Aida Graff

The Applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging the Society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests regarding his daughter.

The Applicant raised issues concerning the Society's investigation of the mother, alleged bias of the family services worker, the Society's actions during his arrest, a lack of written directives, and delays in providing his file.

The Board dismissed most of the complaints, finding the Society had heard his concerns and adequately communicated with him.

However, the Board found the Society failed to provide reasons for its decision to deny the Applicant's request for a new family services worker, and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the children's aid society failed to provide reasons for seeking crown wardship of her child without access.

The society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issue had already been decided by the court in the child protection proceedings.

The Board found that the society's reasons for seeking crown wardship were squarely before the court during the summary judgment motion, which resulted in a crown wardship order.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act and granted the society's motion.

The applicant brought several complaints against the respondent children's aid society regarding a worker's failure to follow complaint procedures, exclusion from a meeting with a parenting coordinator, and a worker allegedly lying about an access visit.

The Child and Family Services Review Board previously determined it had jurisdiction over these specific complaints.

On consent, the Board ordered the respondent to immediately convene an Internal Complaints Review Panel to address the three complaints in accordance with the statutory complaint review procedure.

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

The child had a history of running away, medication non-compliance, and aggressive behaviour, and was diagnosed with a mental disorder related to prenatal alcohol exposure.

The Board applied the criteria for emergency admission under the governing child and family services legislation.

Finding that the child posed a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that no less restrictive treatment method was appropriate, the Board dismissed the application and ordered that the child remain in the secure treatment program.

The applicant filed several complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the society regarding its handling of his case, including access issues, medical concerns, and the complaint process itself.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were already decided by or before the family court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints related to access, medical concerns, and case notes, as these were central to the court proceedings.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over complaints regarding the society's failure to follow its own complaint procedure, a meeting held without the applicant, and an allegation that a worker lied, as these were not before the court.

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

The respondent facility argued that the child met the criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child did not have a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act, concluding that her aggressive behaviour was the result of parent-child conflict rather than a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought, or cognition.

Furthermore, the Board found that the child did not cause or threaten serious bodily harm.

As the criteria for admission were not met, the Board ordered the child's release.

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 applicants, former foster parents of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's refusal of their application to adopt the child.

The Society had removed the child and closed the applicants' foster home due to alleged discrepancies in mileage claims, but later cited safety concerns regarding the birth mother's knowledge of the applicants.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the application.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the Board concluded that the long-term safety and security risks posed by the birth family's knowledge of the applicants outweighed the child's attachment to them.

The Society's decision to refuse the adoption application was confirmed.

The applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from a secure treatment program, arguing the criteria for emergency admission under the Child and Family Services Act were not met.

At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant withdrew the application.

The applicant explained that her mother, who had provided surety for her in a separate criminal matter, threatened to withdraw the surety if the applicant was released from the treatment centre, which would result in the applicant returning to custody.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, raising concerns about the services received, the behaviour of a social worker, and inaccuracies in their file.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to discipline the Society's employee, as such matters fall under the Labour Relations Act.

Regarding the file inaccuracies, specifically the use of the word 'terrorist', the Society agreed to append a Notice of Disagreement to the applicants' file.

As the Society had addressed the concerns and agreed to the Notice of Disagreement, the Board made no further remedial orders.

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.