Child and Family Services Review Board

The respondent Children's Aid Society brought a motion to dismiss the applicant parent's complaint on the basis that the Child and Family Services Review Board lacked jurisdiction.

The respondent argued that the issues raised in the complaint were not separate and different from the substantive issues currently before the court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board found that complaints regarding the suitability of the kinship caregiver and the placement of the children were currently before the court and must be dismissed pursuant to s. 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

However, the Board allowed the application to proceed on the remaining issues, including the respondent's alleged failure to hear the applicant regarding her strengths as a parent, her request for a change of worker, and the lack of reasons for refusing to assess an alternate kin plan.

The applicant mother filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society did not follow its complaint review process.

The Board found that the applicant failed to file her complaint to the society using the mandatory formal complaint form required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and its regulations.

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

The applicants, foster parents of a two-year-old 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 Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the application under sections 109(7) and 109(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the child had not lived continuously with the applicants for two years.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's investigation and closing letter.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process because the issues were already addressed in a previous application involving a different society.

The Board dismissed the allegations regarding the children being left unattended and an audio recording as already addressed or unclear.

However, the Board allowed the allegations concerning the respondent's closing letter to proceed, finding that a decision not to provide service is a reviewable decision under the Act.

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 provide him an opportunity to be heard during a 2022 investigation and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard through the Internal Complaint Review Panel process.

However, the Board found the respondent failed to provide reasons for concluding its investigation without making greater efforts to contact the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to provide written reasons within 30 days.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decisions during a child protection investigation.

The investigation concerned allegations that the father drove with the children while under the influence of alcohol.

The Board found that while the society initially offered an opportunity to be heard which the mother declined, it subsequently failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard or reasons for its decisions regarding the January interviews and the closure of the file.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons explaining why it arranged to interview the children in the same house as the father and paternal grandparents.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a child from their care.

The child, who was in extended society care, had lived continuously with the applicant for over two years.

The applicant filed the application within 10 days of receiving written notice of the removal.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application eligible for review under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and scheduled a first day of hearing.

The applicant, a foster parent, sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a child from their care.

The applicant alleged they did not receive proper written notice of the removal as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Board found that an email sent by the respondent to another agency did not constitute valid notice because it lacked mandatory statutory references and information about the right to seek a review.

Consequently, the 10-day time limit to apply for a review had not commenced, and the application was deemed eligible to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant mother submitted an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a society's handling of her complaint and an Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) process.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board found that the relief sought, including declaring the ICRP recommendation invalid and directing the society to reinstate a finding of sexual harm, was outside its statutory jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Board found that the issues raised had already been decided by the Superior Court of Justice in a family law proceeding, making the application an impermissible collateral attack.

The application was dismissed.

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 attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and subsequently failed to respond to the Board's directions to provide an explanation and availability for a rescheduled pre-hearing.

Consequently, the Board found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

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

The Applicant alleged that the Respondent failed to properly address her concerns about an unsupported abuse report from several years prior.

The Board found the complaint eligible for review but ultimately dismissed the application, concluding that the Respondent had provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and had given reasons for its decisions regarding her requests for recourse.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board and a parallel application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The respondent requested that the CFSRB waive its confidentiality rules to allow it to share the CFSRB application with the HRTO in support of a request to defer the HRTO proceeding.

The CFSRB granted the request, finding that the HRTO could not make an informed decision on deferral without reviewing the relevant CFSRB documentation.

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

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on jurisdictional grounds.

The Board found that while the applicant did receive services from the respondent, some of the complaints were barred by res judicata as they had been resolved in a previous application.

The remaining new complaints were dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to confirm that they were separate and different from substantive issues that were before the court in concurrent child protection and family court proceedings.

The applicant father filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about his interactions with the respondent children's aid society and alleging the society refused to proceed with his complaint.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction because the applicant did not file his complaint to the society using the mandatory 'Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel' form required by the regulations.

The applicants, parents of two children, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear their concerns and provide meaningful reasons for its decisions.

The society had become involved following reports from medical professionals concerning caregiver-fabricated illness.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the society had held lengthy meetings with the applicants, heard their explanations, and provided clear, detailed reasons for its child protection concerns and its expectations for closing the file.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to proceed with an Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) after receiving his complaint.

The Board found that the respondent had received the applicant's ICRP form but failed to review it and determine its eligibility within the required seven-day timeframe under Ontario Regulation 156/18.

The Board ordered the respondent to determine the complaint's eligibility for review and follow the ICRP process within seven days.

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 regarding his child.

The Board found that the respondent had provided reasons for its decisions to leave the child in the mother's care and regarding safety measures related to another individual.

However, the Board found that the respondent failed to provide written reasons explaining why it could not provide the applicant with a letter of support for Jordan's Principle funding.

The application was upheld in part, and the respondent was ordered to provide written reasons regarding the Jordan's Principle letter.

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 and provide reasons regarding services, her exclusion from planning, and the lack of a formal Kinship Service Agreement while she cared for her grandchild.

The Board found that the respondent did hear the applicant's concerns and provided reasons for its decisions regarding services and planning.

While the respondent failed to provide sufficient and timely reasons regarding the lack of a Kinship Service Agreement, the Board ordered no further remedies as the information was provided during the application process.

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, seeking an investigation into an anonymous referral made to the respondent society and an unredacted copy of the report.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that requests for access to personal information fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario pursuant to Part X of the Act.

Furthermore, the Board noted that it does not have the statutory authority to conduct investigations or order the disclosure of unredacted reports.

The applicant father filed an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society refused to proceed with his complaint.

The Board found that the society had in fact proceeded with the complaint and convened an internal review panel.

As the applicant only selected the ground that the society refused to proceed, the application was deemed ineligible for review and dismissed.