Thomas Milne

The applicant, a former foster parent, cared for a child informally at the request of the child's mother.

The applicant subsequently sought financial compensation from the respondent society and filed a complaint when it was denied.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not seek or receive a service from the respondent as defined under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the child was not placed by the respondent and the arrangement was informal.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The parties reached a settlement agreement at a pre-hearing.

The applicant subsequently alleged that the respondent failed to comply with two terms of the agreement regarding written reasons for an investigation and a disclosure request for her file.

The adjudicator reviewed the correspondence in writing and found that the respondent had complied with the disputed terms.

The application was closed as settled.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent agency was biased, alienated him from his children, and failed to hear his request for a new worker.

The Board previously dismissed the access-related issues as they were before the court.

In a written hearing on the remaining issue, the Board found that the respondent had properly received, considered, and provided written reasons for denying the applicant's request to remove two workers from his file.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society alienated him from his children through access conditions and failed to address his request for a new worker.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the access and supervision issues as they were currently before the court.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the request for a new worker, as a formal complaint to the society was not a prerequisite for the specific remedies sought.

The Board directed written submissions on the format of the hearing for the remaining issue.