Gail Gonda

The Child applied for release from a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Child argued that the criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) had not been met.

The Board heard evidence regarding the Child's escalating behavioural issues, substance abuse, and mental disorder diagnosis.

The Board found that all five criteria for secure treatment were satisfied, including that the Child had a mental disorder, posed a substantial threat of harm, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

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 applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide her an opportunity to be heard and that her case worker was biased and discriminatory.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the core issue was access, which was currently before the court.

The Board ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the access issue but had jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the applicant's treatment by the Society.

Finding that the applicant had not been fully heard by the Society regarding her treatment by the case worker, the Board ordered the Society to convene an Internal Complaint Review Panel to address the complaint.

The applicant father applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to listen to his concerns regarding the welfare, medical treatment, and cultural heritage of his children, and that the Society's file contained inaccuracies.

The Board found that the Society had provided the applicant with ample opportunity to be heard, had investigated his allegations of abuse, and was not responsible for providing direct medical information or maintaining cultural ties after his access was suspended by the court.

The Board dismissed the first three complaints but ordered the Society to convene an Internal Complaints Review Panel to address the alleged file inaccuracies.

The applicants, a mother and grandparents, filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide reasons for decisions and a failure to allow them to be heard regarding child protection involvement.

The Board reviewed ten specific complaints, including allegations of harassment, threats, and lack of communication.

The Board dismissed nine of the complaints, finding the Society had provided reasons and opportunities to be heard.

However, the Board upheld one complaint regarding the grandmother's health issues, finding she was not given an opportunity to be heard, and ordered the Society to conduct an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting on that issue.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

She alleged that the Society failed to hear her concerns about a case worker, failed to provide information and reports regarding her child's injuries while in foster care, and pressured her into signing a Temporary Care Agreement without explaining its impact or allowing her to revisit the decision.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaint regarding the case worker but upheld the complaints regarding the lack of information and the circumstances surrounding the Temporary Care Agreement.

The Board ordered the Society to revise its communication processes, provide the requested reports, and assist the mother in understanding the requirements to bring her child home.

The applicants, a mother and grandmother, filed complaints against the Durham Children's Aid Society regarding the treatment of the children and the family.

The Society brought a motion to dismiss the complaints, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were before the court or decided by the court.

The Board granted the motion in part, dismissing complaints related to custody and access as those were court matters, but finding it had jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding the Society's failure to provide reasons for decisions, failure to allow the applicants to be heard, and the treatment received from the Society.

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 child applicant sought an order releasing her from a secure treatment program.

She had been admitted on an emergency basis following escalating parent-child conflict and aggressive behaviour.

The Board reviewed the admission summary and found that the child did not have a mental disorder as defined by the Child and Family Services Act, as her condition did not grossly impair her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The application was granted and the child's release was ordered.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to act when she raised concerns that her son had been sexually abused.

The respondent brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act because the issues were currently before the court in a related Crown wardship proceeding.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the court would decide custody and access, the specific issue of whether the respondent provided the applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding her abuse concerns was not a matter to be decided by the court.

The Board affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaint on its merits.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society regarding the care and apprehension of her child.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters raised were before the Court in a Crown wardship application.

The Board held that while it lacked jurisdiction over issues directly before the Court, such as custody, access, and the accuracy of court filings, it retained jurisdiction to review whether the Society followed proper procedures in hearing the applicant's concerns and providing reasons for its decisions.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear their concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests.

The society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the matters were currently before the court in a related protection application.

The Board dismissed the society's motion, finding that while the court had jurisdiction over the care and custody of the children, the Board retained jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding the society's failure to provide services, hear concerns, and provide reasons for its decisions.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to investigate his concerns regarding the abuse and parental alienation of his daughters.

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 currently before the Court in an access dispute.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding that while the Court was dealing with access and the best interests of the children, the Board's jurisdiction pertained to how the Society responded to the father's complaints, which was not a matter before the Court.

The applicants sought to review a decision by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto refusing their application to adopt the biological half-sister of their adopted daughter.

The refusal was based on a negative homestudy conducted by a worker with whom the applicants had a previous negative relationship.

The Board found that the homestudy lacked objectivity and that the notes and data upon which it was based were unavailable.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered a new homestudy to be conducted by a third party in the best interests of the child.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to give her an opportunity to be heard when it apprehended her daughter following a report of the applicant's suicide threat.

The applicant argued the Society should have accepted her alternative plan to place the child with a friend over the weekend.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaint, finding the Society acted in a timely fashion, gave the applicant ample opportunity to be heard, and appropriately investigated and implemented a placement with the friend a few days later.