Brenda Bowlby

The applicant 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 provide his four-year-old son with an adequate opportunity to be heard during a child protection investigation, and that the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) failed to hear him or provide adequate reasons for dismissing his complaint.

The investigation was initiated after the child told a teacher that he and his father made bombs in their basement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the child protection worker asked some closed and complex questions, the interview overall provided the child with a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The Board also found that the ICRP properly heard the applicant and provided sufficient reasons for its decision.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion requesting that the respondent children's aid society be directed to disclose certain documents and that the hearing date be adjourned.

The requested documents related to allegations under section 120(4)3 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which the Board had previously found ineligible to proceed to a hearing.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents were not arguably relevant to the eligible allegations and therefore fell outside the direction for disclosure.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring them to provide reasons for allowing the children's mother unsupervised access.

The Board found that the respondent did provide reasons, and the applicant's dissatisfaction with the soundness of those reasons did not constitute non-compliance.

The complaint was dismissed and the file closed.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

During pre-hearings and the hearing, the applicant repeatedly refused to follow the tribunal's directions, insisted on recording the proceedings, and engaged in abusive and threatening behaviour towards the adjudicators and opposing counsel.

After being warned and directed to provide submissions on why the application should not be dismissed for abuse of process, the applicant filed late submissions that continued the abusive conduct.

The tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding that continuing the proceeding would be oppressive, vexatious, and contrary to the interests of justice.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging that a caseworker inappropriately attended a Violence Threat Risk Assessment (VTRA) meeting concerning his daughter without his consent, and that the society failed to verify inaccurate information about pending criminal charges against him.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the caseworker attended the VTRA meeting solely as an observer to collect information and did not participate in any decision-making that would trigger the applicant's right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Furthermore, the Board accepted that the inaccurate information regarding criminal charges did not factor into the society's investigation or decisions.

The self-represented applicant sought to record the hearing of his application before the Child and Family Services Review Board and alleged that one of the panel members had a conflict of interest.

The Board dismissed the conflict of interest allegation, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board also denied the applicant's request to record the hearing, noting that the Board's proceedings are confidential and the applicant had no absolute right to record them.

Due to the applicant's disrespectful conduct, the Board directed the parties to make submissions on whether the application should be dismissed for abuse of process.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging a failure to provide an opportunity to be heard and a failure to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests, contrary to section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The complaint centered on the society's attendance at a school threat assessment meeting, receipt of information from the school, and a requirement that the applicant present a letter outlining mental health concerns to a hospital doctor.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the society's receipt of information did not constitute a decision affecting the applicant's interests, and that the applicant was provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard and given reasons regarding the hospital requirement.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement because a required letter was signed only by a supervisor and not the assigned caseworker.

The Board found that the respondent's omission was an oversight.

However, because the applicant filed the complaint of non-compliance after the deadline stipulated in the agreement and pre-hearing report, the Board dismissed the complaint and closed the file.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The applicant argued that the statutory criteria for emergency admission under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act were not met.

The Board found that the applicant had a mental disorder characterized by emotional dysregulation, which resulted in a recent suicide attempt and physical aggression towards others.

The Board concluded that all five criteria for emergency admission were met and denied the application for release.