Tamara Jordan

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

The Board found that the applicant did not file his complaint to the society in the mandatory format required by Ontario Regulation 156/18.

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

The respondent children's aid society alleged that the self-represented applicant breached a confidentiality order by sharing information with her sister-in-law during a pre-hearing mediation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach.

The Board accepted the applicant's explanation that she moved to maintain privacy when her sister-in-law entered the room, and concluded there was no breach of the confidentiality order.

The society brought a motion for an interim order allowing a foster child to reside with the added parties pending the hearing of the foster parents' application to review the society's refusal of their adoption application and proposed removal of the child.

The society had removed the child without providing the statutorily required 10 days' notice and without obtaining a local director's opinion that the child was at risk of harm.

The Board dismissed the society's motion, finding that it was in the child's best interests to remain with the foster parents, who had cared for the child since birth, pending the hearing on the merits.

The applicant, a grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide her with contact information or follow-up regarding safety referrals she made about her grandchildren.

The Board dismissed the application at the threshold stage, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant had not sought or received a service from the society as required by section 120(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board also noted that complaints regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The applicants sought a review of a decision by the respondent children's aid society to remove a child allegedly placed with them for adoption.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application ineligible for review because it was filed more than a year after the statutory 10-day deadline.

Furthermore, the application lacked any evidence that the child had actually been placed with the applicants for adoption.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, the grandfather of a child involved with the respondent children's aid society, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about services provided to the child and her parents.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant did not demonstrate that he himself had sought or received a service from the society, which is a threshold requirement under section 120(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and subsequently failed to respond to the Board's directions to reschedule or withdraw the application.

The Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the custody of their child and the respondent children's aid society's withdrawal of a motion before the court.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the issues were within the court's purview and were not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the court.

The Applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing their application to adopt a child.

The child had been placed with foster parents (the Added Parties) since birth and had complex medical needs.

The CFSRB first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application, finding the Applicants had made a valid expression of interest to adopt.

On the merits, the CFSRB applied the best interests of the child criteria under section 179(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Although the Applicants shared the child's cultural and religious background, the CFSRB found that the foster parents had a demonstrated ability to meet the child's medical needs, provided continuity of care, and had formed a strong attachment with the child.

The CFSRB confirmed the Society's decision and ordered the adoption to proceed with the foster parents.

The applicant, a grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding her concerns about her grandchildren in the care of their father.

She complained that the respondent society did not provide her with information relating to its investigation of her concerns.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant had not sought or received a 'service' from the society as defined under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to follow its complaint review process or timelines regarding his concerns about his child's safety.

The Board dismissed the application because the applicant had not first submitted a formal written complaint to the society using the required Internal Complaints Review Panel form, which is a statutory prerequisite for the Board to review such an application.

The applicant, a former foster parent, 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 removal of a foster child from her home.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review.

The Board held that foster parents provide residential care but do not seek or receive 'services' under the Act unless they are subject to a child protection investigation, which was not the case here.

The appellant mother appealed the school board's decision to expel her 14-year-old son from all schools within the board after he brought two large knives to school and displayed them on a school bus.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a new hearing and found that the pupil possessed weapons that negatively impacted the school climate, warranting a mandatory suspension.

The Board considered the mitigating factors under sections 2 and 3 of Ontario Regulation 472/07, including the pupil's special education needs and transition to an alternate program, but concluded that none of the factors mitigated the seriousness of the activities or the risk to the safety of others.

The expulsion from all schools of the school board was confirmed.

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

Over several years, the applicant requested multiple adjournments due to health issues and failed to adequately respond to the Board's case management directions regarding medical accommodations.

Finding that the applicant was unable to provide a timeline for participation and that further indefinite adjournments would be fundamentally unfair to the respondent, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant brought a motion requesting permission to use documents filed during the CFSRB proceedings, as well as an unredacted copy of the CFSRB's decision, in future proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Ombudsman.

The CFSRB dismissed the motion, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from its usual practice of maintaining confidentiality.

The CFSRB noted that the applicant could seek an order directly from the Court or the Ombudsman if and when those proceedings are initiated.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society fraudulently commissioned documents for use in court.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that the preparation and use of documents for court purposes does not constitute a "service" under section 2(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which is a prerequisite for a review under section 120(1).

The applicant filed an application against the children's aid society but failed to provide her contact information or explain the nature of her complaint.

The Child and Family Services Review Board issued a Case Management Direction requesting this information and warning that the application could be dismissed if not provided.

After receiving no response, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The settlement required the respondent to answer specific questions regarding the steps taken to address the applicant's concerns about her children's safety and well-being.

After reviewing the respondent's written answers and hearing oral submissions, the adjudicator found that the respondent had sufficiently answered the questions and complied with the settlement agreement.

The application was closed as settled.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking intervention in an upcoming court proceeding involving a children's aid society.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the Board has no jurisdiction to assist with matters before the court or to intervene in court proceedings.

Under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board is barred from reviewing complaints where the subject matter is an issue that has been decided by or is currently before the court.

The applicant foster parent brought a motion seeking an interim order to return her foster child, who had been removed by the respondent children's aid society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society failed to provide the statutorily required notice of removal and improperly sought a local director's opinion retroactively.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the Board determined that the child's strong views and wishes, the bond with the applicant, and the need for continuity of care outweighed the mitigated risks of emotional harm.

The Board ordered the child returned to the applicant on an interim basis.