OCFSRB 2024

The applicant, whose three children were previously made Crown wards and adopted, filed an application under section 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for decisions, denied her a chance to be heard, and discriminated against her.

The Child and Family Services Review Board summarily dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was no longer a 'parent' under the Act, had been provided sufficient reasons during the prior protection proceedings, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear discrimination claims.

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.

Following a pre-hearing mediation where the applicant requested an adjournment, the Board directed the applicant to submit a written request specifying the length of the adjournment.

The applicant failed to respond to the initial direction and a subsequent Case Management Direction warning of potential dismissal.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicants filed an application under section 192(1)(b) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the proposed removal of a child placed for adoption.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application because the child had not been placed with the applicants for adoption, making the section inapplicable.

Le requérant a déposé une plainte contre la société d'aide à l'enfance, alléguant un manque de consultation, de la partialité en faveur de son ex-conjointe, et une atteinte à son droit de recevoir des services en français.

La Commission a conclu que la société n'avait pas adéquatement entendu le requérant ni fourni des motifs suffisants pour ses décisions, notamment lors de la fermeture de dossiers et du retrait des enfants de la résidence familiale.

La Commission a également conclu que les services en français offerts étaient insuffisants.

La société a été ordonnée de fournir au requérant des motifs écrits détaillés et en français pour ses diverses décisions.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the respondent Children's Aid Society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

He alleged that the Society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard, failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding his children, and infringed his right to receive services in French.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society's communications did not provide sufficient reasons for its decisions, including why he was not consulted to the same extent as his ex-wife, and that the Society did not offer appropriate French services.

The Board ordered the Society to provide clear and comprehensible written explanations in French for its various decisions.

The applicant, a grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding her concerns about her grandchildren in the care of their father.

She complained that the respondent society did not provide her with information relating to its investigation of her concerns.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant had not sought or received a 'service' from the society as defined under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region, alleging he was not given an opportunity to be heard regarding his concerns about the child's mother and the Society's investigation.

He also sought disclosure of counselling and investigation notes.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the disclosure issues, which fall under the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Board also found that the Society had provided the applicant with multiple opportunities to be heard regarding his concerns.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to follow its complaint review process or timelines regarding his concerns about his child's safety.

The Board dismissed the application because the applicant had not first submitted a formal written complaint to the society using the required Internal Complaints Review Panel form, which is a statutory prerequisite for the Board to review such an application.

The applicant, a former 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, complaining about the removal of a foster child from her home.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review.

The Board held that foster parents provide residential care but do not seek or receive 'services' under the Act unless they are subject to a child protection investigation, which was not the case here.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent agency failed to give him an opportunity to be heard regarding a report made about his family.

The respondent worker had reported concerns of domestic violence to another children's aid society, which then conducted a brief investigation.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the applicant was not a parent of the youth involved and did not seek or receive services from the respondent.

Consequently, the respondent owed no duty to the applicant under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the matter.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard regarding decisions affecting his foster children.

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

The Board held that section 120 only covers complaints in respect of a service sought or received from a society, whereas a foster parent provides a service rather than seeking or receiving one.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a child in extended society care from their home.

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

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

The applicant mother submitted her fourth and fifth applications to the Child and Family Services Review Board, raising concerns about the respondent children's aid society's actions regarding the removal and placement of her children.

The respondent requested that the applications be dismissed and the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the issues as they had either been decided by the court or fell outside its statutory authority.

Applying the factors for vexatious litigants, the Board concluded that the applicant was re-litigating decided issues and seeking unavailable remedies, thereby abusing the process.

The applications were dismissed, and the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant requiring permission for future filings.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent society's refusal of her application to adopt a child.

The respondent planned to place the child with their current foster parents for adoption.

The foster parents requested to be added as parties to the proceeding, which the respondent consented to but the applicant opposed.

The Board found that the foster parents had an important interest in the outcome and that their participation was necessary to determine the child's best interests.

The foster parents were added as parties to the proceeding.

The appellant mother appealed the school board's decision to expel her 14-year-old son from all schools within the board after he brought two large knives to school and displayed them on a school bus.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a new hearing and found that the pupil possessed weapons that negatively impacted the school climate, warranting a mandatory suspension.

The Board considered the mitigating factors under sections 2 and 3 of Ontario Regulation 472/07, including the pupil's special education needs and transition to an alternate program, but concluded that none of the factors mitigated the seriousness of the activities or the risk to the safety of others.

The expulsion from all schools of the school board was confirmed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding her lack of access to her child, who was in the care of the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues of custody and access were already before the court.

The Board found that the issues raised in the complaint were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

Accordingly, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant mother alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement, specifically regarding the disclosure of her file.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written review and found that the respondent had made good faith efforts to provide the records via secure email, courier, and in-person pick-up, but the applicant refused service.

The Board dismissed the allegation of non-compliance and closed the file.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of her concerns about her step-children's safety.

The respondent argued the applicant lacked standing as she was neither a parent nor a service recipient.

The Board found the applicant provided no evidence of legal custody or that she received services from the respondent.

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

The applicants, who are foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board challenging the children's aid society's decision to terminate their General Subsidies.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicants had not filed their complaint with the society using the required formal complaint form, which is a prerequisite for review.

Furthermore, as foster parents, the applicants were providing a service rather than seeking or receiving a service, rendering their complaint ineligible for review under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant mother alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement regarding the disclosure of her file and the provision of reasons for decisions affecting her and her child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent had fully complied with the file disclosure term, albeit delayed, and partially complied with the terms requiring reasons for decisions.

The Board ordered the applicant to provide a list of additional questions and the respondent to provide written answers to fulfill the remaining terms.