, finding that the amended appeal provided sufficient narrative for the respondent to know the case it must meet.

The Board noted that the appellant was still in the process of obtaining youth records, and any further particulars could be provided during the normal disclosure process.

The applicant, a father, filed an application under s. 120 of the CYFSA alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide sufficient reasons for several decisions, including not investigating an incident where his son harmed the mother, investigating him but not the mother for another incident, and recommending a communication book despite a no-contact order.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the applicant was not provided sufficient reasons regarding the unbalanced investigation and the communication book recommendation.

The application was upheld in part, and the respondent was ordered to provide detailed written reasons within 30 days.

The self-represented applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his concerns regarding disability accommodations, kinship worker bias, mental health treatment, and the children's schooling.

The applicant also alleged he was not provided reasons for the termination of an internal complaints process.

Following a full-day hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had provided multiple opportunities for the applicant to be heard and had provided sufficient reasons for its decisions.

The Board noted the applicant's true grievance was with the correctness of the decisions, which falls outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide an opportunity to be heard and reasons regarding an incident report and a reduction in her parenting time with her child in a group home.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent provided an opportunity to be heard on both issues.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide written reasons for failing to provide the incident report, but dismissed the remainder of the application as reasons for the reduction in parenting time had either been provided previously or were provided during the hearing.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent's decision to remove three children from his care.

The respondent argued that the matter was governed by its Customary Care Code, which takes paramountcy over the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Board found that under the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families, the Indigenous law prevails in the event of a conflict.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a four-year-old child placed with them for adoption.

The Society's decision was based on allegations of sexual abuse made by a former foster child against one of the applicants.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society's verification of the abuse allegations was flawed and unreliable.

Considering the child's secure attachment to the applicants and the significant disruption removal would cause, the Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to remain with the applicants.

The Society's decision was rescinded, and the adoption was directed to proceed.

The applicant father filed complaints against the respondent children's aid society, alleging it failed to provide him with an opportunity to be heard regarding safety concerns about his child, failed to provide reasons for its decisions, and failed to follow proper complaint procedures.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society provided the applicant with an opportunity to be heard on most issues, but failed to provide reasons for not notifying him of a case opening, not involving a band representative, and incorrectly verifying him for risk of harm.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons for these specific decisions.