OCFSRB 2024

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the safety of his child in the mother's care.

The Board found that the issues raised were substantially the same as a previous application and were currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

Additionally, requests for personal information about the mother and her partner fell under Part X of the CYFSA, which is outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society refused to proceed with his complaint and failed to follow its complaint review process.

The Board found that the applicant did not file his complaint to the society in the mandatory format required by Ontario Regulation 156/18.

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

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

After failing to attend two scheduled pre-hearing videoconferences and subsequently emailing the Board to state she was cancelling the application, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging failures to hear her concerns regarding parenting time, counselling for her daughter, and a lack of timeliness and responsiveness.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the parenting time issue as it was before the courts, and over the information disclosure issue.

The counselling issue was resolved prior to the hearing.

However, the Board found the society failed to adequately hear the applicant's concerns regarding the timeliness of measures relating to time with her children following her completion of treatment.

The society was ordered to provide written reasons to the applicant regarding how it considered her views.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking review of a children's aid society's refusal to proceed with a complaint regarding redacted childhood records.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant did not file a formal complaint in the format required by the Regulation.

Furthermore, the Board noted that issues related to personal information fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with two terms of a settlement agreement reached during a mediation.

The adjudicator found that the respondent failed to comply with the first term, as the revised closing letter provided to the applicant contained unnecessary prejudicial details that rendered it unfit for its intended purpose in family court.

However, the adjudicator found that the respondent complied with the second term by holding a meeting with an Equity, Diversity and Inclusion specialist to hear the applicant's concerns regarding the impact of Islamic culture on the investigation.

The adjudicator ordered the respondent to provide a newly revised closing letter with specific language.

The applicant, who is in a relationship with the mother of two children in extended society care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board after the society refused to proceed with his adoption inquiry.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not meet the definition of a 'parent' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and therefore lacked standing to be heard.

Furthermore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the society's refusal because the applicant failed to submit his complaint in the prescribed format required by regulation.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent children's aid society's failure to provide services following a disclosure by her child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant had not filed her complaint with the society using the mandatory Formal Complaint to a Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel form as required by section 119(2) of the Act and section 56 of Ontario Regulation 156/18.

The applicant, a 12-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The respondent facility argued that the admission was justified due to the child's history of behavioural difficulties and threats of self-harm.

The Board found that the respondent failed to establish that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by subsection 171(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The evidence provided was largely historical, hearsay, or from professionals who had not assessed the child at the time of admission.

Consequently, the Board granted the application and ordered the child's release.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the removal of a child who had been in her care for seven years.

The Board held a videoconference to determine eligibility.

The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the application because the child was in a customary care agreement rather than court-ordered extended society care, which is a statutory prerequisite for a review under section 109(7).

The application was dismissed.

The Respondent Children's Aid Society requested a variance of the CFSRB's confidentiality rules to permit the use of documents from a settled CFSRB application in its defence against a related application brought by the Applicant before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The Applicant opposed the disclosure.

The CFSRB granted the request, finding that the HRTO requires the relevant documents to determine whether the issues raised had already been resolved in the CFSRB proceeding.

The confidentiality order was varied to allow specific documents to be used in the HRTO proceeding, with children's names redacted.

The applicant, a close family friend of a child in foster care, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising concerns about the child's condition and her request to be considered as a kinship placement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that the applicant was not a person who had 'sought or received a service' from the society, as required by the Act, because community referrals and requests to become a kinship placement do not constitute seeking or receiving a service.

The applicant mother filed an application alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns regarding the care of her children by their father, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding those complaints and regarding another child's participation in a criminal trial.

The tribunal dismissed the application, finding the respondent provided numerous opportunities to be heard and provided reasons where permitted.

The tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction regarding the older child in extended society care, as the applicant was not receiving services and the child had not consented to disclosure.

The respondent children's aid society alleged that the self-represented applicant breached a confidentiality order by sharing information with her sister-in-law during a pre-hearing mediation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach.

The Board accepted the applicant's explanation that she moved to maintain privacy when her sister-in-law entered the room, and concluded there was no breach of the confidentiality order.

The applicant father filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging he was not given an opportunity to be heard regarding decisions affecting his children.

The respondent children's aid society argued the issues were already before the court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the applicant's complaints related to custody, access, and the validity of the protection proceedings, which were the subject of an upcoming Status Review Application before the court.

As the issues were not separate and different from those before the court, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under subsection 120(8)(a) and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the revocation of their child's registration as a non-resident international student with the respondent school board.

The registration was revoked due to excessive absenteeism in breach of the International Student Agreement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that absenteeism is not an activity that permits or requires suspension and expulsion under the Education Act.

Therefore, the revocation was not an expulsion, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The applicant parent filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her child's wellbeing in the care of the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent questioned the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the Superior Court of Justice in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns, including the child's wellbeing, access with the father, and a psychological report, were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

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

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, arguing the issues were subject to an ongoing child protection proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice.

Applying the test from Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., the Board found that complaints regarding the child's wellbeing in foster care, delays in kinship placement, and access visits were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court and could proceed.

Complaints regarding the reasons for the child's removal were dismissed as being substantive issues before the court.

The applicant mother sought a review by the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding her concerns about the respondent society's handling of her allegations that the child's father posed a safety risk.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction on the basis that the same issues were before the Superior Court of Justice in a parenting dispute.

The Board found that the issues raised in the application were not separate and different from those considered and decided by the Court, which had recently ordered parenting time for the father.

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

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's decision to close her foster home.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that as a foster parent, the applicant was providing a service rather than seeking or receiving one.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to submit her complaint to the society using the mandatory form required by regulation.