Tracy Foster

The applicant brought an application alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with several terms of a mediated settlement agreement.

The agreement required the respondent to provide written reasons for certain decisions made during a child protection investigation, including the completion of assessments and the apprehension of the applicant's children.

The Board found that the respondent complied with the terms requiring explanations for the assessments.

However, the Board found the respondent failed to sufficiently explain why the applicant was not interviewed and why a proposed safety plan was rejected without an opportunity for amendment.

The respondent was ordered to provide further written reasons.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking to become foster parents through the respondent society.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it was not eligible for review because the applicants had not sought or received a 'service' from the society as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Act.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a 1995/1996 custody matter, alleging a society worker fabricated her name in court and is currently Facebook friends with her brother-in-law.

The Board dismissed the application at the eligibility stage.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to review issues already decided by a court or criminal charges, and that the social media complaint did not relate to a service provided by the society.

The applicants, who are relatives of the child, sought a kinship placement and filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

They alleged the respondent society failed to follow its internal complaints review process and denied them an opportunity to be heard.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicants did not use the required formal complaint form and, as non-parents, did not have a statutory right to be heard under the applicable legislation.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a 32-month-old child from her care following a domestic dispute between the applicant and her former partner.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent failed to provide the statutorily required notice of removal and improperly removed the child without a local director's opinion of risk.

The Board rejected the respondent's argument that it lacked jurisdiction to order the child returned to a closed Outside Paid Resource foster home.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the Board concluded that the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs, as well as the importance of continuity of care and the child's strong attachment to the applicant, favoured returning the child to the applicant's care.

The removal decision was rescinded.

The applicant, the grandfather of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent society did not hear his complaint regarding the child's treatment by the mother.

The Board found that the application was not eligible for review because the right to be heard under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act is limited to children and parents.

Furthermore, the applicant did not file the required formal complaint form for the internal complaints review panel.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with several terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The agreement required the respondent to provide letters outlining its position on unsupervised access, explain its ongoing involvement, and facilitate meetings regarding disclosure and communication.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the written submissions and found that the respondent had substantively complied with the terms regarding written explanations and access positions.

However, the Board found the respondent failed to comply with the terms requiring a meeting to discuss communication and a written explanation of the disclosure process.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a letter explaining the disclosure process.

The applicant, the aunt and primary caregiver of two children, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, complaining that the respondent children's aid society did not follow its internal complaint review process.

The CFSRB dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant did not file her complaint with the society using the mandatory Formal Complaint to a Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) form required by the legislation.

The applicant, the aunt of a child, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about how the respondent children's aid society addressed her child protection concerns.

The applicant alleged that the society failed to give her a chance to be heard, failed to provide reasons for its decisions, and refused to proceed with her complaint.

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

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not the child's caregiver and had not sought or received any services from the society as defined under the Act.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns regarding a safety plan and failed to explain what was required for reunification with her child.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints regarding her compliance with the safety plan and requirements for reunification were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints about the respondent children's aid society's conduct during a child protection trial.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the complaints related to issues that were already before the court.

Furthermore, the remedies sought by the applicant, including a mistrial and return of the children, were outside the Board's statutory authority.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled pre-hearing mediation and did not respond to subsequent communications and directions from the Board.

The Board concluded 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 that the respondent children's aid society closed its investigation into his child despite ongoing risk factors.

The applicant alleged the society refused to proceed with his complaint.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to file his complaint with the society using the mandatory formal complaint form required by the regulations.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove a foster child from their care without written notice.

The child had lived continuously with the applicant for more than two years.

The Board found the application eligible for review because the child was removed without the required 10 days' written notice under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The applicants 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 a child placed in their care and to remove the child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application was filed within the required 10-day period and was therefore eligible for review.

The Board issued directions for a first day of hearing to address preliminary issues and procedural matters.

The applicants, former foster parents of a two-year-old child, sought a review of the respondent society's decision not to place the child with them for adoption.

The application was filed outside the 10-day statutory window.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society's notice of refusal was defective because it did not specifically reference the applicable section of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act or use its wording.

Consequently, the 10-day limitation period had not commenced, and the application was deemed eligible for review.

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

The Board found that the applicant did not file her complaint to the society in the mandatory format required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and Ontario Regulation 156/18.

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

The applicant mother filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society did not follow its complaint review process.

The Board found that the applicant failed to file 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 determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicants, foster parents of a two-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove the child from their care.

The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the application under sections 109(7) and 109(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the child had not lived continuously with the applicants for two years.

The application was dismissed.

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

The child, who was in extended society care, had lived continuously with the applicant for over two years.

The applicant filed the application within 10 days of receiving written notice of the removal.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application eligible for review under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and scheduled a first day of hearing.