Caroline Sand

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's investigation and closing letter.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process because the issues were already addressed in a previous application involving a different society.

The Board dismissed the allegations regarding the children being left unattended and an audio recording as already addressed or unclear.

However, the Board allowed the allegations concerning the respondent's closing letter to proceed, finding that a decision not to provide service is a reviewable decision under the Act.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society failed to provide him an opportunity to be heard during a 2022 investigation and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard through the Internal Complaint Review Panel process.

However, the Board found the respondent failed to provide reasons for concluding its investigation without making greater efforts to contact the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to provide written reasons within 30 days.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decisions during a child protection investigation.

The investigation concerned allegations that the father drove with the children while under the influence of alcohol.

The Board found that while the society initially offered an opportunity to be heard which the mother declined, it subsequently failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard or reasons for its decisions regarding the January interviews and the closure of the file.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons explaining why it arranged to interview the children in the same house as the father and paternal grandparents.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board and a parallel application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The respondent requested that the CFSRB waive its confidentiality rules to allow it to share the CFSRB application with the HRTO in support of a request to defer the HRTO proceeding.

The CFSRB granted the request, finding that the HRTO could not make an informed decision on deferral without reviewing the relevant CFSRB documentation.

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 moved to dismiss the application, arguing the complaints were already before the court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board found that most of the applicant's complaints, which related to access terms and conditions, were substantively related to the issues before the court and therefore outside the Board's jurisdiction under s. 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear one distinct service complaint regarding whether the applicant's concerns about a specific child protection worker were heard.

The applicant, a former foster parent, cared for a child informally at the request of the child's mother.

The applicant subsequently sought financial compensation from the respondent society and filed a complaint when it was denied.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not seek or receive a service from the respondent as defined under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the child was not placed by the respondent and the arrangement was informal.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society improperly refused to proceed with his internal complaint regarding the sharing of his personal medical information.

The respondent had deemed the complaint ineligible because the Information and Privacy Commissioner was already investigating the matter.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent correctly applied section 119(11)(b) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which prohibits a society from reviewing a complaint that is subject to another decision-making process under the Act.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns about worker bias and failed to comply with the Internal Complaint Review Procedure.

The Board found that the respondent did not adequately hear the applicant's concerns regarding bias, as there was no evidence of active listening or meaningful discussion.

The Board also found that the respondent failed to provide written notice of complaint eligibility within seven days, breaching procedural requirements.

The respondent was ordered to provide written reasons demonstrating how it considered the applicant's concerns about bias.

The applicant, a grandparent of a child involved with the respondent children's aid society, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The applicant had previously gone through the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel process regarding her role as a kin caregiver.

The Board found that the society had provided sufficient reasons through the internal review process, which acknowledged communication missteps and explained the limitations of the applicant's role as a voluntary kin caregiver.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a second application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising concerns about the respondent society's actions, including denial of access to her child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the complaints related to the same issues currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

Under section 120(8)(a) of the Act, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review matters that are the subject of a court proceeding.

The Appellant filed an appeal of a school expulsion under the Education Act.

After failing to attend three scheduled pre-hearings and indicating an intention to delay the process until related criminal proceedings concluded, the Child and Family Services Review Board found the Appellant had abandoned the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing and did not respond to a subsequent Pre-Hearing Report directing her to indicate whether she wished to pursue the application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board concluded that the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant youth filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking disclosure of his file from the respondent children's aid society.

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not submit the required formal complaint form to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel.

Furthermore, the Board noted it lacks jurisdiction over the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking assistance in locating her 30-year-old adult son, who had been taken into care over 10 years ago.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction because the complaint did not relate to a service currently sought or received, and the subject matter had already been decided by the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent society refused to proceed with an Internal Complaints Review Panel request regarding the disclosure of a file.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application as ineligible for review, noting it lacks jurisdiction over issues related to the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information, which falls under the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The Board also warned the applicant about persistently instituting vexatious proceedings.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's alleged advice to his ex-partner to seek a no-contact order and failure to respond to his inquiries about safety.

The Board held a videoconference to determine if the application was eligible for review.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints did not relate to a 'service' sought or received from the society as defined in the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

As the threshold test for eligibility was not met, the application was dismissed.

The Board also noted the applicant's history of filing ineligible applications and warned that he may be declared a vexatious litigant if the pattern continues.

The applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review a children's aid society's decision to remove a child from their adoption placement.

The Board found the application eligible for review as it was filed within the required 10-day period after receiving written notice.

The Board scheduled a first hearing date and noted that the society is precluded from removing the child until the review is completed.

The applicant, an uncle concerned for the safety of his nephews and niece, filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to act on his concerns.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that under the governing legislation, the right to be heard is limited to children, young persons, and their parents.

Furthermore, the applicant's complaints to the society were not submitted in the required formal format prescribed by regulation.

The applicant, a member of the public, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society breached her confidentiality by disclosing her identity to the parents of a child she had reported.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that making a referral does not constitute a service sought or received under section 120(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and noted that such privacy complaints fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Following a pre-hearing/mediation, the Board directed the applicant to advise whether she wished to continue the proceeding.

The applicant failed to respond by the specified deadline.

The Board concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.