John Spekkens

The applicant sought a review of a single member's decision denying a request to vary an original compensation order for pain and suffering arising from a knife assault.

The applicant argued that he only recently understood his hand injury was permanent.

The review panel upheld the single member's decision, finding that the original award already accounted for the permanent nature of the injury.

However, based on new medical information provided at the review hearing, the panel authorized up to $1,250 for further rehabilitative treatments for the applicant's hand.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding child protection services received from the children's aid society, specifically concerning an investigation and the society's refusal to provide a copy of its file.

At a preliminary hearing, the society conceded the Board's jurisdiction to order file disclosure but disputed its jurisdiction to review and remove redactions.

The Board held that it has jurisdiction to order file disclosure to ensure a fair complaints process, as well as the jurisdiction to review redactions in a file and order their removal if necessary for a fair process.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove a foster child from their home after 14 years of care.

Shortly after the application was filed, the child passed away.

The respondent argued the application was moot and that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the foster home was closed upon removal.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, as the applicants were foster parents at the time of removal.

However, the Board dismissed the application as moot, concluding that it could no longer determine what placement was in the child's best interests due to his death.

The applicant filed a claim for compensation with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Despite being served with a notice of hearing, the applicant failed to appear.

Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Board's rules, the Board proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The Applicant sought financial compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and psychological injuries allegedly sustained during assaults by a neighbour in a rooming house.

The Alleged Offender denied the assaults, and police investigations concluded the incidents were neighbour disputes with insufficient grounds for criminal charges.

The Board found the Alleged Offender's evidence more credible and consistent with the police investigation.

The application was dismissed as the Applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that a crime of violence occurred.

The Applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for injuries sustained during a physical assault by a fellow rooming house tenant.

The Applicant was struck with a table leg after confronting the Alleged Offender about a mess in a shared washroom, resulting in a broken arm and head lacerations.

The Board found the Applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and, despite considering the Applicant's aggressive knocking as a contributing factor, awarded $5,000 for pain and suffering and $202.31 for expenses.

The Applicant filed a claim for compensation but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing after being served with notice.

Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board proceeded in the Applicant's absence and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for pain and suffering, treatment, and travel expenses following an assault with a weapon by a co-tenant in a rooming house.

The offender threatened the applicant with a knife and used homophobic slurs, resulting in a criminal conviction.

The Board found the applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and awarded $2,500 for emotional injuries, including anxiety and flashbacks.

Claims for treatment and travel expenses were denied due to a lack of supporting documentation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board issued an order following a hearing regarding the Children's Aid Society of Simcoe County's refusal of the applicants' application to adopt a child.

The Board confirmed the Society's refusal of the adoption application and its decision to remove the child from the adoption placement with the applicants pursuant to section 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Written reasons for the decision were to follow.

The applicant youth applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The youth's mother had sought the admission due to the youth's escalating behaviour, aggression, and poor choices in the community.

The Board found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the youth had a mental disorder within the meaning of the Child and Family Services Act, as her capacity to make reasoned judgments was not grossly impaired.

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

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

The Child and Family Services Review Board assessed whether the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder, had made substantial threats of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding its handling of her child protection concerns about the children's father.

She alleged the Society failed to investigate promptly, limited the scope of its investigation, and failed to hear her or provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society adequately heard the applicant and provided reasons for its ultimate investigation conclusions.

However, the Board found the Society failed to provide reasons at the time it initially decided not to investigate her original complaint.

As fulsome reasons were provided during the hearing, the Board made no further order and dismissed the remaining complaints.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

She alleged that the Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding three incidents involving the foster family and one incident involving alleged racist comments by a Society employee.

The Board found that the Society failed to properly communicate its follow-up actions to the applicant regarding two of the foster family incidents and the employee incident.

However, because the Society provided the necessary explanations to the applicant after she filed her complaint with the Board, the Board declined to make any orders.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

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

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder, had attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant child requested a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a history of aggressive and self-harming behaviours, including suicide attempts, and had been diagnosed with a learning disability, intermittent explosive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the child met all the statutory criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, including having a mental disorder that caused a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself or others, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

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

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered that the child be placed for adoption with the applicants, with reasons to follow.

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 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 and Family Services Review Board issued an order directing the respondent society not to carry out the proposed removal of the child from the foster care of the applicant.

Written reasons were to follow the oral decision.

The child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board considered whether the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met, specifically whether the child had a mental disorder.

The Board found no medical evidence of a mental disorder and concluded the child's behaviour was indicative of rebelliousness and anger rather than a substantial disorder of emotional processes.

The Board ordered the child's release.