John F. Spekkens

The child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board reviewed evidence of the child's escalating suicidal ideation and self-harming behaviours.

The Board found that all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act were met, including that the child had a mental disorder, posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

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 15-year-old applicant applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board reviewed the evidence of the child's escalating high-risk behaviours, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and hallucinations.

The Board found that all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act were met, including that the child has a mental disorder, poses a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment is appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The child, a Crown ward, was admitted to a secure treatment centre following incidents of self-harm, property damage, and leaving her group home without permission.

She applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release.

The Board granted the application, finding that the child did not meet the criteria for emergency admission under s. 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Specifically, there was insufficient clinical evidence to establish that the child had a mental disorder, and her behaviours did not demonstrate a substantial disorder grossly impairing her judgment.

The Board also noted that less restrictive, non-secure residential treatment settings were appropriate and had not been adequately explored.

The child Applicant and her former adoptive parents filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton regarding the child's removal from a kinship placement with her former foster parents.

The Applicants alleged that the Society failed to hear their concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions not to return the child to the kinship placement or to the former adoptive parents.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to comply with its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act to communicate with the Applicants, hear their concerns, and provide complete explanations.

The Board ordered the Society to provide meaningful written explanations to both Applicants.

The applicant child sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under section 124 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board ruled that Youthdale's admission records were inadmissible without a psychiatrist available for cross-examination, citing procedural fairness and section 7 of the Charter.

On the merits, the Board found that the child did not meet the criteria for admission because there was insufficient evidence that she suffered from a mental disorder at the time of admission.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant appealed a decision by the school board to expel her son from all of its schools following his involvement in the robbery of another student's iPod.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the pupil had committed robbery, which is an expellable offence under the Education Act.

Considering the pupil's history of progressive discipline and the unacceptable risk his continued presence posed to the safety of others, the Board upheld the expulsion from all schools.