Jay Sengupta

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to provide reasons for its decision not to approve her as a kinship placement for her grandson.

The Board heard evidence that the society communicated its concerns regarding the applicant's child welfare history and her lack of cooperation.

The Board concluded that the society provided sufficient oral and written reasons for its decision.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under s. 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent society failed to comply with the Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) process.

The applicant argued the society did not provide reasons for decisions related to an investigation into allegations against him.

The Board found that while the society generally complied with the ICRP process, it failed to explain why it made a verification decision before receiving certain interview transcripts and why it did not interview the child's peers.

The application was granted in part, and the society was ordered to provide written reasons on those two issues.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove a foster child from their home after 14 years of care.

Shortly after the application was filed, the child passed away.

The respondent argued the application was moot and that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the foster home was closed upon removal.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, as the applicants were foster parents at the time of removal.

However, the Board dismissed the application as moot, concluding that it could no longer determine what placement was in the child's best interests due to his death.

The applicant filed a sixth application concerning his interactions with the respondent Children's Aid Society regarding his son.

The Board found that the issues raised had been thoroughly canvassed and decided in previous applications.

The Board dismissed the eligible portions of the application as an abuse of process and declared the applicant a vexatious litigant, requiring him to obtain permission before filing further applications against the respondent regarding these matters.

The applicants filed an application against two Children's Aid Societies regarding child protection concerns.

Peel CAS sought to dismiss the application as an abuse of process, arguing the issues had been fully resolved in a previous settlement agreement.

The Board agreed, finding that the applicants were attempting to re-litigate previously settled allegations.

The application was dismissed against Peel CAS as an abuse of process, but allowed to proceed to a pre-hearing settlement conference against York CAS for new allegations.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to rescind the Society's decision refusing her application to adopt a Crown ward.

The Society had decided to place the child for adoption with extended family members residing in Alberta, a plan supported by the child's First Nation Band.

The Board weighed the best interests of the child under s. 136(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, emphasizing the importance of the child's cultural background, blood relationships, and the Band's perspective.

The Board concluded that the kinship placement was in the child's best interests and confirmed the Society's decision.

The appellant appealed a school board's decision to expel her 13-year-old son from all its schools after he accidentally cut another student with a pocket knife on a school bus.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the student possessed a weapon, there was no intent to harm, and the incident did not negatively impact the school climate to the extent requiring expulsion.

The Board also found the school board failed to properly consider mitigating factors, including the student's age, his history of being bullied, and the lack of progressive discipline.

The expulsion order was quashed and expunged from the student's record.

The applicant applied under section 144(3) of the Child and Family Services Act for a review of the respondent society's decision refusing to place a child for adoption with the applicant.

Following a multi-day hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board considered the best interests of the child and confirmed the society's decision to refuse the adoption placement under section 144(11) of the Act.

Written reasons were to follow.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to expel the pupil from all schools of the board.

The Child and Family Services Review Board quashed the expulsion decision, permitted the pupil to enroll in Grade 9 in any school of the board, and ordered the expulsion record expunged from the Ontario Student Record.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's involvement with her family.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the same issues were currently before the court in a child protection application.

The Board agreed, noting that section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act prohibits the Board from reviewing issues that are before the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear him or provide reasons for decisions regarding access to his daughter, the apprehension of his son at birth, and communications with a child protection worker.

After the applicant failed to attend the second day of the hearing, the Board heard evidence from the Society's workers.

The Board found that the Society had provided the applicant with meaningful reasons for its decisions, which were based on concerns about untreated mental health and substance use issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant father brought an application alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to hear him or provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests regarding his daughter.

The Board reviewed the society's involvement, which included numerous meetings and communications with the applicant regarding his concerns about the child's mother.

The Board found that the society had met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide meaningful reasons for its decisions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, who were the former foster parents of the child and current foster parents of the child's full sibling, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's refusal of their application to adopt the child.

The society had preferred a permanency plan involving the child's paternal uncle.

The Board considered the best interests of the child under the Child and Family Services Act, emphasizing the importance of continuity of care, the child's level of development, and the benefit of the child growing up with her full sibling.

The Board concluded that it was in the best interests of the child to be placed for adoption with the applicants and rescinded the society's decision.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising concerns about a children's aid society's conduct during child protection proceedings.

The Board dismissed the application at the pre-hearing stage.

It found that allegations regarding court affidavits and assessment delays were outside its jurisdiction as they were matters before the courts.

The Board further held that the remaining allegations mirrored those in a previous application that had been fully resolved through Minutes of Settlement, and allowing them to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The applicant brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding sibling access to a child who was made a Crown ward and subsequently adopted.

The Board found that the substantive issue of access had been decided by the courts, but it had jurisdiction to determine if reasons were provided.

The Board concluded that the society had provided meaningful reasons to the applicant throughout the court proceedings, explaining that access was not in the child's best interests and that the society had no decision-making role post-adoption.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking a review of the respondent society's decisions regarding sibling access to a child who was made a Crown ward and subsequently adopted.

The Board determined it only had jurisdiction to consider whether the society failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

Following a written hearing, the Board found that the society had provided meaningful reasons to the applicant throughout the court proceedings, explaining that it had no obligation to arrange access after the Crown wardship order and no decision-making role after the adoption.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, the maternal grandfather and step-grandmother of a Crown ward, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's refusal to place the child with them for adoption.

The child had been thriving in a foster home since before her first birthday, and the foster parents also planned to adopt her.

The Board found that removing the child from her stable foster home would not be in her best interests, particularly given the step-grandmother's lack of commitment to the adoption plan and her failure to attend the hearing.

The Board confirmed the society's decision to refuse the adoption placement.

The applicants brought an application under section 144 of the Child and Family Services Act to review the respondent society's refusal of their adoption plan.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the application was premature as the child was not yet a Crown ward and no formal adoption application had been refused.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, noting that section 144 does not require a child to be a Crown ward before a refusal can be reviewed.

However, because a Crown wardship proceeding was scheduled for the following month, the Board adjourned the application to avoid planning in a vacuum.

The child applicant sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the statutory criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

While the Board found the child had a mental disorder, it concluded the respondent failed to establish that the child had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, or that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

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

The appellant appealed the Toronto District School Board's decision to expel the pupil from all of its schools.

The Child and Family Services Review Board quashed the expulsion decision and ordered that any record of the expulsion be amended accordingly.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.