Gail Gonda

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging that it failed to hear her service concerns and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests regarding her child.

The child had been apprehended and placed in the father's care.

The Board reviewed eight specific issues raised by the applicant, including access visits, medical concerns, and parenting courses.

The Board found that the society had met its statutory obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide sufficient reasons for its decisions or explanations where it lacked decision-making authority.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant, a custodial father, filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Niagara Region alleging that the Society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding a child abuse investigation involving the child's mother.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society generally met its obligations to hear the Applicant's concerns and provide reasons verbally.

However, the Board ordered the Society to provide the Applicant with a written summary of its decision regarding his initial report and a written overview of the investigation process and reasons for the delay.

The Applicant's complaints regarding failure to provide services and unfair treatment were dismissed.

The self-represented applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process conducted by the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The applicant raised numerous concerns regarding supervised access, file disclosures, redacted emails, and alleged violations of his children's rights.

The Board found that the Society's written responses to the applicant's concerns lacked sufficient detail and failed to demonstrate that he was adequately heard.

The Board ordered the Society to provide comprehensive written explanations, policies, and unredacted files (subject to specific privilege claims) to the applicant.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process conducted by the respondent society.

The applicants complained that the society failed to provide sufficient reasons for its decision to close their home as a foster home.

The Board found that the ICRP process did not provide the applicants with sufficient reasons that addressed their challenges to the validity of the society's decision.

However, the Board declined to order the society to provide further reasons, as the underlying issues were addressed in a concurrent hearing regarding the placement of the child.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Internal Complaints Review Panel process conducted by the respondent society.

The applicant alleged that the society failed to properly hear her concerns regarding inaccuracies in her file and failed to provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the society had met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide written reasons for its conclusions, with the exception of one outstanding issue regarding the removal of a child's name from the record.

The Board ordered the society to provide a written decision and reasons on that specific issue within 14 days.

The Applicant, a mother whose child was subject to a crown wardship order with no access, brought an application alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to hear her or provide reasons regarding the child's out-of-province kin placement and its communications with police.

The Society argued it was not obliged to consult the Applicant due to the crown wardship order and child protection concerns.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its statutory obligations to hear the Applicant and provide reasons regarding the kin placement and her service concerns about the police.

The Board ordered the Society to receive and genuinely consider the Applicant's written input regarding the kin placement and to provide a detailed written response.

The applicant, father of a Crown Ward, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process.

The applicant alleged the ICRP failed to adequately address his concerns regarding access, information sharing, and proper process.

The Board found the ICRP process deficient, as the written summary provided to the applicant lacked detail and failed to demonstrate his concerns were heard or to provide adequate reasons for the society's decisions.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed written explanation addressing each of the applicant's specific concerns.

The applicant, a kin foster caregiver and paternal grandmother of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the children's aid society's decision to permanently remove the child from her care.

The society had removed the child after discovering that the child's parents, who struggled with drug addiction, were residing in the applicant's home and using drugs in the child's presence, contrary to the society's directions.

The Board found that it had jurisdiction to hear the application, as kin foster caregivers have the same rights as regular foster parents under section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act.

Ultimately, the Board confirmed the society's decision, finding that the applicant failed to protect the child and prioritize her needs, making the removal in the child's best interests.

The Board also dismissed the applicant's claim that the society failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to investigate her complaints, failed to follow procedural requirements, and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The complaints arose in the context of a high-conflict custody dispute where the children had been apprehended and placed with their father.

The Board found that the society had heard the applicant's concerns, provided reasons for its decisions, and acted within its mandate.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Dufferin Child and Family Services regarding its failure to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her children.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the children were the subject of an ongoing protection application before the court.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to review the Society's communication and responsiveness to the applicant, as these were not issues before the court.

However, the Board declined jurisdiction over complaints regarding inaccurate file documentation, as those matters involved evidence relevant to the court proceeding.

The 14-year-old applicant sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while some criteria for admission were met, the requirement under section 124(2)(e) of the Child and Family Services Act—that no less restrictive method of providing appropriate treatment was available—was not satisfied.

The Board noted that appropriate services in a less intrusive setting had not been adequately investigated.

Consequently, the Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Algoma, alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding the interviewing of her children and an investigation into a child attending her daycare.

The Board found that the Society's Internal Complaint Review Panel had properly heard the applicant's concerns and provided adequate reasons for its actions.

The Board noted that the applicant was not entitled to be heard regarding the daycare child as she was not the parent, but the Society had nonetheless provided written reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard regarding her concerns about a social worker and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the Society had responded to the applicant's concerns in a variety of ways, including scheduling regular phone contact, assigning a new worker, and attempting to address the concerns through discussions with a supervisor.

The Board concluded that the Society met its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act and dismissed the application.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear her concerns, provide reasons for decisions, and comply with complaint review procedures regarding her grandchildren's care and a worker's conduct.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the Society appropriately responded to requests for help with one grandchild, it failed to hear concerns or provide reasons regarding the safety of the younger grandchild following an alleged assault.

The Board also found the Society failed to comply with the statutory internal complaint review procedures.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations and engage its complaint review process.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding its handling of her mental health issues, a community caregiver investigation that led to the suspension of her driver's license, and her unemployment.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the society met its statutory obligations under the Child and Family Services Act to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its decisions at each step of its involvement.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society failed to hear him and failed to provide reasons regarding a child protection investigation involving his son.

The Society refused to participate in the hearing on the merits.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by concluding the investigation without notifying or interviewing the Applicant, and by failing to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written explanation to the Applicant.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his service concerns or provide reasons for decisions regarding his child in foster care.

At the scheduled oral hearing, the applicant declined to call witnesses, testify, or provide documentary evidence.

After the Board explained the process and encouraged him to proceed, the applicant explicitly stated he would not proceed and vacated the premises.

The Board concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns regarding parental alienation syndrome, gender bias, and a conflict of interest involving his ex-wife, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society did not meaningfully engage with the applicant's concerns or provide adequate explanations for its actions.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed written explanation addressing the applicant's concerns, its conflict of interest policy, and its position on parental alienation syndrome.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Family and Children's Services of Guelph and Wellington County regarding its handling of her child protection concerns about the child's father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the Society properly handled the internal complaints process and the initial investigation, it failed to meet its statutory obligations during a subsequent investigation.

Specifically, the Society failed to hear the applicant's concerns, involve her in safety planning, or provide reasons for its decisions regarding the child's safety, adult conflict, and her request for a change of worker.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations to the applicant for its decisions.

The applicants, former foster parents of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their adoption application and its failure to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Society had removed the child from the applicants' care following child protection investigations that verified the use of unapproved caregivers and corporal punishment.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to refuse the adoption application, finding that the applicants could not meet the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs.

The Board also found that while the Society provided reasons for its child protection investigation decisions, it failed to provide reasons for the adoption refusal.