Caroline Sand

The applicant sought a review of the respondent Society's decision to refuse his application to adopt two children currently in extended society care.

The applicant, who recently began cohabiting with the children's biological mother, proposed a plan where the children would reside with them.

The Society refused the application due to the brief cohabitation period and the inappropriateness of placing the children with a parent from whom they were removed by court order.

The Child and Family Services Review Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the applicant lacked an adequate understanding of the children's profound physical, mental, and emotional needs, including Autism Spectrum Disorder and suspected Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and that the proposed adoption was not in the children's best interests.

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

The applicant acknowledged that her complaint to the society was made verbally, not in writing as required by the regulations.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter because the complaint was not submitted in the required formal written format.

The applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review a children's aid society's alleged refusal of their application to adopt a child.

At a case management videoconference, the society clarified that it had not refused the application, but rather paused it pending the completion of a child protection investigation and assessment in another region.

The Board found that because no formal refusal had been made, the application was premature and not eligible for review under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the society failed to provide reasons for a decision affecting her interests.

The society argued the application was ineligible because foster parents provide services rather than seek or receive them.

The Board found the application eligible for review, determining that the legislation does not exclude foster parents from seeking services for children in their care and that the applicant had explicitly sought services related to the children's emotional wellbeing.

The applicant foster parent filed an application under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 to review the respondent society's decision to remove a child in extended society care from their home.

The Board found the application was filed within the required 10-day notice period and the child had lived continuously with the applicant for more than two years.

The Board determined the application was eligible to proceed to a hearing and issued directions for a first hearing date.

The applicant 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 failed to follow its complaint review process.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction because the applicant did not file a formal complaint with the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel in the format required by the regulation.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and did not respond to a subsequent direction from the Board to advise whether she wished to proceed.

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

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

After asking how to withdraw the application, the applicant failed to respond to the Board's directions to confirm the withdrawal or provide written particulars.

The Board concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant, who identified as the main support and partner of the children's father, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) alleging that the respondent children's aid society ignored her concerns and failed to follow its complaint review process.

The CFSRB dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that the statutory right to be heard is limited to children, young persons, and parents.

Furthermore, the CFSRB could not review the society's handling of the complaint because the applicant failed to use the formal complaint form required by the regulations.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that her child was kidnapped and that the respondent society conspired against her.

The Child and Family Services Review Board directed the applicant to provide relevant details supporting her allegations against the respondent, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to provide the requested information.

The Board dismissed the application as ineligible for review because it lacked the necessary details to support the allegations.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing mediation and did not respond to a subsequent report directing them to explain their absence and confirm their intention to proceed.

The respondent advised that the applicant had recently entered into a Voluntary Youth Service Agreement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board concluded that the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove a child from her care.

Shortly after, the society brought an urgent motion before the Ontario Court of Justice, which made an interim order removing the child from extended society care and placing him with his father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined that because the child was no longer in extended society care, the application was temporarily ineligible for review.

The Board stayed the application pending the outcome of the court motion to avoid conflicting decisions.

The applicant filed an application for review of a children's aid society's decision to refuse his application to adopt his live-in partner's children.

The society's refusal letter was dated September 24, 2024, but evidence confirmed it was not emailed to the applicant until October 7, 2024.

The Board found that the application, filed on October 15, 2024, was within the 10-day statutory time limit under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The application was deemed eligible to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant, the maternal great aunt and kinship caregiver of the child, filed an application under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove the child from her care.

The respondent advised that it had obtained a temporary court order placing the child with his biological father and had commenced a status review application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application eligible to proceed to a hearing as the child had lived continuously with the applicant for more than two years and the application was filed within 10 days of written notice.

The Board scheduled a first day of hearing to address preliminary issues, including the Board's jurisdiction given the concurrent court proceedings.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the society did not give her a chance to be heard.

The application stated that her daughter was kidnapped and she was extorted, but provided no other details or allegations against the society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application as it lacked the required details and did not contain allegations against the respondent, making it ineligible for review.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, complaining about an unsolicited phone call from an employee of the respondent society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it was not eligible for review.

The Board held that the applicant did not seek or receive a service from the society as required by the Act, as the complaint related entirely to a phone call she did not request.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent children's aid society breached her privacy by disclosing personal information during a child protection proceeding.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application without a hearing.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) because the issue arose in a matter currently before the court, and noted that jurisdiction over privacy breaches falls to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario under Part X of the Act.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking review of a children's aid society's refusal to proceed with a complaint regarding redacted childhood records.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant did not file a formal complaint in the format required by the Regulation.

Furthermore, the Board noted that issues related to personal information fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The applicant, who is in a relationship with the mother of two children in extended society care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board after the society refused to proceed with his adoption inquiry.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not meet the definition of a 'parent' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and therefore lacked standing to be heard.

Furthermore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the society's refusal because the applicant failed to submit his complaint in the prescribed format required by regulation.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent children's aid society's failure to provide services following a disclosure by her child.

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

The Board found that the applicant had not filed her complaint with the society using the mandatory Formal Complaint to a Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel form as required by section 119(2) of the Act and section 56 of Ontario Regulation 156/18.