Gregory Price

The applicant youth applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his residential placement.

During the course of the proceedings, the youth was placed under a deferred custody order pursuant to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Board determined that under section 34 of the Child and Family Services Act, placements governed by the Youth Criminal Justice Act are excluded from the definition of residential placement.

Consequently, the Board lost jurisdiction to hear the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant appealed a decision by the school board to expel her son from all of its schools following his involvement in the robbery of another student's iPod.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the pupil had committed robbery, which is an expellable offence under the Education Act.

Considering the pupil's history of progressive discipline and the unacceptable risk his continued presence posed to the safety of others, the Board upheld the expulsion from all schools.

The applicants sought a review of the Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt their granddaughter.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the application was filed outside the 10-day statutory limit and that the issues were already before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, ruling that the 10-day limit was not triggered because the Society's refusal notice failed to adequately inform the applicants of their review rights.

Furthermore, the Board held that its jurisdiction to review an adoption refusal is distinct from the court's jurisdiction in a child protection proceeding.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to provide them with an opportunity to be heard and meaningful explanations regarding their adoption of a child.

The applicants had requested additional information about the child and expressed concerns about delays in the placement process.

The Board found that the society deliberately withheld available information without explanation and failed to adequately explain delays in responding to the provincial ministry.

The Board ordered the society to provide detailed written explanations for the delays and the misinformation provided regarding the requirement of a Statement of Live Birth.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear his concerns regarding his children in foster care.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the children's placement in the same foster home, finding the Society adequately investigated the father's concerns of an inappropriate relationship.

However, the Board found the Society failed to hear the father's concerns regarding his exclusion from the children's Plan of Care and certain issues regarding his son's care, including access to pornography and conflicts with the foster mother.

As the father had now received reasons through the hearing process, no further remedy was ordered.

The Applicant father filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society refused to deal with his complaints, failed to give him an opportunity to be heard regarding the care plan for his children, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board dismissed the first two complaints, finding the Society had responded to his written complaints and had heard his concerns prior to seeking a court order.

However, the Board granted the third complaint, finding the Society failed to provide reasons for how it implemented the supervision order and its lack of communication regarding the children.

The Society was ordered to provide written reasons to the Applicant.

The applicant father filed complaints against the society regarding the apprehension of his special needs son.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to hear complaints about the society's alleged refusal to process written complaints and alleged harassment, as those matters were either before the court or lacked evidentiary foundation.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over the complaint regarding the child's apprehension on Christmas Eve.

The Board found that the society failed to provide the applicant with reasons for denying him access and location information during the apprehension, contrary to the Child and Family Services Act.

The society was ordered to provide detailed written reasons for its actions.

The complaint regarding the child's nutrition was dismissed as the hospital was responsible for his care during that period.

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 father applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review three complaints against the children's aid society: failure to consider kinship placements, placement of children in an unapproved foster home, and harassment.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had already been decided by the court or through other statutory decision-making processes.

The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear any of the complaints, as the kinship and foster home issues had been addressed in prior child protection proceedings and director's reviews, and the harassment complaint lacked particulars and had been addressed through the society's internal complaint process.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicants, parents of children apprehended by the Children's Aid Society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review six complaints regarding the Society's conduct and services.

The Board found that the Society failed to process the applicants' written complaint in accordance with the statutory internal complaint review procedure and ordered the Society to do so.

The Board also found that the Society failed to provide reasons for not implementing promised home visits and ordered it to provide written reasons.

The remaining complaints regarding rudeness, access visit changes, therapy meetings, and ignored self-improvement efforts were dismissed, as the Board found the applicants had been given reasons and an opportunity to be heard.

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 appellant father appealed the school board's decision to expel his 13-year-old son from all schools for allegedly possessing a weapon and threatening another student.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the student possessed a pocketknife and a razor blade but did not use them to threaten others, instead using them to insinuate self-harm.

The Board also found that the student's online messages did not constitute a threat.

Concluding that the student's actions were a cry for help due to serious emotional needs rather than a safety risk, the Board quashed the expulsion, ordered the student reinstated, and directed that the expulsion be expunged from his record.

The child applied for release from an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board found that the facility failed to establish that the child suffered from a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by the legislation.

The facility relied on a dated diagnosis and the child had been assessed as stable by a hospital psychiatrist immediately prior to admission.

The application for release was granted.

The applicant foster mother applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt a one-year-old child who had been in her care since birth.

The Society had identified a prospective adoptive family that matched the child's Somalian-Muslim cultural and religious background, whereas the applicant was of a different background and had only recently expressed interest in adoption.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that it was in the best interests of the child to be placed with the culturally and religiously matched adoptive family without further delay.

The applicants brought a complaint to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Children's Aid Society's failure to respond to a written complaint and various other issues related to a child protection proceeding.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction as the matters were before the court.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear six of the complaints, including the failure to respond and issues regarding access and communication, but dismissed the remaining complaints as they were matters properly before the court in the ongoing protection proceeding.

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 father brought an application for review to the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) requirement to convene a meeting regarding child protection concerns, and failed to properly address allegations of abuse by the children's mother.

The Board found that the Society was actively addressing the ICRP requirement by funding an ongoing parental capacity assessment, making the first complaint premature.

The Board also found the second complaint regarding the abuse allegations to be premature, as it was a continuation of the first complaint and should be addressed by the Society upon completion of the assessment.

Both complaints were dismissed.

The applicants sought a review of several complaints against the Children's Aid Society regarding the apprehension of their children, the services provided, access changes, and case worker turnover.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing most issues were before the court or already decided.

The Board agreed that it lacked jurisdiction over the complaints related to court forms, apprehension, services, access, and the psychologist's assessment, as these were matters dealt with in the child protection proceedings.

On the merits of the complaint regarding excessive case worker turnover, the Board found that while the turnover was not optimal, the Society had informed the applicants and had valid reasons for the changes.

The application was dismissed.

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 applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review complaints about the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging a failure to provide reasons for decisions and a lack of opportunity to be heard.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints related to matters currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.

On the merits of the remaining issues, the parties reached consent resolutions regarding the applicant's participation in play therapy and a medical consultation regarding the child's medication.

The Board dismissed the applicant's complaints regarding requests for a change in case worker and the communication of expectations, finding that the Society had provided reasons and ongoing information.