Tracy Foster

The applicant, a foster parent, sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a child from their care.

The applicant alleged they did not receive proper written notice of the removal as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Board found that an email sent by the respondent to another agency did not constitute valid notice because it lacked mandatory statutory references and information about the right to seek a review.

Consequently, the 10-day time limit to apply for a review had not commenced, and the application was deemed eligible to proceed to a hearing.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and subsequently failed to respond to the Board's directions to provide an explanation and availability for a rescheduled pre-hearing.

Consequently, the Board found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant father filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about his interactions with the respondent children's aid society and alleging the society refused to proceed with his complaint.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction because the applicant did not file his complaint to the society using the mandatory 'Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel' form required by the regulations.

The applicants, foster parents of a child in extended society care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the removal of the child from their care.

The removal was ordered by a judge, rather than proposed by the respondent children's aid society.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the Board can only review a society's proposed removal, not a court-ordered removal.

The applicant father filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society refused to proceed with his complaint.

The Board found that the society had in fact proceeded with the complaint and convened an internal review panel.

As the applicant only selected the ground that the society refused to proceed, the application was deemed ineligible for review and dismissed.

The applicant father filed an application against the respondent children's aid society under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed identical complaint details and support materials for this application and a separate application against a different society, without separating the allegations.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it contained insufficient information to determine eligibility.

The applicant filed an application against the respondent society under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant also filed a separate application against another society, but provided identical complaint details and support materials for both.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the application did not separate the allegations against the respondent, and therefore contained insufficient information to determine eligibility.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society.

The Board issued multiple Case Management Directions requiring the applicant to provide written submissions detailing her complaints.

After the applicant failed to provide the required submissions by the specified deadlines, the Board concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a grandfather of a child placed in kinship care by the respondent society, filed an application complaining that his concerns were not heard and his complaint was not processed.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the right to be heard under the Act is limited to children and parents, and the applicant had not sought or received a 'service' from the society as defined by the Act.

The applicants filed an application to review the respondent's decision refusing to place a child with them for adoption.

The respondent had issued a notice of proposed removal of the child from the applicants' foster care.

The adjudicator found the application was filed within the required 10-day period and was therefore eligible for review.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to address procedural matters and a motion to hear multiple applications together.

The applicants, foster parents of a child who had lived with them continuously for over two years, sought a review of the children's aid society's decision to remove the child from their care and refuse their adoption application.

The society provided notice of removal on November 4, 2025, and the applicants filed their application with the Child and Family Services Review Board on November 13, 2025.

The Board found the application eligible for review as it was filed within the 10-day statutory timeframe following the required notice under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child placed in their foster care and to remove the child from their home.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined that the application was eligible for review because it was filed within the required 10-day period after receiving written notice of the refusal.

The Board scheduled a first day of hearing to address preliminary issues and directed that the child not be removed pending the review.

The applicants filed an application to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a child from their foster care and halt the adoption process.

The tribunal found that the child had lived with the applicants for less than the two years required under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Consequently, the application was deemed ineligible for review and was dismissed.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt two children who had been residing with them.

The Child and Family Services Review Board considered whether the application was eligible for review under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board found that the application was filed within the required 10-day period and was therefore eligible to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent agency failed to provide support.

The Child and Family Services Review Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions to establish whether she sought or received services from the respondent, a threshold requirement for jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide the submissions and instead requested an adjournment to obtain legal counsel.

The Board denied the adjournment and dismissed the application without prejudice, noting it lacked sufficient information to determine jurisdiction.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent's decision not to place two sibling children with her for adoption.

The respondent raised preliminary issues regarding the Board's jurisdiction over one child and the potential involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision regarding the first child, as that child had already been placed for adoption with another family.

The Board also declined to request the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer for the second child, finding the child was too young to express views and preferences.

The applicant filed an application under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt two foster children.

The respondent had closed the applicant's foster home and denied the permanency plan.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined that the application was eligible for review because it was filed within the required 10-day period after receiving written notice of the refusal.

The Board scheduled a first day of hearing to address preliminary issues and directions.

The applicant aunt filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society refused to proceed with her complaint and failed to follow its complaint review processes.

The Board found that the applicant had not submitted her complaint to the society using the mandatory formal complaint form required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and its regulations.

Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, complaining about the respondent society's services to her 21-year-old adult daughter.

The respondent had previously determined the applicant's internal complaint was ineligible for review because the adult daughter had not consented to the applicant making a complaint on her behalf.

The Board found that the respondent did not refuse to proceed with the complaint, responded within the required timeframe, and complied with all procedural requirements.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to oppose the removal of a child from her home.

The respondent society argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because the child was placed under a customary care agreement, not an extended society care order.

The CFSRB found that section 109 only applies to children in extended society care.

As the child was in customary care, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.