John Gates

The applicants, parents of three children apprehended by the Society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests.

The parents raised concerns regarding the separation and multiple moves of their children, medical care decisions made by foster parents and workers, late access visits, being asked to sign blank forms, lack of input into the service plan, and drug testing requirements.

The Board found that the Society failed to provide adequate reasons regarding the children's placements, medical care, and the signing of blank forms.

The Board dismissed the complaints regarding access visits, service plan input, and drug testing.

The Society was ordered to provide written explanations and records to the parents.

The applicant brought an application under s. 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act regarding the implementation of a previous Board decision.

The Board reviewed whether the Society had complied with three previous orders.

The Board found that the Society complied with the orders relating to the service plan and email accommodation policy.

However, the Society failed to comply with the order to investigate and assess the impact of inconsistent access and domestic violence on the child.

The Board ordered the Society to consult with the child's therapist and provide a written explanation of its assessment.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the services she received from the Society, alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her child's access visits with the father.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its obligations in several areas, including communication, investigating the father's residences, and addressing the child's well-being during specific access incidents.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons and address the Applicant's concerns, while dismissing other complaints.

The applicant sought a review of an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) decision regarding his complaints against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton.

He alleged that the Society's files contained inaccuracies and that the Society failed to address his service concerns or provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that several file entries were inaccurate or in dispute, ordering the Society to place Notices of Disagreement in the applicant's file.

The Board also found that the Society failed to answer four of the applicant's seventeen questions regarding service concerns, ordering the Society to provide written responses to those specific questions.

The applicant brought an application under section 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act, seeking review of an Internal Complaints Review Panel decision.

The applicant raised concerns regarding inaccuracies in the Society's file and the Society's failure to address service concerns or provide reasons for its decisions.

Following a hearing, the Board issued an interim order directing the Society to provide written answers to four specific questions raised by the applicant regarding the child protection worker's observations and the Society's investigation steps.

The Board reserved its decision on the alleged file inaccuracies.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to provide reasons for its decision not to return her nephew to her care pending a treatment placement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a hearing on the merits.

The Board found that the society had provided the applicant with sufficiently detailed and timely reasons during multiple meetings and phone calls, explaining why the group home was better equipped to handle the child's needs and addressing the applicant's health and safety.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to listen to her concerns regarding her child's safety while living with the father, and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

Following an oral hearing, the Board found that the Society failed to adequately investigate and communicate with the Applicant regarding several safety concerns, including the child's alcohol use, school absences, and a stalking incident.

The Board also found the Society failed to include the Applicant in planning for the child's placement after apprehension.

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

The Applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society, alleging the Society failed to hear her service concerns, failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests, and failed to comply with internal complaint procedures regarding her 16-year-old daughter.

The Board dismissed the complaints regarding the internal complaints process, finding the Society complied with the legislation.

However, the Board found that the Society failed to hear the Applicant or provide reasons for its decisions regarding the daughter's placement, the service plan, the suspension of the child tax credit, a crisis call, and the cancellation of counselling services.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations to the Applicant for these decisions.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear her service concerns and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The complaints related to a letter the Society sent to the court and its alleged failure to forward information regarding the father to the court and police.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to communicate genuinely with the applicant between April and mid-June 2012 regarding the court letter, but fulfilled its obligations once direct communication resumed.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the forwarding of documents, finding the Society had no obligation to do so, though it noted the Society should have communicated its reasons more clearly.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his service concerns or provide reasons for decisions regarding his child in foster care.

At the scheduled oral hearing, the applicant declined to call witnesses, testify, or provide documentary evidence.

After the Board explained the process and encouraged him to proceed, the applicant explicitly stated he would not proceed and vacated the premises.

The Board concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests regarding her son.

The Board dismissed four of the five complaints, finding the Society had properly heard her concerns and provided explanations regarding allegations of abuse, alienation, and inappropriate discipline.

On the fifth complaint regarding access visits, the Board found the Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions prior to the hearing, but concluded that adequate explanations were provided during the hearing itself.

The Board made no further order but recommended the Society review its complaint information protocols.

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 applicants, the paternal grandfather and step-grandmother of a child taken into care, filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society for failing to provide reasons for not considering them as a kinship placement.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicants were not parents or persons seeking services.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because assessing a kin placement is a service under the Child and Family Services Act, and the decision affected the applicants' interests.

On the merits, the Board found the Society failed to provide timely explanations to the applicants about why they were not considered for kinship placement, noting the Society's apology during the hearing.

The applicant, a maternal aunt who had briefly acted as a kinship foster parent for her nephew, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society failed to provide her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decision not to return the child to her care.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction and objected to the applicant's non-legal representative.

The Board permitted the representative to remain, finding he met Law Society criteria.

On jurisdiction, the Board found it lacked authority under s. 68.1(4) 4 because the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of a parent.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction under s. 68.1(4) 5, concluding that as a kin foster parent, the applicant sought a service and was entitled to reasons for a decision affecting her interests.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against the Society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear him or provide reasons for decisions regarding joint counselling, access visit designates, and community access visits.

The Board found that the Society failed to provide reasons to the Applicant on these issues at the time of his application, and failed to give him an opportunity to tell his story.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint regarding the Society's refusal to proceed with an Internal Complaints Review Panel, finding the Society properly determined the issue was ineligible because it was before the Court.

The respondents, grandparents of two children, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the applicant Society's response to their reports of child abuse.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grandparents had not sought or received a service from the Society.

The Board granted the motion, finding that making a referral about child protection concerns does not constitute seeking or receiving a service under the Child and Family Services Act, and therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to hear the application.

The applicant, an employee of the respondent Society, was the subject of an anonymous child protection referral that was transferred to another agency due to a conflict of interest.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its handling of the referral.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, which was dismissed.

On the merits, the Board found that the Society had adequately answered most of the applicant's questions through correspondence and meetings.

While the Society failed to provide written reasons regarding its file disclosure protocol and a misunderstanding about how the referral was routed, the Board declined to order a remedy because detailed explanations were provided during the hearing.

The applicants, former foster parents, filed a complaint against the children's aid society for failing to provide reasons why an adoption placement was not made and for failing to respond to their request for an Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP).

The Board found that the society closed the applicants' adoption file without written notice and failed to process their complaint.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons for the file closure, explain the steps required for a general adoption application, and process the ICRP request in accordance with the regulations.

The applicant filed a complaint against the society regarding child protection services.

The Board previously ordered the society to provide a written summary of an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting.

The applicant raised concerns about the society's compliance with the order.

The Board reviewed the correspondence and found that the society fully complied with the order by providing the required summary, steps taken, and conclusions.

The Board's file was closed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging the Society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding a child protection investigation involving his son.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complaints were identical to those raised in 2005, triggering transitional provisions.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the applicant had not engaged the formal written complaint procedure in 2005.

On the merits, the Board found the Society failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decisions, ordering the Society to provide detailed written reasons.