Deborah Simon

The applicant, the maternal grandmother of a child in the care of the respondent children's aid society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 68 of the Child and Family Services Act to review complaints about the society.

The applicant alleged that the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel did not listen to key issues and improperly excluded her daughter from the meeting.

During the hearing on the merits, the parties reached an agreement.

The Board issued a consent order requiring the society to convene a new ICRP to hear the applicant's complaints in accordance with the statutory timelines and procedures.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Durham Children's Aid Society alleging inaccuracies in her file, failure to provide reasons for a decision, discrimination affecting her employment, and the undermining of her parenting rights.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the first three issues because the applicant had not exhausted internal review procedures and the complaints did not relate to services provided by the Society.

The fourth issue was dismissed for lack of any factual basis.

The 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 child argued that the statutory criteria for emergency admission were not met.

The Board heard evidence regarding the child's recent suicide attempt, high-risk behaviors while absent without leave from her group home, and mental health diagnoses.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired her judgment and that she had attempted to cause bodily harm to herself.

The Board concluded that the secure treatment program was necessary and appropriate, and that no less restrictive method was available.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review complaints against the children's aid society, alleging a failure to investigate reports of inappropriate sexual touching and physical discipline, and a failure to deliver medical supplies to his son.

After the society withdrew from the proceedings, the applicant agreed to accept the society's offer to provide a written explanation of the steps taken to address the complaints.

The Board issued a consent order requiring the society to provide written reasons addressing the three issues.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society for failing to respond to his complaint within the required timeframe and for denying him the opportunity to be heard.

The Society conceded the delay.

The dissenting member of the Child and Family Services Review Board would have allowed the applicant an extension to serve summonses, finding that the benefit of the doubt regarding alleged misinformation from Board staff should be resolved in his favour, and would have reconvened the hearing on the merits.

The applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from a secure treatment program at the respondent facility.

The applicant argued that the criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met.

The Board reviewed the evidence, including the applicant's history of aggressive behaviour, a suicide threat, and a psychiatric admission summary.

The Board found that the applicant had a mental disorder, posed a risk of serious bodily harm, and required the secure treatment program.

The application for release was denied.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society of Niagara refused to reopen an investigation into the suspected sexual abuse of her daughter while in foster care.

The Applicant argued that the Society failed to hear her concerns, failed to provide adequate reasons for its refusal, and failed to proceed with her formal complaint.

The Board found that the Society did not adequately listen to all relevant details provided by the Applicant and failed to provide comprehensive reasons for its decision.

The Society conceded it had not proceeded with the formal complaint process.

The Board ordered the Society to schedule an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting to address the Applicant's concerns.

The child, a Crown Ward with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder and other mental health issues, applied for release from a secure treatment program.

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

The Board reviewed the child's history of aggressive behaviour, threats, and previous unsuccessful placements.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, posed a risk of serious bodily harm, and that the secure treatment program was the least restrictive and most appropriate method of treatment.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent Society's failure to respond to his internal complaints and its failure to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had been decided by or were before the court.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints related to court-ordered assessments, access orders, and matters previously addressed under the old complaints process.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding the Society's failure to respond within regulatory timeframes, alleged hostility by a caseworker, and the failure to explain why certain documentary evidence was not relied upon.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Children's Aid Society's failure to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions related to access visits and communications.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues of access and disclosure were already before the Court.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding it had jurisdiction because the Applicant was complaining about the Society's process, communications, and treatment of her, rather than the substantive issues of access and disclosure which were before the Court.

The applicant, a 14-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The child argued that the criteria for emergency admission under subsection 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met.

The Board found that the evidence did not support a conclusion that the child had a mental disorder as defined in the Act, noting that neither the hospital nor the foster home took extra precautions following a reported suicide attempt.

The Board unanimously ordered the child's release from the secure treatment program.

The Applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa, alleging that the Society failed to listen to his concerns regarding his children, treated him differently than his ex-wife, and failed to protect his son.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the Society's responses to the Applicant's various reports and found that the Society acted within its mandate and in a timely fashion.

The Board dismissed the complaint, concluding that the Applicant was given ample opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made.

The applicant filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society regarding the apprehension of his daughter and poor communication.

The Board found that communication had significantly improved and the parties were working productively together, resolving that issue.

Regarding the apprehension, the Board held that the Society appropriately delayed identifying itself until it was safe to do so, given historical concerns and drug use involving the applicant's partner.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions to place his name on the Child Abuse Register, to remove it, and for keeping his file open.

The applicant had been acquitted of criminal charges related to a child abuse allegation, after which his name was removed from the Register.

The Board found that the Society's initial letter informing the applicant of his placement on the Register lacked adequate reasons and ordered the Society to provide full written reasons detailing the factual basis and social work methodology used.

The Board made no orders regarding the removal decision or the status of the file.

The applicant brought a complaint to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions to place his name on the Child Abuse Register, to subsequently remove it, and to keep his file open.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, noting that the decision to place the applicant's name on the Register occurred before the Board acquired jurisdiction over such matters on December 1, 2006.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to review all three decisions, reasoning that procedural fairness required reviewing the initial placement decision in conjunction with the subsequent removal decision, especially since the applicant could not practically complain earlier due to pending criminal charges of which he was ultimately acquitted.