Nyasha Size

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the children were in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother opposed the motion, with the grandmother seeking a supervision order to herself.

The court found that despite the grandmother's past violations of safety plans, her recent steps in counselling and the mother's relocation to another city created a genuine issue for trial regarding her ability to protect the children.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and a trial was ordered.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her complaint regarding the removal of her children.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the matter was currently before the courts.

After the applicant failed to respond to a case management direction requiring submissions on the jurisdictional issue, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent children's aid society alleged that the self-represented applicant breached a confidentiality order by sharing information with her sister-in-law during a pre-hearing mediation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach.

The Board accepted the applicant's explanation that she moved to maintain privacy when her sister-in-law entered the room, and concluded there was no breach of the confidentiality order.

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

The respondent argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because a child protection application was before the court.

The CFSRB found that the applicant's remaining complaint—that the respondent failed to hear her concerns regarding the identification of a person as a danger to the children—was separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

The CFSRB ordered that the application proceed to be reviewed on that specific concern.