6 total
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the issues were already before the court.
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.
Children's aid society ordered to provide written reasons for decisions regarding safety of 17-year-old youth.
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.
Board dismissed father's child welfare complaint for lack of jurisdiction as issues were before the court.
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.
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the issues raised were currently before the court.
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.
Summary judgment granted granting Crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.
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.
Summary judgment granted for Crown wardship without access due to the mother's inability to provide stable care.
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.
