Donna A. Wowk

The applicants, a mother and child, filed an application against the children's aid society alleging it failed to provide reasons for closing a 2022 child protection investigation without implementing safeguards, and failed to address the child's rights under the Charter and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Board found that the society had provided adequate reasons for its decisions during the investigation and upon file closure.

The Board also determined that the mother had not explicitly raised Charter or Convention rights, and that the society had provided reasons for its responses to third-party referrals.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, raising nine complaints regarding a child protection investigation conducted by the respondent agency.

The Board found that the agency failed to provide reasons for the investigation exceeding 45 days, failed to explain the verification decision, and failed to provide reasons for retracting its intention to commence a protection application.

The remaining complaints were dismissed, either because the agency had acted reasonably, the applicant had declined opportunities to meet, or the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board ordered the agency to provide written reasons and outcomes to the applicant for the substantiated complaints.

The applicant father filed an application alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement reached at a pre-hearing.

The agreement required the society to provide explanations, place documents in the applicant's file, and provide unredacted disclosure of his file.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society complied with all terms of the agreement except for the term requiring full disclosure of the applicant's file.

The Board ordered the society to provide the missing documents identified by the applicant.

The applicant mother, who did not have custody of her child, filed an application alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding reported injuries to the child while in the father's care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was not a 'parent' within the meaning of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and therefore lacked standing.

Regardless of standing, the Board found the respondent had provided the applicant with opportunities to express her concerns and had provided reasons for its decisions not to investigate or to close files.

The applicant mother filed an application alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns regarding the care of her children by their father, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding those complaints and regarding another child's participation in a criminal trial.

The tribunal dismissed the application, finding the respondent provided numerous opportunities to be heard and provided reasons where permitted.

The tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction regarding the older child in extended society care, as the applicant was not receiving services and the child had not consented to disclosure.

The applicant, a former foster parent, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests, specifically regarding access to the child.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the Superior Court of Justice and the Divisional Court.

The Board agreed, finding that all allegations raised by the applicant were or could have been addressed in the ongoing court proceedings to which she was a party.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints about a children's aid society, including deprivation of liberty, cancelled parenting time, and unsafe placements.

The Board found that all the issues raised by the applicant were already before the Superior Court of Justice in ongoing child protection and status review proceedings.

Applying the principle that the Board lacks jurisdiction over matters currently before the courts, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother caring for three children involved in child protection proceedings, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent society.

The applicant alleged the society improperly shared personal information, made demands without court orders, and brought other agencies into her home without notice.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the privacy complaint, as it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the remaining complaints regarding the society's conduct, as there was no evidence these issues were before the court in the ongoing status review proceedings.

The applicants, the father and step-mother of three children, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear their concerns regarding services and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests.

The concerns arose from two child protection investigations related to post-separation caregiver conflict and allegations of physical harm.

The Board found that the respondent provided the applicants with numerous opportunities to be heard and that no 'decision' was made by the respondent regarding parenting time that would trigger an obligation to provide reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's intervention with his family.

The respondent argued the application was ineligible for review because the matter was already before the Superior Court of Justice in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the issues raised by the applicant related to the subject matter of the ongoing child protection proceeding and could be addressed by the court.

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