Ali Mirza

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to address his concerns regarding parental alienation and did not provide acceptable reasons for its inaction.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues of parenting time and parental alienation were currently before the family court.

The Board found that while the family court would determine the substantive issues of parenting time and alienation, the applicant's specific complaints about the respondent's service delivery and failure to provide reasons were separate and distinct.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction and ordered the application to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant mother, who did not have custody of her child, filed an application alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding reported injuries to the child while in the father's care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was not a 'parent' within the meaning of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and therefore lacked standing.

Regardless of standing, the Board found the respondent had provided the applicant with opportunities to express her concerns and had provided reasons for its decisions not to investigate or to close files.

The applicant filed an application under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding inaccuracies in the respondent society's file.

The parties reached a settlement agreement requiring the applicant to provide a concise statement of disagreement for the respondent to add to its file.

The applicant provided a 25-page statement detailing alleged statutory breaches.

The Board found the statement was not concise and did not comply with the agreement.

The respondent was relieved of its obligation to add the statement to the file, and the application was closed.

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 father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

He alleged the society failed to hear his concerns regarding injuries his son sustained while in the maternal grandparents' care and failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the society only partially met its obligation to hear the applicant's concerns, as it inappropriately minimized his ongoing safety concerns.

The Board also found the society failed to provide timely and meaningful reasons for its verification decision and ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant.

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

The agreement required the Society to answer 11 questions regarding a child protection investigation.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society fully complied with seven of the terms but only partially complied with three terms relating to the identification of parents in records, the requirement for photo identification, and the relevance of past history.

The Board ordered the Society to provide additional written responses to fully satisfy those three terms.