Alina Lazor

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

The applicant argued that he did not meet the statutory criteria for admission, specifically regarding having a mental disorder, causing or threatening serious bodily harm, and the availability of less restrictive treatment.

The Board found that the applicant suffered from a severe anxiety disorder that grossly impaired his judgment, had exhibited escalating physical aggression towards his mother, and required a locked setting for assessment and treatment.

The Board concluded that all criteria for emergency admission were met and dismissed the application for release.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the five criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder causing severe mood swings and aggressive behaviour, posed a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that the secure treatment program was the only appropriate and effective less restrictive method available.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant, a 14-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments, resulting in substantial threats of serious bodily harm to herself and others.

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

The applicant, a youth in the care of the Children's Aid Society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the evidence of the youth's escalating self-harming and aggressive behaviours, as well as her mental health challenges.

The Board found that all statutory criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met, including that the youth had a mental disorder, posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Applicant mother filed a complaint against the Society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her child, a Crown ward.

The Applicant raised issues concerning the Society's communication about the child's potential return to her care, the reasons preventing the return, and the child's relocation with his foster family to another county.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the Society had clearly communicated its position not to support the child's return and had adequately explained the reasons for the child's relocation.

The applicant, a 13-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a history of severe substance abuse, running away, self-harm, and a serious suicide attempt.

The Board found that the child met all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, including having a mental disorder that caused her to attempt or threaten serious bodily harm, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

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

The child had a history of aggressive and self-harming behaviours, including suicide attempts, and had been diagnosed with a learning disability, intermittent explosive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the child met all the statutory criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, including having a mental disorder that caused a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself or others, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicants, foster parents to two special needs boys, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the children's removal by the Durham Children's Aid Society.

The Society removed the children after substantiating allegations that the foster mother used inappropriate physical discipline, including banging the older boy's head on the floor.

The Board found that the foster mother had used physical force and that there was a risk of future physical harm.

Concluding that the children's physical and emotional needs could not be met in the foster home, the Board determined it was not in their best interests to be returned and confirmed the Society's decision to remove them.

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

The child had a history of escalating dangerous behaviours, including self-harm, cutting, and climbing to dangerous heights at night.

The Board applied the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act and found that the child had a mental disorder that caused a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself.

The Board concluded that the secure treatment program would be effective in preventing further harm, that appropriate treatment was available, and that no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The child's application for release was dismissed.

The applicant child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the respondent failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by section 124(2)(a).

The respondent did not provide medical evidence or testimony from the admitting psychiatrist, and the child's behavioural issues, including persistent absences without leave, did not demonstrate a gross impairment of her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The Applicant, a 16-year-old crown ward, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her residential placement at a facility located over three hours from her home community.

The Applicant sought to be moved closer to her family and supports to assist her transition to independence.

The Children's Aid Society argued she needed to remain at the current facility to stabilize.

The Board found that the current placement was not in the Applicant's best interests due to the distance from her family, her special needs, and the negative environment at the facility.

The Board ordered the Applicant discharged from the current placement and moved to a placement closer to her family, preferably a treatment foster home.

The applicant previously succeeded in a complaint against the respondent children's aid society, resulting in an order for the society's internal complaint review panel to reconvene within 30 days.

The parties subsequently wrote to the Board requesting an extension of time to reconvene the panel and seeking clarification on whether the panel could review past practices and whether the confidentiality order permitted sharing the decision with support persons.

The Board issued a supplementary decision extending the timeline, confirming the panel's mandate to review past practices, and revising the confidentiality order to allow the decision to be shared with society personnel, the panel, and the applicant's support person.

The Applicant, a foster mother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt two young sisters who had been in her care.

The Society had matched the children with another family, citing a preference for a two-parent home with employment income rather than foster per diem income.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the Applicant had successfully met the children's special needs, provided a stable and loving home, and had sufficient financial means.

The Board ordered that the children be placed for adoption with the Applicant as it was in their best interests.

The child, a 12-year-old with a history of severe mood swings and violent behaviour, applied for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The Child and Family Services Review Board assessed whether the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met at the time of admission.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, had made substantial threats to cause serious bodily harm to himself and his mother, and that the secure treatment program would be effective in preventing such harm.

The Board also concluded that appropriate treatment was available at the facility and that no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The child applied for a review of her emergency admission to the secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centre under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the five criteria for admission under section 124(2) were met.

The Board ruled on a preliminary issue, refusing to admit medical records as business records without the testimony of a psychiatrist, citing procedural fairness.

Ultimately, based on the evidence of the child's escalating aggressive behaviour, self-harm, and threats to others, the Board found that all five criteria were met.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Child and Family Services Review Board issued an order directing the respondent society not to carry out the proposed removal of the child from the foster care of the applicant.

Written reasons were to follow the oral decision.

The applicant child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child did not meet the criteria for admission, specifically the requirement of having a mental disorder under section 124(2)(a).

The evidence presented, including testimony from the child's father and assessment reports, indicated school refusal and adjustment issues but did not demonstrate a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought, or cognition that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board considered whether the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met, specifically whether the child had a mental disorder.

The Board found no medical evidence of a mental disorder and concluded the child's behaviour was indicative of rebelliousness and anger rather than a substantial disorder of emotional processes.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The 16-year-old applicant child, who was in the care of a Children's Aid Society, applied for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a complex mental disorder, including a psychotic disorder and developmental disorder, and had exhibited aggressive behaviour, severe withdrawal, and an inability to adhere to medication.

The Board found that all five criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board concluded that the child posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself, that the secure treatment program would be effective and appropriate, and that no less restrictive method of providing treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant child sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under section 124 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board ruled that Youthdale's admission records were inadmissible without a psychiatrist available for cross-examination, citing procedural fairness and section 7 of the Charter.

On the merits, the Board found that the child did not meet the criteria for admission because there was insufficient evidence that she suffered from a mental disorder at the time of admission.

The Board ordered the child's release.