OCFSRB 2023

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions in removing her child and failing to provide support.

The Board found that the issues raised were substantively identical to a previous complaint that had been dismissed because the matters were before the court.

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

The Board also found the filing of the duplicative complaint to be an abuse of process and declared the applicant a vexatious litigant, requiring her to obtain permission before filing future complaints against the respondent.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his concerns regarding the safety of his children and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The respondent argued the matters were before the Court and outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found it had jurisdiction over the service issues but dismissed the application on the merits, finding that the respondent had heard the applicant on multiple occasions, reassigned a worker, re-initiated an investigation, and provided written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant foster parent brought a motion seeking an interim order to return her foster child, who had been removed by the respondent children's aid society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society failed to provide the statutorily required notice of removal and improperly sought a local director's opinion retroactively.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the Board determined that the child's strong views and wishes, the bond with the applicant, and the need for continuity of care outweighed the mitigated risks of emotional harm.

The Board ordered the child returned to the applicant on an interim basis.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board objecting to a society's decision to move two children to a new placement.

The applicant alleged the children would be at risk of harm and that the society failed to hear her concerns or provide reasons.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that foster parents do not qualify as 'parents' or 'service recipients' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and therefore do not have standing to bring such a complaint.

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

The child had lived with the applicant for approximately 53 days.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because section 109(7) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 requires the child to have lived continuously with the foster parent for two years to be eligible for a review.

The applicant, who acted as an access supervisor for her godchild and niece/nephew, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society.

She alleged poor communication, sharing of inaccurate information, and safety concerns regarding the children's access with their mother.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant provided a service to the society rather than seeking or receiving a service from it, as required by sections 119 and 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's apprehension of her two children, their placement, and the denial of access to the grandparents.

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

The adjudicator found that the issues raised in the complaint were squarely before the court, triggering the jurisdictional bar under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging a conflict of interest regarding the presence of the respondent's former Executive Director on its Board of Directors.

The respondent clarified that the former Executive Director was not on its Board.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the complaint did not relate to a service sought or received by the applicant, but rather to the internal structure and processes of the respondent.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent's decision to refuse their application to adopt their foster child.

They brought a motion seeking an order to allow an expert to conduct an attachment assessment of the child.

The respondent opposed the assessment, arguing that section 98 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 applied and that its own staff could provide better information.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that section 98 did not apply to a section 192 proceeding and concluded that the proposed assessment would assist the hearing panel.

The motion was granted, but the request for costs was denied as the Board lacked the authority to award them.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising several issues regarding the apprehension of her children and the society's conduct.

The respondent society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were before the court in a child protection proceeding and had been previously dismissed.

The Board found that most of the issues raised were either identical to those in a previously dismissed application or were currently before the court, and thus outside the Board's jurisdiction.

However, the Board allowed one issue to proceed regarding the alleged fraudulent redirection of the applicant's welfare payments to the foster parents, finding it to be a new service issue not before the court.

The applicant, a former foster parent, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a breakdown in negotiations for a customary care agreement.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant was neither a parent nor a service recipient under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and therefore did not have a right to have the complaint reviewed.

The applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

The Board found that the application was filed within the required 10-day statutory time limit.

The Board issued an interim decision confirming the application's eligibility to proceed and set a date for the first day of the hearing to address preliminary issues and procedural directions.

The applicant parent filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to provide an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests regarding their child.

Following a hearing, the Board found that while the respondent had provided the applicant with an opportunity to be heard on all issues, it failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions not to consult the applicant prior to its initial involvement and not to notify the applicant of specific domestic violence incidents in the child's primary home.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide written reasons for these two decisions within 30 days.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's decision to apprehend her 18-month-old child due to malnourishment concerns.

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

The Board found that the applicant's concerns about not being heard and not receiving reasons were inextricably linked to the apprehension and the child's risk of harm, which were squarely before the Court.

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

The Applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging that workers acted improperly by supporting his 16-year-old daughter's decision to leave home and reside with her boyfriend's family.

The Applicant claimed he was denied the opportunity to be heard and was not provided reasons for the workers' decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the 16-year-old daughter had voluntarily withdrawn from parental control and was receiving services separate and distinct from any services provided to the Applicant.

Consequently, the Applicant was not a service recipient with respect to the daughter's interactions with the workers and had no right to be heard or receive information about those services without the daughter's consent.

The applicant mother 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 provide reasons for its decisions regarding her child.

The mother raised numerous issues, including allegations of abuse by the father, the child's behaviour at school, the need for trauma counselling, and the requirement for supervised access.

The Board reviewed the evidence, including testimony from the mother and the society's child protection worker, as well as transcripts of access conferences.

The Board found that the society had met its obligation to hear the mother's concerns in a timely manner and had provided sufficient reasons for its decisions, even though the mother disagreed with the society's conclusions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints of abuse while her children were in their father's care, and sought the expungement of certain records.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant had not first submitted a formal complaint to the respondent society's Internal Complaints Review Panel as required by the legislation.

The Board also noted it lacked jurisdiction over the contents of child protection records, which falls under the purview of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests, including decisions not to conduct a further investigation, not to address his requests for accommodation for his hearing loss, and not to provide an action plan.

Following a hearing, the Board dismissed the complaints regarding the investigation and the consideration of a family court order, finding that sufficient reasons were provided or no such decisions were made.

However, the Board found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient reasons regarding why it did not address the applicant's requests for accommodation prior to November 2018 and why a written action plan was not provided.

The respondent was ordered to provide written responses to these specific questions.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to implement a prior settlement agreement.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to notify the Board of the alleged non-compliance by the specified deadline in the settlement agreement, and failed to submit a formal complaint to the society using the required form under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant, a kin care provider, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking assistance in obtaining documents from the respondent society to apply for financial and program supports for the children in her care.

The applicant alleged that the society refused to proceed with her complaint.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant had not submitted a formal complaint to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel using the prescribed form as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and Ontario Regulation 156/18.