Alina Lazor

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

The Board found that Youthdale failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the child suffered from a mental disorder as defined by the Act at the time of admission.

The Board excluded the admission summary and Form 14 because Youthdale declined to make the admitting psychiatrist available for cross-examination, which the Board held was necessary for procedural fairness given the deprivation of liberty.

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

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 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 15-year-old applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board found that the admission criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met, specifically because there was insufficient evidence that the applicant had a mental disorder at the time of admission.

The Board excluded hearsay medical documents as procedurally unfair since the authors were not available for cross-examination.

The Board ordered the applicant's release.

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

The Board assessed whether the five criteria for admission under section 124(2) were met.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder and had caused or threatened serious bodily harm to herself and others, including fire-setting, self-harm, and physical altercations.

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 of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicants, who were the foster parents of a four-year-old child with special needs, applied to adopt the child.

The Society refused their adoption application due to concerns about the applicants' ability to meet the child's long-term needs, the foster father's health, and a history of parent-child conflict in the home.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the refusal.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the applicants lacked a sufficient understanding of the child's special needs and faced too many stressors, including the foster father's cancer diagnosis, to provide the necessary care into adulthood.

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

At the hearing, the Board excluded the admitting psychiatrist's Form 14 and Admission Summary because the psychiatrist was not called to testify, finding that admitting the hearsay evidence would violate the child's right to procedural fairness and fundamental justice.

On the merits, the Board found that the facility failed to prove the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired her judgment, or that she had caused serious bodily harm to herself.

As the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met, the Board ordered the child's release.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board 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.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, had made substantial threats to cause serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

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

The child argued that three of the five criteria for admission under the Child and Family Services Act were not met.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired his capacity to make reasoned judgments, that he had made substantial threats to cause serious bodily harm to himself and others, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

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

The Applicant filed a complaint against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging that the Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests regarding her infant son.

The Board found that the Society met its obligations in most instances, including her request for support prior to apprehension, concerns about her son's constipation and clothing, and requests for information.

However, the Board found that the Society failed to properly communicate with the Applicant regarding her concerns about her son's skin rash and her request for a change in family services worker.

The applicant, a 12-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

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

The Board found that the child did not have a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act, as her capacity to make reasoned judgments was not grossly impaired.

Consequently, the criteria for emergency admission were not satisfied, and the Board ordered the child's release from the secure treatment program.

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 applicants, who were the foster parents of a young child, applied for a review of the children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt the child.

The society had planned to place the child with her biological siblings, who had been adopted by an employee of the society.

The Board found that the society had a conflict of interest and failed to properly consider the applicants' application.

The Board rescinded the society's decision and ordered that the child remain with the applicants pending a full and fair assessment of their adoption application by an independent children's aid society.

The applicant, a ten-year-old boy, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

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

While acknowledging the applicant's behavioral issues and the mother's difficulties, the Board found no evidence that the applicant had caused or threatened to cause serious bodily harm to himself or others.

Consequently, the Board concluded that criterion 124(2)(b) was not met and ordered the applicant's release.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging the Society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding a child protection investigation involving his son.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complaints were identical to those raised in 2005, triggering transitional provisions.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the applicant had not engaged the formal written complaint procedure in 2005.

On the merits, the Board found the Society failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decisions, ordering the Society to provide detailed written reasons.

The applicant, a 15-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

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

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, had made substantial threats to cause serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that the secure treatment program would be effective and appropriate.

Finding that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate, the Board dismissed the application and upheld the admission.

The applicants, who were foster parents to a five-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing to consider their adoption application.

The Society had refused the application because the applicants were hesitant to adopt the child's younger brother without financial assistance, citing the Society's philosophy of keeping siblings together.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the child had formed a strong, secure attachment to the applicants over 19 months of care and that separating her from them would cause traumatic loss outweighing the long-term benefits of being placed with her brother.

The 14-year-old Aboriginal applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his residential placement, seeking to be moved closer to his home and family.

The applicant had complex needs including ADHD, substance abuse issues, and a history of self-harm, and the current facility was failing to provide adequate cultural programming, individual counselling, or other recommended supports.

Despite finding that the current facility was not meeting the applicant's physical, emotional, and cultural needs, the Board confirmed the placement because no alternative residential placements were available.

The Board strongly recommended that the society transition the applicant to a therapeutic foster home with appropriate Aboriginal programming within three months.

The applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a two-year-old child with special needs.

The applicants had recently adopted the child's half-sister.

The Society argued it was in the child's best interests to be adopted by her foster parents, who had cared for her since birth.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the applicants could better meet the child's need for individualized attention and that placing the siblings together was in the child's best interests.

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

The admitting facility argued the child met the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act due to depression and risky behaviors, including unprotected sex and running away.

The Board found that while the child had a provisional diagnosis of depression, her behaviors were a reaction to her parents' separation and did not constitute a mental disorder that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board concluded the criteria for admission were not met and ordered the child's release.