4 total
Tribunal application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the issues were currently before the court.
The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her case, including issues related to her children's apprehension, medical care, and domestic violence supports.
The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the issues were currently before the court in child protection proceedings.
The Board found that all of the applicant's concerns were squarely before the court in multiple affidavits and plans of care, and were not separate or distinct service-related issues.
The application was dismissed in its entirety.
Application dismissed as the Board lacked jurisdiction due to ongoing related court proceedings.
The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her concerns about her son's behaviour.
The son was facing criminal charges and there were ongoing custody and access proceedings before the court.
The Board found that the applicant's concerns were closely connected to the ongoing court proceedings and did not raise separate and distinct service concerns.
Consequently, the Board concluded it was barred from reviewing the application under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application.
CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear service complaints separate from ongoing child protection court proceedings.
The applicant grandmother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the respondent children's aid society during a temporary kinship placement.
The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 because the matter was before the court.
The Board found that the applicant's complaints about her interactions with the society, including lack of reasons for decisions and failure to address concerns, were separate and distinct from the custody and access issues before the court.
The Board concluded it had jurisdiction and ordered the application to proceed to a hearing on the merits.
Summary judgment granted for Crown wardship; focused trial ordered to determine access terms.
The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship with access for the child.
The child had been in care for over four years following multiple apprehensions due to neglect and a physical incident involving the father's partner.
The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and the disposition of Crown wardship, relying on a parenting capacity assessment that concluded the father and his partner lacked the ability to meet the child's needs.
However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the specific terms of access and ordered a focused trial on that issue.
