Other Tribunals

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 applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after the respondent children's aid society refused to sign her Special Priority Program housing application and subsequently refused to process her internal complaint.

The Board found that the applicant was seeking a service under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and that the respondent had refused to proceed with the complaint.

However, the Board dismissed the application because the respondent had provided adequate written reasons explaining that it could not sign the housing application as the required information fell outside the scope of its child protection investigation.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a two-year-old child who had been in their foster care.

The society had removed the child and refused the adoption after the child suffered an unexplained elbow fracture while in the applicants' care, relying on the 'unexplained injury principle'.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the society's decision, finding that the unexplained injury principle was distinguishable because the injury was less severe than in precedent cases, there was evidence of potential third-party intervention by the child's siblings, and the society had no other concerns with the applicants' care.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to proceed with the adoption application given the strong sibling bonds and the applicants' ability to meet the child's needs.

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 under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent children's aid society's decisions regarding her parental decision-making and medical supports for her children.

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

The Board found that the applicant's complaints regarding medical and therapeutic decisions were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Act.

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

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had raised the same issues in ongoing Family Court and Criminal Court proceedings, including a motion for a restraining order and a private prosecution.

The Board found that the applicant failed to show her complaints were separate and different from the matters before the courts.

Pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, which was resolved by a settlement agreement.

The applicant subsequently alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a term requiring a notation of her disagreement to be entered into the CPIN system.

The Board accepted the respondent's confirmation that the note had been added to the file.

Finding that the respondent had complied with the agreement, the Board closed the application as settled.

The applicant grandmother applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the care of her three grandchildren and sought retroactive compensation.

The respondent Children's Aid Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues had already been decided by the court or fell under a Customary Care Agreement with the Walpole Island First Nation.

The Board found that the complaints related to matters already adjudicated in child protection proceedings or governed by the Customary Care Agreement's dispute resolution process.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, challenging the respondent society's decision to close his file and the findings made during its investigation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the respondent provided the applicant with a meaningful opportunity to be heard, it failed to provide adequate written reasons for its verification decisions and for closing the file.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide detailed written reasons within 30 days.

The Board declined to review the evidence relied upon by the respondent, as it fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order to allow her to share two previous CFSRB decisions with the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario for the purpose of an active review.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The adjudicator granted the request, finding that the Ombudsman required the decisions to determine if the issues had already been resolved, and ordered that the decisions be shared solely for the Ombudsman's investigation with no further dissemination permitted.

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 applicant father filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about his interactions with the respondent children's aid society and alleging the society refused to proceed with his complaint.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction because the applicant did not file his complaint to the society using the mandatory 'Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel' form required by the regulations.

The applicants, parents of two children, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear their concerns and provide meaningful reasons for its decisions.

The society had become involved following reports from medical professionals concerning caregiver-fabricated illness.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the society had held lengthy meetings with the applicants, heard their explanations, and provided clear, detailed reasons for its child protection concerns and its expectations for closing the file.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The application sought to facilitate a 20-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to one individual and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 18.6.

The Tribunal scheduled a subsequent Case Management Conference for February 27, 2025, and ordered the parties to submit a final draft Procedural Order, Issues List, and a draft Order relating to the OPA by December 16, 2024.

The applicants appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-storey residential apartment building.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to a ratepayers association and participant status to a local resident.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a condominium development of single detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the number of dwellings from 26 to 25 and modifying site regulations to address municipal and neighbour concerns.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial and local planning policies and allowed the appeal, amending the zoning by-law accordingly.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent following a case management conference regarding appeals by Lakeshore Developments (Thunder Bay) Inc. against the Municipality of Shuniah's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The procedural order sets out the issues list, order of proceedings, and deadlines for the 14-day video hearing scheduled to commence on April 22, 2025.

The applicants and the respondent advised the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal that the matters had been settled and requested an adjournment sine die.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent, adjourning the matters sine die and noting they would be terminated in one year unless brought on for hearing.

The parties sought preliminary rulings on whether the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal had jurisdiction to inquire into the gender dominance of the Material Handler job class and to hear evidence regarding the CAW-Canada Gender Neutral Comparison System.

The Tribunal held that the gender dominance of the Material Handler job class was not properly before it, as the employer was bound by its prior agreement on the issue during negotiations.

The Tribunal declined to rule prematurely on the admissibility of evidence regarding the comparison system.