OCFSRB 2024

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

The respondent argued the board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's complaints regarding the removal of her children, supervised access requirements, and placement with grandparents were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

Consequently, the board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions, including the apprehension of her newborn child and issues related to access and care.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because a child protection proceeding was already before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Board found that the issues raised in the complaint were the same as those before the court and could be addressed in the ongoing child protection proceeding.

Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 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 alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding intake reports and investigations involving her family.

The applicant also sought further records disclosure.

The Board found that the respondent had provided sufficient reasons for its decisions, noting that the applicant's dissatisfaction stemmed from disagreement with the outcomes rather than an absence of reasons.

The Board dismissed the complaints regarding the adequacy of reasons but ordered the respondent to provide its disclosure policy and explain any redactions in the records provided to the applicant.

The applicant foster parent filed an application under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 to review the respondent society's decision to remove a child in extended society care from their home.

The Board found the application was filed within the required 10-day notice period and the child had lived continuously with the applicant for more than two years.

The Board determined the application was eligible to proceed to a hearing and issued directions for a first hearing date.

The applicant filed an application to 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 dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction because the applicant did not file a formal complaint with the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel in the format required by the regulation.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding disclosure, mental health supports for his child, alleged conflicts of interest, and oversight by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the application was ineligible to proceed because the matters were currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the complaints were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court, or were otherwise outside its jurisdiction, and dismissed the application.

The applicants, a mother and child, filed an application against the children's aid society alleging it failed to provide reasons for closing a 2022 child protection investigation without implementing safeguards, and failed to address the child's rights under the Charter and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Board found that the society had provided adequate reasons for its decisions during the investigation and upon file closure.

The Board also determined that the mother had not explicitly raised Charter or Convention rights, and that the society had provided reasons for its responses to third-party referrals.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a homestay caregiver, filed an application alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decision to verify allegations of inadequate supervision and neglect regarding students in her care.

The respondent had made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant during the investigation.

After the investigation concluded, the respondent explained the process, findings, and reasons for the verification decision to the applicant through multiple phone calls with an interpreter.

The tribunal found that the respondent provided meaningful reasons for its decision and dismissed the application.

The applicant mother filed an application under s. 120 of the CYFSA alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The CFSRB dismissed allegations outside its jurisdiction, including those related to family court orders, privacy breaches, and a perceived multi-party conspiracy.

For the remaining issues, the CFSRB found that the respondent had adequately heard the applicant's concerns through multiple in-person meetings and correspondence, and had provided meaningful written reasons explaining the outcomes of its child protection investigations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, raising nine complaints regarding a child protection investigation conducted by the respondent agency.

The Board found that the agency failed to provide reasons for the investigation exceeding 45 days, failed to explain the verification decision, and failed to provide reasons for retracting its intention to commence a protection application.

The remaining complaints were dismissed, either because the agency had acted reasonably, the applicant had declined opportunities to meet, or the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board ordered the agency to provide written reasons and outcomes to the applicant for the substantiated complaints.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent Children's Aid Society's handling of child protection investigations and safety plans.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the family court in a parenting time dispute.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints about the Society's failure to communicate, provide reasons, and address safety concerns were separate and different from the substantive issues before the family court.

The Board ruled it had jurisdiction to hear the 11 specific complaints and ordered the application to proceed to a hearing.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and did not respond to a subsequent direction from the Board to advise whether she wished to proceed.

Consequently, the Board found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

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

After asking how to withdraw the application, the applicant failed to respond to the Board's directions to confirm the withdrawal or provide written particulars.

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

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding its investigation into alleged physical abuse of his child by school staff.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints relating to the right to be heard, finding the society's worker communicated with the applicant and considered his input.

However, the Board upheld the complaint regarding the right to reasons, finding the society failed to provide a meaningful explanation of its investigation process and how it concluded the abuse was not verified.

The society was ordered to provide a detailed explanatory letter.

The applicant sought to have her hearing proceed by videoconference, arguing it would be more accessible and allow for better emotional expression.

The respondent children's aid society requested a written hearing, noting the applicant's demonstrated ability to communicate in writing and the risk of an oral hearing expanding beyond the tribunal's jurisdiction.

The adjudicator ordered a written hearing, finding the applicant could adequately present her case in writing and that a written format would be more efficient given the narrow jurisdictional focus of the proceeding.

The respondent Children's Aid Society requested that the application be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to file a witness list and summary of proposed testimony.

The applicant also failed to respond to a Board direction by the specified deadline, but later contacted the Board to express dissatisfaction without indicating an intention to withdraw.

The Board found the application was not abandoned and ordered the hearing to proceed, but restricted the applicant from calling any witnesses other than herself and limited her evidence to matters previously raised in writing.

The applicant, a foster and prospective adoptive parent, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent children's aid society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not sought or received services.

The Board found that while the applicant did not receive services as a foster parent, she did seek and receive services as a prospective adoptive parent with an open and approved adoption file.

Furthermore, the respondent had already deemed the complaint eligible for its Internal Complaints Review Panel, thereby acknowledging the applicant sought or received a service.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to review the application regarding adoption services.

The applicant, who identified as the main support and partner of the children's father, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) alleging that the respondent children's aid society ignored her concerns and failed to follow its complaint review process.

The CFSRB dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that the statutory right to be heard is limited to children, young persons, and parents.

Furthermore, the CFSRB could not review the society's handling of the complaint because the applicant failed to use the formal complaint form required by the regulations.

The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring three separate letters regarding the applicant's file and mental health records.

The respondent provided a single consolidated letter that initially contained spelling errors and allegedly blaming language, which was later revised.

The adjudicator found that the revised single letter substantially met the requirements of the settlement agreement and that three separate letters were not strictly necessary.

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

The applicant, who has legal custody of her grandchild, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after allegedly being denied financial support and services by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was not a 'service recipient' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board permitted the applicant to amend her application to include allegations regarding the child's developmental and mental health issues.

The Board found that the applicant had sought or received services from the respondent, establishing jurisdiction for the application to proceed to a hearing on the merits.