Olivia Rebeiro

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the conduct of a child protection worker and the investigation by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the Ontario Court of Justice in ongoing child protection proceedings, and that the application was an abuse of process.

The Board found that the issues raised in the complaint were indeed before the court, precluding the Board from reviewing the application under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, though the Board found it did not constitute an abuse of process.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's failure to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests and alleged privacy breaches.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the Ontario Court of Justice in an active child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the court filings and concluded that all issues raised in the complaint were squarely before the court.

Consequently, pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the services received from the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent challenged the Child and Family Services Review Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the Ontario Court of Justice in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the allegations in the application were strikingly similar to those raised in the applicant's court affidavit and were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act.