Karen O’Keefe

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons why the applicant was not contacted directly during the family finding process for her cousin.

The tribunal held a non-compliance hearing and found that the respondent's letter provided a sufficient description of the family finding process and adequate reasons for its decision, fulfilling the terms of the settlement agreement.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent had complied and closed the file.

The applicant mother alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement regarding the disclosure of her file and the provision of reasons for decisions affecting her and her child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent had fully complied with the file disclosure term, albeit delayed, and partially complied with the terms requiring reasons for decisions.

The Board ordered the applicant to provide a list of additional questions and the respondent to provide written answers to fulfill the remaining terms.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for closing its investigation file and to disclose information provided to the Superior Court.

Following a non-compliance hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent had provided detailed reasons regarding the file closure and counselling services.

Although the respondent initially failed to provide the court materials, it rectified this non-compliance during the hearing.

The Board concluded the respondent had complied with the agreement and closed the file.

The applicant father alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring unredacted disclosure of his file.

The respondent conceded that the disclosure provided did not conform to the agreement.

The Board issued an interim order setting deadlines for the respondent to provide the unredacted file and for the applicant to submit a letter of disagreement.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the same issues were currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the court filings and concluded that all of the applicant's concerns were indeed before the court.

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

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding safety concerns she raised about her 17-year-old daughter.

The respondent claimed it was limited in providing information due to privacy provisions under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient reasons or a meaningful explanation as to why the information could not be provided.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide written responses to the applicant's questions and explain how the legislation constrained its ability to provide full answers.

The applicant father filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act against the respondent children's aid society, alleging failures to hear his concerns, provide information, and disclose documents.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that complaints regarding access to personal information fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner pursuant to Part X of the Act.

Furthermore, the Board found that the applicant's concerns regarding the health and safety of the children, access, and supervised access were already before the family court, precluding the Board's jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Act.

The applicant filed a second application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising substantially the same issues as a previous application that had already been decided.

The Board found that the second application relied on the same documents, covered the same time period, and raised concerns that were already addressed in the prior decision.

The Board dismissed the application, concluding that allowing it to proceed would violate the principles of judicial economy and finality, and would constitute an abuse of process.

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

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

The Board found that the applicant's concerns regarding custody, her mental health, and the basis for apprehension were squarely before the court.

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

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Board found that the society had largely met its obligations, noting that many communication issues were of the applicant's own making.

However, the Board ordered the society to provide written reasons explaining why it did not promptly inform the applicant of an alleged sexual assault of his son and the factors considered in concluding the allegation was not verified.

The applicant alleged that the respondent society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for its adoption placement decisions regarding three siblings.

The society provided its written response one week after the agreed-upon compliance date.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the society breached the agreement regarding the timing of the response, the applicant suffered no prejudice.

The Board further found that the content of the society's written response, supplemented by oral explanations during the teleconference, fulfilled its obligations under the settlement agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's involvement with his son, who has autism spectrum disorder.

Following an unsuccessful mediation session which the applicant abruptly left, the applicant failed to attend one pre-hearing teleconference and was highly disruptive during a rescheduled teleconference before hanging up.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's actions and subsequent failure to communicate constituted an abandonment of the application.

The application was dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant, who is seeking to adopt her half-sister, alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with three terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The terms related to the home study process, expediting the adoption application, and expanding access visits.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society had adequately explained the home study process, expedited the application by commencing a concurrent home study, and committed to increasing access visits.

The Board concluded that the society was in compliance with the settlement agreement.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that four children were in need of protection due to the mother's continued relationship with a man who had sexually assaulted one of the children's friends and was alleged to have abused one of the children.

The mother provided sworn evidence that she had ended the relationship and had not exposed the children to the man for over a year.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding the mother's intentions and actions raised a genuine issue of credibility that could only be resolved at trial.

A child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that two children were in need of protection and requesting Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

The court considered whether any genuine issue for trial existed under the Family Law Rules and the Child and Family Services Act.

The evidence showed longstanding instability, domestic violence, mental health issues, and parenting incapacity affecting the parents, as well as sporadic parental contact and delayed paternal involvement.

The court concluded that neither parent established a triable issue regarding placement or access and that the children’s best interests required permanent placement.

Crown wardship orders without access were granted.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship without access for two children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children to her care.

The court found that the mother had a long-standing history of substance abuse, involvement in domestic violence, and instability, and had failed to demonstrate an ability to meet the high special needs of the children.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial, as the statutory timelines for temporary care had expired and a return to the mother was not a viable option.

The motion was granted, and the children were made Crown wards without access for the purposes of adoption.