Frances Sanderson

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society regarding ten issues related to his child's apprehension and access visits.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were dealt with in a concurrent child protection trial.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over issues already decided by the court, such as allegations of physical harm and the child's emotional problems.

For the remaining issues where jurisdiction existed, the Board dismissed the complaints on the merits due to a lack of evidence or findings that the Society had appropriately heard the applicant's concerns and provided reasons for its decisions.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the society failed to hear her concerns regarding her children in foster care.

The complaints included allegations of poor hygiene, abuse in foster care, loss of traditional objects, and cancelled access visits.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the society had appropriately listened to, investigated, and responded to all of the applicant's concerns, and that the allegations of abuse were unsubstantiated by police and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The nine-year-old applicant child, a Crown ward, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from a secure treatment program.

The child had been admitted on an emergency basis due to severe behavioural outbursts.

The Board found that the child did not have a mental disorder as defined by the Child and Family Services Act, and that his actions were not a result of a mental disorder.

The Board concluded that the criteria for emergency admission under subsection 124(2) of the Act were not met and ordered the child's release.

The applicant foster parent appealed the Kawartha-Haliburton Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a Crown ward from her therapeutic foster care.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant missed the 10-day appeal window and the child had already been removed.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the Society failed to provide the applicant with the required written notice of her right to apply for a review.

On the merits, the Board determined that it was in the child's best interests to return to the applicant's home, noting the child's significant progress there, the lack of consultation with the child prior to the removal, and the child's expressed wish to return.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision to remove the child.

The applicant mother filed complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of her children's foster care.

The society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the matters were before the court.

The Board held that while access issues were before the court and outside its jurisdiction, it retained jurisdiction to hear complaints about the society's failure to listen to the applicant's concerns and provide reasonable responses, as these were not matters to be decided by the court.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent Society's handling of his concerns about his child's mother having unsupervised access.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant had already presented his allegations of abuse before the Superior Court of Justice in a custody action.

Consequently, pursuant to section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the issues had already been decided by the court.

The application was dismissed.

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.