David Sider

The applicant mother filed an application under s. 120 of the CYFSA alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns regarding her ex-partner's domestic violence, failed to provide reasons for its investigation outcomes, failed to investigate a tailbone injury to her child, and failed to provide requested counseling services.

The Board found that the society heard her concerns regarding domestic violence and provided details of the service plan, but failed to provide reasons for not investigating the second tailbone injury and for not providing requested services.

The application was upheld in part, and the society was ordered to provide written reasons on the outstanding issues.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with two terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The adjudicator found that the respondent had complied with the first term regarding the provision of information.

Regarding the second term, the parties agreed that the respondent would conduct a resource check and provide a new letter confirming the number of youth placed in the applicant's emergency foster home, without a confidentiality constraint.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints against the respondent children's aid society.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and subsequently failed to respond to the Board's directions to reschedule or withdraw the application.

The Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests regarding a child placed in her care.

The applicant wished to foster and adopt the child, but the society treated the placement as kinship care and later closed the file without pursuing a protection application or adoption.

The Review Board found the society failed to provide satisfactory reasons for several of its decisions and ordered it to provide a detailed written explanation to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to refuse her adoption application.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the child was not legally available for adoption, as the child had never been found in need of protection or placed in extended society care.

The Board agreed, finding that the legislative prerequisites for adoption had not been met and the child remained in the legal custody of his father.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent's decision refusing her application to adopt her former foster child.

The child, who has severe developmental delays and complex trauma, requires a calm and consistent home environment.

The tribunal found that the applicant's home, which includes three children with special needs and a history of significant family conflict and crises, could not provide the necessary stability and individualized attention.

The tribunal concluded it was in the child's best interests to uphold the respondent's refusal.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the Society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for closing an investigation into his children's safety.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to provide satisfactory reasons initially and failed to give the applicant an opportunity to be heard, notably when a supervisor persistently ignored his phone messages.

The Board dismissed allegations of racial and gender discrimination due to insufficient evidence.

As the Society had already convened an Internal Complaints Review Process and issued an apology and updated closing letter, the Board made no further orders given its limited remedial authority.

The applicant filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society regarding the handling of his concerns about his children's safety and the services provided to him.

The respondent argued that the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the CYFSA because the issues were already before the court in an emergency motion.

The adjudicator found that the CFSRB was precluded from reviewing the applicant's concerns regarding the children's safety, as those had been decided by the court.

However, the adjudicator determined that the applicant's complaints regarding his interactions with the respondent's staff were separate service issues and allowed those to proceed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the children's aid society failed to hear her concerns regarding the children's safety during access visits with their father.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the same issues were currently before the court in an ongoing contempt motion regarding access.

The Board agreed, finding that the applicant's concerns about the children's safety and well-being were squarely before the court in the contempt proceedings.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society regarding issues of access, custody, and the child's care in a foster home.

The respondent argued that the issues were either already decided by or currently before the Superior Court of Justice, and thus excluded from the Board's jurisdiction under s. 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board agreed, finding that the issues related to custody, access, and child protection were before the court.

The Board also found that a complaint regarding the society's failure to investigate a threat by a former teacher was premature, as it was filed only one day after the report was made.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The Applicant alleged that the Peel Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a Settlement Agreement reached during mediation.

The Agreement required the Society to answer 10 questions regarding its handling of the Applicant's child protection case, which involved allegations of parental alienation and high-conflict separation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the Society's written responses and found that the Society had provided substantive answers and explanations for each of the 10 terms.

Although the Applicant strongly disagreed with the Society's actions and explanations, the Board held that disagreement does not invalidate the reasons provided.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion for summary judgment seeking statutory findings that three children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and requesting their placement with their father.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of two of the three children to her care.

The court found that the children had suffered physical harm and neglect at the hands of the mother, and that there was a risk of further harm.

The court made statutory findings under multiple subclauses of section 37(2) of the Act and ordered the children placed in the sole care of their father, with the mother receiving supervised access twice monthly at a community access center.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under subsection 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act, based on alleged risk of physical harm caused by the mother's mental health issues.

The mother opposed the finding and the Society's proposed supervision order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Society had not established a realistic risk of harm.

The evidence showed the mother had a single manic episode in 2010 (likely substance-induced), had demonstrated stable functioning over sixteen months of unsupervised access, and had received clearance from her treating psychiatrist.

The court found there was a genuine issue requiring trial and that it was not plain and obvious the Society would succeed.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion seeking an order that the father undergo a Sexual Offence Specific Assessment.

The child had been apprehended in 2012 following allegations of sexual abuse by the father.

Although the father initially agreed to phallometric testing, he had not completed any assessment despite requests since 2012.

The Society's plan of care was to return the child to the parents' care without requiring the assessment.

The court found that the assessment was necessary to determine whether the father could be a primary caregiver and to assess the risk of sexual harm to the vulnerable child.

The motion was granted.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a secure treatment application seeking to commit an 11-year-old child with a dual diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Child Onset-Conduct Disorder to the secure treatment program at Syl Apps Youth Centre.

The child had stabbed an older brother in the chest, causing a collapsed lung, and subsequently assaulted staff and a parent while hospitalized.

The court found that all statutory criteria under section 117 of the Child and Family Services Act were satisfied, including the presence of a mental disorder, serious bodily harm caused within the preceding 45 days, additional incidents of serious bodily harm, the effectiveness of the secure treatment program, availability of appropriate treatment, and the absence of less restrictive alternatives.

The court granted the application for a 180-day commitment.

This is a summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel regarding twin girls born in 2011.

The parents did not oppose the protection finding, and the matter proceeded solely on the issue of disposition.

The society sought Crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

The mother had a long history of drug abuse, testing positive for cocaine at the time of the children's birth.

Despite agreeing to drug testing and treatment programs, the parents failed to follow through, missed numerous appointments, and ceased visiting the children for an extended period without credible explanation.

The court found that over fourteen months, the parents had not demonstrated the ability to address their substance abuse issues in a comprehensive and sustained manner.

The court granted the society's motion, making the children wards of the Crown without access for purposes of adoption.