Denyse Diaz

The Applicant foster mother applied for a review of the Society's decision to remove four foster children from her care.

The removal occurred after the foster father sexually touched one of the foster daughters and the Applicant minimized the incident and intended to have the foster father return to the home.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the application despite the removal being for risk.

The Board concluded that returning the children to the Applicant's care was not in their best interests due to the risk of emotional and physical harm and the children's expressed wishes not to return.

The Society's decision to remove the children was confirmed.

The Applicant mother filed a complaint against the Society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her child, a Crown ward.

The Applicant raised issues concerning the Society's communication about the child's potential return to her care, the reasons preventing the return, and the child's relocation with his foster family to another county.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the Society had clearly communicated its position not to support the child's return and had adequately explained the reasons for the child's relocation.

The applicant, a former English and ESL instructor, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age, race, and gender after his fixed-term contract was not renewed.

The respondent asserted the non-renewal was due to performance issues, including poor class management and failure to submit lesson plans.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the non-renewal to a Code-protected ground, relying instead on speculation and a request for statistical data.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour against his former employer, its HR manager, and an Employment Standards Officer who denied his claim for unpaid wages.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant pointed to sufficient evidence to proceed against the employer and HR manager regarding his termination.

However, the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the Employment Standards Officer's decision to his race or colour.

The application against the officer was dismissed, while the application against the employer and HR manager was allowed to proceed.

The applicant previously succeeded in a complaint against the respondent children's aid society, resulting in an order for the society's internal complaint review panel to reconvene within 30 days.

The parties subsequently wrote to the Board requesting an extension of time to reconvene the panel and seeking clarification on whether the panel could review past practices and whether the confidentiality order permitted sharing the decision with support persons.

The Board issued a supplementary decision extending the timeline, confirming the panel's mandate to review past practices, and revising the confidentiality order to allow the decision to be shared with society personnel, the panel, and the applicant's support person.

The child applicant sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under s. 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had been discharged the previous day after a finding that he did not suffer from a mental disorder, but was re-admitted following a severe deterioration in his behaviour.

The Board rejected the child's argument that the matter was res judicata, finding this was a de novo hearing regarding the new admission.

The Board also ruled that clinical documents and incident reports could not be admitted without their authors available for cross-examination.

On the merits, the Board found that all five criteria for emergency admission under s. 124(2) were met, including that the child suffered from a mental disorder and presented a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to himself.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the internal complaints process of the Toronto Children's Aid Society.

The Applicant had complained about past practices relating to the adoption of her child in 1970, and current practices regarding access to her records and staff conduct.

The Board found that the Society failed to follow the statutory complaints process, failed to hear the Applicant's concerns, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions, except regarding inaccuracies in her file.

The Board ordered the Society to reconvene the Internal Complaint Review Panel to properly address the Applicant's concerns and provide a detailed summary with meaningful reasons.

The Applicant sought a review of the Durham Children's Aid Society's decision to remove four foster children from her kinship foster home.

The Board considered the best interests of the children under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the Applicant had significant financial instability, failed to disclose her methadone use, allowed an unapproved caregiver with a history of substance abuse and mental health issues to reside in the home, and failed to utilize resources to address the children's special needs.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to remove the children, concluding it was not in their best interests to be returned to the Applicant's care.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the delivery of services based on disability, creed, and age.

A summary hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal had previously denied the applicant's request for an adjournment.

Given the applicant's failure to appear despite receiving proper notice, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests regarding his children in care.

The review board found it had jurisdiction to hear the service-related complaints despite an ongoing child protection application before the court.

The board upheld the applicant's complaints regarding the society's failure to provide reasons about worker qualifications, the initial apprehension and placement decisions, medical care, and access to the provincial advocate.

The society was ordered to provide written explanations and medical information to the applicant.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a peremptory summary hearing, citing a recent hospital discharge and planned future surgery.

The respondent consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to disclose exceptional circumstances or a specific disability-related reason to justify a further adjournment of the peremptory date.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services due to disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled via teleconference, but the applicant failed to attend despite receiving notice.

Pursuant to Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal proceeded in her absence.

As the applicant failed to participate and clarify her allegations, the application was deemed abandoned.

The parties requested a late adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing on consent to allow for ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's recent retention of counsel and health concerns constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the late request under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The adjournment was granted, with directions to advise the Tribunal within 30 days if the matter settled or needed to be rescheduled.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society, alleging a failure to provide an opportunity to be heard and reasons for decisions regarding access visitation, comments made by a worker, and a request for a new worker.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the access and comments complaints, as they were either decided by the court or not previously raised with the Society.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction over the request for a new worker.

On the merits, the Board held that the Society failed to comply with its statutory obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its decision not to change the worker, ordering the Society to provide written reasons.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding alleged assaults on his son by his ex-wife's partner and a criminal background check.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had met with the applicant, heard his concerns, and provided adequate written reasons for its decisions not to re-open the 2007 investigation and not to take further action on the 2011 allegation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought a review of the society's decision to permanently remove three foster children from their home, later narrowing their request to the return of one child.

The society had removed the children due to verified child protection concerns, specifically a lack of supervision and the primary caregiver's personal problems.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the applicants failed to adequately supervise the children on numerous occasions and that the primary caregiver's personal challenges prevented her from meeting the child's mental and emotional needs.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests not to be returned to the applicants' home and confirmed the society's decision.

The applicant youth applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his residential placement.

During the course of the proceedings, the youth was placed under a deferred custody order pursuant to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Board determined that under section 34 of the Child and Family Services Act, placements governed by the Youth Criminal Justice Act are excluded from the definition of residential placement.

Consequently, the Board lost jurisdiction to hear the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an indefinite adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing due to ongoing medical issues and upcoming surgery.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical situation constituted exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment, despite the request being made outside the standard 14-day period.

However, the Tribunal declined to adjourn the matter indefinitely and directed the parties to schedule the hearing for March 2012, making the new date peremptory on the applicant.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by the Society.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the issues were before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in D.D., the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the service-related complaints (1-11) because they were not substantive child protection issues decided by or before the court.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaint 12, which was an employment matter subject to the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age.

A summary hearing was scheduled via teleconference, but the applicant failed to attend despite receiving notice.

Pursuant to Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.