Nycole Roy

The Applicant, a 16-year-old youth in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his residential placement at a structured facility.

The Society argued the facility was necessary due to his history and need for structure.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the placement was a child welfare placement despite the youth's probation order.

The Board concluded that the facility's restrictive rules, use of restraints, and lack of community integration were no longer in the youth's best interests.

The Board ordered the Applicant discharged from the facility and directed the Society to find a less restrictive placement.

The applicants, the great-aunt and great-uncle of a 19-month-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their adoption application.

The child, who has severe sleep apnea, had resided with the same foster family since birth.

The foster family also applied to adopt the child.

The Board applied the best interests of the child test under the Child and Family Services Act, weighing the benefits of kinship care against the child's secure attachment to the foster family, his medical needs, and his ongoing relationship with his biological sister and maternal grandparents.

The Board concluded that removing the child from the foster family would disrupt his continuity of care and potentially cause emotional and physical harm.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding it in the child's best interests to be adopted by the foster family.

The applicant mother filed complaints against the Children and Family Services of York Region regarding its investigation into her allegations that the father sexually abused their child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints relating to the Society's handling of a tape recording and its failure to provide reasons, finding it lacked jurisdiction because those issues had been dealt with in prior court proceedings.

The Board also dismissed a complaint about file inaccuracies because the applicant had not exhausted the Society's internal complaint procedure.

Finally, the Board dismissed the complaint that the Society failed to give the applicant an opportunity to be heard, finding that the Society had met with her and adequately explained its actions.

The mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review complaints against the Society following the apprehension of her child.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in a Crown Wardship proceeding.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

The Board held that its mandate to review whether the Society listened to the mother and provided reasons for its decisions is distinct from the court's mandate to make substantive child protection and access decisions.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services she received from the Women Abuse program at the Jewish Family and Child Service.

The Board held an oral hearing to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the matter.

The Board found that its jurisdiction under the Child and Family Services Act is limited to complaints regarding services sought or received from a Children's Aid Society.

Because the complaint related to a community service program rather than the child protection arm of the agency, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a decision of the respondent society's Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP).

The applicant alleged that the ICRP failed to hear his 39 complaints, failed to address them in its written summary, and was improperly constituted.

The Board found that while the ICRP was properly constituted under the legislation, it failed to hear the applicant's concerns and failed to provide a written summary that addressed them.

The Board ordered the society to conduct a new ICRP meeting to hear all concerns and to provide a detailed written summary with reasons for its decisions.

The appellant father appealed a school board's decision to expel his son from all of its schools following allegations of sexual assault during a school trip.

The student and two peers were accused of inappropriately touching two female students.

The Review Board found that the student had committed sexual assault and that his actions posed an unacceptable risk to the safety of others.

The Board concluded that no mitigating factors applied and upheld the decision to expel the student from all schools of the board.

The applicant appealed a school board's decision to expel her 13-year-old daughter for cyberbullying.

The student had created fake Facebook accounts to impersonate another student and send death threats.

The Child and Family Services Review Board upheld the expulsion, finding that although the conduct occurred off school property, it severely impacted the school climate.

The Board rejected arguments that the student's Central Auditory Processing Difficulty prevented her from understanding the consequences of her actions, concluding the conduct was premeditated and the expulsion was justified.

The applicant filed a complaint against the society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging that the society failed to provide reasons for its decision to attend his home and attempt to remove his children.

The Board found that the society acted on a court's direction but failed to communicate the reasons for its actions to the applicant.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons for its decisions regarding the events in question.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa failed to provide reasons for denying him and his mother access to his children, and failed to give him an opportunity to be heard regarding his access requests and concerns about the children's mother.

The Board found that the Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions affecting the Applicant's interests and failed to give him an opportunity to be heard.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its decisions and delay, and to respond to the Applicant regarding access.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that his child was adopted without his consent while he was out of the country.

The respondent Children's Aid Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter had already been decided by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Board found that the issues raised by the applicant were the subject of court orders and that under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, it does not have jurisdiction to review matters decided by a court.

The complaint was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed the school board's decision to expel her 15-year-old son from all schools within the board.

The student had brought a BB gun to school, kept it in his locker, and used it to threaten another student in class.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the statutory criteria for expulsion and mitigating factors.

The Board found that the student possessed a weapon at school, which significantly disrupted the school climate, and that no mitigating factors lessened the severity of the conduct.

The expulsion from all board schools was upheld.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide her an opportunity to be heard and that her case worker was biased and discriminatory.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the core issue was access, which was currently before the court.

The Board ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the access issue but had jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the applicant's treatment by the Society.

Finding that the applicant had not been fully heard by the Society regarding her treatment by the case worker, the Board ordered the Society to convene an Internal Complaint Review Panel to address the complaint.

The applicants, former foster parents of a special needs child, 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 the child.

The child had been removed from the applicants' care after they abruptly resigned as foster parents due to a dispute with their foster care agency.

The Board found that the applicants' actions raised concerns about their long-term commitment and ability to work cooperatively with service providers.

Concluding that it was in the child's best interests to be placed with a newly identified adoptive family without further delay, the Board confirmed the Society's decision to refuse the adoption application.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the children's aid society's decision to close his foster home and reduce funding for the youth in his care.

The society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the youth was not being removed from the home, but rather the financial arrangement was being changed to a lodger agreement.

The Board agreed it lacked jurisdiction under s. 61 of the Child and Family Services Act over contractual and funding arrangements where no removal of the child was proposed, and dismissed the application.