OCFSRB 2020

The applicant grandmother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding her grandchild, as required by a prior settlement agreement.

The Board reviewed the written correspondence between the parties and found that the Society had provided clear answers and reasons for its actions on all five terms of the agreement.

The Board dismissed the complaint, noting its mandate does not extend to determining the clinical wisdom or validity of the Society's decisions.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her grandson's safety and her daughter's child protection case.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the applicant's complaints related to services provided to her grandson and daughter, not services she herself had sought or received.

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

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a compliance teleconference to determine if the Society had met its obligations to provide reasons and explanations for its decisions.

The Board found that the Society had complied with most terms but was partially compliant on others, directing the Society to provide additional responses regarding supports, Indigenous culture promotion, counselling services, and access decisions.

The applicant father filed a complaint alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons and explanations for its decisions regarding the care of his three children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written hearing to review the Society's response letter.

The Board found that the Society provided substantive information, explanations, and practical suggestions addressing all six terms of the agreement, including issues related to the mother's parenting, counselling, discipline, and medical appointments.

The Board concluded the Society met its obligations under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and dismissed the allegation of non-compliance.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions following an incident in 1995.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that because the applicant had already engaged and exhausted the society's internal complaint review procedure and a Director's Review prior to November 30, 2006, the transitional provision in subsection 68(13) of the former Child and Family Services Act barred the Board from reviewing the application.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint 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 protect her grandchildren from their mother's substance abuse.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant was not seeking or receiving services for herself, but rather complaining about the Society's actions regarding her grandchildren.

The Applicant, the adoptive mother of a child, filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 against the respondent children's aid societies.

She sought retroactive and ongoing adoption subsidies, alleged she was not informed of the child's disabilities prior to adoption, and claimed the society delayed medical attention for the child while he was in foster care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order financial remedies, the evidence showed the Applicant was informed of the child's disabilities, and the Applicant was not receiving services at the time of the alleged medical delay.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Board found that the society had largely met its obligations, noting that many communication issues were of the applicant's own making.

However, the Board ordered the society to provide written reasons explaining why it did not promptly inform the applicant of an alleged sexual assault of his son and the factors considered in concluding the allegation was not verified.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of access to her grandchild and historical concerns regarding the apprehension of her own children.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the historical issues had already been decided by the court and the issue of access to the grandchild was currently before the court.

The applicant, a friend of the deceased mother of five children, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising concerns about the respondent society's care and supervision of the children.

The respondent argued the applicant lacked standing as she had not sought or received services from the society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the applicant was a referent and not a parent or a person who sought or received services.

Consequently, the applicant lacked standing and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking the return of her daughter who had been made a Crown Ward and adopted, as well as compensation.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the issue of the child's care had already been decided by the courts, and the remaining allegations did not fall within the reviewable matters under section 120(4).

The applicants filed an application alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decision to stop sending them photographs of two children who were crown wards.

The Board found that the respondent had provided sufficient reasons by explaining that the adoptive families refused to provide pictures and the respondent was respecting their wishes.

The application was dismissed.

The Society brought a motion to adjourn a hearing regarding its refusal of the applicants' adoption application for a child who had been in their care for almost three years.

The Society sought the adjournment to reassess family and community plans under the new federal legislation respecting Indigenous children, citing COVID-19 delays.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Society had ample time prior to the pandemic to conduct reassessments and that further delay was not in the child's best interests or required for an adequate hearing.

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

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference to review the allegations of non-compliance.

The Board found that the Society had met its obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, including providing a hard copy of the file, placing documents on the file, and providing written reasons for closing the file.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant sought to call two psychologists as expert witnesses in a hearing regarding his complaint that the children's aid society failed to properly investigate his reports of his daughter being bullied at school.

The experts had been retained for a separate civil action against the school and had not met the children involved.

The adjudicator ruled that the proposed expert testimony did not meet the test of relevancy and necessity, as the hearing was focused solely on whether the society fulfilled its procedural obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its decisions, not to review the merits of the society's decision to decline an investigation.

The applicant, a grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the respondent children's aid society's handling of child protection concerns regarding her grandson.

The Board dismissed the application because the applicant was not seeking or receiving services herself, but rather complaining about services provided to her daughter and grandson.

Furthermore, as a grandparent, she did not fall within the statutory definition of a parent entitled to the right to be heard under the legislation.

The application was deemed ineligible for review.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking the return of her child, who had been placed in the temporary care of the father by a court order.

The respondent children's aid society requested the application be dismissed.

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

Consequently, the Board concluded it was barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 from reviewing the application, and dismissed it.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding the protection of and access to her grandchildren.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board concluded that the issues raised by the applicant were not separate and distinct from the substantive issues that had already been decided by or were currently before the court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding access to his children and communication concerns with the respondent.

After the applicant and his counsel failed to respond to multiple Case Management Directions and failed to provide dates for a pre-hearing/mediation, the respondent requested the matter be concluded.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the applicant's failure to communicate and undue delay amounted to an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a review by the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) alleging the Children's Aid Society of Toronto failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decision not to investigate bullying his daughter experienced at a private school.

The Society challenged the CFSRB's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was not a person who sought or received services.

The CFSRB found it had jurisdiction, holding that requesting an investigation constitutes seeking services, and the applicant had a right to be heard and receive reasons for the Society's decision.