Karynn von Cramon

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The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the society's decision, finding that the unexplained injury principle was distinguishable because the injury was less severe than in precedent cases, there was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 Applicant, a foster parent planning to adopt a three-year-old child, filed an application alleging the Respondent Children's Aid Society failed to provide adequate reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

Specifically, the Applicant alleged the Respondent failed to explain its change in position requiring openness with the child's grandmother, failed to provide supporting policies, and failed to explain why openness was promoted over permanency.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Respondent breached its obligation to provide meaningful and timely reasons for its decisions regarding openness and permanency planning.

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.

The applicant failed to comply with directions to provide documentary disclosure and witness statements.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment, which was denied.

The applicant subsequently failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing.

The Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to follow directions and attend the hearing.

The applicants, who were being assessed as potential kinship caregivers for five children, filed a complaint with the respondent children's aid society after their approval was revoked.

The respondent refused to establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel, arguing the applicants had not sought or received services from them.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the kinship assessment and related interactions constituted a service under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board ordered the respondent to establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel to address the applicants' complaint.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board after the respondent children's aid society refused to process their complaint through an Internal Complaints Review Panel.

The respondent argued the applicants were not eligible because they did not seek or receive a service.

The Board found that a kinship assessment constitutes a prescribed service under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board ordered the respondent to establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel and meet with the applicants.

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 regarding a child protection worker's conduct.

The Board reviewed the documentary evidence, which included extensive communication logs, emails, and meeting records between the Applicant and the society's management.

The Board found that the society had actively listened to the Applicant, escalated her concerns to the Director of Service, and taken steps to address them, such as offering a support person during visits.

The application was dismissed as the society met its obligation to hear the Applicant's concerns under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

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

The society argued that the board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The board reviewed eight specific allegations and found that five were separate and different from the court proceedings and could proceed to a pre-hearing.

The remaining three issues were found to be squarely before the court and outside the board's jurisdiction.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decision not to investigate allegations that her child was physically harmed at daycare.

The Board found that while the society initially listened to the applicant, it failed to follow up when she provided new information months later.

The Board also found that the society failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision not to investigate.

The society was ordered to provide written reasons for its decisions.

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.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and did not respond to subsequent directions from the Board.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests, specifically regarding an out-of-care assessment.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues had already been decided in a recent child protection court proceeding.

The adjudicator reviewed the issues and found that several were indeed before the court and could not be reviewed by the Board, while others were separate and different and could proceed to a hearing.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with two terms of a settlement agreement reached at a pre-hearing.

The terms required the respondent to provide information about drug testing methods and to discuss the child's return to counselling.

Following a non-compliance videoconference, the Board found that the respondent had provided sufficient information regarding the drug testing and had adequately supported the child's counselling.

The Board concluded the respondent complied with the settlement agreement and closed the application.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decision not to investigate a report that his child was assaulted at school.

The Board found that while the respondent had heard the applicant's concerns, it failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision not to open an investigation.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a detailed letter explaining its application of the Eligibility Spectrum, the information it considered, and how confidentiality provisions under Part X of the CYFSA constrained its ability to provide information.

The self-represented applicant father filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions.

Following a hearing on the merits, the Child and Family Services Review Board upheld three of the five issues.

The Board found the society failed to provide meaningful reasons regarding its investigation into the maternal grandfather, failed to adequately respond to the applicant's requests to speak with a supervisor, and failed to address concerns raised with the service manager.

The society was ordered to provide written explanations and follow-up regarding these issues.

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 closing an investigation in July 2023 and failed to hear him or provide reasons for not investigating his subsequent complaints in 2024 and 2025 regarding his children's living conditions and relocation.

The Board found that the issues were separate from ongoing family court proceedings and that it had jurisdiction.

The Board upheld the complaints, finding that the respondent failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions, and ordered the respondent to provide written explanations regarding the file closure and the application of the Eligibility Spectrum.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising six issues regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her case.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as the issues were previously adjudicated in a prior application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the submissions and found that one issue was identical to those previously decided and dismissed it.

However, the Board determined that the remaining five issues, including allegations of failing to provide reasons for decisions regarding access and file closure, were new and directed them to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding the removal of her children and subsequent care decisions.

She alleged she was not properly explained consent forms, was not given reasons for why her breastmilk was withheld from her children in foster care, and was not heard regarding safety concerns during access visits.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints regarding breastmilk and access visits, finding the society had provided reasons and addressed her concerns.

However, the Board upheld the complaint regarding the consent forms, finding the applicant did not fully understand the explanation provided while she was medicated in the hospital, and ordered the society to provide a clear written explanation.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society of Toronto failed to provide reasons for closing various files and failed to provide an opportunity to be heard regarding several complaints made between 2002 and 2019.

The Board reviewed eight specific issues and found that the Society had either provided sufficient reasons and opportunities to be heard, or was not obligated to do so under the circumstances.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to address his concerns regarding parental alienation and did not provide acceptable reasons for its inaction.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues of parenting time and parental alienation were currently before the family court.

The Board found that while the family court would determine the substantive issues of parenting time and alienation, the applicant's specific complaints about the respondent's service delivery and failure to provide reasons were separate and distinct.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction and ordered the application to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the issues were live before the Ontario Court of Justice in a child protection proceeding and thus ineligible for review.

The Board found that while complaints regarding the child's removal, access, and terms of supervision were barred as they were before the court, complaints alleging the respondent refused to listen, take concerns seriously, or maintain contact were separate and different.

The application was permitted to proceed to a pre-hearing on the latter issues.

The respondent Society's Executive Director requested relief from the CFSRB's confidentiality rules to use documents from a dismissed CFSRB application in a related Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) proceeding initiated by the applicant.

The applicant opposed the request.

The CFSRB granted the request, varying the confidentiality order to allow both parties to use specific redacted documents in the HRTO proceeding, reasoning that the HRTO requires these documents to determine if the issues have already been resolved.