Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant father filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding his child in care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent provided an opportunity to be heard and reasons for most concerns, appropriately balancing the child's privacy wishes.

However, the Board upheld the application in part, finding the respondent failed to hear the applicant's concern about a worker discussing a potential mental health diagnosis with the child, and failed to provide reasons for initially placing the child in an unlicensed home.

The respondent was ordered to provide written reasons regarding the placement.

The respondent society brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's section 120 complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the issues overlapped with ongoing child protection proceedings and sought third-party personal information.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints relating to the mother's access and medical decisions for the child, as those matters were before the court or did not relate to the applicant's interests.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over complaints regarding the society's internal complaint review process, communication with the applicant, and financial reimbursement.

The motion was granted in part.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with several terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The agreement required the respondent to provide letters outlining its position on unsupervised access, explain its ongoing involvement, and facilitate meetings regarding disclosure and communication.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the written submissions and found that the respondent had substantively complied with the terms regarding written explanations and access positions.

However, the Board found the respondent failed to comply with the terms requiring a meeting to discuss communication and a written explanation of the disclosure process.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a letter explaining the disclosure process.

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 comply with directions to provide documentary disclosure and witness statements.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment, which was denied.

The applicant subsequently failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing.

The Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to follow directions and attend the hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The parties reached a settlement agreement at mediation, but both subsequently alleged non-compliance by the other.

The Child and Family Services Review Board determined in a written hearing that the respondent society had complied with its disclosure and procedural obligations under the agreement.

The Board found that the applicant failed to comply with the requirement to submit an Internal Complaints Review Panel form by the agreed deadline.

As the Board's jurisdiction under section 120 is limited, no further action was taken and the file was closed.

The appellants appealed the respondent school board's decision to expel a pupil under section 311.7 of the Education Act.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the respondent withdrew the expulsion, allowing the pupil to return to school immediately.

The appellants sought to proceed with a review of the preceding 20-day suspension, but the Child and Family Services Review Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to review school suspensions.

The Board ordered the expulsion quashed and the pupil reinstated.

The applicant and respondent both alleged non-compliance with a settlement agreement reached during a pre-hearing for an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The CFSRB found that the respondent failed to comply by mistakenly providing an Internal Complaints Review Panel with documentation outside the agreed timeframe.

The CFSRB also found the applicant failed to comply by sending additional materials to the respondent.

As the CFSRB's jurisdiction under section 120 is limited to ordering written reasons or dismissing the complaint, no further action was taken and the file was closed.

The applicant, the aunt and primary caregiver of two children, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, complaining that the respondent children's aid society did not follow its internal complaint review process.

The CFSRB dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant did not file her complaint with the society using the mandatory Formal Complaint to a Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) form required by the legislation.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 against the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis of res judicata and because the issues were before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the applicant was not barred from raising complaints from a previous application because they had not been decided on their merits.

However, the Board dismissed complaints requiring factual determinations on caregiving as they were not separate and different from issues before the court.

The application was permitted to proceed solely on issues relating to the respondent's communication with the applicant.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for several decisions, including closing an investigation file, refusing to refer the children to the Office of the Children's Lawyer, not requiring supervised parenting time, and refusing to provide records.

The Board found that the respondent had provided reasons for the decisions it actually made, and that no decisions were made regarding the referral or records refusal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her grandson's placement with his mother and alleged neglect.

The respondent agency argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not a service recipient.

The Board found that the applicant had not sought or received services from the respondent as defined under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and therefore dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The respondent argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because the matters were already before the courts.

The adjudicator found that allegations of human rights violations and unethical conduct by the respondent's lawyer were not separate from ongoing court and tribunal proceedings, and thus outside the CFSRB's jurisdiction.

However, the CFSRB retained jurisdiction to review the respondent's alleged failure to intervene in a recent incident, as it was separate and distinct from the matters before the court.

The applicant, the aunt of a child, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about how the respondent children's aid society addressed her child protection concerns.

The applicant alleged that the society failed to give her a chance to be heard, failed to provide reasons for its decisions, and refused to proceed with her complaint.

The Board considered whether the application was eligible for review under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not the child's caregiver and had not sought or received any services from the society as defined under the Act.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with its complaint review procedure and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The applicant had complained about the respondent interviewing his child at school without consent.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the applicant did not initially file his complaint in the required form, and later failed to provide particulars of the decisions for which he sought reasons, effectively withdrawing from the written hearing process.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the apprehension and placement of her five children.

The respondent children's aid society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the issues were already before the court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board applied the two-part test from Waterloo v. D.D. and found that the applicant's complaints were not separate and distinct from the substantive issues before the court.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, the maternal grandmother of a child in interim society care, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society denied her the opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting the child and the child's mother.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was not a 'service recipient' within the meaning of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The right to be heard under section 15(2) is limited to children, young persons, and their parents, and the decisions for which reasons were sought affected the interests of the child and mother, not the applicant.

The applicants, who were being assessed as potential kinship caregivers for five children, filed a complaint with the respondent children's aid society after their approval was revoked.

The respondent refused to establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel, arguing the applicants had not sought or received services from them.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the kinship assessment and related interactions constituted a service under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board ordered the respondent to establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel to address the applicants' complaint.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board after the respondent children's aid society refused to process their complaint through an Internal Complaints Review Panel.

The respondent argued the applicants were not eligible because they did not seek or receive a service.

The Board found that a kinship assessment constitutes a prescribed service under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board ordered the respondent to establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel and meet with the applicants.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society failed to hear her concerns or provide reasons for decisions regarding supervised visits, intercepted communications about a hospital visit, and the child's medical and mental health care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's own conduct—including breaching a restraining order, absconding with the child, and refusing to communicate meaningfully with the society—prevented the society from engaging in discussions or addressing her concerns.

The applicants, maternal grandparents of the children, filed an application to review complaints against the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The CFSRB found that complaints relating to the children's placement and access frequency were substantive issues before the court and dismissed them.

However, complaints regarding how the respondent exercised its discretion in facilitating access and communicating with the applicants were not before the court and were permitted to proceed.