OCFSRB 2020

The applicant filed an application complaining about the services provided by the respondent child and family services agency.

Over the course of a year, the applicant and her counsel failed to comply with multiple case management directions, including failing to provide witness statements, confirm witness lists, or communicate with the tribunal.

The tribunal found that the applicant's failure to comply with directions and communicate amounted to an abuse of process.

The tribunal concluded that the significant delay denied the respondent its right to finality.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

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

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined the matter in writing after the applicant failed to attend a scheduled teleconference.

The Board found that the respondent had complied with the terms regarding the service plan and communication model, but had failed to provide a clear written outline of the reasons why it viewed there to be ongoing parental conflict.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the required written outline within 14 days.

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

The respondent argued the Child and Family Services Review Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were part of ongoing child protection proceedings before the court.

The Board found that most of the applicant's concerns were currently before the court and therefore outside its jurisdiction under section 120(8).

The Board addressed the remaining issues in writing and found the respondent had adequately responded to the applicant's concerns regarding the foster mother and the child's safety.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant 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 related decisions.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had filed a concurrent claim in Small Claims Court based on identical facts and issues.

The Board found that under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, it cannot review a complaint if the subject matter is before the courts.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, which included monetary damages and records retractions.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions in apprehending her child, denying a kinship placement, and managing access.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act because the issues had already been decided by the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the court documents and found that several of the applicant's concerns, including the apprehension and placement of the child, were indeed before the court and could not be reviewed.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over remaining service-related complaints, which were scheduled for a further pre-hearing.

The applicant father filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent children's aid societies failed to hear his concerns regarding the health and safety of his children and failed to provide reasons for their verification decision and file closure.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written hearing and found that the applicant was afforded multiple opportunities to express his concerns and was provided with sufficient reasons for the societies' decisions both orally and in writing.

The Board noted it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the verification finding or order the children placed with the applicant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, the biological mother of two children, filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging she was not given an opportunity to be heard by the respondent society.

The children were in the legal custody of the applicant's stepsister, and the applicant had no formal access rights.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that because the applicant did not have lawful custody, she did not meet the statutory definition of a parent and therefore lacked standing to have her complaint reviewed.

The applicants filed an application to review the respondent's decision refusing to place a child with them for adoption.

A preliminary issue arose regarding whether the application was filed within the 10-day statutory timeline.

The Board determined that because the applicants experienced technical difficulties opening the required form attached to the refusal notice, the notice was not fully received until the issue was resolved.

Consequently, the application was filed within the statutory timelines and is eligible for review.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The agreement required the respondent to answer 15 questions regarding its investigation, verification decision, and file closure.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent had adequately provided reasons and explanations for its decisions as required by the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board noted that the applicant's disagreement with the respondent's decisions did not invalidate the reasons provided.

The application was dismissed and the file closed.

The Applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the Respondent society failed to hear her concerns regarding the children's father, including allegations of substance use, pinworm infections, and inappropriate photographs.

The Board found that the Respondent had not been informed of the photograph allegations prior to the application.

Regarding the other concerns, the Board found that the Respondent had actively listened, investigated, and communicated its findings to the Applicant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer who applied to foster two children as 'community kin', filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear his concerns.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of a parent and, even if considered a foster or community kin provider, would be a service provider rather than a recipient of services under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The applicants filed an application to review the respondent's decision refusing to place a child with them for adoption.

The application was filed after 5:00 p.m. on the final day of the 10-day statutory limitation period, making it technically one day late under the Board's rules.

The Board issued an interim decision directing a teleconference hearing to determine whether the respondent's notice of refusal met the statutory requirements, which would dictate whether the application was out of time.

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 and ignored professional advice regarding her parenting capacity.

The respondent argued that the issues raised were substantive child protection and custody matters currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Board found that the issues of custody, access, and parenting capacity were indeed before the court in ongoing proceedings.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the apprehension of her child and the respondent society's handling of her case.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns regarding custody, her mental health, and the basis for apprehension were squarely before the court.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a previous settlement agreement, falsified documents, and made false allegations.

The Board reviewed the written submissions and found that the respondent had adequately addressed each term of the settlement agreement, including providing explanations for alleged file inaccuracies and false allegations.

The Board concluded that the respondent met its commitments and obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and closed the file.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of a children's aid society's decision refusing to place a child with her for adoption.

The Board issued an interim decision noting potential issues with the society's notice of refusal and the timeliness of the application.

The Board scheduled a teleconference to address these preliminary issues and set directions for the hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a children's aid society's investigation into a home daycare attended by her child.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant never sought or received services from the society, as the investigation focused on the daycare as an institution.

The Board agreed, finding that neither the applicant nor her child were the subject of the investigation or received services.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the children's aid society failed to hear her concerns regarding the children's safety during access visits with their father.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the same issues were currently before the court in an ongoing contempt motion regarding access.

The Board agreed, finding that the applicant's concerns about the children's safety and well-being were squarely before the court in the contempt proceedings.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order from a previous compliance decision so that the decision could be used in family court proceedings.

The Board denied the request, finding that the applicant had not provided exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the usual practice of maintaining confidentiality.

The Board noted that the applicant could seek an order from the family court, which would be better positioned to determine the relevance and necessity of the decision in those proceedings.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The agreement required the respondent to provide a specific letter acknowledging a conflict of interest and its impact on the applicant.

After an extension was granted, the respondent provided the required letter.

The Board found that the respondent was in compliance with the settlement agreement and closed the file.