Gail Gonda

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 applicant father filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the society failed to hear his service concerns, provide reasons for decisions, and obtain his consent regarding his child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board directed the hearing to proceed by way of written submissions.

The applicant failed to provide any evidence or information to support his allegations in his submissions.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application as unfounded.

The applicants, who had fostered a four-year-old child since birth, sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove the child from their care and refuse their adoption application.

The child had significant developmental delays and was at risk for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

The Society intended to place the biracial child with another family who had adopted the child's half-sister, arguing the other family could better meet the child's racial and cultural needs.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the applicants had met all of the child's needs, including her racial and cultural needs.

The Board concluded that removing the child from the only parents she had known would disrupt her secure place in the family and be contrary to her best interests.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

After multiple scheduled pre-hearings were cancelled or unattended by the applicant, the Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to participate and the significant delay exceeding procedural timelines.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with the terms of a Mediation/Adjudication Agreement settling his application to the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The applicant raised concerns regarding delayed meeting minutes, investigation of his child's school attendance, arranging meetings with his child, and the Society's actions regarding a kinship placement despite his joint custody.

The Board reviewed the Society's actions and written submissions, finding that the Society had adequately addressed the issues and complied with the terms of the Agreement.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The agreement required the Society to provide a letter outlining its role and to hold a meeting to discuss communication, followed by a written summary.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the written submissions and found that the Society had fulfilled its obligations under the agreement, despite a slight delay in providing the written summary due to the applicant's request for additional information.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent agency's decision to refuse her application to adopt a Métis child who had been in her care since birth.

The agency had refused the application in order to place the child with a younger half-sibling's adoptive family to foster a sibling bond.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the agency's decision, finding that removing the child from the only family she had ever known would cause unnecessary trauma.

The Board concluded that the child's best interests, including her emotional needs, continuity of care, and cultural connection to the Métis community, were best served by remaining with the applicant, while maintaining access with the half-sibling.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The applicant argued that the statutory criteria for emergency admission under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act were not met.

The Board found that the applicant had a mental disorder characterized by emotional dysregulation, which resulted in a recent suicide attempt and physical aggression towards others.

The Board concluded that all five criteria for emergency admission were met and denied the application for release.

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 filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear her concerns or provide reasons regarding an after-hours call she made about being denied access to her child by the maternal grandmother.

The Child and Family Services Review Board proceeded by way of a written hearing.

The Board found that the society met its obligation to hear the applicant by returning her call and inviting her to speak, and met its obligation to provide reasons through its submissions to the Board.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, the maternal grandfather and step-grandmother of a Crown ward, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's refusal to place the child with them for adoption.

The child had been thriving in a foster home since before her first birthday, and the foster parents also planned to adopt her.

The Board found that removing the child from her stable foster home would not be in her best interests, particularly given the step-grandmother's lack of commitment to the adoption plan and her failure to attend the hearing.

The Board confirmed the society's decision to refuse the adoption placement.

The applicant filed applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the placement of a child.

The respondent society submitted that two plans regarding the child's placement were currently before the Superior Court of Justice.

The Board determined it would not consider the applications while the matter was before the Court and directed the applicant to notify the Board of the Court's outcome.

The child applicant sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the statutory criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

While the Board found the child had a mental disorder, it concluded the respondent failed to establish that the child had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, or that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The Board granted the application and ordered the child's release.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto regarding its handling of her child protection case.

After a settlement agreement was reached, the applicant alleged the Society failed to comply with its terms, specifically regarding the provision of reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written hearing and found that the Society provided adequate reasons for some issues but failed to do so for others.

The Board ordered the Society to provide further written answers and specific records to the applicant.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding his request for file disclosure and communication with workers.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society had responded to his disclosure request within its standard six-month timeframe and had acted in accordance with a previously agreed-upon communication protocol.

The Board concluded the society met its statutory obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons, and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Catholic School Board's decision to expel the pupil from all schools of the Board under section 311.7 of the Education Act.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered that the expulsion be changed to an expulsion from the pupil's school only.

The Board also ordered that any record of the expulsion be amended.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

The Applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

The Society had reversed its initial decision to place the child with the Applicants after learning that one of the Applicants had been criminally charged with a historical sexual assault relating to a former adult client.

The Board found that the risk of disruption to the child's continuity of care was low and that the Applicants were well-suited to meet the child's needs.

The Board concluded it was in the best interests of the child to be placed with the Applicants and rescinded the Society's refusal.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

Following a hearing, the Board determined that it was in the best interests of the child to be placed for adoption with the applicants.

The Board rescinded the society's refusal under subsection 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act and ordered the child to be placed with the applicants.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society breached her privacy by including observations about her personal relationships in a court affidavit.

The Board conducted a written review and determined it lacked jurisdiction to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The application was dismissed because the applicant had not raised her concerns with the society before applying to the Board, thereby depriving the society of the opportunity to hear the concern and provide reasons for its actions.

The applicant filed a complaint against the society alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding a worker assigned to his file in 2012, a request for a change in worker, and the outcome of a 2012 investigation.

The Board found that the society met its obligation to hear the applicant's concerns but failed to provide sufficient reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons for refusing the request for a change in workers and a written summary of the investigation process.