3 total
Application dismissed; school staff are not persons in charge under the CYFSA.
The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to investigate his complaints of emotional abuse against his son by a school principal and school board.
The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction as the school staff were not service providers or persons in charge of the child under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
The Board agreed, finding that school staff do not meet the statutory definition of a person in charge, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.
Children's aid society ordered to provide meaningful reasons for declining to investigate child protection report.
The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decision not to investigate a report that his child was assaulted at school.
The Board found that while the respondent had heard the applicant's concerns, it failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision not to open an investigation.
The Board ordered the respondent to provide a detailed letter explaining its application of the Eligibility Spectrum, the information it considered, and how confidentiality provisions under Part X of the CYFSA constrained its ability to provide information.
Board declines to declare self-represented applicant a vexatious litigant despite filing multiple applications.
The applicant filed six applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board within a short period.
The Board issued a Case Management Direction to determine whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant under Rule A8 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure.
After reviewing the applicant's litigation history and applying the relevant factors, the Board found that the high threshold for a vexatious litigant declaration was not met.
The Board noted that while one application raised jurisdictional concerns, there was no pattern of unmeritorious applications or conduct intended to delay proceedings.
The request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant was dismissed.
