John F. Spekkens

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's involvement with his son, who has autism spectrum disorder.

Following an unsuccessful mediation session which the applicant abruptly left, the applicant failed to attend one pre-hearing teleconference and was highly disruptive during a rescheduled teleconference before hanging up.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's actions and subsequent failure to communicate constituted an abandonment of the application.

The application was dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions after her grandchildren were apprehended.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed because child protection proceedings were ongoing in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns about where and with whom her grandchildren would live were the exact substantive issues being decided by the court.

As the complaints were not separate and distinct from the court proceedings, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application.

The Applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a Settlement Agreement requiring it to provide reasons and explanations in response to eight specific questions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the Society's written responses and found that the Society had provided substantive answers to all questions as required by the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The applicant argued that the statutory criteria for emergency admission under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act were not met.

The Board found that the applicant had a mental disorder characterized by emotional dysregulation, which resulted in a recent suicide attempt and physical aggression towards others.

The Board concluded that all five criteria for emergency admission were met and denied the application for release.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement by not providing a timely response to three questions regarding its past investigations.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the respondent was non-compliant with the agreed-upon timeline, it ultimately provided adequate reasons for its decisions as required by the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Board dismissed the substantive complaints and closed the file.

The applicant, who is seeking to adopt her half-sister, alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with three terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The terms related to the home study process, expediting the adoption application, and expanding access visits.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society had adequately explained the home study process, expedited the application by commencing a concurrent home study, and committed to increasing access visits.

The Board concluded that the society was in compliance with the settlement agreement.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for the apprehension of her children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a documentary review after the applicant refused to stop recording a teleconference hearing.

The Board found that the Society had provided detailed and meaningful reasons for its actions, noting that disagreement with the reasons does not constitute non-compliance.

The complaint of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a term of their settlement agreement, which required the society to explain the reasons for apprehending the applicant's grandchild in 2008.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference hearing to determine compliance.

The Board found that the society had provided a meaningful response explaining that the apprehension was necessary due to an ongoing police investigation and concerns about the child's care while with her biological father.

The Board concluded the society complied with the agreement and dismissed the applicant's complaint.

The applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for psychological injuries resulting from his ex-spouse counselling an undercover police officer to murder him.

The Board found that because the plot was intercepted and no actual physical violence or harm occurred, the incident did not constitute a 'crime of violence' within the meaning of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The application for compensation was denied.

The applicant filed a non-compliance complaint regarding a settlement agreement reached with the children's aid society concerning her child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a hearing to determine if the society had complied with the terms of the agreement.

The Board reviewed the society's responses to the applicant's concerns, including explanations regarding an abuse investigation and a worker's comments.

The Board found that the society had fully complied with the terms of the settlement agreement and dismissed the non-compliance complaint.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement regarding child protection matters.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference hearing to determine compliance.

The Board found that the Society had provided adequate reasons for its decisions regarding the assignment of workers, the reversion to supervised access visits due to domestic incidents, and the expectations for community resources.

The complaint of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns about an individual living in the same home as his children who had been charged with sexual assault, and failed to provide reasons for closing its investigation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society failed to make meaningful attempts to engage with the applicant and failed to provide reasons for its decision that the children were not at risk.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant within 30 days.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her two children in care.

The Board reviewed nine specific issues raised by the mother, including medical care, access visits, and religious upbringing.

The Board found that the Society had provided timely and detailed reasons for its decisions and actively listened to the mother's suggestions.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to provide reasons for sharing child abuse investigation information with his employer and failed to involve him in developing his service plan.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints.

The Board found the society was mandated to share information with the police service under an existing protocol, and that the limitations placed on the applicant's involvement in the service plan were reasonable given the finding of extreme child abuse and the complex family dynamics.

The applicant, a former foster parent, sought a review of the actions of the respondent children's aid society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The complaints related to decisions regarding a foster child and the applicant's biological son, who was the subject of sexual assault allegations and an ongoing civil lawsuit against the society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant did not meet the definition of a parent seeking services with respect to the foster child, and that the issues regarding the biological son were precluded from review because they were the subject of an active civil lawsuit before the courts.

The applicants, the grandmother and aunt of a child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board requesting a review of the actions of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

They alleged the Society failed to listen to their concerns about the child's safety and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants were not persons who sought or received services from the Society.

The Board agreed, finding that the applicants were fulfilling their duty to report child protection concerns, but were not seeking or receiving a service themselves.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants, two older siblings in extended care, filed complaints against the children's aid society for failing to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests.

Specifically, they sought reasons for the society's support of a custody order for their two younger siblings and its refusal to facilitate sibling access visits while the younger siblings were in care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society failed to provide the applicants with timely and detailed reasons or meaningful opportunities for input.

The Board ordered the society to provide comprehensive written reasons for both decisions.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding alleged bias, unprofessional conduct by a worker, and a worker's failure to attend court.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to review the bias complaint as it related to access issues currently before the court.

On the remaining issues, the Board found that the Society had met its statutory obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its actions.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his service concerns and did not provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The applicant's concerns related to the society's investigation of emotional harm, alleged bias, and failure to consider a psychological report.

Following a hearing where the parties worked constructively, the Board ordered the society to provide written responses to ten specific questions raised by the applicant.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging that it failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her son, who was a society ward living in a group home.

The concerns related to the child's school lateness, hygiene, delayed dental surgery, and access to medical records.

The Board found that the society had communicated primarily with the child's grandmother, who was the primary contact and caregiver prior to apprehension, in accordance with the child's wishes.

The Board concluded that the society met its statutory obligations to hear concerns and provide reasons, and dismissed the application.