Suzanne Gilbert

The applicant foster mother applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing her application to adopt a 22-month-old foster child.

The Society had removed the child and the applicant's two adopted children after verifying that the applicant used corporal punishment on one of her adopted children, resulting in criminal charges and her placement on the Child Abuse Registry.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the applicant's altered family dynamics and unresolved parenting challenges meant it was not in the child's best interests to be returned to her care for adoption.

The applicant sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a seven-year-old child who had been placed with her for adoption.

The Society removed the child after investigations into the applicant's behaviour raised concerns about her mental health.

A parenting capacity assessment diagnosed the applicant with a paranoid personality trait and delusional disorder.

The Board found the assessment credible and concluded that the applicant's untreated mental health issues posed significant psychological risks to the child.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the adoption placement was not in the child's best interests.

The applicants sought a review of the Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt their granddaughter.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the application was filed outside the 10-day statutory limit and that the issues were already before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, ruling that the 10-day limit was not triggered because the Society's refusal notice failed to adequately inform the applicants of their review rights.

Furthermore, the Board held that its jurisdiction to review an adoption refusal is distinct from the court's jurisdiction in a child protection proceeding.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking a review of the respondent society's decisions regarding access to her children and alleged inaccuracies in her file.

The Board dismissed the application without a full hearing.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to review the access issue because the children had already been made Crown wards with no access by court order.

Furthermore, the Board held that the applicant must first exhaust the society's internal complaint process before seeking a review of the file inaccuracies.

The applicants, the aunt and uncle of a Crown ward, applied to adopt her.

The Children's Aid Society refused the application before completing the homestudy, citing the severe and destructive history of the child's biological parents in disrupting family placements.

The applicants requested a review by the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Board found that the applicants were excellent candidates who had the maturity and resources to protect the child from her biological parents.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision, concluding that adoption by the applicants was in the child's best interests, subject to the completion of the homestudy visitation phase.

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 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.