Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for cancelling access and apprehending his child.

The respondent argued the board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 because the issues were already before the court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The board agreed, finding that the court had already addressed the reasons for apprehension and the ongoing access issues, including the applicant's escalating behaviour.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about the respondent Children's Aid Society's handling of his children's case.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed because the issues raised were already before the court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board found that the issues raised in the application had been decided by or remained before the court.

Pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board is prohibited from reviewing complaints that are the subject of ongoing court proceedings, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding access, kin placement, and other issues related to her children who were the subject of ongoing child protection and criminal proceedings.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the CYFSA because the issues were already before the courts.

The Board found that 13 of the 14 issues raised were squarely before the courts in the child protection and criminal proceedings and were therefore dismissed.

The remaining issue regarding a request to transfer the file to another jurisdiction was found to be separate and permitted to proceed.

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

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the Superior Court of Justice in a child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the court documents and found that all of the applicant's concerns had been raised and considered in the court proceeding.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which precludes the Board from reviewing complaints that are the subject of court proceedings.

The applicant filed a third complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the apprehension of her children and their care.

The Board found that the issues raised had already been decided by the court or in previous Board decisions.

The Board dismissed the application in its entirety and found that the repeated filing of substantially similar applications constituted an abuse of process, warning the applicant that further similar applications could result in her being declared a vexatious litigant.

The applicant, a grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to protect her grandchildren, resulting in the death of her grandson.

The Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the application under section 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Act is limited to children, young persons, and their parents, and the applicant was not receiving services from the society.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, the grandmother of a child in extended society care, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the society's handling of government funding for the child.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant had not filed a complaint with the society in the required format and, as a grandmother of a child in extended society care, was not herself seeking or receiving a service.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to hear her concerns regarding her child's education, health, and safety, and failed to provide reasons for closing her file and refusing to transfer it to another agency.

The Board found that the respondent had heard the applicant's concerns but appropriately determined they did not meet the threshold for child protection intervention, as many issues fell under the purview of family court.

However, the Board found that the respondent failed to provide the applicant with adequate written reasons explaining the verification process and the decision to close the file, ordering the respondent to provide a written explanation.

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order from a previous decision so she could file it as evidence in an ongoing child protection proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Board denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from its usual practice of maintaining confidentiality.

The Board noted that the applicant could seek an order from the Court permitting the use of the decision, as the Court was better positioned to determine its appropriateness.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests regarding a child placed in her care.

The applicant wished to foster and adopt the child, but the society treated the placement as kinship care and later closed the file without pursuing a protection application or adoption.

The Review Board found the society failed to provide satisfactory reasons for several of its decisions and ordered it to provide a detailed written explanation to the applicant.

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

A pre-hearing was scheduled and notice was sent to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the pre-hearing.

The respondent indicated that its involvement with the applicant had been reduced, which may have allayed the applicant's concerns.

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

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns regarding her child's safety, failed to provide reasons for recommending the child's grandmother have custody, and failed to provide a list of parenting concerns.

The Board proceeded with a written hearing and dismissed the application.

The Board found that the Society had provided the applicant with multiple opportunities to be heard, had explained its rationale for the custody recommendation, and had attempted to discuss parenting concerns with the applicant, who often refused to engage.

The Applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the Respondent Society failed to provide an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decision not to investigate his child protection concerns.

The Society conceded it did not comply with its obligations but provided its rationale and an invitation to meet in its response to the Application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had now provided adequate written reasons and heard the Applicant's concerns.

As the Board's remedial authority under section 120(7) is limited to ordering written reasons, the Application was dismissed.

The applicant mother 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 regarding spousal abuse by the children's father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written hearing and found that the respondent had indeed heard the applicant's concerns.

The respondent had acted on the reports by moving the applicant's supervised access outside the marital home to decrease the children's exposure to adult conflict.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding safety concerns she raised about her 17-year-old daughter.

The respondent claimed it was limited in providing information due to privacy provisions under Part X of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient reasons or a meaningful explanation as to why the information could not be provided.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide written responses to the applicant's questions and explain how the legislation constrained its ability to provide full answers.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent society regarding its handling of her child's case.

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

Applying the test from Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints related to the child's safety and mental health, as these were substantive issues before the court.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to review the applicant's complaint regarding the society's failure to consult her or provide reasons for its decisions, as this was a separate service-related issue.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society, alleging conflicts of interest, failure to share information, and lack of explanation for the removal of her children.

The Board reviewed the application to determine if it had jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board found that all the issues raised in the application had been previously placed before the court during child protection and custody proceedings.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to refuse her adoption application.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the child was not legally available for adoption, as the child had never been found in need of protection or placed in extended society care.

The Board agreed, finding that the legislative prerequisites for adoption had not been met and the child remained in the legal custody of his father.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of spousal abuse allegations, supervised access conditions, and grooming allegations against her current partner.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act because the matters were before the courts.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the access and grooming issues, as they were actively before the family and criminal courts.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over the spousal abuse complaint, as it related to a recent incident not yet raised in court.

The applicant, a step-parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her step-children's wellbeing and the respondent society's response to her concerns.

The application indicated that the society refused to proceed with her complaint.

The Board found that the applicant had not submitted her complaint to the society using the mandatory 'Formal Complaint to a Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel' form as required by the legislation.

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