Donna A. Wowk

The appellants appealed the respondent school board's decision to expel a pupil under section 311.7 of the Education Act.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the respondent withdrew the expulsion, allowing the pupil to return to school immediately.

The appellants sought to proceed with a review of the preceding 20-day suspension, but the Child and Family Services Review Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to review school suspensions.

The Board ordered the expulsion quashed and the pupil reinstated.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for several decisions, including closing an investigation file, refusing to refer the children to the Office of the Children's Lawyer, not requiring supervised parenting time, and refusing to provide records.

The Board found that the respondent had provided reasons for the decisions it actually made, and that no decisions were made regarding the referral or records refusal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to proceed with an Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) after receiving his complaint.

The Board found that the respondent had received the applicant's ICRP form but failed to review it and determine its eligibility within the required seven-day timeframe under Ontario Regulation 156/18.

The Board ordered the respondent to determine the complaint's eligibility for review and follow the ICRP process within seven days.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his concerns or provide reasons regarding its failure to properly verify his identity when he was a child in care.

He also alleged a worker inappropriately accused him of changing his name.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had engaged in numerous communications with the applicant, provided him with his records, and explained the steps taken to verify his identity.

The Board also found no evidence that the worker had accused the applicant of changing his name.

The applicant requested an in-person hearing for her application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, while the respondent requested a written hearing.

The applicant sought an in-person hearing to confront child protection workers, which the Board found did not constitute an accommodation for a Human Rights Code-related need.

The Board ordered the hearing to proceed in writing, finding it would be more efficient, focused, and fair, given the historical nature of the allegations and the applicant's demonstrated ability to communicate effectively in writing.

The applicant, a parent involved with the respondent children's aid society, filed an application alleging the society failed to provide her an opportunity to be heard under s. 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The applicant raised five issues, including allegations of bias, failure to accommodate disabilities, and failure to hear requests for a new worker, service guidance, and flexible access scheduling.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed four of the allegations, finding the society had reasonably heard and responded to the applicant's concerns.

However, the Board upheld the allegation regarding the request for a new worker, ordering the society to meet with the applicant, hear her reasons, and provide a written decision.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to comply with an order requiring the production of specific documents.

The respondent subsequently failed to comply with three case management directions dictating the format for its response to the non-compliance allegations, instead providing electronic links to hundreds of pages of unindexed records.

The Board found the respondent non-compliant with both the case management directions and the document production order.

Given the history of the proceedings, the Board concluded the matter without making further orders for compliance.

The applicant filed six applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board within a short period.

The Board issued a Case Management Direction to determine whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant under Rule A8 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure.

After reviewing the applicant's litigation history and applying the relevant factors, the Board found that the high threshold for a vexatious litigant declaration was not met.

The Board noted that while one application raised jurisdictional concerns, there was no pattern of unmeritorious applications or conduct intended to delay proceedings.

The request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant was dismissed.

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 challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the allegations and found that while some issues related to parenting time and bias in the court proceeding were barred by section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, other issues concerning the manner of service provision were separate and could proceed to a review.

The applicant father filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his concerns regarding the child's safety in the mother's care following an impaired driving incident.

The applicant also alleged the respondent failed to provide reasons for its actions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had provided the applicant with multiple opportunities to be heard, conducted an appropriate investigation, and provided reasons for its decisions.

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

At the hearing, the applicant declined to file documents or give evidence, and ultimately stated he did not wish to proceed.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof and provided no evidence to support his allegations, the application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a previous Board order requiring the disclosure of specified documents.

Following a non-compliance hearing, the Board found the respondent non-compliant with several paragraphs of the order.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the outstanding documents, including unredacted pages and investigation records, within 14 days.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and failed to provide reasons for 18 decisions regarding her child's care, access, and investigations into the child's father.

After a hearing, the Board found that the respondent had heard the applicant and provided reasons for the majority of the decisions in question.

For two issues, the Board found that reasons were not provided until after the commencement of the proceeding.

The application was otherwise dismissed.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for various decisions regarding her medically fragile child's residential placement, care, and the society's refusal to engage in alternative dispute resolution.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society had adequately communicated reasons for the child's care, placement conditions, and medical issues, and had eventually provided reasons regarding mediation and Signs of Safety.

However, the Board found the society failed to provide reasons for denying a Family Group Decision Making conference and ordered it to do so within 21 days.

The application was otherwise dismissed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding two child protection investigations conducted by the respondent society.

She alleged the society failed to proceed with her internal complaint, denied her an opportunity to be heard regarding safety concerns about the child's father, and failed to provide reasons for not verifying her concerns.

The Board found the society breached the regulation by failing to provide a timely eligibility determination and reasons for not proceeding with the internal complaint.

However, the Board found the applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard and was ultimately provided with reasons for the verification decisions.

The application was otherwise dismissed.

The Applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the Respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding child protection investigations involving her children and their father.

The Board reviewed 17 specific issues raised by the Applicant.

The Board found that the Respondent had either provided adequate reasons for its decisions, had heard the Applicant's concerns, or that the issues were withdrawn or outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant mother filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 against the Children's Aid Society, alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding child protection investigations and access.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the Society's workers had heard the Applicant's concerns, provided adequate reasons for their actions, and that the Applicant failed to establish her allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding a child protection investigation.

The Board found that while the society provided reasons for not opening an ongoing file regarding post-separation conflict, it failed to provide reasons for not verifying concerns about the mother's mental health or for amending a letter sent to the mother.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant, subject to any legal constraints on disclosure under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

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

The adjudicator found that the respondent had complied with the first term regarding the provision of information.

Regarding the second term, the parties agreed that the respondent would conduct a resource check and provide a new letter confirming the number of youth placed in the applicant's emergency foster home, without a confidentiality constraint.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions, including the apprehension of her newborn child and issues related to access and care.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because a child protection proceeding was already before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Board found that the issues raised in the complaint were the same as those before the court and could be addressed in the ongoing child protection proceeding.

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