Jeffrey Hustins

The applicants sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a two-year-old child who had been in their foster care.

The society had removed the child and refused the adoption after the child suffered an unexplained elbow fracture while in the applicants' care, relying on the 'unexplained injury principle'.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the society's decision, finding that the unexplained injury principle was distinguishable because the injury was less severe than in precedent cases, there was evidence of potential third-party intervention by the child's siblings, and the society had no other concerns with the applicants' care.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to proceed with the adoption application given the strong sibling bonds and the applicants' ability to meet the child's needs.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to comply with an order requiring the production of specific documents.

The respondent subsequently failed to comply with three case management directions dictating the format for its response to the non-compliance allegations, instead providing electronic links to hundreds of pages of unindexed records.

The Board found the respondent non-compliant with both the case management directions and the document production order.

Given the history of the proceedings, the Board concluded the matter without making further orders for compliance.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising six issues regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her case.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as the issues were previously adjudicated in a prior application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the submissions and found that one issue was identical to those previously decided and dismissed it.

However, the Board determined that the remaining five issues, including allegations of failing to provide reasons for decisions regarding access and file closure, were new and directed them to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a previous Board order requiring the disclosure of specified documents.

Following a non-compliance hearing, the Board found the respondent non-compliant with several paragraphs of the order.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the outstanding documents, including unredacted pages and investigation records, within 14 days.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent agency's decision to refuse her application to adopt a Métis child who had been in her care since birth.

The agency had refused the application in order to place the child with a younger half-sibling's adoptive family to foster a sibling bond.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the agency's decision, finding that removing the child from the only family she had ever known would cause unnecessary trauma.

The Board concluded that the child's best interests, including her emotional needs, continuity of care, and cultural connection to the Métis community, were best served by remaining with the applicant, while maintaining access with the half-sibling.