Dana Haklander

The applicant mother sought a review by the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding her concerns about the respondent society's handling of her allegations that the child's father posed a safety risk.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction on the basis that the same issues were before the Superior Court of Justice in a parenting dispute.

The Board found that the issues raised in the application were not separate and different from those considered and decided by the Court, which had recently ordered parenting time for the father.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) brought a motion to be appointed to represent the child A.C. in a child protection proceeding concerning her twin brother, J.C. The biological parents, D.C. and N.C., opposed the motion, arguing they could adequately advocate for A.C. The court granted the OCL's motion, emphasizing A.C.'s right to independent legal representation under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The court found that A.C.'s interests, particularly regarding sibling access with J.C. and her communication difficulties, necessitated independent counsel, as the parents' advocacy, however well-intentioned, could not substitute for the child's own voice, especially where their interests might diverge.

This case concerns a status review application and focused hearing to determine an access regime for a child, J.N., who was placed in extended society care with Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin.

The respondent father, M.M., sought placement of the child in his care or with extended paternal family to support cultural heritage, but failed to attend subsequent hearings or provide evidence.

The court assessed the child's best interests, considering the child's struggles, inconsistent access history with the father, and the importance of maintaining cultural and racial identity.

The court ultimately ordered a limited, supervised access schedule for the father and mandated the Society to facilitate the child's connection with his paternal cultural heritage.

The applicant, a kin caregiver, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of access visits and safety concerns involving the child's father.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in a Status Review Application.

The Board agreed, finding that the applicant's concerns regarding access, custody, and risk assessment were substantive issues to be decided by the court.

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

The applicant grandmother 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 under section 120(8)(a) because child protection proceedings were currently before the court.

The CFSRB found that while two issues regarding child placement and protection concerns were before the court and thus outside its jurisdiction, the remaining four issues regarding the society's communication and treatment of the applicant were separate and distinct.

The CFSRB dismissed the first two issues and directed the remaining issues to proceed.

The Society sought an order placing the child in extended society care with no access by the parents.

The court previously placed the child in extended society care but adjourned the issue of access to trial.

The court found that despite the parents' inconsistencies and personal struggles, the child had a positive and meaningful relationship with both parents.

The court ordered a minimum of three supervised direct access visits per year for each parent, along with email updates, finding that this would maintain the child's connection to her birth parents and indigenous heritage without unduly impairing her future opportunities for adoption.

The Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in extended society care.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return or access, while the father consented to the protection finding but opposed the disposition and access orders.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's substance abuse and the father's unresolved anger and mental health issues.

The court ordered the child placed in extended society care, granted the mother access at the Society's discretion, and directed a trial on the issue of the father's access.

A child protection trial involving six children where the Children's Aid Society sought findings that all children were in need of protection and sought Crown wardship for the four oldest children and a supervision order for the two youngest twins.

The respondent parents denied virtually all allegations.

The court conducted a complex hearsay voir dire regarding children's out-of-court statements and ultimately found all six children in need of protection based on evidence of harsh, authoritarian parenting, excessive physical discipline, emotional abuse, and exposure to domestic violence.

The court made three of the four oldest children Crown wards and ordered the youngest child returned home under intensive supervision, with the second-oldest child also returned home under supervision to maintain sibling bonds.

The applicant alleged that her former employer discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, marital status, family status, and association with a person identified by a Code ground.

She claimed that racial slurs were directed at her black husband during a company Christmas party and that her employment was subsequently terminated because of her association with him.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer was unaware of the alleged racial slurs and that the applicant's termination was based on performance issues, not discriminatory grounds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the family status claim, finding no connection between her termination and her family responsibilities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a part-time bookkeeper, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her health-related absences following a heart attack, constituting discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent maintained that the termination was solely due to the applicant's poor work performance, including significant bookkeeping errors and an inability to provide required financial reports.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had legitimate, ongoing concerns about the applicant's performance and had decided to terminate her employment prior to her heart attack.

The Application was dismissed as the Tribunal concluded the termination was not tainted by discriminatory considerations.