OCFSRB 2020

The applicant sought a review of the children's aid society's decision to refuse his application to adopt his 17-month-old niece, who had been diagnosed with Global Developmental Delay.

The society refused the application based on concerns regarding the applicant's commitment, parenting skills, executive functioning, and financial stability, noting he had missed over half of his scheduled access visits and failed to complete mandatory training.

The tribunal confirmed the society's refusal, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated the requisite parenting skills or commitment to meet the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs, and that further delaying the child's permanent placement was not in her best interests.

The applicants, whose children were previously made crown wards, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to provide them with pictures of the children.

The respondent brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction.

The adjudicator dismissed the applicants' motion alleging bias.

On the jurisdictional motion, the adjudicator found that because the applicants no longer had legal custody, they were not 'parents' under the Act and could not proceed under s. 120(4)4.

However, the adjudicator held the application could proceed under s. 120(4)5, as the applicants were entitled to meaningful reasons for the decision to stop providing pictures, a service they had been receiving.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent children's aid society had not allowed her to see her children.

The applicant acknowledged that the issue of access had been dealt with and was currently before the court.

The Board found that the subject matter of the application was not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the court.

As a result, 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 filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her concerns about her son's behaviour.

The son was facing criminal charges and there were ongoing custody and access proceedings before the court.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns were closely connected to the ongoing court proceedings and did not raise separate and distinct service concerns.

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

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

The court had previously ordered the applicant's children into the temporary care of the respondent and directed that they remain in Ontario, despite the family's plans to move to Nova Scotia.

The applicant raised issues regarding mobility rights and the fairness of the court process.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the complaints related to substantive issues before the court and were therefore barred from review under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

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

The agreement required the Society to answer 11 questions regarding a child protection investigation.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society fully complied with seven of the terms but only partially complied with three terms relating to the identification of parents in records, the requirement for photo identification, and the relevance of past history.

The Board ordered the Society to provide additional written responses to fully satisfy those three terms.

The applicant, a long-term foster mother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing her application to adopt two children in her care.

The Society intended to place the children for adoption with a kin family who shared the children's Métis heritage.

The Board considered the best interests of the children under section 179(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

While acknowledging the strong attachment between the children and the applicant, the Board confirmed the Society's decision, emphasizing the importance of preserving the children's cultural identity and placing them with kin.

The applicant, a counsellor at a youth treatment centre, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about a children's aid society's lack of communication regarding a youth in their care.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant was not seeking or receiving services herself, nor did she qualify as a child, young person, or parent under the Act.

The applicant alleged that the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton failed to comply with a Settlement Agreement regarding the disclosure of her adoption and care records.

The applicant raised concerns about missing records, redactions, and the adequacy of the document index provided by the Society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had made reasonable efforts to search its databases, provided adequate explanations for its redactions, and fully complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The allegations of non-compliance were dismissed.

The applicant, an aunt, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's actions concerning her nephews.

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 was not seeking or receiving services for herself, and the right to be heard under section 15(2) applies only to children, young persons, and parents.

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 the respondent society failed to follow its Internal Complaint Review Process and denied her an opportunity to be heard regarding child protection proceedings.

The Board proceeded with a written hearing and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

The Board found the applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard, the society lacked jurisdiction to review matters already decided by the court, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, such as returning the children or striking court orders.

The applicant, an adoptive mother, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society regarding access between her adopted sons and their biological sister.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not a recipient of service and the access issues were currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Board found that while the applicant was a recipient of service, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints regarding access and communication because those matters were squarely before the Court.

The Board also struck references to mediation materials due to confidentiality and directed further submissions on remaining issues.

The applicants, foster parents of a child in extended society care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove the child from their home.

The society provided written notice of the removal on December 13, 2019, which included information about the ten-day statutory deadline to apply for a review.

The applicants filed their application on March 2, 2020, more than two months after the deadline.

The Board found that the notice satisfied the statutory requirements and that the Act does not provide any exception to the ten-day filing deadline.

The application was dismissed as ineligible for review.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of his daughter's file.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court and that the complaint was an abuse of process as it mirrored a previously settled complaint.

The Board found that the issues raised were either already before the court or had been resolved in a prior settlement agreement.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application in its entirety without an oral hearing.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother, filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act against the respondent society regarding access to her grandchild, the society's handling of abuse allegations, and historical concerns regarding the apprehension of her own children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to review access issues that were already before the court or the society's handling of abuse reports.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to review the historical complaints and the society's failure to provide reasons for denying access over Christmas.

The applicants, former foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the closure of their foster home, inaccuracies in their file, and a denial of their right to be heard.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

Complaints about file inaccuracies fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, and the statutory right to be heard applies only to 'parents' as defined in the Act, which does not include foster parents.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide his four-year-old son with an adequate opportunity to be heard during a child protection investigation, and that the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) failed to hear him or provide adequate reasons for dismissing his complaint.

The investigation was initiated after the child told a teacher that he and his father made bombs in their basement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the child protection worker asked some closed and complex questions, the interview overall provided the child with a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The Board also found that the ICRP properly heard the applicant and provided sufficient reasons for its decision.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding its handling of her case, including allegations of domestic violence, access issues, and poor treatment by workers.

The Society argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8)(a) of the CYFSA because the matters were before the family and criminal courts.

The CFSRB found it lacked jurisdiction over issues exclusively before the courts, such as sexual assault allegations and criminal charges.

However, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Waterloo CAS v. D.D., the CFSRB held it had jurisdiction to review complaints about the Society's services, failure to provide reasons, and failure to hear the applicant's concerns.

The application was dismissed in part, with the service-related issues allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant subsequently informed the Board that she would not attend the mandatory pre-hearing and refused to withdraw her complaint.

After the applicant failed to attend the scheduled pre-hearing teleconference, the respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Board dismissed the application as abandoned and noted that the applicant's communications violated the Board's rules regarding courtesy and respect.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking access to her grandchild.

The applicant acknowledged that the respondent society was currently in court regarding the matter.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that subsection 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 bars the Board from reviewing issues that are before the court.

Furthermore, jurisdiction over custody and access lies with the court under the Children's Law Reform Act, not the Board.