OCFSRB 2025

The applicant, a foster parent, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to hear her concerns regarding the removal of three children from her home.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the statutory right to be heard is limited to children and parents, not foster parents.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to file a formal complaint in the required format.

The applicant grandmother filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging the respondent children's aid society delayed her kinship application due to her disability and failed to give her a chance to be heard.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

Under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the right to be heard is limited to children, young persons, and their parents, and does not extend to non-parents such as grandparents.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decision not to investigate a report that his child was assaulted at school.

The Board found that while the respondent had heard the applicant's concerns, it failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision not to open an investigation.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a detailed letter explaining its application of the Eligibility Spectrum, the information it considered, and how confidentiality provisions under Part X of the CYFSA constrained its ability to provide information.

The self-represented applicant father filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions.

Following a hearing on the merits, the Child and Family Services Review Board upheld three of the five issues.

The Board found the society failed to provide meaningful reasons regarding its investigation into the maternal grandfather, failed to adequately respond to the applicant's requests to speak with a supervisor, and failed to address concerns raised with the service manager.

The society was ordered to provide written explanations and follow-up regarding these issues.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to give him a chance to be heard before removing his foster children and closing his foster home.

The closure followed criminal charges against the applicant's son.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the statutory right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is limited to children and their parents, and does not extend to foster parents.

The applicant mother sought the return of her child, who was temporarily placed in foster care under a voluntary services agreement.

She applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that section 109 only applies to foster parents challenging the removal of a child in extended society care who has lived with them continuously for two years.

The applicant foster parent filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a child from their care.

The child had been in extended society care and 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 Board determined the application was eligible for review and issued directions for a first day of hearing.

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 tribunal considered whether the application was eligible for review under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Finding that the child had lived continuously with the applicant for more than two years and the application was filed within 10 days of receiving written notice, the tribunal determined the application was eligible to proceed to a hearing.

The appellant appealed the Peel District School Board's decision to expel her 17-year-old son from all schools of the board following two incidents of physical assault and online threats against peers.

The appellant argued that the board failed to consider mitigating factors, including the pupil's recent ADHD diagnosis and allegations of a school culture unsupportive of racialized students.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the pupil engaged in premeditated physical assault causing bodily harm and threatening behaviour.

The Board reviewed the mitigating factors under sections 2 and 3 of Ontario Regulation 472/07 and concluded that none applied, noting the pupil's ability to control his behaviour, the unacceptable risk to the safety of others, and his success in the board's Fresh Start Program.

The expulsion was confirmed.

The applicant father 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 child protection, bias, and a breach of confidentiality.

The Board dismissed the complaints relating to a September 2024 after-hours call, finding that the respondent had provided a letter explaining its actions and reasons for not opening a file.

However, the Board found that the respondent had not provided the applicant with information showing it heard his concerns regarding an alleged breach of confidentiality by a worker in May 2022.

The Board directed the respondent to provide this information within 45 days.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing and did not respond to a subsequent Pre-Hearing Report directing her to indicate whether she wished to pursue the application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board concluded that the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed six applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board within a short period.

The Board issued a Case Management Direction to determine whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant under Rule A8 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure.

After reviewing the applicant's litigation history and applying the relevant factors, the Board found that the high threshold for a vexatious litigant declaration was not met.

The Board noted that while one application raised jurisdictional concerns, there was no pattern of unmeritorious applications or conduct intended to delay proceedings.

The request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant was dismissed.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for closing an investigation in July 2023 and failed to hear him or provide reasons for not investigating his subsequent complaints in 2024 and 2025 regarding his children's living conditions and relocation.

The Board found that the issues were separate from ongoing family court proceedings and that it had jurisdiction.

The Board upheld the complaints, finding that the respondent failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions, and ordered the respondent to provide written explanations regarding the file closure and the application of the Eligibility Spectrum.

The applicant filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the society failed to hear his concerns or provide reasons for its decisions regarding the child's mother.

The hearing proceeded in writing, and neither party filed submissions.

Based on the uncontested allegations in the application, the Board found that the society failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to be heard regarding an affidavit submitted to the Family Court, and failed to provide reasons for not opening investigations into the mother's behaviour.

The application was upheld, and the society was ordered to provide a response and written reasons to the applicant.

The applicant father filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his concerns regarding the child's safety in the mother's care following an impaired driving incident.

The applicant also alleged the respondent failed to provide reasons for its actions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had provided the applicant with multiple opportunities to be heard, conducted an appropriate investigation, and provided reasons for its decisions.

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

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the allegations and found that while some issues related to parenting time and bias in the court proceeding were barred by section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, other issues concerning the manner of service provision were separate and could proceed to a review.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with five terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The terms related to providing reasons for seeking a supervision order, disclosing service plans, outlining expectations for the return of the child, meeting to discuss disclosure concerns, and contacting the child's father regarding alternative dispute resolution.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent had complied with four of the terms and that the fifth term was moot as all parties had since agreed to participate in alternative dispute resolution.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application 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 communications and directions from the Board.

The Board concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising six issues regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her case.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as the issues were previously adjudicated in a prior application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the submissions and found that one issue was identical to those previously decided and dismissed it.

However, the Board determined that the remaining five issues, including allegations of failing to provide reasons for decisions regarding access and file closure, were new and directed them to proceed to a hearing.

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 failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions made during a child protection investigation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society provided the applicant with an opportunity to be heard and adequate reasons regarding the investigation process, the consideration of professional recommendations, and the suspension of her internal complaint.

However, the Board found the society failed to hear the applicant's concerns regarding her older child's privacy and failed to provide sufficient reasons for advising that parenting time was a family court matter.

The application was upheld in part, and the society was ordered to provide a response and detailed written reasons on those two issues.