OCFSRB 2024

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons why the applicant was not contacted directly during the family finding process for her cousin.

The tribunal held a non-compliance hearing and found that the respondent's letter provided a sufficient description of the family finding process and adequate reasons for its decision, fulfilling the terms of the settlement agreement.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent had complied and closed the file.

The applicants sought a review of a decision by the respondent children's aid society to remove a child allegedly placed with them for adoption.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application ineligible for review because it was filed more than a year after the statutory 10-day deadline.

Furthermore, the application lacked any evidence that the child had actually been placed with the applicants for adoption.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, the grandfather of a child involved with the respondent children's aid society, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about services provided to the child and her parents.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant did not demonstrate that he himself had sought or received a service from the society, which is a threshold requirement under section 120(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising concerns about a child previously in her care and the respondent society's conduct.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because foster parents are considered service providers rather than service recipients under the Act.

The applicant sought an oral, video-recorded hearing for their application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging criminal negligence by the respondent.

The respondent requested a written hearing, noting the reliance on email exchanges.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered a written hearing, finding it more efficient and noting that the Board lacks jurisdiction to investigate alleged crimes.

The applicants filed a complaint to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to explain its actions during a child protection investigation.

The investigation was initiated after police informed the society of criminal allegations against one of the applicants, which ultimately resulted in an acquittal.

The Board found that the society failed to adequately explain its compliance with investigation standards, its reasons for denying financial assistance, and its verification decisions.

The application was granted, and the society was ordered to provide written explanations to the applicants.

The applicant sought an in-person hearing for her application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact on her rights.

The respondent requested a written hearing.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered that the hearing proceed in writing, finding that an in-person hearing was not necessary to accommodate a Human Rights Code-related need or to ensure fairness, and that a written format would be more efficient given the procedural focus of the application.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for not approving her plan for a foster child.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not in receipt of services and the matter was before the court.

The Board found that conducting a caregiver evaluation constituted a service, and that the complaint regarding the failure to provide reasons was separate from the substantive child protection proceedings before the court.

The application was permitted to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicants, foster parents of a child, sought to review the respondent society's decision to refuse their adoption application.

The society argued the applicants missed the 10-day deadline to apply for a review after receiving a letter on November 17, 2023.

The Board found the letter did not satisfy the mandatory notice requirements under section 192(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as it lacked specific statutory references and clear wording regarding appeal rights.

Consequently, the 10-day deadline was not triggered, and the application was permitted to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The Applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent Society failed to give him a chance to be heard regarding his child protection concerns between 1994 and 2000.

The Applicant had repeatedly reported that his child was being abused by the mother and her partner, but the Society did not remove the child until 2000.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while there was communication between the parties, the Society's decisions to leave the child in the mother's care for years suggested the Applicant was not truly heard.

The Board granted the application and ordered the Society to provide the Applicant with his complete, redacted file from 1994 to the present.

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

During a videoconference pre-hearing, the child disrupted the proceeding, and the appellant disconnected and failed to return.

After the appellant failed to respond to a subsequent case management direction, the adjudicator dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and subsequently failed to respond to the Board's directions to reschedule or withdraw the application.

The Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, the grandmother of a child, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about the respondent society's lack of response to referrals.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant had not made a complaint to the society using the required formal complaint form and was not seeking or receiving a service from the society as defined by the Act.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society denied her access to public documents, specifically an accountability agreement and governance policies.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction because the complaint did not relate to a service sought or received from the society as defined in the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the custody of their child and the respondent children's aid society's withdrawal of a motion before the court.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the issues were within the court's purview and were not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the court.

The Applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing their application to adopt a child.

The child had been placed with foster parents (the Added Parties) since birth and had complex medical needs.

The CFSRB first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application, finding the Applicants had made a valid expression of interest to adopt.

On the merits, the CFSRB applied the best interests of the child criteria under section 179(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Although the Applicants shared the child's cultural and religious background, the CFSRB found that the foster parents had a demonstrated ability to meet the child's medical needs, provided continuity of care, and had formed a strong attachment with the child.

The CFSRB confirmed the Society's decision and ordered the adoption to proceed with the foster parents.

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

The applicant subsequently failed to attend three scheduled pre-hearing/mediation sessions, providing either very late notice or no notice at all.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's repeated failure to attend and lack of timely notice wasted the time and resources of the tribunal and the respondent.

Consequently, the adjudicator dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a grandmother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her grandchildren's safety and the respondent society's refusal to proceed with her complaint.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 applies only to parents and children, not grandparents.

Furthermore, the applicant had not filed the required formal complaint form under section 119(1) and was not seeking or receiving a service from the society.

The applicant, a grandmother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her granddaughter.

The Board 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 parents, which does not include grandparents.

Furthermore, the applicant was not seeking or receiving services from the society.

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 directed the applicant to provide written submissions regarding whether she had sought or received services from the respondent.

The applicant failed to provide the submissions or contact the Board by the deadline.

Consequently, the Board concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.