Daniel McSweeney

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of his access to his child, allegations of parental alienation, and staff conduct.

The respondent argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court.

The adjudicator found that issues 1 through 9 of the complaint had been squarely before the family court in a child protection application and were therefore outside the CFSRB's jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Those issues were dismissed, and directions were given for written submissions on the remaining two issues concerning staff interactions.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the respondent's handling of his child protection file.

The respondent challenged the CFSRB's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were currently before the family court in a custody and access proceeding.

The adjudicator found that the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction over issues directly related to the court proceedings, such as access decisions and the mother's alleged alcohol use.

However, the CFSRB retained jurisdiction over issues concerning the respondent's decision-making process, including whether the applicant was heard and provided with adequate reasons.

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

The agreement required the Society to provide reasons and explanations regarding a positive verification decision and to address the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written review and found that the Society had fully met its obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The non-compliance allegations were dismissed and the file was closed.

The applicant filed two complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues raised in the complaints were already before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the materials and found that all the issues raised by the applicant, including concerns about access, disclosure, and staff conduct, had been presented to the court.

Consequently, the Board concluded it was precluded from reviewing the complaints under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the applications.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with several terms of a settlement agreement regarding her child protection case.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a non-compliance teleconference and found that the respondent had partially met its obligations.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide further written responses regarding sanitization procedures, interruptions during access visits, and a review of the applicant's file for disrespectful interactions.

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.

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 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 applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review a children's aid society's refusal of her application to adopt a child.

Prior to the hearing, the society rescinded its refusal and approved the adoption plan.

The applicant requested that the Board remain involved to case manage the adoption process to prevent further delays.

The Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to case manage the adoption once the refusal was rescinded, as its authority under section 192(11) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is limited to confirming or rescinding a society's refusal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging bias, discrimination, and failure to provide services by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board agreed, finding that the allegations of bias, health and safety concerns, and communication issues were intertwined with the court proceedings and best decided there.

The application was dismissed in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant father filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 against the respondent children's aid society, alleging bias, conflict of interest, and failure to hear his concerns regarding the placement of his child.

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

The Board found that all issues raised in the complaint, including the mother's mental health, the maternal grandmother's employment with the respondent, and alleged bias, had been or were currently before the court.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application in its entirety pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society alleging he was not heard regarding his concerns about his children's placement with a kin parent and was not provided reasons for the society's decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board proceeded in writing and found that the society had actively listened to the applicant's concerns, investigated allegations of abuse and substance use, and provided adequate written reasons explaining why the children were not taken into care.

The complaint was dismissed.

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 argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were part of ongoing child protection proceedings before the court.

The Board found that all issues raised in the complaint were either already decided by the court or currently before the court in an ongoing appeal.

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

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

The respondent argued the Child and Family Services Review Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were part of ongoing child protection proceedings before the court.

The Board found that most of the applicant's concerns were currently before the court and therefore outside its jurisdiction under section 120(8).

The Board addressed the remaining issues in writing and found the respondent had adequately responded to the applicant's concerns regarding the foster mother and the child's safety.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of child protection investigations and related decisions.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had filed a concurrent claim in Small Claims Court based on identical facts and issues.

The Board found that under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, it cannot review a complaint if the subject matter is before the courts.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, which included monetary damages and records retractions.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions in apprehending her child, denying a kinship placement, and managing access.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act because the issues had already been decided by the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the court documents and found that several of the applicant's concerns, including the apprehension and placement of the child, were indeed before the court and could not be reviewed.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over remaining service-related complaints, which were scheduled for a further pre-hearing.

The applicant father filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent children's aid societies failed to hear his concerns regarding the health and safety of his children and failed to provide reasons for their verification decision and file closure.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written hearing and found that the applicant was afforded multiple opportunities to express his concerns and was provided with sufficient reasons for the societies' decisions both orally and in writing.

The Board noted it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the verification finding or order the children placed with the applicant.

The application was dismissed.