Deana DeGrâce

The applicant parent filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to provide an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests regarding their child.

Following a hearing, the Board found that while the respondent had provided the applicant with an opportunity to be heard on all issues, it failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions not to consult the applicant prior to its initial involvement and not to notify the applicant of specific domestic violence incidents in the child's primary home.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide written reasons for these two decisions within 30 days.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel appealed a lower court order that required it to hire a third-party professional supervision service for supervised home visits.

The Society argued that this requirement contravened s. 94(6)(c) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), which prohibits compelling the Society to provide financial assistance or purchase goods/services for supervision orders.

Applying a correctness standard of review, the court found that the lower court's order did indeed contravene s. 94(6)(c) by obligating the Society to purchase services.

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned provision of the order was set aside.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought motions pursuant to section 74 of the Child and Family Services Act seeking orders for the production of records from ten third parties and institutions regarding two children and their mother.

The children had been apprehended and were in the temporary care of the Society.

The mother opposed the production of records, arguing they were not relevant to the issues of harm and that disclosure would cause emotional harm to the children.

The court granted the Society's motions, finding that the records were relevant and necessary to determine whether the children were in need of protection and to assess appropriate disposition.

The court found that the children's consent to disclosure, the lack of opposition from third parties, and the mother's prior consent to some records outweighed privacy concerns.