OCFSRB 2023

The appellant appealed the permanent dismissal of her child from a school for the Deaf operated by the Provincial and Demonstration Schools Branch (PDSB).

The Child and Family Services Review Board considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 311.7 of the Education Act.

The Board found that its jurisdiction is limited to expulsion decisions made by a 'board' as defined in the Act, which does not include schools operated by the PDSB.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant brought a motion regarding the respondent children's aid society's disclosure in a service complaint proceeding under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant argued the respondent provided heavily redacted records without reasons or a copy of its disclosure policy.

The Board found the respondent failed to meet its disclosure obligations as set out in J.S. v. Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, noting the redactions were significant rather than minimal.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide amended disclosure, including removing redactions made on the mistaken belief that the applicant lacked custody of her child.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions, including access restrictions and safety planning involving the child's father.

The respondent argued the board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 because the issues were currently before the court in child protection proceedings.

The adjudicator reviewed the court documents and found that the issues raised in the complaint were squarely before the court.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, the paternal grandmother of a child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to act on her reports of abuse by the child's mother.

The CFSRB 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, which does not include grandparents.

Furthermore, the applicant was not receiving services from the respondent and therefore was not entitled to reasons for its decisions.

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.

After being directed to provide submissions on whether the Board was barred from reviewing the application, the applicant failed to file submissions despite multiple extensions and follow-up communications.

The Board concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to follow its complaint review process and timelines.

The Board found that the applicant had not submitted a formal complaint to the society on the prescribed form as required by the legislation.

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

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application, arguing the issues were the subject of a pending civil action filed by the applicant in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to hear the applicant's complaints regarding a conflict of interest and supervised access, as those issues were substantively before the court.

However, the Board allowed the applicant's complaint regarding his daughter's safety in her mother's care to proceed, as it was not raised in the civil claim.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of custody and access issues involving his children.

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

The Board found that all issues raised in the complaint, including access arrangements and the children's safety, were squarely before the court.

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

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

Following a pre-hearing teleconference, the parties provided written submissions on whether the hearing should be held in writing or by videoconference.

The applicant preferred a hybrid format, citing lack of access to a secure internet connection, while the respondent requested a written hearing.

The adjudicator ordered the hearing to proceed in writing, finding that the applicant's proposed hybrid format would not allow for a fair and focused hearing and that a written hearing would be more expeditious given the parties' availability.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, regarding the proposed removal of a child.

During a case management teleconference, it was clarified that the child was not in extended society care.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter because the child was not in extended society care.

The applicant, facing criminal charges related to alleged sexual abuse of his daughter, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society.

He alleged the society failed to hear his concerns about a worker's conduct and failed to provide reasons for verifying child protection concerns despite the worker's earlier assurances of his innocence.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were before the criminal courts.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction over the criminal charges and records disclosure, but found it had jurisdiction to review whether the applicant was given an opportunity to be heard and provided with reasons for the society's verification decision.