Administrative Law

The applicant sought an in-person hearing for her application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact on her rights.

The respondent requested a written hearing.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered that the hearing proceed in writing, finding that an in-person hearing was not necessary to accommodate a Human Rights Code-related need or to ensure fairness, and that a written format would be more efficient given the procedural focus of the application.

The appellant appealed the respondent school board's decision to expel their child.

During a videoconference pre-hearing, the child disrupted the proceeding, and the appellant disconnected and failed to return.

After the appellant failed to respond to a subsequent case management direction, the adjudicator dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society denied her access to public documents, specifically an accountability agreement and governance policies.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction because the complaint did not relate to a service sought or received from the society as defined in the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The applicant, a grandmother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her granddaughter.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that the right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is limited to children, young persons, and parents, which does not include grandparents.

Furthermore, the applicant was not seeking or receiving services from the society.

Le requérant a déposé une plainte contre la société d'aide à l'enfance, alléguant un manque de consultation, de la partialité en faveur de son ex-conjointe, et une atteinte à son droit de recevoir des services en français.

La Commission a conclu que la société n'avait pas adéquatement entendu le requérant ni fourni des motifs suffisants pour ses décisions, notamment lors de la fermeture de dossiers et du retrait des enfants de la résidence familiale.

La Commission a également conclu que les services en français offerts étaient insuffisants.

La société a été ordonnée de fournir au requérant des motifs écrits détaillés et en français pour ses diverses décisions.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the respondent Children's Aid Society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

He alleged that the Society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard, failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding his children, and infringed his right to receive services in French.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society's communications did not provide sufficient reasons for its decisions, including why he was not consulted to the same extent as his ex-wife, and that the Society did not offer appropriate French services.

The Board ordered the Society to provide clear and comprehensible written explanations in French for its various decisions.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard regarding decisions affecting his foster children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that section 120 only covers complaints in respect of a service sought or received from a society, whereas a foster parent provides a service rather than seeking or receiving one.

The applicant mother submitted her fourth and fifth applications to the Child and Family Services Review Board, raising concerns about the respondent children's aid society's actions regarding the removal and placement of her children.

The respondent requested that the applications be dismissed and the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the issues as they had either been decided by the court or fell outside its statutory authority.

Applying the factors for vexatious litigants, the Board concluded that the applicant was re-litigating decided issues and seeking unavailable remedies, thereby abusing the process.

The applications were dismissed, and the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant requiring permission for future filings.

The appellant mother appealed the school board's decision to expel her 14-year-old son from all schools within the board after he brought two large knives to school and displayed them on a school bus.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a new hearing and found that the pupil possessed weapons that negatively impacted the school climate, warranting a mandatory suspension.

The Board considered the mitigating factors under sections 2 and 3 of Ontario Regulation 472/07, including the pupil's special education needs and transition to an alternate program, but concluded that none of the factors mitigated the seriousness of the activities or the risk to the safety of others.

The expulsion from all schools of the school board was confirmed.

The Member brought a motion to defer his disciplinary hearing until in-person hearings could resume, arguing that proceeding by videoconference would prejudice his right to a fair hearing by impairing the assessment of credibility and cross-examination.

The College opposed the motion.

The Discipline Committee denied the motion, finding that the Member failed to demonstrate significant prejudice under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Committee noted the availability of the CaseLines platform for document sharing and the panel's ability to assess credibility via Zoom, emphasizing the public interest in proceeding without indefinite delay.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct including a medication error, failing to transfer accountability, inappropriate communication regarding medication, and crossing professional boundaries by kissing a patient with dementia.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted the joint submission, ordering a reprimand, a 3-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought discipline proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for professional misconduct.

The member admitted to failing to assess a patient's vital signs and blood glucose levels, failing to respond to changes in the patient's condition, failing to transfer the patient to the hospital, and failing to accurately report the patient's condition to her family.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the member's certificate of registration.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in 2002, appealed a conditional discharge order issued by the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued that the Board's finding of a "significant threat to the safety of the public" was unreasonable and that the Board misapprehended the sufficiency of available civil mechanisms to manage his risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on "significant threat" to be within the range of reasonable outcomes, considering factors such as the appellant's major mental illness, serious index offences, lack of insight, and stated intention to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged.

The second ground of appeal regarding civil mechanisms was not pressed.

An appeal against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board was dismissed as moot.

The parties agreed that a later board disposition rendered the appeal academic, leading the court to dismiss the matter without addressing the merits of the original appeal.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, faced a discipline hearing for professional misconduct relating to her care of a patient who fell while disembarking a transit bus and subsequently died.

The Member admitted to failing to assess the patient, failing to complete an incident report, and failing to take appropriate action when the patient's health declined the following day.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered a three-month suspension, a reprimand, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated April 29, 2016.

The appellant, found NCRMD for sexual assault, challenged the Board's decision to continue his detention in a Secure Forensic Unit rather than place him in a general forensic unit or impose a hybrid order allowing discretionary transfer.

The appellant conceded he remained a significant threat to public safety and that detention was appropriate, but argued the Board erred in: (1) failing to provide reasons for rejecting a hybrid order; (2) misapprehending evidence regarding his low risk for coercive sexual contact; and (3) failing to apply the least restrictive disposition test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the Board's disposition.

The appellant sought to review a chambers judge's order denying an extension of time to perfect an appeal from a motion judge's decision that struck portions of the appellant's statement of claim and dismissed the action against Canada.

The appellant had failed to perfect the appeal within the required time and sought an extension nearly three years after filing the notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the chambers judge's discretionary decision to deny the extension, finding that the chambers judge applied the correct legal test and that the justice of the case did not compel an extension given the unexplained delay and the lack of merit in the underlying appeal.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering that a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder remain on the secure forensic unit of a hospital.

The appellant sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Board found the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety based on his lack of insight into his mental illness, likelihood of non-compliance with medication, and psychological testing indicating high risk of psychotic relapse and violent behaviour.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition as reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 20, 2016.

The hospital had recommended a conditional discharge, but the Board imposed a detention order with conditions.

The appellant challenged the Board's decision on multiple grounds, including the refusal to order a conditional discharge and the failure to order a second opinion or independent assessment in light of a potential treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's reasoning regarding the appellant's non-compliance with essential drug treatment and the requirement for hospital-approved residence.

The Attorney General of Canada moved to dismiss the plaintiff's Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(3)(a) or (d), arguing lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process.

The plaintiff, a former CSIS employee, opposed, relying on section 236(3) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which allows employees to dispute termination not related to discipline or misconduct.

The court found that the "may" in CSISA section 41 regarding SIRC complaints was permissive, not mandatory, and that PSLRA section 236(3) preserves a common law right of action for performance-based terminations.

Given the high burden on the moving party under Rule 21, the motion to dismiss was denied.