Mary Catherine Chambers

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to address her concerns regarding the alleged physical abuse of her daughter by the child's father.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 because the issues were already before or decided by the Family Court.

The Board agreed, finding that the issues of custody, access, and the child's well-being had been squarely placed before the Court, which ordered the child to reside with her father.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the issues were already before the court in a child protection proceeding.

Applying the test from Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints related to the child's safety and mental health, as these were substantive issues before the court.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to review the applicant's complaint regarding the society's failure to consult her or provide reasons for its decisions, as this was a separate service-related issue.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

Despite multiple case management directions and extensions of time, the self-represented applicant failed to provide available dates for a videoconference hearing and instead sent emails complaining about the respondent and the Board.

The Board concluded that the applicant had effectively abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant, a foster parent and uncle to two children, filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the children's aid society's handling of the children's return to their parents.

The society argued the Child and Family Services Review Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the issues raised were already before the court and that the applicant, acting as a foster parent, was not in receipt of services from the society.

The applicants, who had fostered a four-year-old child since birth, sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove the child from their care and refuse their adoption application.

The child had significant developmental delays and was at risk for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

The Society intended to place the biracial child with another family who had adopted the child's half-sister, arguing the other family could better meet the child's racial and cultural needs.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the applicants had met all of the child's needs, including her racial and cultural needs.

The Board concluded that removing the child from the only parents she had known would disrupt her secure place in the family and be contrary to her best interests.

The applicant grandparent filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding the suspension, location, and scheduling of access visits with his grandchild, who has autism.

The Society presented evidence, including letters and case notes, demonstrating it had repeatedly explained that access was restricted due to the child's escalating behavioural issues at school following visits.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had met its statutory obligations by providing adequate verbal and written reasons for its decisions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, while concurrently pursuing a union grievance on the same issues.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance process, while the union opposed deferral on the basis that the grievance was in abeyance until the applicant returned to work.

The Tribunal found that the issues in both proceedings were identical and that the applicant had indicated a preference for deferral in her application.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred for six months, after which the applicant must provide an update on the grievance status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after she was not hired for four school board positions in 2011 and 2013.

The respondent requested that the 2011 allegations be dismissed for delay and that the entire application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2011 allegations, finding they were filed outside the one-year time limit without a good faith explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal allowed the 2013 allegations to proceed, concluding that the applicant's claims regarding her qualifications and age relative to the successful candidates could potentially establish a link to discrimination.

The Member, a school principal, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after being convicted under the Customs Act for smuggling replica firearms into Canada.

The Member had purchased the replica weapons for his underage son to use in Airsoft games.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a two-month retroactive suspension, and the completion of a course on ethical expectations.

The Committee also ordered that the decision be published with the Member's name, emphasizing that off-duty conduct can bring the profession into disrepute and requires general deterrence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after her registration in a master's program was deactivated.

The respondent university brought a request to dismiss the application for delay, arguing it was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of discrimination was the applicant's withdrawal from the program, and that subsequent communications with the university were merely continuing effects rather than fresh incidents.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, as she provided no medical evidence of inability to pursue the claim and was working full-time during the relevant period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being terminated from her position as a probationary Student Support Person.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application pending the resolution of the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the OLRB and Tribunal proceedings raise different issues, involve different parties, and offer different potential remedies.

The Tribunal granted the union's request for intervenor status, noting its interest in the allegations and potential remedies.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove three individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The corporate respondent argued it was vicariously liable for the individuals' actions.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the corporate respondent's acceptance of vicarious liability was explicitly restricted to actions within the individuals' legitimate functions.

Because this qualified acceptance raised the possibility that the individuals could be found to have acted outside the scope of their employment, removing them could prejudice the applicant.

The request was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, disability, and creed after being denied admission to a university program.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application, finding that the respondents had no role in the university's admission decision and that there was no evidence to support the allegations of discrimination or reprisal.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the underlying complaint had been settled during a Commission mediation.

The applicant argued he had revoked his acceptance of the settlement and that he signed it under duress from his wife.

The Tribunal found that the settlement was fully concluded and binding before the applicant clearly communicated his intention to revoke it.

The Tribunal also held that pressure from a spouse does not constitute duress sufficient to overturn a settlement.

The application was dismissed.