OCFSRB 2024

The society brought a motion for an interim order allowing a foster child to reside with the added parties pending the hearing of the foster parents' application to review the society's refusal of their adoption application and proposed removal of the child.

The society had removed the child without providing the statutorily required 10 days' notice and without obtaining a local director's opinion that the child was at risk of harm.

The Board dismissed the society's motion, finding that it was in the child's best interests to remain with the foster parents, who had cared for the child since birth, pending the hearing on the merits.

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

The agreement required the respondent to review new evidence, conduct a fresh investigation if warranted, and review concerns regarding the child's developmental delays.

The tribunal reviewed the steps taken by the respondent, including conducting a fresh investigation and providing referral information, and found that the respondent had fulfilled all five terms of the agreement.

The application was dismissed and the file was closed.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent society failed to provide an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions.

The respondent argued that the issues were already before the courts in a status review proceeding and thus outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

The adjudicator found that while most of the complaints were subject to the status review proceeding, the complaint regarding the lack of reasons for a cancelled meeting was separate and different.

The tribunal assumed jurisdiction to hear that specific complaint.

The applicant mother filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding services received from the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because a child protection application was before the court.

The CFSRB found that the applicant's remaining complaint—that the respondent failed to hear her concerns regarding the identification of a person as a danger to the children—was separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

The CFSRB ordered that the application proceed to be reviewed on that specific concern.

The applicant filed a complaint against the respondent child welfare agency under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging a breach of confidentiality, failure to disclose her file, and failure to provide meaningful reasons regarding a potential conflict of interest involving her ex-partner, who was employed by the respondent.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found insufficient evidence of a confidentiality breach and noted the respondent had eventually disclosed the file and explained its jurisdictional transfer.

However, the Board found the respondent failed to provide the applicant with a meaningful explanation of how it handles potential conflicts of interest.

The application was upheld in part, and the respondent was ordered to provide a written explanation of its conflict of interest procedures.

The applicant, a former foster parent, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests, specifically regarding access to the child.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the Superior Court of Justice and the Divisional Court.

The Board agreed, finding that all allegations raised by the applicant were or could have been addressed in the ongoing court proceedings to which she was a party.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints about a children's aid society, including deprivation of liberty, cancelled parenting time, and unsafe placements.

The Board found that all the issues raised by the applicant were already before the Superior Court of Justice in ongoing child protection and status review proceedings.

Applying the principle that the Board lacks jurisdiction over matters currently before the courts, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising concerns about the respondent society's failure to provide reasons for its decisions regarding housing assistance and the proposed removal of her child.

After multiple adjournments and the applicant's abrupt departure from a previous hearing, the applicant failed to attend the final scheduled hearing despite confirming her attendance.

The tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 after two foster children were removed from her care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The Board held that foster parents are typically considered service providers rather than service recipients, and since the applicant was not subject to a child protection investigation, she was not eligible to seek a review under section 120.

The appellant appealed the respondent school board's decision to expel their child.

Prior to a scheduled mediation, the respondent advised the Child and Family Services Review Board that the matter had settled.

The appellant failed to respond to communications from the Board, did not attend the mediation, and failed to comply with a Case Management Direction requiring them to confirm their intention to proceed.

Consequently, the Board found the appeal to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother caring for three children involved in child protection proceedings, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent society.

The applicant alleged the society improperly shared personal information, made demands without court orders, and brought other agencies into her home without notice.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the privacy complaint, as it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the remaining complaints regarding the society's conduct, as there was no evidence these issues were before the court in the ongoing status review proceedings.

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.

The Board found the application ineligible for review because the applicant failed to demonstrate that they had sought or received a service from the respondent children's aid society, and the complaint did not relate to any such service.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide her with contact information or follow-up regarding safety referrals she made about her grandchildren.

The Board dismissed the application at the threshold stage, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant had not sought or received a service from the society as required by section 120(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board also noted that complaints regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The appellant appealed to the Child and Family Services Review Board after a school board issued a trespass notice preventing her children from attending school.

The children had been suspended pursuant to an order from the local health unit under the Immunization of School Pupils Act.

The Board found that the trespass notice did not constitute an expulsion under the Education Act, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's failure to provide information and reasons for decisions concerning her medically fragile child.

The respondent argued the board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in a protection application.

The board found it had jurisdiction to hear complaints relating to communication and information, as these were separate from the substantive protection issues before the court.

The applicants, the father and step-mother of three children, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear their concerns regarding services and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests.

The concerns arose from two child protection investigations related to post-separation caregiver conflict and allegations of physical harm.

The Board found that the respondent provided the applicants with numerous opportunities to be heard and that no 'decision' was made by the respondent regarding parenting time that would trigger an obligation to provide reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent society refused to proceed with his complaint.

The Board found that the applicant failed to submit his initial complaint to the society using the mandatory 'Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel' form required by Ontario Regulation 156/18.

Because the complaint was not in the required format, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter and dismissed the application.

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

During a pre-hearing, the applicant stated an intention to breach the Board's confidentiality rules and speak to the media.

The Board directed the applicant to provide a written commitment to follow the rules, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant refused to comply.

The Board dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

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

The respondent argued the application was ineligible for review because the matter was already before the Superior Court of Justice in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the issues raised by the applicant related to the subject matter of the ongoing child protection proceeding and could be addressed by the court.

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

The Applicant filed a complaint to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society of Toronto failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decision not to verify physical abuse allegations regarding her children.

The Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to order a reinvestigation or costs.

On the merits, the Board found the Society maintained appropriate communications, followed joint investigation protocols, and provided clear reasons for verifying sexual abuse but not physical abuse.

The application was dismissed.