Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of his case.

During the pre-hearing process, the respondent provided heavily redacted disclosure, arguing that Part X of the Act prohibited the disclosure of third-party personal information (specifically, information relating to the children's mother) without consent.

The CFSRB held that it has the jurisdiction to order the production of unredacted documents pursuant to section 292(1)(f)(ii) of the Act and its own procedural rules.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide minimally redacted disclosure to ensure a fair hearing, subject to exceptions for privileged information and safety concerns.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions, including the apprehension of her children and access issues.

The respondent argued the Child and Family Services Review Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board agreed, finding that all issues raised in the complaint were or would be addressed in the ongoing court proceedings, and dismissed the application pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

Despite multiple case management directions and extensions of time, the self-represented applicant failed to provide available dates for a videoconference hearing and instead sent emails complaining about the respondent and the Board.

The Board concluded that the applicant had effectively abandoned the application and dismissed it.

Three family members filed applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding their interactions with the Children's Aid Society and foreign child welfare authorities.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues had already been decided by or were before the court.

The Board found that the issues raised in the complaints had been addressed in multiple court hearings and orders.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the applications.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Respondent Children's Aid Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decision to close an investigation into allegations of abuse against the children's father.

The Board proceeded in writing and dismissed the complaint.

The Board found that the Applicant had several opportunities to discuss her concerns with the Respondent's staff and through the Internal Complaints Review Panel process.

Furthermore, the Respondent provided adequate verbal and written explanations for its decisions, including why the children were interviewed outside the Applicant's home and why the file was closed.

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 CFSRB issued an interim decision on whether it had jurisdiction to hear two specific issues related to the Applicant's access to her children, which was restricted by a criminal undertaking.

The CFSRB found it had partial jurisdiction over one issue concerning the Respondent's alleged disregard of the Applicant's concerns, as this was a service issue.

However, it found it had no jurisdiction over the issue of facilitating contact, as access was currently governed by the criminal undertaking and family court proceedings.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent's worker failed to provide an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) form upon request in December 2018.

Following a pre-hearing, all other issues were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, leaving this narrow issue for a written hearing.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found insufficient evidence that the applicant had requested the form, noting the applicant's own email indicated he was unaware of the form at the time.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant father filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act against the respondent children's aid society, alleging failures to hear his concerns, provide information, and disclose documents.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that complaints regarding access to personal information fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner pursuant to Part X of the Act.

Furthermore, the Board found that the applicant's concerns regarding the health and safety of the children, access, and supervised access were already before the family court, precluding the Board's jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Act.

The applicant filed a second application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising substantially the same issues as a previous application that had already been decided.

The Board found that the second application relied on the same documents, covered the same time period, and raised concerns that were already addressed in the prior decision.

The Board dismissed the application, concluding that allowing it to proceed would violate the principles of judicial economy and finality, and would constitute an abuse of process.

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

The terms involved a $2,500 payment, a letter of explanation regarding a delayed response, documentation of child tax credits, and a court order.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the written submissions and found that the respondent had adequately fulfilled all expectations of the agreement.

The Board dismissed the allegations of non-compliance and closed the file.

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

The agreement required the respondent to provide a specific letter acknowledging a conflict of interest and its impact on the applicant.

After an extension was granted, the respondent provided the required letter.

The Board found that the respondent was in compliance with the settlement agreement and closed the file.

The applicant, a foster parent and uncle to two children, filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the children's aid society's handling of the children's return to their parents.

The society argued the Child and Family Services Review Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the issues raised were already before the court and that the applicant, acting as a foster parent, was not in receipt of services from the society.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of child protection concerns involving his children and two children from his ex-wife's daycare.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the daycare children as the applicant was not their parent.

Furthermore, the Board found that the issues raised regarding the applicant's own children were already before the Family Court in ongoing child protection proceedings, barring the Board's review under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the York Region Children's Aid Society failed to hear his concerns and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests during a child protection investigation.

Following a full hearing, the Board found that the Society had met its obligations to hear the Applicant and provide reasons for most of its decisions, including the verification of child protection concerns and the transfer of the file to another jurisdiction.

However, the Board found that the Society failed to provide sufficient reasons regarding its finding that the caseworker's notes were objective, given an admitted error in the file.

The Board ordered the Society to review the case notes for bias and rectify any issues.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to give reasons for decisions and refused to proceed with a complaint.

The applicant acknowledged being involved in ongoing court proceedings regarding the custody of his children.

The Board found that the issues raised in the application were the same as those currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.

Pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board is barred from reviewing complaints that are the subject of court proceedings.

The application was dismissed as ineligible for review.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding its decision not to verify child protection concerns and return his child to the mother's care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, finding that the substantive issues raised in the complaint were currently before the court in an ongoing custody proceeding.

The appellant father appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice dismissing his motion to terminate child support and instead increasing support for an adult child enrolled in full-time education.

The trial judge applied s. 3(2)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines and ordered table child support based on the father’s income, finding insufficient evidence to conduct a s. 3(2)(b) analysis regarding the child’s needs and means.

The appellant argued errors relating to disclosure, the child’s refusal to communicate with him, failure to consider disability benefits, and failure to impute income to the mother.

The appellate court held that the trial judge properly exercised discretion, correctly placed the evidentiary burden on the party seeking termination, and made no palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a family law motion concerning exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, custody, access, and support, the court determined costs of the motion.

The responding party had made a settlement offer before the case conference that was more favourable on key issues than the final order.

Although the offer did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because it did not address support and the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the court considered the offer under Rule 18(16) when fixing costs.

The court also found aspects of the applicant’s conduct unreasonable under Rule 24.

Substantial indemnity costs of the motion were awarded to the successful party in the amount of $9,000 payable within 60 days.

Interim family law motions arising from a separation following a 13‑year marriage addressed parenting arrangements, support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and sale of the home.

The court declined to determine custody pending further information and the involvement of the Children’s Lawyer, but ordered an interim alternating weekly residence schedule for the child.

Interim child support and spousal support were ordered based on the parties’ incomes and the circumstances of the marriage.

Requests for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and for a non‑removal order preventing relocation of the child were denied, while the parties’ agreement to list and sell the matrimonial home was incorporated into the order.

The applicant father brought an ex parte motion to enforce a prior interim custody order granting him custody of three children after the respondent mother failed to return them following weekend access.

The court found that the existing custody order remained in effect and that the respondent had not complied with its terms.

The father sought a police enforcement order directing authorities to apprehend and return the children.

The court granted the motion and authorized any police force in Ontario to apprehend the children and return them to the father in accordance with the prior custody order.