Mona Anis

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.

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.

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.

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.