John F. Spekkens

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the society failed to hear his concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding his children.

Following a documentary hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaint.

The Board found that the applicant had ample opportunity to express his views to the society and that the society had adequately provided explanations and context for its actions and decisions.

The Applicant alleged that the Peel Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a Settlement Agreement reached during mediation.

The Agreement required the Society to answer 10 questions regarding its handling of the Applicant's child protection case, which involved allegations of parental alienation and high-conflict separation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the Society's written responses and found that the Society had provided substantive answers and explanations for each of the 10 terms.

Although the Applicant strongly disagreed with the Society's actions and explanations, the Board held that disagreement does not invalidate the reasons provided.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons and explanations regarding his child protection file.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had provided substantive information and explanations regarding the outstanding issues, including the requirement for phallometric testing prior to unsupervised access.

The Board concluded that the Society met its obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and closed the file as settled.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring the Society to provide reasons and explanations for certain decisions regarding child safety and access.

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

The Board found that while the Society was late in providing a written response to one term, it had provided substantive reasons and explanations verbally and in a follow-up letter, causing no undue prejudice.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for its adoption placement decisions regarding three siblings.

The society provided its written response one week after the agreed-upon compliance date.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the society breached the agreement regarding the timing of the response, the applicant suffered no prejudice.

The Board further found that the content of the society's written response, supplemented by oral explanations during the teleconference, fulfilled its obligations under the settlement agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for various decisions regarding her grandchildren.

A non-compliance teleconference was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The adjudicator proceeded in her absence and reviewed the written materials.

The adjudicator found that the Society had provided adequate reasons and explanations for each of the seven terms in the agreement, as required by section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for not disclosing information about her former partner's children.

The Society explained that it was prohibited from sharing the information under the Children's Law Reform Act because the applicant was not a parent.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society met its obligation to provide reasons under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and dismissed the allegation of non-compliance.

The applicant alleged that the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring the Society to provide reasons for its decisions regarding child protection investigations.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference hearing and found that the Society had provided substantive and detailed answers to the applicant's questions, thereby meeting its obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicants, who had fostered the child since she was 17 days old, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Society's refusal of their application to adopt the child.

The Society had refused the application in favour of a permanency plan with the child's extended family members.

The Board considered the best interests of the child, including her special needs, her strong attachment to the applicants, and her Indigenous heritage.

The Board found that disrupting the child's primary attachment to the applicants would not be in her best interests, rescinded the Society's refusal, and directed the Society to place the child with the applicants for adoption.

The applicant grandparent filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding the suspension, location, and scheduling of access visits with his grandchild, who has autism.

The Society presented evidence, including letters and case notes, demonstrating it had repeatedly explained that access was restricted due to the child's escalating behavioural issues at school following visits.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had met its statutory obligations by providing adequate verbal and written reasons for its decisions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's involvement with his son, who has autism spectrum disorder.

Following an unsuccessful mediation session which the applicant abruptly left, the applicant failed to attend one pre-hearing teleconference and was highly disruptive during a rescheduled teleconference before hanging up.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's actions and subsequent failure to communicate constituted an abandonment of the application.

The application was dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions after her grandchildren were apprehended.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed because child protection proceedings were ongoing in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns about where and with whom her grandchildren would live were the exact substantive issues being decided by the court.

As the complaints were not separate and distinct from the court proceedings, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application.

The Applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a Settlement Agreement requiring it to provide reasons and explanations in response to eight specific questions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the Society's written responses and found that the Society had provided substantive answers to all questions as required by the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

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 alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement by not providing a timely response to three questions regarding its past investigations.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the respondent was non-compliant with the agreed-upon timeline, it ultimately provided adequate reasons for its decisions as required by the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Board dismissed the substantive complaints and closed the file.

The applicant, who is seeking to adopt her half-sister, alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with three terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The terms related to the home study process, expediting the adoption application, and expanding access visits.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society had adequately explained the home study process, expedited the application by commencing a concurrent home study, and committed to increasing access visits.

The Board concluded that the society was in compliance with the settlement agreement.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for the apprehension of her children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a documentary review after the applicant refused to stop recording a teleconference hearing.

The Board found that the Society had provided detailed and meaningful reasons for its actions, noting that disagreement with the reasons does not constitute non-compliance.

The complaint of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a term of their settlement agreement, which required the society to explain the reasons for apprehending the applicant's grandchild in 2008.

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

The Board found that the society had provided a meaningful response explaining that the apprehension was necessary due to an ongoing police investigation and concerns about the child's care while with her biological father.

The Board concluded the society complied with the agreement and dismissed the applicant's complaint.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for psychological injuries resulting from his ex-spouse counselling an undercover police officer to murder him.

The Board found that because the plot was intercepted and no actual physical violence or harm occurred, the incident did not constitute a 'crime of violence' within the meaning of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The application for compensation was denied.

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.