OCFSRB 2023

The applicant father filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding his child's removal and subsequent placement in extended society care.

The child was placed for adoption after the society was unable to locate the father for service during the protection proceedings.

The Board dismissed most of the complaints, finding the society made reasonable efforts to locate the father and appropriately considered his later requests for contact.

The Board upheld the complaint that the society failed to provide reasons for not returning the child to the mother, but ordered no further relief as the father had since obtained the information through court disclosure.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove a 10-year-old child from her care after four years.

The society removed the child without providing the required statutory notice.

The Board considered the child's best interests, including his strong attachment to the applicant, his views and wishes to return to her care, and the importance of continuity.

The Board found that the applicant could manage the child's behavioural challenges if provided with adequate supports, such as respite care.

The Board ordered the child returned to the applicant's care.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society refused to proceed with her complaints regarding her child in foster care.

The Board found that the applicant had submitted her complaints via email rather than using the prescribed formal complaint form as required by Ontario Regulation 156/18.

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

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society, alleging he was not given an opportunity to be heard and was not provided reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was a referral source, not a service recipient, and the issues were already before the Family Court.

The Board agreed, finding the applicant did not receive a service under the Act and the substantive issues regarding his disclosure as a referral source were currently before the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

A Zoom hearing was scheduled, and the applicant was accommodated with a Mobile Access Terminal due to lack of computer access.

The applicant requested to participate by telephone, which was denied.

After failing to confirm his attendance by the deadline, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, an aunt of a young adult, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society improperly denied a Voluntary Youth Services Agreement for her niece.

The Board dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the right to be heard under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is limited to children, young persons, and their parents, which does not include aunts.

Furthermore, the applicant was not in receipt of services from the respondent and was therefore not entitled to reasons for the society's decision.

The applicant, the godmother of two children, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to address her concerns regarding the abuse of the children's mother.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the right to be heard under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is limited to children, young persons, and their parents.

As a godparent not in receipt of services from the respondent, the applicant was not entitled to reasons or a review of her complaint.

The applicants, grandparents of the children, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society ignored their concerns regarding the children's safety.

The Board dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is limited to children and parents.

As the applicants were not parents and were not receiving services from the society, the Board had no authority to review the matter.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to exclude her child from school under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act due to safety concerns.

The school board disputed the Child and Family Services Review Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Board only has authority to hear appeals of expulsions, not exclusions.

The Board agreed, finding that the exclusion was not a disciplinary measure or an effective expulsion, but rather a safety measure with clear conditions for return.

As there was no expulsion decision to review, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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 regarding the alleged fraudulent redirection of her welfare payments to her children's foster parents.

The Board directed a hearing in writing.

The Board found no evidence that the applicant had raised these concerns with the respondent prior to filing her application.

Furthermore, the respondent subsequently provided written correspondence confirming that no social assistance payments had been redirected to the foster parents and explaining the legal redirection of the Canada Child Benefit.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a grandparent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to proceed with her complaint regarding the safety of her grandchildren.

The Board determined that reporting a child welfare concern does not constitute receiving "services" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Because the applicant was not in receipt of services, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a grandparent, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to address her concerns regarding her grandchildren's safety and refused to proceed with her complaint.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant was not a parent or a person in receipt of services under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Furthermore, the applicant had not submitted her complaint to the society using the required formal complaint form.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the society failed to hear his concerns regarding the abuse of his children.

During pre-hearing conferences, the respondent objected to the admission of numerous audio and video recordings in Urdu that the applicant intended to file.

The adjudicator held that fairness requires any recordings in a language other than English or French to be accompanied by a certified transcript so the respondent can prepare its case.

The adjudicator found it premature to rule on the admissibility of the recordings without assessing their relevance and probative value, and directed the applicant to provide certified translations if he intends to rely on them.

The appellant filed motions with the Child and Family Services Review Board appealing a school board's decision to expel a student.

The appellant argued the expulsion should be overturned because the decision was not made within the 20-day statutory timeline and notice was not provided promptly.

The Board dismissed the timeliness motion, finding the decision was made on the twentieth day and notice was provided promptly the following day.

The Board granted the appellant's motions to expedite the hearing on the merits and ordered the school board to disclose written and videotaped evidence to ensure procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to administratively transfer the student from in-person learning to hybrid learning or to another school following an incident.

The school board disputed the Child and Family Services Review Board's jurisdiction to hear the appeal, arguing that the student was not expelled.

The Board found that the student's suspension was withdrawn and the transfer was non-disciplinary and made for safety reasons.

As the Board only has jurisdiction to hear appeals of expulsions under the Education Act, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The agreement required the respondent to add a statement of disagreement to the applicant's records and provide written answers to seven specific questions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the correspondence and found that the respondent complied with most terms but failed to provide clear and sufficient answers to three questions regarding a rapid response fund, supports for the child and father, and information to be shared with other service providers.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide further written responses to those specific terms.

The applicants, who are foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising concerns about the respondent society's permanency planning, access visits, and communication.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that foster parents are generally not considered parents or service recipients under the Act unless they have been subject to an investigation by the society, which was not the case here.

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

During a virtual pre-hearing, the applicant became frustrated, refused to participate further, and disconnected from the call.

The Board subsequently issued a direction requiring the applicant to confirm her intention to proceed by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging gender bias in the removal of his children, failure to enforce an access order, and failure to provide reasons for not finding the children at risk with their mother.

Following a traumatic brain injury, the applicant had memory gaps regarding the society's involvement.

At the hearing, after hearing testimony from the child protection worker, the applicant conceded that the society was not responsible for the children's removal.

The Board dismissed all issues, finding the society did not act in a sexist manner, had no duty to enforce family court orders, and had provided adequate reasons regarding the mother's care.

The applicants, grandparents of two children, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of access visits with the children's mother.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding 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.

As the applicants were not parents and were not in receipt of services from the society, the Board had no authority to review the complaint.