OCFSRB 2025

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that a Children's Aid Society employee made inappropriate comments to her after she requested her disclosure file.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the complaint was merely a request to review perceived mistreatment.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, characterizing the complaint as a failure by the respondent to hear the applicant's concerns in a circumstance where her livelihood could be at risk.

Despite the applicant's failure to attend a scheduled pre-hearing, the Board declined to dismiss the application, finding she had an honestly held belief that she had communicated her unavailability, and ordered the matter to proceed to a rescheduled pre-hearing.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent's decision to remove three children from his care.

The respondent argued that the matter was governed by its Customary Care Code, which takes paramountcy over the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Board found that under the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families, the Indigenous law prevails in the event of a conflict.

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

The applicant mother filed a third application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising identical complaints to her previous applications, the first of which was settled by mediation.

The Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions on why the current application was not an abuse of process.

The applicant failed to provide submissions by the deadline.

The Board dismissed the application as abandoned and an abuse of process.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent children's aid society refused to proceed with her complaint.

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

The Board found that the applicant did not file her complaint with the society using the mandatory formal complaint form required by Ontario Regulation 156/18, which is a prerequisite for the Board's review under the Act.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement requiring the respondent children's aid society to provide a letter explaining its decisions regarding the removal of the applicant's granddaughter, her placement in a group home, and the refusal to share contact information.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to comply with the agreement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent's letter adequately explained its limited role in the decisions, which were made by the child's mother as legal guardian, and was provided by the agreed deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent failed to investigate abuse allegations and coerced statements from the children.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing video conference and subsequently advised she was on vacation and unavailable for the rescheduled date.

After failing to confirm attendance as directed by a case management direction, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

He alleged that the society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding multiple issues, including staff misconduct, false allegations, and the cancellation of his access visits.

The Board found that the applicant met his onus only with respect to the society's failure to provide reasons for cancelling his visits with his son in March 2011.

The society was ordered to provide those reasons, and all other complaints were dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent's decision not to place a child with the applicant for adoption.

The issue was whether the application was filed within the 10-day statutory time limit.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that because the time expired on a holiday, the application filed on the next non-holiday was timely and eligible for review.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with the terms of an amended settlement agreement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the written submissions and determined that the respondent had complied with most of the terms by providing sufficient reasons for its decisions regarding child protection and access.

However, the Board found that the respondent failed to provide answers to two specific questions regarding the formal complaint process and the child's exposure to pornography.

The respondent was ordered to provide answers to the remaining items.

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order to allow her to use a previous CFSRB decision in ongoing family court proceedings.

The CFSRB denied the request, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to depart from the usual practice of maintaining confidentiality.

The CFSRB noted that its proceedings are distinct from family court matters and suggested the applicant could seek an order directly from the family court to permit the use of the decision.

The applicant filed a second application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising concerns about the respondent society's actions, including denial of access to her child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the complaints related to the same issues currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

Under section 120(8)(a) of the Act, the Board lacks jurisdiction to review matters that are the subject of a court proceeding.

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

During a mediation process following a pre-hearing, the applicant left and subsequently failed to respond to the Board's communications.

The Board directed the applicant to contact them by a specified date or risk dismissal.

Having received no further communication, the Board found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant father filed a third application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising complaints about a children's aid society regarding disclosure of information, enforcement of court orders, and employee conduct.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process that repackaged issues from two previous applications which had already been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board reiterated that it lacks jurisdiction to review issues that are before the courts or relate to the disclosure of records governed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The appellant appealed a school board's decision to suspend and subsequently exclude their child from school.

The suspension was ordered by the Medical Officer of Health under the Immunization of School Pupils Act due to missing immunization records.

When the parents refused to comply, the school issued a notice of exclusion under the Education Act.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the exclusion was based on a medical order, not an expulsion under the Education Act.

The appellant parent appealed a school board's decision to exclude their child from school, arguing it constituted an expulsion under the Education Act.

The child had been suspended and subsequently excluded pursuant to an order from the medical officer of health under the Immunization of School Pupils Act.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the exclusion was a medical refusal to admit the student under section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act, not an expulsion, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a four-year-old child placed with them for adoption.

The Society's decision was based on allegations of sexual abuse made by a former foster child against one of the applicants.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society's verification of the abuse allegations was flawed and unreliable.

Considering the child's secure attachment to the applicants and the significant disruption removal would cause, the Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to remain with the applicants.

The Society's decision was rescinded, and the adoption was directed to proceed.

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

The child had lived continuously with the applicant for more than two years.

The Board found that the application was filed within the required 10-day period after receiving written notice of the removal.

The application was deemed eligible for review and directions were issued for a first day of hearing.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's decision to remove a child from their home.

The society provided the required 10 days' written notice of the proposed removal.

The applicant filed the application 13 days after receiving the notice, which is outside the mandated 10-day timeline under section 109(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017.

The application was dismissed as ineligible for review.

The Appellant filed an appeal of a school expulsion under the Education Act.

After failing to attend three scheduled pre-hearings and indicating an intention to delay the process until related criminal proceedings concluded, the Child and Family Services Review Board found the Appellant had abandoned the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant father filed complaints against the respondent children's aid society, alleging it failed to provide him with an opportunity to be heard regarding safety concerns about his child, failed to provide reasons for its decisions, and failed to follow proper complaint procedures.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society provided the applicant with an opportunity to be heard on most issues, but failed to provide reasons for not notifying him of a case opening, not involving a band representative, and incorrectly verifying him for risk of harm.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons for these specific decisions.