Child and Family Services Review Board

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns regarding a child protection worker's conduct.

The Board reviewed the documentary evidence, which included extensive communication logs, emails, and meeting records between the Applicant and the society's management.

The Board found that the society had actively listened to the Applicant, escalated her concerns to the Director of Service, and taken steps to address them, such as offering a support person during visits.

The application was dismissed as the society met its obligation to hear the Applicant's concerns under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns regarding a safety plan and failed to explain what was required for reunification with her child.

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

The Board found that the applicant's complaints regarding her compliance with the safety plan and requirements for reunification were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

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

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints about the respondent children's aid society's conduct during a child protection trial.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the complaints related to issues that were already before the court.

Furthermore, the remedies sought by the applicant, including a mistrial and return of the children, were outside the Board's statutory authority.

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

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 because the issues were currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board agreed, finding that the applicant's complaints regarding communication, affidavit corrections, and care providers were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society, alleging the society failed to hear her concerns and failed to provide reasons regarding the closure of two child protection files, a delayed home assessment of the father's residence, and a delayed child interview.

The Board found that the society failed to provide an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons regarding the December 2024 file closure, the delayed home assessment, and the delayed interview.

However, the Board found the society did provide an opportunity to be heard and reasons for the July 2025 file closure.

The application was upheld in part, and the society was ordered to provide detailed written reasons.

The applicant mother applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests, specifically regarding the apprehension and adoption of her child.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the issues had already been decided by a court.

The Board found that the child was made a Crown ward in 2017 and the applicant's review application was dismissed in 2019.

Concluding that the application was an attempt to relitigate issues decided by the court almost a decade ago, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled pre-hearing mediation 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.

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 mediation and did not respond to a subsequent report directing her to explain her absence and confirm her intention to proceed.

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

The applicant father filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent children's aid society closed its investigation into his child despite ongoing risk factors.

The applicant alleged the society refused to proceed with his complaint.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to file his complaint with the society using the mandatory formal complaint form required by the regulations.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of his child's case, including kinship placements and lack of reasons for decisions.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Board found that the substantive issues raised by the applicant were essentially the same as those before the court, centering on reunification and placement.

As the matter was before the court, section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 barred the Board from reviewing the application.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested a waiver of the CFSRB's confidentiality order to use documents from a closed CFSRB file in responding to two complaints before the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (OCSWSSW).

The applicant opposed the request.

The CFSRB granted the request, finding that the OCSWSSW needed to review the materials to determine if the complaints were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The variance was limited to specific documents, with the names of any children redacted.

The respondent child and family services agency sought a variance of the CFSRB's confidentiality rules to permit the use of specific documents from an active CFSRB proceeding in responding to two complaints before the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (OCSWSSW).

The applicant opposed the request.

The CFSRB granted the request, finding that the OCSWSSW required the documents to determine whether the complaints before it were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The variance was limited to specific pleadings and reports, with an order that the names of any children be redacted.

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

The parties reached a settlement agreement, but the applicants subsequently alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with several terms.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written review to determine compliance.

The Board found that the respondent had met its obligations under the settlement agreement by providing the required letters, explanations, and policy information regarding its investigative processes.

The application was closed as settled.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove a foster child from their care without written notice.

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

The Board found the application eligible for review because the child was removed without the required 10 days' written notice under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The applicant mother filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board raising concerns about the respondent society's reunification plan and access to her children.

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

The Board agreed, finding that the issues of access and extended society care were squarely before the court.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns or provide reasons for speaking to her 15-year-old son about a Voluntary Youth Service Agreement without her involvement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent had provided multiple opportunities for the applicant to be heard through meetings and correspondence, and had provided sufficient written reasons for its decisions.

The application was dismissed.

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 or provide reasons regarding several complaints about her son's care in a group home.

The tribunal found the hearing would proceed in writing.

The tribunal held that the respondent had heard the applicant and provided reasons for all issues except one incident where the son left the group home in August 2015.

The tribunal ordered the respondent to provide written reasons within 30 days explaining why it did not inform the applicant of the August 2015 incident sooner.

The remaining complaints were dismissed.

The applicants filed an application under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child placed in their care and to remove the child.

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

The Board issued directions for a first day of hearing to address preliminary issues and procedural matters.

The applicants, former foster parents of a two-year-old child, sought a review of the respondent society's decision not to place the child with them for adoption.

The application was filed outside the 10-day statutory window.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society's notice of refusal was defective because it did not specifically reference the applicable section of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act or use its wording.

Consequently, the 10-day limitation period had not commenced, and the application was deemed eligible for review.

The applicant filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society refused to proceed with her complaint.

The Board found that the applicant did not file her complaint to the society in the mandatory format required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and Ontario Regulation 156/18.

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