OCFSRB 2025

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a term of a settlement agreement reached at a pre-hearing.

The term required the respondent to provide a letter explaining its actions following a verified allegation of post-separation conflict.

The Board found that the respondent's letter was general in nature and failed to adequately answer the specific questions posed in the settlement agreement.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a more meaningful and specific response to the applicant.

The applicant, a school director, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about services provided to a child by the respondent children's aid society.

The applicant alleged the society failed to hear her concerns regarding the child's removal from current caregivers to a foster home.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the applicant was not eligible to complain under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as she had not sought or received a service from the society.

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 complaint regarding the removal of her children.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the matter was currently before the courts.

After the applicant failed to respond to a case management direction requiring submissions on the jurisdictional issue, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society.

During the proceedings, the applicant requested that the matter be placed in abeyance pending a related application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and sought permission to use confidential documents from the proceeding in the HRTO matter.

The respondent opposed the requests and sought relief for the applicant's unauthorized filing of confidential documents with the HRTO.

The tribunal found that the applicant breached confidentiality rules, denied permission to use the documents in the HRTO proceedings, and refused to place the application in abeyance, ordering the matter to proceed to a pre-hearing.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide an opportunity to be heard and reasons regarding an incident report and a reduction in her parenting time with her child in a group home.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent provided an opportunity to be heard on both issues.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide written reasons for failing to provide the incident report, but dismissed the remainder of the application as reasons for the reduction in parenting time had either been provided previously or were provided during the hearing.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to comply with an order requiring the production of specific documents.

The respondent subsequently failed to comply with three case management directions dictating the format for its response to the non-compliance allegations, instead providing electronic links to hundreds of pages of unindexed records.

The Board found the respondent non-compliant with both the case management directions and the document production order.

Given the history of the proceedings, the Board concluded the matter without making further orders for compliance.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent child protection agency collected his personal health information without consent or a court order.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

Under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, complaints regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by service providers fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicant, the child's grandparent, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent society failed to give her a chance to be heard regarding visitation.

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

The Board held that the right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Act is limited to children, young persons, and their parents, and does not extend to grandparents.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to investigate his complaints of emotional abuse against his son by a school principal and school board.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction as the school staff were not service providers or persons in charge of the child under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Board agreed, finding that school staff do not meet the statutory definition of a person in charge, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove children from her care.

The respondent provided evidence that the children were under customary care agreements and had never been the subject of an extended society care order.

The applicant conceded the lack of jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that a precondition for a review under section 109(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is that the children must have been in extended society care.

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 decisions affecting their interests, specifically regarding an out-of-care assessment.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues had already been decided in a recent child protection court proceeding.

The adjudicator reviewed the issues and found that several were indeed before the court and could not be reviewed by the Board, while others were separate and different and could proceed to a hearing.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding the care of her son.

The Society argued the application was an abuse of process, asserting the issues were substantially similar to a 2015 application that had been settled.

The Board found that the four issues raised in the current application were new and had not been dealt with in the 2015 settlement.

The Board directed the new issues to proceed to a pre-hearing, while noting it lacked jurisdiction to award the financial compensation sought by the applicant.

The applicant, the sister of four children involved with the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking a review of the Society's actions and protective measures for her siblings.

The Society argued the applicant lacked standing.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was neither a parent nor a service recipient during the relevant period, as required by section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Furthermore, the remedies sought by the applicant were outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the respondent society failed to follow its complaint review process and timelines regarding his concerns of child abuse.

The applicant had submitted a formal complaint to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel less than seven days prior to filing his application.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the statutory seven-day period for the society to determine the complaint's eligibility had not yet expired.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent children's aid society refused to exercise its discretion to order access to his child under a court undertaking.

The Board found that the issue of access was currently before the courts, as the applicant had breached a family court temporary order and was subject to an undertaking.

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

The applicant, the biological mother of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the children's aid society refused to proceed with her complaint regarding a potential kinship caregiver.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant did not file her complaint to the society using the mandatory formal complaint form required by the regulations.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging misconduct by an employee of the respondent society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board sought submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Finding that the applicant and her child had never been in receipt of services from the respondent, the Board concluded the application was not eligible for review and dismissed it.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society regarding its investigations into her allegations that the father was sexually abusing their child.

The parties were concurrently engaged in extensive family law litigation before the Superior Court of Justice.

The Board found that it was barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act from reviewing most of the applicant's issues because they had been placed before the court in the family law proceedings.

For the remaining issues, the Board concluded that the respondent had met its obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant mother filed complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the conduct of the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The respondent argued the complaints were a collateral attack on ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board found that the issues raised by the applicant, including worker conduct, access, and provision of services, were already decided by or currently before the courts.

Pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the applications and dismissed them.

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

The terms required the respondent to provide information about drug testing methods and to discuss the child's return to counselling.

Following a non-compliance videoconference, the Board found that the respondent had provided sufficient information regarding the drug testing and had adequately supported the child's counselling.

The Board concluded the respondent complied with the settlement agreement and closed the application.