Nathalie Fortier

The applicant filed a complaint against the Halton Children's Aid Society regarding unaddressed service concerns and a failure to provide reasons for decisions.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the court in the applicant's civil negligence claim.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints about the right to be heard, as those factual issues overlapped with the negligence claim.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over complaints regarding the Society's failure to provide reasons for its decisions, as this was not an element of the civil claim.

The Applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society of Toronto failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding his children in care.

The Board found that the Society failed to invite the Applicant to plan of care meetings, failed to consult him on schooling and health issues, and failed to engage in meaningful communication regarding access visits and his request for a new worker.

The Board ordered the Society's Director to meet with the Applicant to discuss his concerns and provide written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her mental health assessment and her ex-partner's statements.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written review and found that the Society had made sufficient efforts to engage the applicant and provide her with opportunities to be heard.

The Board dismissed the application, noting it lacked jurisdiction over the concurrent custody and access proceedings.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process conducted by the respondent society.

The applicants complained that the society failed to provide sufficient reasons for its decision to close their home as a foster home.

The Board found that the ICRP process did not provide the applicants with sufficient reasons that addressed their challenges to the validity of the society's decision.

However, the Board declined to order the society to provide further reasons, as the underlying issues were addressed in a concurrent hearing regarding the placement of the child.

The applicants, who previously adopted the child's older biological sister, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Society's decision refusing their application to adopt the child.

The Society had supported placing the child with a kinship family after a court ordered temporary placement with them.

The Board found that the Society placed too much weight on the temporary court order and failed to adequately consider the kinship family's history of child protection involvement, financial instability, and parenting limitations.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to be placed for adoption with the applicants, allowing the child to grow up with her biological sister in a stable environment.

The Society's decision was rescinded and the child was ordered placed with the applicants.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 144(3) of the Child and Family Services Act for a review of the respondent Society's decision refusing their application to adopt a child.

After hearing the evidence and representations, the Board granted the application.

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

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

The facility bore the burden of proving that all five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that while the child had a mental disorder, the facility failed to prove that she 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 15-year-old applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The applicant had a history of trauma, substance abuse, and running away from home, prompting her father to seek her admission.

The Board found that while the applicant suffered from a mental disorder, she did not pose a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that less restrictive methods of treatment had not been fully explored or exhausted.

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

The Child and Family Services Review Board issued an amended confidentiality order regarding an application under section 36 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The order prohibits the sharing or disclosure of Board documents or information outside the proceedings, with specific exceptions.

The Society is permitted to share the decisions with a children's health program and an upcoming foster home.

The applicant may share the decisions with their advocate at the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, and a redacted version may be shared with counsel for the applicant's mother in the child protection proceedings.

The Applicant sought a compliance decision regarding a previous Board order requiring the Society to move her to a treatment foster home, consult with her about the placement, and refer her to a children's health program.

The Board found that the Society failed to comply with the placement and consultation aspects of the order, as the new foster home did not meet the criteria for a treatment foster home and the Society did not adequately consider the Applicant's views.

The Board found the Society did comply with the referral requirement.

The Board issued further orders directing the Society to locate an appropriate treatment foster home and properly consult with the Applicant.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society failed to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her son's care in a foster home.

The Board found that the Society failed to meaningfully engage with the Applicant regarding her concerns about her son's daily care, improperly directed her not to criticize the foster parents, and continued to videotape her access visits without valid consent while refusing to provide her with copies.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its decisions regarding the videotaping.

The Applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions to keep her file open and refuse her a copy of a video recording.

The Board found that the Society did not engage in meaningful discussion with the Applicant regarding her concerns that referrals were malicious, nor did it provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations and reasons to the Applicant.

The Applicant, a youth in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 36 of the Child and Family Services Act for a review of her residential placement at a group home.

The Applicant sought to be moved closer to her family and to a placement that better addressed her needs and cultural heritage.

The Society argued the group home was necessary due to the Applicant's sexualized behaviour and trauma.

The Board found that the group home was not an appropriate placement, as it failed to meet the Applicant's clinical, cultural, and emotional needs, and ordered her discharged to a less restrictive treatment foster home closer to her community.

The Applicant filed an application under section 36(1) of the Child and Family Services Act to review her residential placement.

Following a multi-day hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board ordered the Applicant discharged from her current group home.

The Board directed the Society to place the Applicant in a treatment foster home with necessary support services and to consult her regarding the new placement.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society failed to hear his concerns or provide reasons regarding the use of his and his deceased mother's information in court proceedings.

The Society brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were subject to an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the court ruled on the admissibility of the documents, it did not decide the service-related issues of whether the Society met its statutory obligations to hear the Applicant and provide reasons.

The applicant, a kin foster caregiver and paternal grandmother of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the children's aid society's decision to permanently remove the child from her care.

The society had removed the child after discovering that the child's parents, who struggled with drug addiction, were residing in the applicant's home and using drugs in the child's presence, contrary to the society's directions.

The Board found that it had jurisdiction to hear the application, as kin foster caregivers have the same rights as regular foster parents under section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act.

Ultimately, the Board confirmed the society's decision, finding that the applicant failed to protect the child and prioritize her needs, making the removal in the child's best interests.

The Board also dismissed the applicant's claim that the society failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

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

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the admitting psychiatrist had limited information and could not explain the link between the applicant's behaviour and a disorder of emotion, thought, or cognition.

The Board concluded that the applicant did not have a mental disorder as defined by the Child and Family Services Act, as there was no evidence of a gross impairment of her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The application for release was granted.

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

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

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired his judgment, leading to substantial threats of serious bodily harm to himself.

Concluding that the secure treatment program was necessary and that no less restrictive method was appropriate, the Board denied the application for release.

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 filed a complaint against the children's aid society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging he was not heard regarding his concerns about the society providing unsupervised access to the children's mother and her partner.

The society responded that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was before the court, providing a temporary court order granting the unsupervised access.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction as the issue had been decided by and remained before the court.