OCFSRB 2019

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide updates after the applicant reported child protection concerns regarding a friend's child.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review.

The Board held that merely reporting concerns about a child's welfare does not create a service relationship, and therefore the applicant had not sought or received services from the Society as required by the Act.

The applicant filed an application to adopt her grandson, which was refused by the respondent children's aid society.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the refusal under section 192(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board found that the application was filed within the required 10-day statutory time limit and directed that the matter proceed to a hearing.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove a child who had lived continuously in the applicant's home for over two years.

The Board noted that it was unclear whether the child was in extended society care, a prerequisite for the review.

The Board issued directions scheduling a first day of hearing to determine the child's status, potential joinder with a sibling's application, and other preliminary matters.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove two children from their care after more than two years of continuous placement.

The Board issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to determine preliminary issues, including whether the children were in extended society care at the time of the proposed removal, which is a prerequisite for the Board's jurisdiction.

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

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction because the applicant had not sought or received services from the society, had not filed a written complaint with the society, and the issues raised had already been decided by a court.

The applicants, who were foster parents, sought a review of the children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child who had lived with them for 22 months.

The society had removed the child and refused the adoption due to a verified child protection concern regarding unexplained bruising on another foster child in the applicants' care.

The Board found the society's investigation was significantly flawed and concluded the bruising was likely the result of accidental infliction of harm during a game.

Determining that the applicants posed no risk of harm and that the child was strongly attached to them, the Board rescinded the society's decision and ordered the child placed with the applicants for adoption.

The self-represented applicant sought to record the hearing of his application before the Child and Family Services Review Board and alleged that one of the panel members had a conflict of interest.

The Board dismissed the conflict of interest allegation, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board also denied the applicant's request to record the hearing, noting that the Board's proceedings are confidential and the applicant had no absolute right to record them.

Due to the applicant's disrespectful conduct, the Board directed the parties to make submissions on whether the application should be dismissed for abuse of process.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent Society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement.

The agreement required the Society to provide a letter explaining its investigation into the applicant's concerns about inadequate supervision and medical neglect of his children by their mother.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the Society's Explanation Letter and found that it adequately addressed all questions required by the settlement agreement.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of her concerns about her cousin's safety and an alleged breach of confidentiality.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was ineligible to bring a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because she had not sought or received services from the society.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review what they believed was a refusal by the respondent children's aid society to allow them to adopt a child.

The respondent had not provided written notice of a refusal and maintained it had not made a decision to refuse the application.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because the respondent had not yet issued a written notice of refusal as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed multiple applications against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

After failing to participate in case management and mediation, the applicant sought to withdraw her current applications just after the deadline for submissions on whether she should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Child and Family Services Review Board granted the withdrawal but proceeded to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant due to her history of filing repetitive, unfounded applications for improper purposes and her failure to comply with tribunal processes.

The applicant is required to obtain permission before filing future applications.

The applicant alleged that the respondent society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for its adoption placement decisions regarding three siblings.

The society provided its written response one week after the agreed-upon compliance date.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the society breached the agreement regarding the timing of the response, the applicant suffered no prejudice.

The Board further found that the content of the society's written response, supplemented by oral explanations during the teleconference, fulfilled its obligations under the settlement agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for various decisions regarding her grandchildren.

A non-compliance teleconference was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The adjudicator proceeded in her absence and reviewed the written materials.

The adjudicator found that the Society had provided adequate reasons and explanations for each of the seven terms in the agreement, as required by section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicants, foster parents of a child who had lived with them for just over one year, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the society's decision to remove the child from their home.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the governing legislation requires a child to have lived continuously with the foster parents for at least two years before such a review can be requested.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

After multiple scheduled pre-hearings were cancelled or unattended by the applicant, the Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to participate and the significant delay exceeding procedural timelines.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's investigation into allegations of child abuse.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had already been decided by the Ontario Court of Justice in a child protection proceeding and subsequent costs application.

The Board found that most of the applicant's complaints, including allegations of a biased investigation, had been addressed by the court.

However, the Board determined it had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaint regarding kinship care, as that issue was not before the court.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for not disclosing information about her former partner's children.

The Society explained that it was prohibited from sharing the information under the Children's Law Reform Act because the applicant was not a parent.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society met its obligation to provide reasons under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and dismissed the allegation of non-compliance.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging a failure to provide an opportunity to be heard and a failure to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests, contrary to section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The complaint centered on the society's attendance at a school threat assessment meeting, receipt of information from the school, and a requirement that the applicant present a letter outlining mental health concerns to a hospital doctor.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the society's receipt of information did not constitute a decision affecting the applicant's interests, and that the applicant was provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard and given reasons regarding the hospital requirement.

The applicants, foster parents to three young children, applied to adopt them.

The adoption process was halted and the respondent Society decided to remove the children and refuse the adoption application after the foster father disclosed a historical incident of sexual abuse from when he was 20 years old.

The foster father moved out of the home, underwent a sexual offender risk assessment which found him to be at low risk, and engaged in counselling.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decisions, finding that the risk of harm from breaking the children's strong attachments to the applicants outweighed the low risk of future abuse, and ordered that the adoption homestudy proceed.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the proposed removal of a First Nations child from her home under section 109(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent agency raised a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction, arguing the child was in customary care, not extended society care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that because the child was placed pursuant to a customary care agreement and had never been the subject of a child protection application, section 109 did not apply.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.