Michelaine Lahaie

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove a child from their care.

The society had provided verbal notification and an undated letter, but failed to provide the mandatory 10 days' written notice with the required statutory references.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application eligible for review and ordered the society not to carry out the removal until the review was completed.

The applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding various complaints against the respondent society, including issues with access visits and communication.

The applicants failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and did not contact the Board by the specified deadline to indicate their intention to proceed.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child who had been placed with them for over four years.

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

The CFSRB scheduled a first day of hearing and noted that the child could not be removed from the applicant pending the review.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the apprehension and placement of her five children.

The respondent children's aid society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the issues were already before the court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board applied the two-part test from Waterloo v. D.D. and found that the applicant's complaints were not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the court.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking an order to compel the respondent society to issue a clarification letter regarding a previous investigation.

The respondent argued the requested remedies were beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that requests to correct or clarify records fall under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which is within the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and that the remedies sought were not available under section 120(7).

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking an investigation into an anonymous referral made to the respondent society and an unredacted copy of the report.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that requests for access to personal information fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario pursuant to Part X of the Act.

Furthermore, the Board noted that it does not have the statutory authority to conduct investigations or order the disclosure of unredacted reports.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent society's counsel knowingly provided false information in a previous proceeding.

The Board found that the complaint did not relate to a "service" sought or received from the society as defined under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Consequently, the application failed the threshold test for eligibility and was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that a case worker at the respondent society failed to report that his children had no food.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not a service recipient and the case worker in question was the applicant's former spouse.

The Board found that the applicant did not seek or receive a service from the respondent, as confirmed by the lack of records and the applicant's admission that his concern was about his former spouse's statutory duties.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a motion seeking an order directing the respondent to produce specific unredacted records, including intake reports and case notes, prior to a pre-hearing.

The applicant argued the records were necessary to proceed without delay.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the motion, noting that the right of access to personal information under Part X of the Act is distinct from the tribunal's disclosure process for hearings, and that the tribunal's jurisdiction under section 120 is procedural rather than substantive.

The respondent school board brought a motion requesting particulars regarding the appellant's amended appeal of a student expulsion.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and overly detailed.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the motion for particulars, finding that the amended appeal provided sufficient narrative for the respondent to know the case it must meet.

The Board noted that the appellant was still in the process of obtaining youth records, and any further particulars could be provided during the normal disclosure process.

The applicant mother filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The applicant sought to have her 16-year-old son testify as a witness.

The Board denied the request, finding that the section 120 complaint is procedural and focuses solely on the communications between the applicant and the respondent.

The child's evidence was not relevant to the applicant's right to be heard, and the child could bring his own complaint if he chose.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent argued that the issues raised in the application were already before the courts in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints regarding the society's investigations, the children's cell phone, and counselling had already been addressed by the court.

The Board also determined it lacked jurisdiction over complaints regarding the disclosure and accuracy of Child Protection Information Network (CPIN) notes, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society.

During the proceedings, the applicant requested that the matter be placed in abeyance pending a related application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and sought permission to use confidential documents from the proceeding in the HRTO matter.

The respondent opposed the requests and sought relief for the applicant's unauthorized filing of confidential documents with the HRTO.

The tribunal found that the applicant breached confidentiality rules, denied permission to use the documents in the HRTO proceedings, and refused to place the application in abeyance, ordering the matter to proceed to a pre-hearing.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove children from her care.

The respondent provided evidence that the children were under customary care agreements and had never been the subject of an extended society care order.

The applicant conceded the lack of jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that a precondition for a review under section 109(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is that the children must have been in extended society care.

The applicant, the sister of four children involved with the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking a review of the Society's actions and protective measures for her siblings.

The Society argued the applicant lacked standing.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was neither a parent nor a service recipient during the relevant period, as required by section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Furthermore, the remedies sought by the applicant were outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging misconduct by an employee of the respondent society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board sought submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Finding that the applicant and her child had never been in receipt of services from the respondent, the Board concluded the application was not eligible for review and dismissed it.

The applicant mother filed complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the conduct of the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The respondent argued the complaints were a collateral attack on ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board found that the issues raised by the applicant, including worker conduct, access, and provision of services, were already decided by or currently before the courts.

Pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the applications and dismissed them.

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order to allow her to use a previous CFSRB decision in ongoing family court proceedings.

The CFSRB denied the request, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to depart from the usual practice of maintaining confidentiality.

The CFSRB noted that its proceedings are distinct from family court matters and suggested the applicant could seek an order directly from the family court to permit the use of the decision.

The applicant father filed a third application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising complaints about a children's aid society regarding disclosure of information, enforcement of court orders, and employee conduct.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process that repackaged issues from two previous applications which had already been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board reiterated that it lacks jurisdiction to review issues that are before the courts or relate to the disclosure of records governed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.