Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant, a foster parent, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's decision to transition a foster child to another home.

The applicant argued the transition was sudden and lacked proper communication.

The Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application because the applicant did not have legal custody of the child and, as a foster parent, was considered a service provider rather than a service recipient under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant, a supervisor at a foster home provider, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent society challenged the CFSRB's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was merely a collateral interviewee during a child protection investigation and did not seek or receive services.

The adjudicator found that because the respondent conducted a child welfare check on the applicant and made a decision with verified child protection concerns against her, she was in receipt of services.

The CFSRB determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application regarding the society's failure to provide reasons for a decision affecting her interests.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the children's aid society, alleging lack of information about his daughter and unfair treatment.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the issues raised in the complaint, including access, custody, and communication restrictions, had already been decided by the court.

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

Following a documentary hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaint.

The Board found that the applicant had ample opportunity to express his views to the society and that the society had adequately provided explanations and context for its actions and decisions.

The applicant brought a motion requesting that the respondent children's aid society be directed to disclose certain documents and that the hearing date be adjourned.

The requested documents related to allegations under section 120(4)3 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which the Board had previously found ineligible to proceed to a hearing.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents were not arguably relevant to the eligible allegations and therefore fell outside the direction for disclosure.

The Applicant alleged that the Peel Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a Settlement Agreement reached during mediation.

The Agreement required the Society to answer 10 questions regarding its handling of the Applicant's child protection case, which involved allegations of parental alienation and high-conflict separation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the Society's written responses and found that the Society had provided substantive answers and explanations for each of the 10 terms.

Although the Applicant strongly disagreed with the Society's actions and explanations, the Board held that disagreement does not invalidate the reasons provided.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons and explanations regarding his child protection file.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had provided substantive information and explanations regarding the outstanding issues, including the requirement for phallometric testing prior to unsupervised access.

The Board concluded that the Society met its obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and closed the file as settled.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed, arguing the board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in a child protection proceeding.

Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in D.D., the adjudicator found that while the board cannot review matters exclusively within the court's jurisdiction, it retains jurisdiction to review separate service-related complaints.

The respondent's request to dismiss was granted in part, and the matter was directed to proceed on the service-related issues.

The applicant foster parent filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board challenging the respondent children's aid society's apprehension of a child and alleged oral refusal of her adoption plan.

Because the applicant had not received written notice of the refusal as required by section 192(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to determine whether the respondent had in fact refused the application and to set directions for the hearing.

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

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 because the matter was before the court.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints about her interactions with the society, including lack of reasons for decisions and failure to address concerns, were separate and distinct from the custody and access issues before the court.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction and ordered the application to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a term of their settlement agreement requiring the society to outline steps for a risk assessment.

The applicant argued non-compliance occurred because the society required her to amend a consent letter the day before the scheduled assessment.

The adjudicator found that the society had outlined the required steps, which included obtaining full consent, and that the initial consent provided was inadequate.

The adjudicator concluded the society acted in good faith and complied with the agreement, dismissing the allegation of non-compliance.

The applicants, foster parents of an Indigenous child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove the child from their care.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the child's First Nation had proposed the removal as an exercise of its inherent authority and customary care, and that the society was merely acting as a resource.

The Board held that under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, only a society has the statutory authority to remove a child from a foster home, and the First Nation does not have this authority.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to review the proposed removal and directed that a hearing on the merits be scheduled.

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

The respondent challenged the Child and Family Services Review Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the Ontario Court of Justice in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the allegations in the application were strikingly similar to those raised in the applicant's court affidavit and were not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring the Society to provide reasons and explanations for certain decisions regarding child safety and access.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference hearing to determine compliance.

The Board found that while the Society was late in providing a written response to one term, it had provided substantive reasons and explanations verbally and in a follow-up letter, causing no undue prejudice.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring them to provide reasons for allowing the children's mother unsupervised access.

The Board found that the respondent did provide reasons, and the applicant's dissatisfaction with the soundness of those reasons did not constitute non-compliance.

The complaint was dismissed and the file closed.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process, arguing the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues from a previous application that had been settled.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that most of the applicant's concerns had either been addressed in the prior settlement, were outside the Board's jurisdiction, or were more appropriately dealt with by the court or the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Board dismissed the application in part, allowing only one unaddressed issue regarding the applicant's mental health to proceed.

The Applicant filed a complaint regarding the Society's actions during an incident in 1995.

The Society challenged the CFSRB's jurisdiction, arguing the Applicant did not receive a service and the issues had been decided by a court.

The CFSRB found that the Society's brief intervention in 1995 constituted a service.

Furthermore, although the Applicant had filed a civil suit regarding the same issues, it was struck due to the expiration of the limitation period without the merits being decided.

Therefore, the CFSRB concluded it had jurisdiction to review the complaint.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to expel her son for alleged sexual assault, sexual harassment, and bullying.

At the hearing, the school board relied entirely on hearsay evidence from administrators who had no direct knowledge of the incidents, declining to call the complainant or any student witnesses.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the hearsay evidence unreliable and insufficient to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The expulsion was quashed and the student's record was ordered expunged.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent's handling of a file disclosure request.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, but the applicant subsequently alleged the respondent failed to comply with its terms.

The adjudicator found that the respondent had provided the required explanations regarding disclosure timelines and practices before the agreed deadline.

The adjudicator concluded the respondent complied with the settlement agreement and closed the file.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by the Respondent children's aid society.

The Board conducted a written hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The Board found that most of the issues raised were either currently before the court in a child protection application, had already been decided by the court, or were resolved in a previous settlement agreement.

Regarding the Respondent's refusal to assign a new worker, the Board found that the Respondent had provided sufficient written reasons for its decision.

The application was dismissed.