Child and Family Services Review Board

The Applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the Respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding child protection investigations involving her children and their father.

The Board reviewed 17 specific issues raised by the Applicant.

The Board found that the Respondent had either provided adequate reasons for its decisions, had heard the Applicant's concerns, or that the issues were withdrawn or outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent Society's decision to refuse his application to adopt two children currently in extended society care.

The applicant, who recently began cohabiting with the children's biological mother, proposed a plan where the children would reside with them.

The Society refused the application due to the brief cohabitation period and the inappropriateness of placing the children with a parent from whom they were removed by court order.

The Child and Family Services Review Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the applicant lacked an adequate understanding of the children's profound physical, mental, and emotional needs, including Autism Spectrum Disorder and suspected Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and that the proposed adoption was not in the children's best interests.

The 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 or provide reasons for refusing to issue a letter stating the child's mother was restricted to supervised access.

The respondent explained it could not provide the requested letter because it had not assessed the mother since 2020 and could not opine on custody and access, though it did provide a letter confirming the child resided with the applicant.

The Board found that the respondent had provided the applicant with an opportunity to be heard and had provided reasons for its decision, even if the applicant was dissatisfied with those reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons regarding her deceased son's hospital records, schoolwork, sibling visits, Christmas access, personal belongings, and ashes.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to be heard on several issues, and failed to provide meaningful reasons regarding the return of her son's personal belongings and ashes.

The application was upheld in part, and the respondent was ordered to provide detailed written reasons regarding the belongings and ashes.

The applicant, identifying as a step-parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to hear his concerns and follow its complaint review process.

The Board found the application ineligible for review because the applicant did not have legal custody of the child and therefore was not a 'parent' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate that he had submitted a formal complaint to the society using the required form before applying to the Board.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent did not give her a chance to be heard regarding the care of her child in foster care.

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

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The Applicant mother filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 against the Children's Aid Society, alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding child protection investigations and access.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the Society's workers had heard the Applicant's concerns, provided adequate reasons for their actions, and that the Applicant failed to establish her allegations on a balance of probabilities.

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 its decisions regarding a child protection investigation.

The Board found that while the society provided reasons for not opening an ongoing file regarding post-separation conflict, it failed to provide reasons for not verifying concerns about the mother's mental health or for amending a letter sent to the mother.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant, subject to any legal constraints on disclosure under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking reasons for the decision to extend her child's commitment to a secure treatment centre.

The respondent children's aid society supported the treatment facility's request to the court for the extension.

The Board found that the issue of extending the child's secure treatment was squarely before the Ontario Court of Justice.

Applying section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the issue was not separate and different from the substantive issue before the court.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant acknowledged that her complaint to the society was made verbally, not in writing as required by the regulations.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter because the complaint was not submitted in the required formal written format.

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, alleging the respondent society failed to process a complaint, provide reasons for decisions, and give the applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding access visits.

The Board dismissed the complaints regarding the formal complaint process and decisions made by the Quebec Director of Youth Protection, as the respondent did not make those decisions and no formal complaint was filed.

However, the Board found the respondent failed to give the applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding specific service concerns raised in an email, ordering the respondent to provide a response to those concerns.

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

The adjudicator found that the respondent had complied with the first term regarding the provision of information.

Regarding the second term, the parties agreed that the respondent would conduct a resource check and provide a new letter confirming the number of youth placed in the applicant's emergency foster home, without a confidentiality constraint.

The applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent's decision to terminate the adoptive placement of two children and remove them from the applicants' home.

The Board found the application was filed within the required 10-day period and was therefore eligible for review.

The Board scheduled a first hearing date and noted that the respondent is precluded from removing the children until the review is completed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's decisions about the placement of and access to his child.

The respondent argued the application was ineligible for review because the same issues were currently before the Ontario Court of Justice in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

As the issues were already before the court, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application.

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

The respondent argued the application was ineligible to proceed because the matters were before the court in child protection proceedings.

The Board found that three of the applicant's complaints—relating to bias, failure to hear concerns about child safety, and breach of confidentiality—arose after the final court order and were separate and different from the issues before the court.

However, a complaint regarding procedural errors was dismissed as the applicant had not followed the formal complaint process.

The applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review a children's aid society's alleged refusal of their application to adopt a child.

At a case management videoconference, the society clarified that it had not refused the application, but rather paused it pending the completion of a child protection investigation and assessment in another region.

The Board found that because no formal refusal had been made, the application was premature and not eligible for review under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent failed to provide written reasons for cancelling a scheduled meeting.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the meeting was not cancelled by the respondent; rather, the applicant hung up the phone when the respondent called to start the meeting.

As there was no decision by the respondent requiring reasons, the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the society failed to provide reasons for a decision affecting her interests.

The society argued the application was ineligible because foster parents provide services rather than seek or receive them.

The Board found the application eligible for review, determining that the legislation does not exclude foster parents from seeking services for children in their care and that the applicant had explicitly sought services related to the children's emotional wellbeing.

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

The respondent argued the board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's complaints regarding the removal of her children, supervised access requirements, and placement with grandparents were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

Consequently, the board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions, including the apprehension of her newborn child and issues related to access and care.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because a child protection proceeding was already before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Board found that the issues raised in the complaint were the same as those before the court and could be addressed in the ongoing child protection proceeding.

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