Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging that a caseworker inappropriately attended a Violence Threat Risk Assessment (VTRA) meeting concerning his daughter without his consent, and that the society failed to verify inaccurate information about pending criminal charges against him.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the caseworker attended the VTRA meeting solely as an observer to collect information and did not participate in any decision-making that would trigger the applicant's right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Furthermore, the Board accepted that the inaccurate information regarding criminal charges did not factor into the society's investigation or decisions.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for refusing to disclose its file regarding her son and for failing to communicate with her.

The child had been placed with his father subject to society supervision.

The Board found that the society failed to provide satisfactory reasons for refusing disclosure and failed to communicate with the applicant during its supervision.

The Board ordered the society to disclose its records, provide a written explanation for its failure to communicate, and outline a plan to work with the applicant.

The applicants, foster parents of a child in extended society care, filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove the child from their home.

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

The Board issued directions for a teleconference to set timelines and schedule the hearing, noting that the child cannot be removed pending the review.

The applicants, who are foster parents, filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

They alleged the society failed to comply with a court order and psychiatric reports regarding a foster child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that as foster parents, the applicants provide a service to the society rather than receive a service from it, making their complaint ineligible for review.

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

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

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application eligible for review as it was filed within 10 days of the notice of permanent removal.

The Board issued an interim decision setting a first hearing date to address preliminary issues, including whether the society complied with the statutory prohibition against removing the child during the appeal period.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the respondent children's aid society, specifically concerning child welfare, custody, and access matters.

The Board found that all matters raised in the application had already been dealt with by the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court.

Pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review issues that have been decided by a court.

The application was therefore dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the placement of her children in extended society care and access issues.

The Board found that the issues raised in the application had already been decided by the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court, as the applicant had consented to the extended care and an access order had been made.

Pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board cannot review a complaint if the subject matter has been decided by a court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a home assessment conducted by the children's aid society for use in an ongoing court proceeding in New York.

The applicant raised concerns about not receiving a copy of the assessment and its contents regarding alleged drug use and mental health challenges.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, it cannot review matters that are currently before the court, and any issues regarding access to the assessment must be addressed through the court's disclosure processes.

The applicant, a registered social worker, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising health and safety concerns about a former patient.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was ineligible to bring a complaint because she had not sought or received services from the respondent society.

The applicants, foster parents, sought a review by the Child and Family Services Review Board of the respondent society's decision to remove three foster children from their care.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the children were not in extended society care.

The Board found that under section 109(7) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, a review is only available if the children are subject to an extended society care order.

As the children were under Customary Care Agreements and all previous child protection orders had been vacated, the statutory criteria were not met.

The applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant grandparent sought to adopt their grandchild.

The respondent children's aid society refused to place the child with the applicant for the purpose of adoption.

The applicant filed an application for review with the Child and Family Services Review Board within the required 10-day statutory period.

The Board found the application eligible to proceed and issued directions for the first day of hearing.

The applicants, foster parents of a child who had been in their care continuously for over two years, filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove the child from their home.

The Board noted that it was unclear whether the child was in extended society care, a prerequisite for the review.

The Board scheduled a first day of hearing to determine the child's status and set procedural directions, noting that the child could not be removed pending the review unless likely to suffer harm.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding its investigation into historical sexual abuse allegations and its subsequent decision to send warning letters to community organizations where he volunteered.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society failed to provide satisfactory reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed written explanation of its decision-making process, including its assessment of credibility and risk, and offered the applicant an opportunity for a follow-up internal complaints review meeting.

The applicant filed an application to adopt her grandson, which was refused by the respondent children's aid society.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the refusal under section 192(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board found that the application was filed within the required 10-day statutory time limit and directed that the matter proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide updates after the applicant reported child protection concerns regarding a friend's child.

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

The Board held that merely reporting concerns about a child's welfare does not create a service relationship, and therefore the applicant had not sought or received services from the Society as required by the Act.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove a child who had lived continuously in the applicant's home for over two years.

The Board noted that it was unclear whether the child was in extended society care, a prerequisite for the review.

The Board issued directions scheduling a first day of hearing to determine the child's status, potential joinder with a sibling's application, and other preliminary matters.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a society's investigation into an interaction she witnessed between a supply teacher and a child.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because she had not sought or received services from the society.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2007 child support order, initially seeking joint custody with primary residence of one child with him and the other with the mother, later claiming primary custody of both children.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a change in custody arrangements.

The children remained in the care and control of the applicant mother with unrestricted access to the father.

The court also found the father had significantly underpaid child support obligations over five years and calculated arrears of $6,155.78.

Ongoing child support was adjusted based on the father's actual income.

The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs of $3,000.00.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking final disposition orders regarding two children.

The court considered whether there was a genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.

The evidentiary record showed longstanding domestic violence, repeated non‑compliance with court orders, and the parents’ inability to provide safe care despite extensive services and prior interventions.

The responding parent filed no evidentiary materials opposing the motion and relied only on speculation that a trial might produce additional evidence.

The court held that no genuine issue for trial existed and granted summary judgment, ordering custody of one child to the maternal grandparents under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act and Crown wardship without access for the other child.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order dismissing his motion to vary a prior family order after failing to comply with disclosure orders regarding financial information.

The lower court had struck the motion and dismissed it with costs due to repeated non‑compliance.

On appeal, the court held that the motion judge had discretion under Rule 14(23) to strike the claim relating to variation of support and found no palpable and overriding error in doing so.

However, relying on King v. Mongrain, the court held that greater caution is required when striking pleadings affecting a child’s interests.

Because the motion judge did not address the access variation request, the appeal was allowed in part and that issue was remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice.