Sheena Scott

The child, a Crown ward, was admitted to a secure treatment centre following incidents of self-harm, property damage, and leaving her group home without permission.

She applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release.

The Board granted the application, finding that the child did not meet the criteria for emergency admission under s. 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Specifically, there was insufficient clinical evidence to establish that the child had a mental disorder, and her behaviours did not demonstrate a substantial disorder grossly impairing her judgment.

The Board also noted that less restrictive, non-secure residential treatment settings were appropriate and had not been adequately explored.

The appellant appealed the expulsion of her 15-year-old daughter from all schools of the respondent school board.

The pupil was expelled for posting threatening comments about another student on Facebook.

The Board found that the school board's policy did not mandate suspension for the alleged activity, which is a statutory prerequisite for expulsion under section 310(1)8 of the Education Act.

As the policy only made suspension discretionary, the pupil did not engage in an activity eligible for expulsion.

The Board quashed the expulsion, reinstated the pupil, and ordered the expulsion record expunged.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to expel a child from all schools of the Rainbow District School Board.

The Child and Family Services Review Board quashed the expulsion, ordered the child reinstated to their school, and directed that the expulsion record be expunged.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

The applicants, who were the foster parents of a four-year-old child with special needs, applied to adopt the child.

The Society refused their adoption application due to concerns about the applicants' ability to meet the child's long-term needs, the foster father's health, and a history of parent-child conflict in the home.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the refusal.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the applicants lacked a sufficient understanding of the child's special needs and faced too many stressors, including the foster father's cancer diagnosis, to provide the necessary care into adulthood.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to provide them with an opportunity to be heard and meaningful explanations regarding their adoption of a child.

The applicants had requested additional information about the child and expressed concerns about delays in the placement process.

The Board found that the society deliberately withheld available information without explanation and failed to adequately explain delays in responding to the provincial ministry.

The Board ordered the society to provide detailed written explanations for the delays and the misinformation provided regarding the requirement of a Statement of Live Birth.

The Applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent Society failed to hear his concerns regarding the mother's physical discipline and neglect of their children, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the Society did not give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard about his concerns or about the decisions taken in response to third-party allegations.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written explanation to the Applicant regarding its response to the allegations and its decision-making process.

The applicant, a 12-year-old 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 criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the child did not have a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act, as her capacity to make reasoned judgments was not grossly impaired.

Consequently, the criteria for emergency admission were not satisfied, and the Board ordered the child's release from the secure treatment program.

The applicant filed a service complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Society, alleging bias and a failure to hear concerns or provide reasons regarding child protection decisions.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were before the family court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding bias, finding it lacked jurisdiction as the applicant was raising the same issue before the court.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over the remaining complaints, finding that the service complaints about whether the Society heard the applicant and provided reasons were distinct from the substantive child protection and access issues before the court.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Society, alleging a failure to provide an opportunity to be heard regarding a youth who lived with him.

The Society argued the applicant was not a 'parent' under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the applicant did not have lawful custody and did not demonstrate a settled intention to treat the youth as a child of his family within the relevant 12-month period prior to the Society's initial intervention.

Consequently, the applicant did not meet the definition of a parent, and his complaint under s. 68.1(4) 4 was deemed ineligible for review.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by Child and Family Services of Timmins and District.

The applicants alleged that the agency failed to provide reasons for decisions and an opportunity to be heard regarding the delayed reopening of their file, the coding used for reassessment, a breach of confidentiality with the applicants' employer, and an unauthorized conversation with their 16-year-old daughter.

The Board found in favour of the applicants, concluding that the agency failed to listen to their concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the agency to provide detailed written reasons for its actions within 30 days.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society regarding access to her children, communication, and counselling.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already decided by or currently before the courts in a status review proceeding.

The Board agreed, finding that the complaints mirrored the issues raised in the applicant's motion for leave to commence a status review.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a 15-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

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

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, had made substantial threats to cause serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that the secure treatment program would be effective and appropriate.

Finding that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate, the Board dismissed the application and upheld the admission.

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.

The 14-year-old applicant child was admitted to a secure treatment program on an emergency basis.

She applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release.

At the hearing, after the respondent presented its evidence, the child brought a motion for non-suit.

The Board granted the motion, finding there was no evidence upon which it could reasonably be found that the child posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others, or that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant father, who had supervised access to his child pursuant to a court order, filed internal complaints against the respondent Society regarding the conduct of the access supervisor.

The Society attempted to resolve the complaints informally rather than following the mandatory internal complaint review procedure under the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Board found it had jurisdiction over most of the complaints, as they related to the worker's conduct and exercise of discretion, rather than matters decided by the court.

The Board ordered the Society to immediately comply with the statutory complaint review procedure.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society, alleging the Society removed her children without reason and provided false information to the court.

The Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, as the issues raised by the applicant had already been decided by the courts in previous child protection proceedings that resulted in Crown wardship orders.

The Applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a one-year-old child, D.B., who is the half-sibling of their adopted son.

The Society refused the application primarily because the Applicants already had seven children, six with special needs, and the Society believed D.B. might have special needs such as FASD or autism requiring undivided attention.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the Applicants had an exceptional track record of managing their children's special needs, had access to extensive community supports, and could provide D.B. with the significant benefit of a sibling bond.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to be placed with the Applicants for adoption.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the children's aid society failed to provide reasons for seeking crown wardship of her child without access.

The society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issue had already been decided by the court in the child protection proceedings.

The Board found that the society's reasons for seeking crown wardship were squarely before the court during the summary judgment motion, which resulted in a crown wardship order.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act and granted the society's motion.

The applicant grandmother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent Society's handling of her request for a kin placement of her grandchild.

The Society argued the application was identical to one previously dismissed by the Board in 2008.

The Board found that the subject matter of the complaint had already been decided and that there were no new circumstances involving the Society.

The application was dismissed.

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 the placement and treatment of her children in care.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the Society, not the court, was the decision-maker regarding specific placements and services.

On the merits, the Board found the Society failed to comply with its statutory obligations to listen to the applicant and provide reasons for its decisions regarding foster care, group home placement, access, and kinship options.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its decisions.