Karynn von Cramon

The applicant, a homestay caregiver, filed an application alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decision to verify allegations of inadequate supervision and neglect regarding students in her care.

The respondent had made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant during the investigation.

After the investigation concluded, the respondent explained the process, findings, and reasons for the verification decision to the applicant through multiple phone calls with an interpreter.

The tribunal found that the respondent provided meaningful reasons for its decision and dismissed the application.

The applicant mother 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 safety plans.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the family court in a parenting time dispute.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints about the Society's failure to communicate, provide reasons, and address safety concerns were separate and different from the substantive issues before the family court.

The Board ruled it had jurisdiction to hear the 11 specific complaints and ordered the application to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the 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 regarding its investigation into alleged physical abuse of his child by school staff.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints relating to the right to be heard, finding the society's worker communicated with the applicant and considered his input.

However, the Board upheld the complaint regarding the right to reasons, finding the society failed to provide a meaningful explanation of its investigation process and how it concluded the abuse was not verified.

The society was ordered to provide a detailed explanatory letter.

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

After failing to attend two scheduled pre-hearing videoconferences and subsequently emailing the Board to state she was cancelling the application, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's failure to provide information and reasons for decisions concerning her medically fragile child.

The respondent argued the board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in a protection application.

The board found it had jurisdiction to hear complaints relating to communication and information, as these were separate from the substantive protection issues before the court.

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 not approving her plan for a foster child.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not in receipt of services and the matter was before the court.

The Board found that conducting a caregiver evaluation constituted a service, and that the complaint regarding the failure to provide reasons was separate from the substantive child protection proceedings before the court.

The application was permitted to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicants, foster parents of a child, sought to review the respondent society's decision to refuse their adoption application.

The society argued the applicants missed the 10-day deadline to apply for a review after receiving a letter on November 17, 2023.

The Board found the letter did not satisfy the mandatory notice requirements under section 192(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as it lacked specific statutory references and clear wording regarding appeal rights.

Consequently, the 10-day deadline was not triggered, and the application was permitted to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant, whose three children were previously made Crown wards and adopted, filed an application under section 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for decisions, denied her a chance to be heard, and discriminated against her.

The Child and Family Services Review Board summarily dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was no longer a 'parent' under the Act, had been provided sufficient reasons during the prior protection proceedings, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear discrimination claims.