Tamara Jordan

The Applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order from two previous decisions so she could share those decisions with the Ontario Ombudsman.

The Board denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from its usual practice of maintaining confidentiality.

The Board noted that the Ombudsman had not requested the information and could obtain necessary records directly from the parties if an investigation were undertaken.

The applicant, an aunt of a child in the temporary care of the respondent children's aid society, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising concerns about the child's care and seeking information.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant was not seeking or receiving a service from the society, and that complaints regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The applicant, an aunt of a child receiving services from the respondent children's aid society, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not a service recipient.

The adjudicator found that while the applicant supported her sister and the child, she did not seek or receive a 'service' from the society as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Act.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The applicant alleged that former workers of the respondent interfered with him, committed fraud, and disclosed private information between 2006 and 2025.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction as its involvement with the applicant ended in 2000.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction because the complaints did not relate to services sought or received from the respondent, and complaints regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

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

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the Ontario Court of Justice in active child protection proceedings.

The Board found that the applicant's complaint regarding the respondent's failure to convene an Internal Complaints Review Panel was not a substantive issue before the court and could proceed.

However, the Board dismissed the applicant's complaints regarding disclosure of records, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and complaints regarding worker interactions during access visits, which were already being addressed by the court.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother and former kin caregiver, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints against the children's aid society.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the Superior Court of Justice in child protection proceedings.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the applicant's complaint regarding the internal complaints review panel because it was not filed in the required format.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction over the access complaint as it was an issue before the court.

However, three of the applicant's complaints regarding the society's failure to hear her concerns and provide reasons were found to be separate from the court proceedings and were allowed to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent child protection agency collected his personal health information without consent or a court order.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

Under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, complaints regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by service providers fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a child in extended society care from her home.

The society provided notice of removal on March 26, 2025, and the applicant had 10 days to file for review.

Because the 10-day deadline fell on a Saturday, the deadline was extended to the next business day.

The Board found the application, filed on Monday, April 7, 2025, was timely and eligible for review, and ordered the society not to remove the child pending the review.

The applicant father filed a second application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding child protection services provided by the respondent society.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that most of the complaints were barred by issue estoppel as they had been adjudicated in a previous application.

The new complaints regarding parenting time and placement terms were outside the Board's jurisdiction because they were substantive issues currently before the court.

Additionally, complaints regarding the disclosure of records fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The applicant, identifying as a sibling of two children, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The application contained complaints written from the perspective of the children's mother regarding sibling access.

The Board dismissed the application at the threshold stage, finding that the applicant had not sought or received a service from the respondent society as defined in the Act, rendering the complaint ineligible for review.

The applicant, identifying as a sibling of two children, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The application contained complaints written from the perspective of the children's mother regarding sibling access.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant did not demonstrate that they had sought or received a service from the respondent society as defined in the Act.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) complaining about the services provided by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent submitted that the complaints were already the subject of ongoing child protection proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice.

The CFSRB found that the applicant's complaints, which included allegations of conspiracy and fraud, were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

Consequently, the CFSRB concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the application and dismissed it.

The applicant father 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 act on his concerns and did not follow its complaint review process.

The Board found the application ineligible for review because the applicant failed to file his complaint with the society using the mandatory 'Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP)' form required by Ontario Regulation 156/18.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant father filed a second application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding his concerns about the safety of his children in their mother's care and the respondent society's handling of the case.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that most of the complaints were barred by issue estoppel as they had been adjudicated in a previous application.

The remaining complaints related to a recent court order and were outside the Board's jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as they were substantive issues before the court.

The applicant, identifying as a step-parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to hear his concerns and follow its complaint review process.

The Board found the application ineligible for review because the applicant did not have legal custody of the child and therefore was not a 'parent' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate that he had submitted a formal complaint to the society using the required form before applying to the Board.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent's decision to terminate the adoptive placement of two children and remove them from the applicants' home.

The Board found the application was filed within the required 10-day period and was therefore eligible for review.

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

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's decisions about the placement of and access to his child.

The respondent argued the application was ineligible for review because the same issues were currently before the Ontario Court of Justice in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

As the issues were already before the court, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought to have her hearing proceed by videoconference, arguing it would be more accessible and allow for better emotional expression.

The respondent children's aid society requested a written hearing, noting the applicant's demonstrated ability to communicate in writing and the risk of an oral hearing expanding beyond the tribunal's jurisdiction.

The adjudicator ordered a written hearing, finding the applicant could adequately present her case in writing and that a written format would be more efficient given the narrow jurisdictional focus of the proceeding.

The applicant filed an application under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which was resolved by a settlement agreement.

The applicant subsequently alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with two terms of the agreement requiring a summary of resources provided to the mother and an assessment of the applicant's concerns.

Following a non-compliance videoconference, the Board found that the respondent had complied with the terms by providing a letter summarizing the resources and explaining why the applicant's concerns did not warrant further child protection intervention.

The application was closed as settled.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent adoption agency's decision to remove two children placed with the applicant for international adoption.

The Board found the application eligible for review as it was filed within the 10-day statutory timeframe under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board issued directions for a preliminary hearing and noted the statutory prohibition against removing the children pending the review.