Jennifer Scott

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Child and Family Services Review Board attempted to schedule a mandatory pre-hearing on multiple occasions over several months.

The applicant repeatedly delayed the process, failed to provide available dates, and refused to participate in the Board's hearing process.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The appellants appealed the expulsion of their grade 11 son from his school.

The student was expelled after posting a message on social media suggesting a gun was being brought to school, which he posted in response to a threat from another student.

The Board found that while the student's actions were serious and violated the school board's Safe Schools Policy, they did not meet the statutory definition of bullying.

Considering mitigating factors, including the student's lack of significant disciplinary history and the disproportionate nature of the expulsion, the Board quashed the expulsion, ordered the student reinstated, and directed that his record be expunged.

The appellant appealed her son's expulsion from school by the respondent school board.

The student was expelled for allegedly committing a sexual assault against another student in the school library.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a hearing de novo to determine if the incident occurred.

Assessing the credibility of the complainant and the student, the Board found the complainant's evidence inconsistent and contradicted by her own social media messages.

The Board concluded the respondent failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the sexual assault occurred, quashed the expulsion, and ordered the student's record expunged.

The applicants, foster parents, sought a review by the Child and Family Services Review Board of the respondent society's decision to remove three foster children from their care.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the children were not in extended society care.

The Board found that under section 109(7) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, a review is only available if the children are subject to an extended society care order.

As the children were under Customary Care Agreements and all previous child protection orders had been vacated, the statutory criteria were not met.

The applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove two children from their care after more than two years of continuous placement.

The Board issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to determine preliminary issues, including whether the children were in extended society care at the time of the proposed removal, which is a prerequisite for the Board's jurisdiction.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review what they believed was a refusal by the respondent children's aid society to allow them to adopt a child.

The respondent had not provided written notice of a refusal and maintained it had not made a decision to refuse the application.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because the respondent had not yet issued a written notice of refusal as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's investigation into allegations of child abuse.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had already been decided by the Ontario Court of Justice in a child protection proceeding and subsequent costs application.

The Board found that most of the applicant's complaints, including allegations of a biased investigation, had been addressed by the court.

However, the Board determined it had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaint regarding kinship care, as that issue was not before the court.

The applicants, foster parents to three young children, applied to adopt them.

The adoption process was halted and the respondent Society decided to remove the children and refuse the adoption application after the foster father disclosed a historical incident of sexual abuse from when he was 20 years old.

The foster father moved out of the home, underwent a sexual offender risk assessment which found him to be at low risk, and engaged in counselling.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decisions, finding that the risk of harm from breaking the children's strong attachments to the applicants outweighed the low risk of future abuse, and ordered that the adoption homestudy proceed.

The applicants filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, complaining about the placement of their great granddaughter with her paternal aunt and the society's failure to monitor visits.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicants were not seeking or receiving services from the society, which is a requirement under section 120.

The applicants, the great-grandparents of a child, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the placement of their great-granddaughter with her paternal aunt and the society's failure to monitor visits.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, because the applicants were not seeking or receiving services from the society.

The applicant sought to adopt two children in the care of the Durham Children's Aid Society.

The Society refused the application because the children were being transferred to an Indigenous child well-being society that would not consider non-Indigenous adoptive homes.

The applicant filed an application for review with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Board determined that the application was filed within the 10-day statutory time limit, based on the deemed receipt of the refusal letter, and directed that the matter proceed to a first day of hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to protect the child's health.

The applicant acknowledged that the concerns were currently before the court and awaiting a settlement conference.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, it lacks jurisdiction to review a complaint if the subject matter is already before the court.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a school board's decision to expel his son.

The appeal was filed two and a half months after the statutory 30-day deadline.

The appellant argued the delay was justified because the school board failed to provide adequate reasons for the expulsion.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the adequacy of the school board's reasons was irrelevant to the de novo appeal process and that the delay prejudiced the school board's need for certainty and stability.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant by the Board, sought leave to file a new application against the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The Board found that the new application did not set out details of a service-related complaint but instead duplicated complaints made to other bodies and repeated previously identified vexatious behaviour.

The Board concluded the application was an abuse of process and denied leave to file the new application.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding child protection services received from the children's aid society, specifically concerning an investigation and the society's refusal to provide a copy of its file.

At a preliminary hearing, the society conceded the Board's jurisdiction to order file disclosure but disputed its jurisdiction to review and remove redactions.

The Board held that it has jurisdiction to order file disclosure to ensure a fair complaints process, as well as the jurisdiction to review redactions in a file and order their removal if necessary for a fair process.

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 appellant filed an appeal of his son's expulsion under the Education Act.

The respondent school board argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because it had not formally expelled the student, but rather refused him admission due to an ongoing police investigation into a sexual assault allegation.

The CFSRB found that by refusing the student admission to all of its schools for over 20 days and directing him to a program for suspended and expelled students, the school board had effectively expelled him.

Consequently, the CFSRB determined it had jurisdiction to hear the expulsion appeal.

The child, a 14-year-old ward of the Children's Aid Society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

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

The Board found that the facility failed to present strong and compelling evidence that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission.

The evidence demonstrated that the child engaged in serious risky behaviours, but did not have a substantial disorder of emotional processes that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board ordered the child's release from the secure treatment program.

The applicants, who were the foster parents of a young child, applied for a review of the children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt the child.

The society had planned to place the child with her biological siblings, who had been adopted by an employee of the society.

The Board found that the society had a conflict of interest and failed to properly consider the applicants' application.

The Board rescinded the society's decision and ordered that the child remain with the applicants pending a full and fair assessment of their adoption application by an independent children's aid society.

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 assessed whether the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found insufficient evidence that the child had a mental disorder, that she posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others, or that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

As criteria (a), (b), and (e) were not met, the Board allowed the application and ordered the child's release.