Sylvie Godin

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it impeded his access to his children by advising his ex-wife to screen his calls and by failing to adequately encourage his adolescent children in foster care to visit him.

The Board found that the society had no control over the mother's use of an answering machine and had appropriately responded to the applicant's concerns.

Regarding the adolescent children, the Board concluded the society had fulfilled its statutory duty to hear the applicant's concerns and had made reasonable efforts to facilitate contact, despite the children's refusal.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to act when she raised concerns that her son had been sexually abused.

The respondent brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act because the issues were currently before the court in a related Crown wardship proceeding.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the court would decide custody and access, the specific issue of whether the respondent provided the applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding her abuse concerns was not a matter to be decided by the court.

The Board affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaint on its merits.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society discriminated against him by imposing supervised access and withholding contact information for his children.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the matters were currently before the court in a status review application.

The Board granted the motion in part, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the terms of access and disclosure of contact information, as those issues were before the court.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the respondent's facilitation of visits and its obligation to allow the applicant to be heard regarding the services provided.