Michele O’Connor

The applicant father applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent Society failed to hear him or provide reasons for decisions regarding access to his daughter, a Crown ward.

The daughter had expressly instructed the Society not to share information with the applicant.

The Board found that the Society met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide reasons within the strict privacy limitations imposed by the capable child.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's refusal to place her medically fragile infant nephew with her for adoption.

The applicant had previously adopted the child's two older half-siblings, who also have special needs.

The Board considered the child's significant medical and developmental challenges resulting from prenatal drug and alcohol exposure, as well as the applicant's current parenting demands and diminished support system.

The Board concluded that the applicant would not be able to meet the complex needs of the child and confirmed the society's decision to refuse the adoption placement.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Catholic School Board's decision to expel the pupil from all schools of the Board under section 311.7 of the Education Act.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered that the expulsion be changed to an expulsion from the pupil's school only.

The Board also ordered that any record of the expulsion be amended.

Reasons for the decision were 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 Applicant father filed a service complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns regarding his daughter's safety and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

His primary concern was the Society's decision to allow the child's mother's fiancé to reside in the home despite past abusive behaviour.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had engaged in lengthy discussions with the Applicant, investigated the incidents, and imposed conditions on the mother and fiancé.

The Board concluded the Society had heard the Applicant's concerns and provided reasons for its decisions, and dismissed the application.

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 appellant appealed the expulsion of his son from all schools of the respondent school board.

The pupil had been expelled after allegedly threatening to kill another student.

The Board found that the school board's policy regarding the alleged misconduct was permissive rather than mandatory regarding suspensions.

Under the Education Act, a pupil can only be expelled for an activity if the school board's policy mandates a suspension for that activity.

Consequently, the Board quashed the expulsion and ordered the pupil's record expunged.

The 16-year-old applicant child, who was in the care of a Children's Aid Society, applied for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a complex mental disorder, including a psychotic disorder and developmental disorder, and had exhibited aggressive behaviour, severe withdrawal, and an inability to adhere to medication.

The Board found that all five criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board concluded that the child posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself, that the secure treatment program would be effective and appropriate, and that no less restrictive method of providing treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The child Applicant and her former adoptive parents filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton regarding the child's removal from a kinship placement with her former foster parents.

The Applicants alleged that the Society failed to hear their concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions not to return the child to the kinship placement or to the former adoptive parents.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to comply with its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act to communicate with the Applicants, hear their concerns, and provide complete explanations.

The Board ordered the Society to provide meaningful written explanations to both Applicants.