OCFSRB 2025

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 parties reached a settlement agreement at mediation, but the applicant subsequently alleged the respondent society failed to comply with several terms requiring written explanations for its child protection decisions.

The Board reviewed the written submissions and found the respondent failed to provide sufficient reasons for several terms, including its assessment of the applicant's mental health and its application of the Eligibility Spectrum.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a further letter with specific details to comply with the agreement.

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

The agreement required the respondent to provide definitions and explanations regarding a 'place of safety' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, arrange a meeting, and provide information on an internal complaints review panel.

The Board found that the respondent complied with the terms regarding the definition and the complaints panel, partially complied with the explanation term, and failed to comply with the meeting term.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a further letter explaining the statutory requirements for a place of safety.

The applicant, a grandparent of a child involved with the respondent children's aid society, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The applicant had previously gone through the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel process regarding her role as a kin caregiver.

The Board found that the society had provided sufficient reasons through the internal review process, which acknowledged communication missteps and explained the limitations of the applicant's role as a voluntary kin caregiver.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns about worker bias and failed to comply with the Internal Complaint Review Procedure.

The Board found that the respondent did not adequately hear the applicant's concerns regarding bias, as there was no evidence of active listening or meaningful discussion.

The Board also found that the respondent failed to provide written notice of complaint eligibility within seven days, breaching procedural requirements.

The respondent was ordered to provide written reasons demonstrating how it considered the applicant's concerns about bias.

The respondent school board brought a motion requesting particulars regarding the appellant's amended appeal of a student expulsion.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and overly detailed.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the motion for particulars, finding that the amended appeal provided sufficient narrative for the respondent to know the case it must meet.

The Board noted that the appellant was still in the process of obtaining youth records, and any further particulars could be provided during the normal disclosure process.

The applicant, a father, filed an application under s. 120 of the CYFSA alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide sufficient reasons for several decisions, including not investigating an incident where his son harmed the mother, investigating him but not the mother for another incident, and recommending a communication book despite a no-contact order.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the applicant was not provided sufficient reasons regarding the unbalanced investigation and the communication book recommendation.

The application was upheld in part, and the respondent was ordered to provide detailed written reasons within 30 days.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging harassment and other issues by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the same issues were currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the substance of the applicant's complaints, including allegations of harassment, parenting capacity disputes, and school concerns, were identical to issues raised in the ongoing court proceedings.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant, a grandmother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about services provided to her grandchild and daughter by the respondent society.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not a parent and had not personally sought or received services from the society as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a term of their settlement agreement requiring a progress update on a paternity test for the children's alleged father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent had only partially complied, as it provided communication dates but lacked details on next steps.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a further letter detailing the status of contact and any requirements to facilitate the paternity test.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decision not to investigate allegations that her child was physically harmed at daycare.

The Board found that while the society initially listened to the applicant, it failed to follow up when she provided new information months later.

The Board also found that the society failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision not to investigate.

The society was ordered to provide written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant, a teacher accused of misconduct by a student, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) complaining that the respondent children's aid society did not hear his concerns or follow its complaint process during its investigation.

The CFSRB dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The right to be heard under section 120(4)4 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act applies only to children, young persons, and their parents, not to third parties like the applicant.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to file a formal complaint with the society in the format required by Ontario Regulation 156/18, which is a prerequisite for CFSRB review.

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 applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and did not respond to subsequent directions from the Board.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the Ontario Court of Justice in active child protection proceedings.

The Board found that the applicant's complaint regarding the respondent's failure to convene an Internal Complaints Review Panel was not a substantive issue before the court and could proceed.

However, the Board dismissed the applicant's complaints regarding disclosure of records, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and complaints regarding worker interactions during access visits, which were already being addressed by the court.

The applicant mother filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The applicant sought to have her 16-year-old son testify as a witness.

The Board denied the request, finding that the section 120 complaint is procedural and focuses solely on the communications between the applicant and the respondent.

The child's evidence was not relevant to the applicant's right to be heard, and the child could bring his own complaint if he chose.

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

The society sought to dismiss the application on preliminary jurisdictional grounds, arguing res judicata, lack of jurisdiction, and abuse of process.

The Board found that the core issues were identical to a previous application and thus barred by res judicata, and that some requested relief fell outside its jurisdiction.

However, the Board found the application was not an abuse of process and ordered the society to provide the applicant with an Internal Complaints Review Panel hearing, as she was previously unable to participate due to trauma.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent argued that the issues raised in the application were already before the courts in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints regarding the society's investigations, the children's cell phone, and counselling had already been addressed by the court.

The Board also determined it lacked jurisdiction over complaints regarding the disclosure and accuracy of Child Protection Information Network (CPIN) notes, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant's former spouse brought a motion to be added as a party to the applicant's proceeding against the children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The CFSRB dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed added party did not have a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding, which focused solely on the society's procedural obligations to the applicant.

The CFSRB also dismissed the applicant's request for costs against the proposed added party, as the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to award costs.

The self-represented applicant 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 his concerns regarding disability accommodations, kinship worker bias, mental health treatment, and the children's schooling.

The applicant also alleged he was not provided reasons for the termination of an internal complaints process.

Following a full-day hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had provided multiple opportunities for the applicant to be heard and had provided sufficient reasons for its decisions.

The Board noted the applicant's true grievance was with the correctness of the decisions, which falls outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising concerns about the respondent children's aid society's termination of services and transfer of responsibility to another agency.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing, but the parties reached a settlement agreement prior to the hearing date.

The Child and Family Services Review Board closed the file as settled in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother and former kin caregiver, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints against the children's aid society.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the Superior Court of Justice in child protection proceedings.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the applicant's complaint regarding the internal complaints review panel because it was not filed in the required format.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction over the access complaint as it was an issue before the court.

However, three of the applicant's complaints regarding the society's failure to hear her concerns and provide reasons were found to be separate from the court proceedings and were allowed to proceed to a hearing.