Tony Circelli

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with several terms of a settlement agreement regarding her child protection case.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a non-compliance teleconference and found that the respondent had partially met its obligations.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide further written responses regarding sanitization procedures, interruptions during access visits, and a review of the applicant's file for disrespectful interactions.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions in apprehending her child, denying a kinship placement, and managing access.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act because the issues had already been decided by the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the court documents and found that several of the applicant's concerns, including the apprehension and placement of the child, were indeed before the court and could not be reviewed.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over remaining service-related complaints, which were scheduled for a further pre-hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's investigation and records concerning alleged abuse and parental conflict.

The respondent argued the issues were matters of custody and access best addressed in Family Court.

The Board found that the issues raised in the complaint, including allegations of abuse and the respondent's verification letters, were already before the Family Court.

Consequently, pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the complaint and dismissed the application.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking the return of her child, who had been placed in the temporary care of the father by a court order.

The respondent children's aid society requested the application be dismissed.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints regarding access were not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the court.

Consequently, the Board concluded it was barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 from reviewing the application, and dismissed it.