OCFSRB 2024

The applicant father filed an application alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement reached at a pre-hearing.

The agreement required the society to provide explanations, place documents in the applicant's file, and provide unredacted disclosure of his file.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society complied with all terms of the agreement except for the term requiring full disclosure of the applicant's file.

The Board ordered the society to provide the missing documents identified by the applicant.

The applicant filed an application under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which was resolved by a settlement agreement.

The applicant subsequently alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with two terms of the agreement requiring a summary of resources provided to the mother and an assessment of the applicant's concerns.

Following a non-compliance videoconference, the Board found that the respondent had complied with the terms by providing a letter summarizing the resources and explaining why the applicant's concerns did not warrant further child protection intervention.

The application was closed as settled.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The applicant raised several issues, including concerns about file transfers, worker bias, and conflicting information regarding programming.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written hearing and reviewed the respondent's explanations for each allegation.

The Board found that the respondent had provided sufficient explanations and had complied with all terms of the settlement agreement.

The application was closed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a children's aid society's handling of an internal complaint and its investigation into child protection concerns.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in a Children's Law Reform Act proceeding.

The Board found that the internal complaint process could not proceed as the society had not been given an opportunity to address it, and the remaining issues regarding the children's wellbeing and the investigation were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society, alleging failures in the internal complaints review process and a lack of meaningful reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the respondent failed to strictly comply with timelines and procedural forms, these deviations ultimately benefited the applicant by allowing the complaint to proceed.

However, the Board found the respondent failed to provide meaningful reasons regarding the applicant's alleged contravention of a cell phone policy, conflicting notes about file closure, and the decision to have two workers meet with the applicant's son.

The respondent was ordered to provide detailed written reasons on these specific issues.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that her child was kidnapped and that the respondent society conspired against her.

The Child and Family Services Review Board directed the applicant to provide relevant details supporting her allegations against the respondent, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to provide the requested information.

The Board dismissed the application as ineligible for review because it lacked the necessary details to support the allegations.

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 mediation and did not respond to a subsequent report directing them to explain their absence and confirm their intention to proceed.

The respondent advised that the applicant had recently entered into a Voluntary Youth Service Agreement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board concluded that the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove a child from her care.

Shortly after, the society brought an urgent motion before the Ontario Court of Justice, which made an interim order removing the child from extended society care and placing him with his father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined that because the child was no longer in extended society care, the application was temporarily ineligible for review.

The Board stayed the application pending the outcome of the court motion to avoid conflicting decisions.

The applicant parent filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about the safety of their children in the care of the other parent and the respondent society's handling of those concerns.

The respondent society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was subject to ongoing child protection proceedings in family court.

The Board found that the issues raised in the application were central to the ongoing court proceedings and were not separate and different.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application for review of a children's aid society's decision to refuse his application to adopt his live-in partner's children.

The society's refusal letter was dated September 24, 2024, but evidence confirmed it was not emailed to the applicant until October 7, 2024.

The Board found that the application, filed on October 15, 2024, was within the 10-day statutory time limit under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The application was deemed eligible to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant mother, who did not have custody of her child, filed an application alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding reported injuries to the child while in the father's care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was not a 'parent' within the meaning of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and therefore lacked standing.

Regardless of standing, the Board found the respondent had provided the applicant with opportunities to express her concerns and had provided reasons for its decisions not to investigate or to close files.

The applicant, the maternal great aunt and kinship caregiver of the child, filed an application under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove the child from her care.

The respondent advised that it had obtained a temporary court order placing the child with his biological father and had commenced a status review application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application eligible to proceed to a hearing as the child had lived continuously with the applicant for more than two years and the application was filed within 10 days of written notice.

The Board scheduled a first day of hearing to address preliminary issues, including the Board's jurisdiction given the concurrent court proceedings.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society, alleging that the society failed to hear her concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions across ten specific issues.

The Board found that the society failed to provide written reasons and failed to hear the applicant on eight of the ten issues, including decisions regarding the child's placement, the opening of investigations, and the development of a Voluntary Service Agreement.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant for the upheld issues.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the social worker assigned to their matter, requesting a different worker or no worker.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was currently before the Court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the issues in the application were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court, as the Court was already seized with the issue of access and engagement with the respondent's workers.

Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the society did not give her a chance to be heard.

The application stated that her daughter was kidnapped and she was extorted, but provided no other details or allegations against the society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application as it lacked the required details and did not contain allegations against the respondent, making it ineligible for review.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, complaining about an unsolicited phone call from an employee of the respondent society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it was not eligible for review.

The Board held that the applicant did not seek or receive a service from the society as required by the Act, as the complaint related entirely to a phone call she did not request.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent adoption agency's decision to remove two children placed with the applicant for international adoption.

The Board found the application eligible for review as it was filed within the 10-day statutory timeframe under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board issued directions for a preliminary hearing and noted the statutory prohibition against removing the children pending the review.

The applicant, a maternal grandmother and kin caregiver, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters raised were currently before the Superior Court of Justice in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns, primarily regarding the children's access with extended family, were central issues before the court and not separate and different from the substantive issues in the court proceeding.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant grandparent sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's actions regarding her grandchildren, seeking their return to her care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant was not seeking or receiving a service from the society, but rather complaining about the society's actions regarding the children.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent children's aid society breached her privacy by disclosing personal information during a child protection proceeding.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application without a hearing.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) because the issue arose in a matter currently before the court, and noted that jurisdiction over privacy breaches falls to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario under Part X of the Act.