4 total
Board orders children's aid society to provide further details regarding paternity test progress.
The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a term of their settlement agreement requiring a progress update on a paternity test for the children's alleged father.
The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent had only partially complied, as it provided communication dates but lacked details on next steps.
The Board ordered the respondent to provide a further letter detailing the status of contact and any requirements to facilitate the paternity test.
Application dismissed as the Board lacked jurisdiction due to ongoing child protection proceedings in court.
The applicant grandmother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions after her grandchildren were apprehended.
The respondent requested the application be dismissed because child protection proceedings were ongoing in the Superior Court of Justice.
The Board found that the applicant's concerns about where and with whom her grandchildren would live were the exact substantive issues being decided by the court.
As the complaints were not separate and distinct from the court proceedings, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application.
CFSRB dismisses most of applicant's complaints for lack of jurisdiction due to ongoing court proceedings.
The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
The respondent challenged the Child and Family Services Review Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the Superior Court of Justice in an ongoing child protection proceeding.
The Board found that most of the applicant's allegations were outside its jurisdiction as they were before the court.
However, the Board retained jurisdiction over the narrow issue of whether the respondent heard the applicant's concerns and provided meaningful reasons for refusing to change the assigned family services worker.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of related child protection proceeding before the Superior Court.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing by a Children's Aid Society.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the same facts and issues were the subject of an ongoing child protection proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice.
The Tribunal found that the proceedings overlapped and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the court proceeding to avoid inconsistent findings of fact.
