John F. Spekkens

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

The Children's Aid Society sought the admission due to the applicant's violent and aggressive behaviours towards his family and caregivers.

The Board found that the applicant had a mental disorder that grossly impaired his ability to make reasoned judgments, had caused serious bodily harm to his brother, and required a secure environment for assessment and stabilization.

The Board concluded that the statutory criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met and denied the application for release.

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

The facility failed to provide direct medical evidence or the testimony of the admitting psychiatrist to establish that the child had a mental disorder within the meaning of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the behavioural evidence presented was insufficient to prove a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought, or cognition grossly impairing the child's capacity to make reasoned judgments.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the criteria for emergency admission were not met and ordered the child's release.

The applicants, who previously adopted the child's older biological sister, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Society's decision refusing their application to adopt the child.

The Society had supported placing the child with a kinship family after a court ordered temporary placement with them.

The Board found that the Society placed too much weight on the temporary court order and failed to adequately consider the kinship family's history of child protection involvement, financial instability, and parenting limitations.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to be placed for adoption with the applicants, allowing the child to grow up with her biological sister in a stable environment.

The Society's decision was rescinded and the child was ordered placed with the applicants.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 144(3) of the Child and Family Services Act for a review of the respondent Society's decision refusing their application to adopt a child.

After hearing the evidence and representations, the Board granted the application.

The Board annulled the Society's decision and ordered that the child be placed with the applicants for adoption, with reasons to follow.

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

The Board found that while the child had a mental disorder, she had not made a substantial threat to cause serious bodily harm to herself or others, and that less restrictive methods of providing treatment had not been fully explored.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The applicants, parents of a child in temporary wardship, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Toronto Children's Aid Society.

The applicants alleged that the Society failed to hear their concerns and provide reasons for its decision to stop community access visits.

The Society had curtailed the visits citing new information about the parents' criminal records and alleged gang affiliation.

The Board found that while the Society heard the applicants' concerns, it failed to provide adequate reasons for its decisions regarding the specific criminal convictions considered, the basis for the gang affiliation allegation, the rejection of a risk-mitigating proposal, and the role of medical marijuana use.

The Board ordered the Society to meet with the applicants and provide detailed written reasons on these four issues.

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

The local Children's Aid Society sought her admission due to her absences from her foster home and high-risk behaviours in the community.

The Board found that the secure facility failed to provide psychiatric evidence to establish that the child had a mental disorder as defined by the Child and Family Services Act.

As the statutory criteria for emergency admission were not met, the Board granted the application and ordered the child's release.

The 15-year-old applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The applicant had a history of trauma, substance abuse, and running away from home, prompting her father to seek her admission.

The Board found that while the applicant suffered from a mental disorder, she did not pose a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that less restrictive methods of treatment had not been fully explored or exhausted.

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

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa, alleging the society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her children's care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society did not fully exercise its legislated responsibility to hear the applicant or provide reasons for its decisions following a March 2014 meeting.

The Board ordered the society to arrange a face-to-face meeting to hear the applicant's concerns and to provide written reasons for any subsequent decisions.

A second complaint regarding the worker's behaviour was dismissed as being beyond the Board's mandate.

The Applicant filed a complaint against the Halton Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions during a child abuse investigation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed four specific complaints, including the Society's interview of the child at school and alleged inaccuracies in its records.

The Board found that the Society had adequately heard the Applicant's concerns and provided detailed reasons for its decisions.

The complaints within the Board's mandate were dismissed, and the Applicant was directed to the Internal Complaint Review Procedure for record inaccuracy claims.

The applicant brought an application for a review of a residential placement under section 36(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The parties appeared before the Board and settled the matter.

On consent of the parties, the Board closed the file as settled and issued a confidentiality order.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society, alleging that the society failed to hear his concerns regarding his daughter's safety in her mother's care and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the society breached its statutory obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by failing to actively listen to the applicant's concerns and by failing to provide timely and detailed reasons for its actions, including its inconsistent communications about closing the file.

The Board ordered the society to provide detailed written explanations and reasons to the applicant.

The twelve-year-old applicant child sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The child had been diagnosed with major depression and exhibited escalating suicidal ideation, self-harm, and impulsive behaviours.

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

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired his capacity to make reasoned judgments, that he was at serious risk of causing bodily harm to himself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

The Applicant grandfather filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide reasons for decisions related to the apprehension of his grandchild.

The Applicant claimed the Society failed to explain why his home was not considered a place of safety, why he and the father were not contacted prior to apprehension, and why protection concerns were not shared.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the Society could not share third-party personal information without consent, that the after-hours worker acted properly during the apprehension, and that the Applicant's refusal to collaborate with the Society justified its decision not to assess his home as a place of safety.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard about her service concerns and failed to give reasons for its decisions affecting her interests regarding the safety of her children in their father's care.

The society challenged the tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were before the family court.

The tribunal found it had jurisdiction, as the complaint concerned the society's service delivery, not the custody dispute.

The tribunal allowed the application, finding the society failed to adequately communicate with the applicant, hear her concerns, or provide reasons for its decisions, and ordered the society to provide written responses and reasons.

The Child, a 13-year-old girl, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board considered whether the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met, specifically whether the Child had a mental disorder, whether she posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others, and whether a less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The Board found that the Child's conduct disorder grossly impaired her judgement, leading to high-risk behaviours including running away, self-harm, and joyriding.

The Board concluded that all statutory criteria were met and dismissed the application for release.

The 12-year-old applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The Board excluded hearsay medical documents authored by the admitting psychiatrist, citing procedural fairness.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Board found that Youthdale failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by s. 124(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board concluded the child's behaviours were an expected reaction to recent trauma and apprehension, rather than a substantial disorder of emotional processes.

The application was granted and the child was released.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board considered whether the child met the statutory criteria for admission under the Child and Family Services Act, specifically whether she had a 'mental disorder' as defined by the Act.

Based on the evidence of the admitting psychiatrist, the Board found that the child's level of impairment was moderate and did not meet the threshold of a gross impairment of capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant youth applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

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

The Board found that the facility did not present sufficient evidence to establish that the youth had a mental disorder as defined by the Act, because his capacity to make reasoned judgments was not grossly impaired.

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

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

The applicant argued that he did not meet the statutory criteria for admission, specifically regarding having a mental disorder, causing or threatening serious bodily harm, and the availability of less restrictive treatment.

The Board found that the applicant suffered from a severe anxiety disorder that grossly impaired his judgment, had exhibited escalating physical aggression towards his mother, and required a locked setting for assessment and treatment.

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