Tracy Foster

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove a child from her home.

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

The Board found that under section 109(7) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, an application is only eligible for review if the child is in extended society care.

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

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

The applicant, who is the former partner of the child's parent, had previously filed multiple applications that were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he did not meet the statutory definition of a parent and had not sought or received services from the society.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the current application as an abuse of process under Rule A8 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board found that the continued filing of substantively similar applications outside its jurisdiction constituted an abuse of process, dismissed the application, and ordered the applicant to obtain permission before initiating any future proceedings against the respondent.

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 parties reached a settlement agreement at mediation, but the applicant subsequently alleged the respondent society failed to comply with several terms requiring written explanations for its child protection decisions.

The Board reviewed the written submissions and found the respondent failed to provide sufficient reasons for several terms, including its assessment of the applicant's mental health and its application of the Eligibility Spectrum.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a further letter with specific details to comply with the agreement.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with several terms of a settlement agreement reached during a pre-hearing.

The agreement required the respondent to provide definitions and explanations regarding a 'place of safety' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, arrange a meeting, and provide information on an internal complaints review panel.

The Board found that the respondent complied with the terms regarding the definition and the complaints panel, partially complied with the explanation term, and failed to comply with the meeting term.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a further letter explaining the statutory requirements for a place of safety.

The applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The respondent facility argued that the child's complex mental health issues, history of suicidal ideation, and pattern of evading the facility placed her at risk of serious bodily harm.

The Board found that the criteria for emergency admission under subsection 171(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act were not met, as the evidence did not establish that the child posed a risk of serious bodily harm to herself or others as a result of her mental disorder at the time of admission.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant, a grandmother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about services provided to her grandchild and daughter by the respondent society.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not a parent and had not personally sought or received services from the society as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a term of their settlement agreement requiring a progress update on a paternity test for the children's alleged father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent had only partially complied, as it provided communication dates but lacked details on next steps.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a further letter detailing the status of contact and any requirements to facilitate the paternity test.

The applicant, a teacher accused of misconduct by a student, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) complaining that the respondent children's aid society did not hear his concerns or follow its complaint process during its investigation.

The CFSRB dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The right to be heard under section 120(4)4 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act applies only to children, young persons, and their parents, not to third parties like the applicant.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to file a formal complaint with the society in the format required by Ontario Regulation 156/18, which is a prerequisite for CFSRB review.

The applicant, a school director, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about services provided to a child by the respondent children's aid society.

The applicant alleged the society failed to hear her concerns regarding the child's removal from current caregivers to a foster home.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the applicant was not eligible to complain under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as she had not sought or received a service from the society.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a term of a settlement agreement reached at a pre-hearing.

The term required the respondent to provide a letter explaining its actions following a verified allegation of post-separation conflict.

The Board found that the respondent's letter was general in nature and failed to adequately answer the specific questions posed in the settlement agreement.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a more meaningful and specific response to the applicant.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her complaint regarding the removal of her children.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the matter was currently before the courts.

After the applicant failed to respond to a case management direction requiring submissions on the jurisdictional issue, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, the child's grandparent, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent society failed to give her a chance to be heard regarding visitation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The Board held that the right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Act is limited to children, young persons, and their parents, and does not extend to grandparents.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding the care of her son.

The Society argued the application was an abuse of process, asserting the issues were substantially similar to a 2015 application that had been settled.

The Board found that the four issues raised in the current application were new and had not been dealt with in the 2015 settlement.

The Board directed the new issues to proceed to a pre-hearing, while noting it lacked jurisdiction to award the financial compensation sought by the applicant.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the respondent society failed to follow its complaint review process and timelines regarding his concerns of child abuse.

The applicant had submitted a formal complaint to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel less than seven days prior to filing his application.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the statutory seven-day period for the society to determine the complaint's eligibility had not yet expired.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent children's aid society refused to exercise its discretion to order access to his child under a court undertaking.

The Board found that the issue of access was currently before the courts, as the applicant had breached a family court temporary order and was subject to an undertaking.

Pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, the biological mother of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the children's aid society refused to proceed with her complaint regarding a potential kinship caregiver.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant did not file her complaint to the society using the mandatory formal complaint form required by the regulations.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent children's aid society refused to proceed with her complaint.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant did not file her complaint with the society using the mandatory formal complaint form required by Ontario Regulation 156/18, which is a prerequisite for the Board's review under the Act.

The applicant mother filed a third application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising identical complaints to her previous applications, the first of which was settled by mediation.

The Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions on why the current application was not an abuse of process.

The applicant failed to provide submissions by the deadline.

The Board dismissed the application as abandoned and an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent failed to investigate abuse allegations and coerced statements from the children.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing video conference and subsequently advised she was on vacation and unavailable for the rescheduled date.

After failing to confirm attendance as directed by a case management direction, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent's decision not to place a child with the applicant for adoption.

The issue was whether the application was filed within the 10-day statutory time limit.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that because the time expired on a holiday, the application filed on the next non-holiday was timely and eligible for review.