Karen O'Keefe

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 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 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 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 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.