Yvonne Fiamengo

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues raised were already before the courts in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board found that all seven issues identified in the complaint had been placed squarely before the court in multiple proceedings since 2014.

Consequently, the Board concluded it was prohibited from reviewing the complaint under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application in its entirety.

The applicant sought to call two psychologists as expert witnesses in a hearing regarding his complaint that the children's aid society failed to properly investigate his reports of his daughter being bullied at school.

The experts had been retained for a separate civil action against the school and had not met the children involved.

The adjudicator ruled that the proposed expert testimony did not meet the test of relevancy and necessity, as the hearing was focused solely on whether the society fulfilled its procedural obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its decisions, not to review the merits of the society's decision to decline an investigation.

The applicant sought a review by the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) alleging the Children's Aid Society of Toronto failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decision not to investigate bullying his daughter experienced at a private school.

The Society challenged the CFSRB's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was not a person who sought or received services.

The CFSRB found it had jurisdiction, holding that requesting an investigation constitutes seeking services, and the applicant had a right to be heard and receive reasons for the Society's decision.

The applicant, an adoptive mother, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society regarding access between her adopted sons and their biological sister.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not a recipient of service and the access issues were currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Board found that while the applicant was a recipient of service, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints regarding access and communication because those matters were squarely before the Court.

The Board also struck references to mediation materials due to confidentiality and directed further submissions on remaining issues.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place two children in extended society care.

The children had been in care for five years after being abandoned by the mother.

The father, who had a positive relationship with the children, was unable to secure suitable housing despite significant support and extensions of time.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting that poverty was not the determining factor, but rather the father's lack of problem-solving, judgment, and motivation.

The motion was granted, placing the children in extended care with flexible access for the father.

In this child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court addressed the Society's duty to provide services and support family reunification, particularly regarding the father's lack of suitable housing.

Following an initial summary judgment motion where the court found the children in need of protection but directed a trial on disposition, the court held multiple hearings to address interim housing and access arrangements pending trial.

The court required the Society to provide detailed assistance with housing and directed evidence regarding available government benefits.

The father ultimately received transition child tax benefits from Ontario Works, which resolved his request for direct rent payment from the Society.

The court approved expanded access arrangements and permitted the parties to work cooperatively on housing matters pending trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order making them crown wards with access in the Society's discretion.

The respondent father opposed the motion and filed responding materials.

The court found that while the statutory findings under section 37(2)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act (based on the mother's abandonment) were supported by the evidence, the Society failed to meet its onus on the summary judgment motion regarding disposition.

The court dismissed the disposition aspect of the motion and directed a trial, finding that genuine issues requiring trial existed concerning the Society's duty to provide services and support family reunification, the viability of the father's plan, and whether less disruptive alternatives to crown wardship were available.

This is a status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended at birth due to parental substance abuse and domestic violence.

The mother sought to have the child returned to her care under Society supervision, while the Society sought an order of Crown wardship with a view to adoption by the child's long-term foster parents.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in addressing her addiction and mental health issues, the durability of her plan remained uncertain due to limited personal supports and a history of relapse.

The court ordered Crown wardship, finding that the child's best interests required permanency and stability.

Access to the mother was ordered at the Society's discretion with a minimum of once per month.

Access to the father was denied due to inconsistent contact and failure to demonstrate a beneficial and meaningful relationship with the child.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children found to be in need of protection due to domestic violence between their parents and lack of supports for the mother.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order of Crown wardship with a plan for adoption.

The mother sought custody under supervision, while the father sought placement with his grandparents.

The court rejected both the Society's plan for Crown wardship and the mother's plan for return to her care, finding instead that placement with the paternal grandparents under Society supervision best served the children's interests while maintaining family connections and protecting them from the risks posed by their parents' conflicted relationship.

This is a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act involving two children, K.A.J. (born 1998) and I.C. (born 2006), who were found to be in need of protection on July 7, 2011.

The Society sought Crown wardship for both children.

The respondent mother sought return of the children under Society supervision, citing her completion of an alcohol treatment program.

The respondent father sought custody of I.C. with a plan to take the child to Angola upon his deportation.

The court found that both children should be made Crown wards, with the Society's plan for long-term care and independent living for K.A.J., and adoption for I.C. The court granted limited access orders to both parents and between the siblings.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered a motion by the child's lawyer seeking judicial notice of documents regarding conditions in Angola, including UN Human Development Index data, UNICEF reports, and documents from the Immigration and Refugee Board's national documentation package.

The father, subject to a deportation order to Angola, sought to have the children placed in his care with a plan to relocate them to Angola.

The court rejected the motion for judicial notice, finding that the proposed facts were adjudicative in nature and closely approached the central dispositive issue in the case, requiring strict application of the Morgan standard for judicial notice.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of an infant (A.S.) under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The society relied on a SCAN (Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect) report indicating suspected inflicted injuries, including a lip laceration and rib fracture.

The parents opposed the motion and sought return of the child to their care.

The court found that the society failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm in the parents' care.

The court emphasized that the SCAN opinion, while one piece of evidence, could not be the sole basis for the society's belief about risk.

The court found the parents to be credible, caring, and cooperative, with no evidence of abuse or neglect.

The motion was dismissed and the child was ordered returned to the parents' care.

A motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking to vary a supervision order by placing a young child in the temporary care of the father alone, with restrictions on the mother's contact, following an incident on September 22, 2012 in which the mother sustained a self-inflicted stab wound while extremely intoxicated and engaged in conflict with the father.

The court applied the statutory test under section 64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act, finding that a material change in circumstances had occurred relating to the level of risk to the child, and that the proposed order was in the child's best interests and the least disruptive available option.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order designating them as a special party under section 2(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's identification of the proper legal test or her conclusion, which was supported by the evidence.