Sonya Vellenga

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, which was resolved by a settlement agreement.

The applicant subsequently alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a term requiring a notation of her disagreement to be entered into the CPIN system.

The Board accepted the respondent's confirmation that the note had been added to the file.

Finding that the respondent had complied with the agreement, the Board closed the application as settled.

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

The child conceded she had a mental disorder but disputed that the remaining statutory criteria for admission were met.

The Board heard evidence from the child's mother and a staff psychiatrist regarding the child's escalating self-harm, involvement in an online exploitation group, and the failure of less restrictive community treatments.

The Board found that the child's mental disorder caused a substantial threat of serious bodily harm, that the secure treatment program would be effective, and that no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant, a grandmother, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her grandson's placement with his mother and alleged neglect.

The respondent agency argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not a service recipient.

The Board found that the applicant had not sought or received services from the respondent as defined under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and therefore dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The parties reached a settlement agreement, but the applicants subsequently alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with several terms.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written review to determine compliance.

The Board found that the respondent had met its obligations under the settlement agreement by providing the required letters, explanations, and policy information regarding its investigative processes.

The application was closed as settled.

The Applicant, a young person in open custody, applied to the Custody Review Board for a review of his placement at a facility outside his home community.

He sought a transfer to a facility in his home community to facilitate his reintegration plan, which included post-secondary education and community supports.

The Board found that the current placement was not appropriate to meet the Applicant's needs for rehabilitation and reintegration, as it interrupted his access to established community supports and his release plan.

The Board recommended that the Applicant be transferred to the requested facility in his home community.

The young person applied to the Custody Review Board seeking a transfer from a secure custody facility to a smaller facility closer to his family.

The Board reviewed the youth's needs, including his academic progress, behaviour, and family visiting circumstances.

The Board found that the current facility was meeting the youth's programming needs and that the distance was not a barrier to family visits.

The Board confirmed the Provincial Director's decision to place the youth at the current facility.

The applicant, a youth in secure custody, applied to the Custody Review Board for a review of the Provincial Director's decision transferring him to a larger facility.

The applicant sought a return to his previous, smaller facility, citing better relationships and less conflict.

The Board found that the current facility met the applicant's needs, offering relevant trades programming and proximity to his family, and noted the applicant had adapted well without conflict.

The Provincial Director's decision was confirmed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging harassment and other issues by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the same issues were currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the substance of the applicant's complaints, including allegations of harassment, parenting capacity disputes, and school concerns, were identical to issues raised in the ongoing court proceedings.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with the terms of an amended settlement agreement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the written submissions and determined that the respondent had complied with most of the terms by providing sufficient reasons for its decisions regarding child protection and access.

However, the Board found that the respondent failed to provide answers to two specific questions regarding the formal complaint process and the child's exposure to pornography.

The respondent was ordered to provide answers to the remaining items.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent did not give her a chance to be heard regarding the care of her child in foster care.

The applicant failed to attend a rescheduled pre-hearing and did not respond to subsequent directions from the Board.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.