Daniel McSweeney

The applicant filed a third complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the apprehension of her children and their care.

The Board found that the issues raised had already been decided by the court or in previous Board decisions.

The Board dismissed the application in its entirety and found that the repeated filing of substantially similar applications constituted an abuse of process, warning the applicant that further similar applications could result in her being declared a vexatious litigant.

The applicant, a grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to protect her grandchildren, resulting in the death of her grandson.

The Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the application under section 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Act is limited to children, young persons, and their parents, and the applicant was not receiving services from the society.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to hear her concerns regarding her child's education, health, and safety, and failed to provide reasons for closing her file and refusing to transfer it to another agency.

The Board found that the respondent had heard the applicant's concerns but appropriately determined they did not meet the threshold for child protection intervention, as many issues fell under the purview of family court.

However, the Board found that the respondent failed to provide the applicant with adequate written reasons explaining the verification process and the decision to close the file, ordering the respondent to provide a written explanation.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns regarding her child's safety, failed to provide reasons for recommending the child's grandmother have custody, and failed to provide a list of parenting concerns.

The Board proceeded with a written hearing and dismissed the application.

The Board found that the Society had provided the applicant with multiple opportunities to be heard, had explained its rationale for the custody recommendation, and had attempted to discuss parenting concerns with the applicant, who often refused to engage.

The applicant mother filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns regarding spousal abuse by the children's father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written hearing and found that the respondent had indeed heard the applicant's concerns.

The respondent had acted on the reports by moving the applicant's supervised access outside the marital home to decrease the children's exposure to adult conflict.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent society regarding its handling of her child's case.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the issues were already before the court in a child protection proceeding.

Applying the test from Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints related to the child's safety and mental health, as these were substantive issues before the court.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to review the applicant's complaint regarding the society's failure to consult her or provide reasons for its decisions, as this was a separate service-related issue.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society, alleging conflicts of interest, failure to share information, and lack of explanation for the removal of her children.

The Board reviewed the application to determine if it had jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board found that all the issues raised in the application had been previously placed before the court during child protection and custody proceedings.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to refuse her adoption application.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the child was not legally available for adoption, as the child had never been found in need of protection or placed in extended society care.

The Board agreed, finding that the legislative prerequisites for adoption had not been met and the child remained in the legal custody of his father.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of spousal abuse allegations, supervised access conditions, and grooming allegations against her current partner.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act because the matters were before the courts.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the access and grooming issues, as they were actively before the family and criminal courts.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over the spousal abuse complaint, as it related to a recent incident not yet raised in court.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to address concerns about her ex-partner's substance use while caring for their children.

The respondent argued the board lacked jurisdiction because the issue was already before the family court.

The adjudicator found that the family court was actively managing the ex-partner's substance use and the society's investigation of those concerns.

Consequently, section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act precluded the board from reviewing the complaint, and the remaining issue was dismissed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's apprehension of her children and related access issues.

The respondent argued the issues were already before the court or had been previously decided.

The Board found that most of the issues raised were excluded from its jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as they were the subject of ongoing or concluded court proceedings.

The Board also found that re-litigating these issues constituted an abuse of process.

The sole remaining issue regarding a lack of updates on the children was dismissed on the merits, as the respondent provided evidence of adequate written communication.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking a review of a children's aid society investigation into alleged sexual abuse of her child, and alleging she was not given an opportunity to be heard.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to review the investigation itself.

Regarding the opportunity to be heard, the Board found that the applicant had already participated in an Internal Complaints Review Panel process where her concerns were heard and addressed in writing, including an apology from the society.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society improperly disclosed his grandson's full name in a court order.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the complaint related to the contents of a court order rather than a service provided by the society.

The Board also noted that privacy breaches fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's investigation into child protection concerns.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the family court.

The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to review issues related to access, custody, and risk of harm that were addressed in a recent court endorsement.

However, the Board allowed the applicant's service-related complaints, such as allegations that staff failed to hear his concerns and failed to provide reasons for decisions, to proceed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of access visits, custody, and apprehension of her child.

The respondent argued that the issues had already been decided by or were before the court.

The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 to review most of the complaints, as they related to matters squarely before the court.

However, the Board allowed one issue to proceed regarding the society's alleged failure to provide information about the Internal Complaints Review Panel.

The applicant filed two applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of child protection concerns and the apprehension of her child.

The respondent argued that the issues were the subject of ongoing court proceedings.

The Board found that the substantive issues raised in the applications, including access, custody, the child's best interests, and the reasons for apprehension, were already before the courts in parallel child welfare and family law proceedings.

Consequently, pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the complaints and dismissed the applications.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the society conspired with his ex-wife, altered records, and ignored his concerns regarding the ongoing abuse of his children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the allegations of conspiracy and altered records, as those matters were either before the family court or fell under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

However, the Board found that the society failed to provide the applicant with an adequate opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding his requests to escalate concerns to senior management.

The Board ordered the society to provide a written explanation to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding her restricted access to her child and the respondent society's failure to address her concerns.

The respondent argued that the issues of custody and access were currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the affidavit filed in the court proceeding and concluded that the subject matter of the applicant's complaints was indeed before the court.

Consequently, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and dismissed the application.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent agency's apprehension of her child and subsequent actions.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over several issues as they were before the court, and dismissed the remaining issues on the basis that the applicant had been heard and provided with written reasons by the respondent.

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

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues raised were the subject of ongoing custody and access proceedings in family court.

The Board found that all of the applicant's concerns, including allegations regarding the children's father and the applicant's mental health, were issues that had been or were currently before the court.

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