7 total
Tribunal complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as issues were currently before the court.
The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of a child protection matter.
The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.
The Board agreed, finding that all issues raised in the complaint, including timesharing, placement, and the best interests of the children, were subject to a temporary court order and an upcoming settlement conference.
The complaint was dismissed in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.
Application dismissed; grandmother reporting child protection concerns was not a service recipient under the CYFSA.
The applicant, a grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after her complaint to the respondent society's Internal Complaints Review Panel was dismissed.
She raised concerns about the living arrangements of her grandson.
The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was merely a referent expressing concerns, not a parent or a person who sought or received services from the society under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
Grandparent's complaint against children's aid society dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as she did not receive services.
The applicant, a paternal grandmother, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's actions and decisions concerning her grandchildren.
The respondent society submitted that the applicant had not sought or received services from it, as she was not assessed as a kinship caregiver.
The applicant failed to provide written submissions challenging this position.
The Board found that the applicant's complaints were not about services she sought or received, but rather about the society's actions regarding her grandchildren.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Adoption refusal confirmed; applicant uncle failed to demonstrate commitment and parenting capacity for child with developmental delays.
The applicant sought a review of the children's aid society's decision to refuse his application to adopt his 17-month-old niece, who had been diagnosed with Global Developmental Delay.
The society refused the application based on concerns regarding the applicant's commitment, parenting skills, executive functioning, and financial stability, noting he had missed over half of his scheduled access visits and failed to complete mandatory training.
The tribunal confirmed the society's refusal, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated the requisite parenting skills or commitment to meet the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs, and that further delaying the child's permanent placement was not in her best interests.
Petition opposing union certification dismissed as untimely because it was sent by private courier, not registered mail.
The applicant union applied for certification.
A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification, which was sent by private courier on the application date but received the following day.
The Board ruled the petition was untimely under section 8(4) of the Labour Relations Act and Rule 8, as it was not received by the Board or sent by registered mail on or before the application date.
The Board also dismissed allegations of union misconduct in collecting membership evidence, finding they did not establish a prima facie case.
The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the certification.
Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 52 of the Constitution Act to apply the Charter.
The applicant union challenged section 6 of the Pay Equity Act as contravening the Charter.
The respondent employer argued the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the Charter challenge.
Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Cuddy Chicks, the Tribunal held that section 30 of its enabling statute and section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 grant it the jurisdiction and impose the duty to apply the Charter.
The Tribunal reserved its decision on whether it has jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Charter to grant the requested remedy of amending the legislation.
Board finds single-branch units appropriate for bank employees and separates full-time and part-time workers.
The union applied for certification for employees at several branches of the respondent financial institution.
The union sought a multi-branch bargaining unit combining full-time and part-time employees, while the employer argued for single-branch units and the separation of full-time and part-time employees.
The Board determined that single-branch units were appropriate and maintained its practice of separating full-time and part-time employees.
Certificates were issued for units where the union had over 55% support, representation votes were ordered where support was between 45% and 55%, and the application was dismissed for units with less than 45% support.
