OCFSRB 2022

The applicants filed a complaint against the society under s. 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the society failed to give them an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide written reasons regarding its decision to place their names on the Child Abuse Registry.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society breached its obligations by denying the applicants the chance to attend or present information at the Child Abuse Review Team meeting.

Furthermore, the society failed to provide satisfactory reasons for its decision, offering only a form letter stating it was obligated to register them.

The Board ordered the society to provide detailed written reasons, internal policies, and an explanation for its procedural decisions within 30 days.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a complaint against the respondent children's aid society.

The parties reached a settlement agreement requiring the respondent to provide specific written correspondence by certain dates.

The applicant alleged non-compliance when the respondent failed to meet the deadlines.

At a compliance hearing, the Board found that while the respondent missed the initial deadlines, it had subsequently provided the required correspondence, subject to minor corrections agreed upon during the hearing.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the corrected correspondence and closed the file.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent service provider breached the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 by including defamatory statements about him in his file.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the Information and Privacy Commissioner has sole jurisdiction over complaints regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information held by service providers under Part X of the Act.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to hear her concerns regarding domestic abuse by her ex-husband and inappropriately provided a letter affecting her child tax benefits.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act because the abuse and custody issues had already been placed before the court in child protection proceedings.

The Board also found the applicant was not in receipt of service regarding the tax benefit letter.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review a children's aid society's decision to remove a child from her care.

The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the application under section 109(7) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the child had not lived continuously with the applicant for two years.

The application was dismissed without a hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint against the society under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the society failed to hear her concerns regarding the abuse of her children by their respective fathers and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the society did give the applicant an opportunity to be heard, it failed to provide her with satisfactory reasons for its decisions regarding child abuse investigations and other related matters.

The Board ordered the society to provide written explanations to the applicant regarding its investigations, decisions, and interactions with her.

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 regarding access to her children and their health and safety while in the care of their fathers.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had already been addressed in family court and ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board agreed, finding that the issues raised in the complaint were squarely before the court during temporary care and custody motions.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety 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 conduct of a child protection worker and the investigation by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the Ontario Court of Justice in ongoing child protection proceedings, and that the application was an abuse of process.

The Board found that the issues raised in the complaint were indeed before the court, precluding the Board from reviewing the application under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, though the Board found it did not constitute an abuse of process.

The appellants requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive its standard confidentiality requirement to allow them to disclose a previous decision quashing their child's school expulsion.

The disclosure was sought for the limited purpose of appealing a decision by a local hockey association to suspend the child from playing hockey.

The Board granted the request, finding that the parents were seeking the release of the information to benefit the child and that the hockey association's confidentiality rules would adequately protect the child's privacy.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent's decision refusing her application to adopt her former foster child.

The child, who has severe developmental delays and complex trauma, requires a calm and consistent home environment.

The tribunal found that the applicant's home, which includes three children with special needs and a history of significant family conflict and crises, could not provide the necessary stability and individualized attention.

The tribunal concluded it was in the child's best interests to uphold the respondent's refusal.

The applicant sought to be a kin care provider for her grandson and filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and follow its complaint review process.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to submit her complaint to the society using the required formal complaint form, which is a prerequisite for Board review.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's failure to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests and alleged privacy breaches.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the Ontario Court of Justice in an active child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the court filings and concluded that all issues raised in the complaint were squarely before the court.

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

The appellants appealed a 'safe schools transfer' decision by the respondent school board, arguing it amounted to a de facto expulsion.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that because the students were suspended and transferred rather than expelled, the Board lacked jurisdiction under the Education Act to hear the appeal.

The Board made no order on the merits.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's investigation and child protection concerns.

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

The Board agreed, finding that the applicant's concerns regarding the worker's evidence, the investigation, and the child's best interests were all subjects of the ongoing court proceedings.

The application was dismissed in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.

The Applicant and the Respondent Children's Aid Society entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve an application before the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Applicant alleged that the Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, which required the Respondent to answer specific questions regarding the removal of the Applicant's children.

The Board reviewed the written submissions and found that the Respondent had mostly met its obligations, but directed the Respondent to provide additional information and explanations for three of the terms.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to protect her son.

The applicant had not made a written complaint to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel in the required form.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 because the prerequisite of a formal written complaint to the society under section 119 had not been met.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's failure to communicate with her and facilitate access to her children.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the children had been made Crown Wards with no access by a court order in 2015.

The Board found that the issues of parental rights and access had been decided by the court, and therefore section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 barred the Board from reviewing the complaint.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after the respondent society decided to move a toddler from her care to a kin placement.

The applicant alleged the society failed to hear her concerns or provide reasons for its decision.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that a foster parent provides a service to the society rather than receiving a service from it, and therefore does not have standing to bring a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.