Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant, the maternal aunt of two young children in extended society care, sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt them.

The children had been living with a kinship/foster caregiver for a year and had strong ties to their paternal extended family.

The Child and Family Services Review Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that moving the children to the applicant's care would disrupt their stable environment, sever their established parental bond with their current caregiver, and cause significant emotional harm, and that remaining in their current placement was in their best interests.

The applicant mother brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns regarding her child's welfare while in the father's care.

The mother had reported multiple head injuries sustained by the child during unsupervised access visits.

The Board reviewed the Society's actions, including its investigations, safety checks, and communications with medical professionals.

The Board concluded that the Society had meaningfully engaged with the mother, investigated her concerns, and provided sufficient reasons for its decision not to require supervised access.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a non-compliance complaint regarding a settlement agreement reached with the children's aid society concerning her child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a hearing to determine if the society had complied with the terms of the agreement.

The Board reviewed the society's responses to the applicant's concerns, including explanations regarding an abuse investigation and a worker's comments.

The Board found that the society had fully complied with the terms of the settlement agreement and dismissed the non-compliance complaint.

The applicant, the maternal grandmother of a child involved with the respondent society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

She raised concerns about the society's file management practices and an alleged staff conflict of interest.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was not seeking or receiving services from the society herself, and had obtained the file information through a separate court proceeding rather than a direct disclosure request.

Consequently, the complaint fell outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement regarding child protection matters.

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

The Board found that the Society had provided adequate reasons for its decisions regarding the assignment of workers, the reversion to supervised access visits due to domestic incidents, and the expectations for community resources.

The complaint of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant, a community member, filed an application expressing concerns about the care and services provided to three children by the respondent society.

The applicant and his family were not acquaintances of the children and had not received services from the society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, an applicant must be seeking or receiving services to be eligible to file a complaint.

Since the applicant did not meet this requirement, the application was ineligible for review.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a school board's decision to expel his son.

The appeal was filed two and a half months after the statutory 30-day deadline.

The appellant argued the delay was justified because the school board failed to provide adequate reasons for the expulsion.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the adequacy of the school board's reasons was irrelevant to the de novo appeal process and that the delay prejudiced the school board's need for certainty and stability.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant by the Board, sought leave to file a new application against the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The Board found that the new application did not set out details of a service-related complaint but instead duplicated complaints made to other bodies and repeated previously identified vexatious behaviour.

The Board concluded the application was an abuse of process and denied leave to file the new application.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns about an individual living in the same home as his children who had been charged with sexual assault, and failed to provide reasons for closing its investigation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society failed to make meaningful attempts to engage with the applicant and failed to provide reasons for its decision that the children were not at risk.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant within 30 days.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her two children in care.

The Board reviewed nine specific issues raised by the mother, including medical care, access visits, and religious upbringing.

The Board found that the Society had provided timely and detailed reasons for its decisions and actively listened to the mother's suggestions.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to provide reasons for sharing child abuse investigation information with his employer and failed to involve him in developing his service plan.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints.

The Board found the society was mandated to share information with the police service under an existing protocol, and that the limitations placed on the applicant's involvement in the service plan were reasonable given the finding of extreme child abuse and the complex family dynamics.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to provide reasons for its decision not to approve her as a kinship placement for her grandson.

The Board heard evidence that the society communicated its concerns regarding the applicant's child welfare history and her lack of cooperation.

The Board concluded that the society provided sufficient oral and written reasons for its decision.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding child protection services received from the children's aid society, specifically concerning an investigation and the society's refusal to provide a copy of its file.

At a preliminary hearing, the society conceded the Board's jurisdiction to order file disclosure but disputed its jurisdiction to review and remove redactions.

The Board held that it has jurisdiction to order file disclosure to ensure a fair complaints process, as well as the jurisdiction to review redactions in a file and order their removal if necessary for a fair process.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under s. 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent society failed to comply with the Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) process.

The applicant argued the society did not provide reasons for decisions related to an investigation into allegations against him.

The Board found that while the society generally complied with the ICRP process, it failed to explain why it made a verification decision before receiving certain interview transcripts and why it did not interview the child's peers.

The application was granted in part, and the society was ordered to provide written reasons on those two issues.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove a foster child from their home after 14 years of care.

Shortly after the application was filed, the child passed away.

The respondent argued the application was moot and that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the foster home was closed upon removal.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, as the applicants were foster parents at the time of removal.

However, the Board dismissed the application as moot, concluding that it could no longer determine what placement was in the child's best interests due to his death.

The applicant filed a sixth application concerning his interactions with the respondent Children's Aid Society regarding his son.

The Board found that the issues raised had been thoroughly canvassed and decided in previous applications.

The Board dismissed the eligible portions of the application as an abuse of process and declared the applicant a vexatious litigant, requiring him to obtain permission before filing further applications against the respondent regarding these matters.

The applicant father applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent Society failed to hear him or provide reasons for decisions regarding access to his daughter, a Crown ward.

The daughter had expressly instructed the Society not to share information with the applicant.

The Board found that the Society met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide reasons within the strict privacy limitations imposed by the capable child.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant filed an appeal of his son's expulsion under the Education Act.

The respondent school board argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because it had not formally expelled the student, but rather refused him admission due to an ongoing police investigation into a sexual assault allegation.

The CFSRB found that by refusing the student admission to all of its schools for over 20 days and directing him to a program for suspended and expelled students, the school board had effectively expelled him.

Consequently, the CFSRB determined it had jurisdiction to hear the expulsion appeal.

The applicants filed an application against two Children's Aid Societies regarding child protection concerns.

Peel CAS sought to dismiss the application as an abuse of process, arguing the issues had been fully resolved in a previous settlement agreement.

The Board agreed, finding that the applicants were attempting to re-litigate previously settled allegations.

The application was dismissed against Peel CAS as an abuse of process, but allowed to proceed to a pre-hearing settlement conference against York CAS for new allegations.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to rescind the Society's decision refusing her application to adopt a Crown ward.

The Society had decided to place the child for adoption with extended family members residing in Alberta, a plan supported by the child's First Nation Band.

The Board weighed the best interests of the child under s. 136(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, emphasizing the importance of the child's cultural background, blood relationships, and the Band's perspective.

The Board concluded that the kinship placement was in the child's best interests and confirmed the Society's decision.