OCFSRB 2021

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

After the applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing teleconference and did not respond to attempts to contact her, the adjudicator concluded that the application had been abandoned.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues raised were already before the courts in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board found that all seven issues identified in the complaint had been placed squarely before the court in multiple proceedings since 2014.

Consequently, the Board concluded it was prohibited from reviewing the complaint under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application in its entirety.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her child's wellbeing while in the father's care and her dissatisfaction with the children's aid society's response.

The Board found that the applicant had not made a written complaint to the society in the required form as mandated by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Consequently, the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the application and dismissed it.

The applicant, a 16-year-old sibling of five children in foster care, filed an application alleging the respondent society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for restricting her in-person access to her siblings.

The society had suspended in-person access due to COVID-19 protocols and offered virtual access instead.

The adjudicator found that the society had provided a detailed response acknowledging the applicant's concerns and had given meaningful reasons for its decision based on pandemic restrictions.

The application was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant mother filed a complaint alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding the apprehension of her children, access restrictions, and the assignment of a child protection worker.

Following a full-day hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application.

The Board found that the society had met its obligations under section 120(4)5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as staff had provided adequate reasons verbally on multiple occasions and in writing through documents filed in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove a foster child from their care.

The child had lived continuously with the applicant for over two years.

The society removed the child without providing the required 10 days' written notice under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application eligible to proceed to a hearing and issued directions for a teleconference and document filing.

The applicants, foster parents of a child, sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove the child and refuse their adoption application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the child had not lived with the applicants continuously for two years prior to the notice of removal.

Furthermore, the application was filed outside the mandatory 10-day statutory timeline for reviewing an adoption refusal.

The applicant filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society regarding the handling of his concerns about his children's safety and the services provided to him.

The respondent argued that the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the CYFSA because the issues were already before the court in an emergency motion.

The adjudicator found that the CFSRB was precluded from reviewing the applicant's concerns regarding the children's safety, as those had been decided by the court.

However, the adjudicator determined that the applicant's complaints regarding his interactions with the respondent's staff were separate service issues and allowed those to proceed.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society regarding communication issues and the suspension of his supervised access with his child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined the hearing would proceed in writing due to the applicant's history of abusive communication with staff.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the respondent had adequately heard and responded to the applicant's communication concerns, and had clearly communicated valid reasons for suspending supervised access based on the applicant's inappropriate behaviour and failure to follow guidelines.

The applicants, grandparents of two children in the society's custody, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking information about the society's interactions with their deceased daughter.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicants were not seeking or receiving services from the society, and that as grandparents, they did not fall within the statutory right to be heard.

The Board noted that requests for access to records fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

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

The respondent argued the issues were already before the court.

The Board found that five of the seven issues raised were indeed before the court, precluding the Board's jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over two issues concerning an explanation for an access decision and alleged rude treatment by staff, as these were not before the court.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Child and Family Services Review Board, citing unexpected personal matters and ongoing court proceedings.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding that the existence of other legal proceedings did not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Practice Direction, especially since the applicant had chosen the hearing date while the other proceedings were already underway.

The Board varied the timelines for disclosure and filing to afford the applicant more preparation time.

The applicants filed complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the apprehension of their children, sibling access, and the placement of the male applicant on the Child Abuse Register.

The respondent children's aid society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in child protection proceedings.

The Board agreed, finding that all issues raised in the complaints were squarely before the court, and dismissed the applications pursuant to 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 regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of his access to his child, allegations of parental alienation, and staff conduct.

The respondent argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court.

The adjudicator found that issues 1 through 9 of the complaint had been squarely before the family court in a child protection application and were therefore outside the CFSRB's jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Those issues were dismissed, and directions were given for written submissions on the remaining two issues concerning staff interactions.

The applicant, the adult sister of five children in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for its decision to terminate her in-person access and deny her request for unsupervised outdoor access.

The Board found that the Society did not provide meaningful reasons, as it relied on the applicant's father to relay information and failed to explain why access needed to be supervised or how outdoor access contravened COVID-19 restrictions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the respondent's handling of his child protection file.

The respondent challenged the CFSRB's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were currently before the family court in a custody and access proceeding.

The adjudicator found that the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction over issues directly related to the court proceedings, such as access decisions and the mother's alleged alcohol use.

However, the CFSRB retained jurisdiction over issues concerning the respondent's decision-making process, including whether the applicant was heard and provided with adequate reasons.

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, alleging the respondent society failed to follow its complaint review process.

The Board noted that the applicant had not made a written complaint to the society in the required form, as mandated by section 119(1) of the Act and section 56 of Ontario Regulation 156/18.

Because a formal written complaint is a prerequisite for the Board's review under section 120(4), the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicants, who were foster parents to a child, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the removal of the child from their home following an investigation by the respondent society.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that the right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is limited to children, young persons, and their parents, and the definition of 'parent' in the Act does not include foster parents.

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.

A pre-hearing teleconference was scheduled after the parties failed to reach a settlement at mediation.

The applicant failed to attend the pre-hearing and did not respond to the Board's attempts to contact him by telephone and email.

Consequently, the adjudicator concluded that the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The agreement required the Society to provide reasons and explanations regarding a positive verification decision and to address the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written review and found that the Society had fully met its obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The non-compliance allegations were dismissed and the file was closed.