Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant, a kin care provider, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking assistance in obtaining documents from the respondent society to apply for financial and program supports for the children in her care.

The applicant alleged that the society refused to proceed with her complaint.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant had not submitted a formal complaint to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel using the prescribed form as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and Ontario Regulation 156/18.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to implement a prior settlement agreement.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to notify the Board of the alleged non-compliance by the specified deadline in the settlement agreement, and failed to submit a formal complaint to the society using the required form under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application, arguing the issues were the subject of a pending civil action filed by the applicant in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to hear the applicant's complaints regarding a conflict of interest and supervised access, as those issues were substantively before the court.

However, the Board allowed the applicant's complaint regarding his daughter's safety in her mother's care to proceed, as it was not raised in the civil claim.

The applicant, facing criminal charges related to alleged sexual abuse of his daughter, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society.

He alleged the society failed to hear his concerns about a worker's conduct and failed to provide reasons for verifying child protection concerns despite the worker's earlier assurances of his innocence.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were before the criminal courts.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction over the criminal charges and records disclosure, but found it had jurisdiction to review whether the applicant was given an opportunity to be heard and provided with reasons for the society's verification decision.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons and explanations regarding his child protection file.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had provided substantive information and explanations regarding the outstanding issues, including the requirement for phallometric testing prior to unsupervised access.

The Board concluded that the Society met its obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and closed the file as settled.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed, arguing the board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in a child protection proceeding.

Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in D.D., the adjudicator found that while the board cannot review matters exclusively within the court's jurisdiction, it retains jurisdiction to review separate service-related complaints.

The respondent's request to dismiss was granted in part, and the matter was directed to proceed on the service-related issues.

The applicant foster parent filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board challenging the respondent children's aid society's apprehension of a child and alleged oral refusal of her adoption plan.

Because the applicant had not received written notice of the refusal as required by section 192(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to determine whether the respondent had in fact refused the application and to set directions for the hearing.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the respondent children's aid society during a temporary kinship placement.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 because the matter was before the court.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints about her interactions with the society, including lack of reasons for decisions and failure to address concerns, were separate and distinct from the custody and access issues before the court.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a term of their settlement agreement requiring the society to outline steps for a risk assessment.

The applicant argued non-compliance occurred because the society required her to amend a consent letter the day before the scheduled assessment.

The adjudicator found that the society had outlined the required steps, which included obtaining full consent, and that the initial consent provided was inadequate.

The adjudicator concluded the society acted in good faith and complied with the agreement, dismissing the allegation of non-compliance.

The applicants, foster parents of an Indigenous 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 society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the child's First Nation had proposed the removal as an exercise of its inherent authority and customary care, and that the society was merely acting as a resource.

The Board held that under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, only a society has the statutory authority to remove a child from a foster home, and the First Nation does not have this authority.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to review the proposed removal and directed that a hearing on the merits be scheduled.

The Applicant filed a complaint regarding the Society's actions during an incident in 1995.

The Society challenged the CFSRB's jurisdiction, arguing the Applicant did not receive a service and the issues had been decided by a court.

The CFSRB found that the Society's brief intervention in 1995 constituted a service.

Furthermore, although the Applicant had filed a civil suit regarding the same issues, it was struck due to the expiration of the limitation period without the merits being decided.

Therefore, the CFSRB concluded it had jurisdiction to review the complaint.

The applicants, the great-grandparents of a child, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the placement of their great-granddaughter with her paternal aunt and the society's failure to monitor visits.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the applicants were not seeking or receiving services from the society.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a term of their settlement agreement, which required the society to explain the reasons for apprehending the applicant's grandchild in 2008.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference hearing to determine compliance.

The Board found that the society had provided a meaningful response explaining that the apprehension was necessary due to an ongoing police investigation and concerns about the child's care while with her biological father.

The Board concluded the society complied with the agreement and dismissed the applicant's complaint.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her service concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her child.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant did not attend.

The respondent informed the adjudicator that the child had been placed with his father pursuant to a court order, and the applicant had indicated she would not attend.

As the applicant made no attempt to contact the tribunal to explain her non-attendance, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear her concerns regarding the welfare of her children and their interactions with their fathers, particularly concerning unverified allegations of sexual abuse by one father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide reasons on some issues, such as the refusal to require supervised access.

However, the Board ordered the Society to provide written explanations for other issues, including its refusal to conduct home visits immediately following access, its delay in facilitating birthday access, and its failure to explain changes in assigned workers.

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

A teleconference hearing was held to address the alleged non-compliance.

During a private discussion with the adjudicator, the applicant agreed that the respondent had addressed the issues in the settlement agreement and raised a new issue that occurred after mediation.

The adjudicator advised the applicant that the new issue could be the subject of a new application.

As the applicant agreed the respondent was in compliance, the file was closed as settled.

The applicant, the maternal aunt of two young children in extended society care, sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt them.

The children had been living with a kinship/foster caregiver for a year and had strong ties to their paternal extended family.

The Child and Family Services Review Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that moving the children to the applicant's care would disrupt their stable environment, sever their established parental bond with their current caregiver, and cause significant emotional harm, and that remaining in their current placement was in their best interests.

The applicant, a community member, filed an application expressing concerns about the care and services provided to three children by the respondent society.

The applicant and his family were not acquaintances of the children and had not received services from the society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, an applicant must be seeking or receiving services to be eligible to file a complaint.

Since the applicant did not meet this requirement, the application was ineligible for review.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her two children in care.

The Board reviewed nine specific issues raised by the mother, including medical care, access visits, and religious upbringing.

The Board found that the Society had provided timely and detailed reasons for its decisions and actively listened to the mother's suggestions.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to provide reasons for sharing child abuse investigation information with his employer and failed to involve him in developing his service plan.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints.

The Board found the society was mandated to share information with the police service under an existing protocol, and that the limitations placed on the applicant's involvement in the service plan were reasonable given the finding of extreme child abuse and the complex family dynamics.