Nathalie Fortier

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the society failed to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding a reintegration plan for her common-law partner.

The Board found that the society failed to communicate effectively, changed its position on the reintegration plan without consulting the applicant, and did not provide timely reasons for its decisions.

The Board concluded that the society breached its obligations under section 2(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The appellant appealed the expulsion of her two sons from their school by the Toronto District School Board.

The pupils were expelled for committing a physical assault on another student that caused bodily harm requiring medical treatment.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the assault did occur and met the criteria for expulsion, mitigating factors applied.

Specifically, the pupils reasonably believed they were facing an imminent threat of assault, and the school board had failed to use a progressive discipline approach in the past.

The Board quashed the expulsion, expunged the records, and held that the initial 20-day suspension was the appropriate consequence.

The appellant appealed the expulsion of pupils from the Toronto District School Board.

The Child and Family Services Review Board allowed the appeal, quashing the expulsion and permitting the pupils to return to any school within the board.

The Board further ordered that the record of the expulsion be expunged from all school board records.

A youth applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from an 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 youth had a mental disorder, had attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of providing treatment was appropriate given her escalating suicidal behaviours.

The application for release was denied.

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

The admission was sought due to her history of running away, high-risk behaviours, and a recent brief hospitalization.

The Board found that the evidence, including testimony from the admitting psychiatrist, did not establish that the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments at the time of admission.

Because the first statutory criterion under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act was not met, the Board ordered the child's 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 applicant child sought a review of his admission to a secure treatment program by the respondent treatment centre.

The child had a history of running away from foster placements and engaging in self-harm.

The Board refused to admit hearsay medical documents tendered by the respondent, as the admitting psychiatrist was not available for cross-examination.

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

Consequently, the Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to proceed with her complaint regarding inaccuracies in her file, failed to hear her service concerns, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the Society failed to hear the applicant, failed to provide reasons for refusing to disclose her file, and failed to process her complaint through the internal complaints review procedure (ICRP).

The Board ordered the Society to provide specific answers to the applicant's questions and to proceed with the ICRP.

The applicant brought a motion before the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Society's failure to investigate child protection concerns and other service issues.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in an ongoing protection application.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear complaints relating to the applicant's right to be heard and to receive reasons under the Child and Family Services Act, but lacked jurisdiction over issues relating to court-ordered access and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of a Children's Aid Society decision refusing their application to adopt a two-year-old child.

The Society had approved both the applicants and another family as adoptive parents, but chose the other family because they had previously adopted the child's half-sibling.

The Board found that the child had special needs, including a global developmental delay, and that the applicants were better equipped to address these needs and to maintain the child's existing relationship with her maternal grandmother.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered that the child be placed for adoption with the applicants.

The applicants filed complaints against the children's aid society regarding a worker's alleged false statements to the court about social media pictures and the removal of their child.

The Board conducted a written review to determine its jurisdiction.

Finding that the subject matter of the complaints related to issues currently before the court in a child protection proceeding, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act and dismissed the applications.

The applicant requested records from the Durham Children's Aid Society relating to her deceased mother, who had been a Crown Ward.

The Society initially agreed to provide the records but later informed the applicant that a court order was required, without providing reasons for the change in decision.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found it had jurisdiction and held that the Society failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed reasons within 10 days.