Silvia Novak

The applicant, facing criminal charges related to alleged sexual abuse of his daughter, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society.

He alleged the society failed to hear his concerns about a worker's conduct and failed to provide reasons for verifying child protection concerns despite the worker's earlier assurances of his innocence.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were before the criminal courts.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction over the criminal charges and records disclosure, but found it had jurisdiction to review whether the applicant was given an opportunity to be heard and provided with reasons for the society's verification decision.

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 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 sought a review of the respondent's decision refusing her application to adopt her former foster child.

The child, who has severe developmental delays and complex trauma, requires a calm and consistent home environment.

The tribunal found that the applicant's home, which includes three children with special needs and a history of significant family conflict and crises, could not provide the necessary stability and individualized attention.

The tribunal concluded it was in the child's best interests to uphold the respondent's refusal.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove a youth with special needs from their foster home.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the respondent brought a motion to move the youth from her temporary hotel placement to a group home, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over interim placements.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to make interim placement orders based on the child's best interests.

Applying the best interests test, the Board dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence to justify disrupting the youth's continuity of care before the final hearing.

The applicant, a 16-year-old sibling of five children in foster care, filed an application alleging the respondent society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for restricting her in-person access to her siblings.

The society had suspended in-person access due to COVID-19 protocols and offered virtual access instead.

The adjudicator found that the society had provided a detailed response acknowledging the applicant's concerns and had given meaningful reasons for its decision based on pandemic restrictions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, the adult sister of five children in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for its decision to terminate her in-person access and deny her request for unsupervised outdoor access.

The Board found that the Society did not provide meaningful reasons, as it relied on the applicant's father to relay information and failed to explain why access needed to be supervised or how outdoor access contravened COVID-19 restrictions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the respondent society's involvement with his family.

The respondent submitted that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues raised were already decided by or currently before the court.

The Board agreed, finding that the issues were ineligible for review under section 120(8)(a) of the Act, and dismissed the application.

The Applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the Respondent society failed to hear her concerns regarding the children's father, including allegations of substance use, pinworm infections, and inappropriate photographs.

The Board found that the Respondent had not been informed of the photograph allegations prior to the application.

Regarding the other concerns, the Board found that the Respondent had actively listened, investigated, and communicated its findings to the Applicant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding its decision not to verify child protection concerns and return his child to the mother's care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, finding that the substantive issues raised in the complaint were currently before the court in an ongoing custody proceeding.

The applicant, the biological mother of a child made a Crown Ward and subsequently adopted, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

She alleged the respondent society was keeping her son from her and ignoring her complaints.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues had already been decided by the court.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns regarding custody, access, and the child's whereabouts were previously decided by the Ontario Court of Justice.

As such, the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Act, and the application was dismissed.