Sheena Scott

The applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a two-year-old child with special needs.

The applicants had recently adopted the child's half-sister.

The Society argued it was in the child's best interests to be adopted by her foster parents, who had cared for her since birth.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the applicants could better meet the child's need for individualized attention and that placing the siblings together was in the child's best interests.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent failed to provide reasons for a decision regarding the assignment of a worker in a Woman Abuse program.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the services were provided by a community agency, not a 'society' under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the Woman Abuse program was a community program outside the mandate of a children's aid society.

Consequently, the Board concluded it did not have jurisdiction to hear the application and dismissed it.

The applicant grandmother applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Catholic Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt her four-year-old grandson.

The child had been in foster care and a previous kinship adoption had broken down.

The Society had matched the child with a new adoptive family of a different cultural background who were ready immediately.

The majority of the Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the child's immediate need for a secure, permanent placement outweighed the benefits of a culturally matched placement with the grandmother, given the delay required to assess her application.

A dissenting member would have rescinded the decision to allow the grandmother's application to proceed.

The applicant, a foster parent residing in Saskatchewan, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton's decision to refuse her application to adopt a three-year-old child.

The child had previously lived with the applicant in foster care for two years before being moved to Ontario.

The Society refused the adoption due to concerns about delay, sibling contact, and finances.

The Board found that the Society's concerns were unsubstantiated and that the pre-existing bond between the child and the applicant strongly favoured returning the child to her care.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and recommended the child be placed with the applicant for adoption.

The child applied for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child's counsel brought a motion for release based on errors in the admission forms, which the Board dismissed, finding substantial compliance.

On the merits, the Board found that the child had a mental disorder, had made substantial threats of serious bodily harm to his family and girlfriend, and that the secure treatment program was necessary and the least restrictive method of providing appropriate treatment.

The application for release was dismissed.

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

The child had a history of running away, medication non-compliance, and aggressive behaviour, and was diagnosed with a mental disorder related to prenatal alcohol exposure.

The Board applied the criteria for emergency admission under the governing child and family services legislation.

Finding that the child posed a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that no less restrictive treatment method was appropriate, the Board dismissed the application and ordered that the child remain in the secure treatment program.

The applicant brought several complaints against the respondent children's aid society regarding a worker's failure to follow complaint procedures, exclusion from a meeting with a parenting coordinator, and a worker allegedly lying about an access visit.

The Child and Family Services Review Board previously determined it had jurisdiction over these specific complaints.

On consent, the Board ordered the respondent to immediately convene an Internal Complaints Review Panel to address the three complaints in accordance with the statutory complaint review procedure.

The applicant appealed the Toronto District School Board's decision to expel her special needs son from all schools following an incident where he pushed a vice principal.

The Child and Family Services Review Board quashed the expulsion, finding that the incident—a simple assault—did not fall within the mandatory suspension and expulsion provisions of section 310 of the Education Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that even if the incident had qualified, mitigating factors under Ontario Regulation 472/07, including the pupil's special needs, his Individual Education Plan, and the lack of risk to the safety of others, rendered expulsion an inappropriate disciplinary response.

The applicant filed several complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the society regarding its handling of his case, including access issues, medical concerns, and the complaint process itself.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were already decided by or before the family court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints related to access, medical concerns, and case notes, as these were central to the court proceedings.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over complaints regarding the society's failure to follow its own complaint procedure, a meeting held without the applicant, and an allegation that a worker lied, as these were not before the court.

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

The respondent facility argued that the child met the criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child did not have a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act, concluding that her aggressive behaviour was the result of parent-child conflict rather than a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought, or cognition.

Furthermore, the Board found that the child did not cause or threaten serious bodily harm.

As the criteria for admission were not met, 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 provide her an opportunity to be heard regarding what she and her partner needed to do to present a joint parenting plan.

The Board found that the Society had sent contradictory messages to the Applicant regarding its expectations for joint parenting.

The Board ordered the Society to respond in writing to the Applicant's complaint by outlining its specific expectations for steps or services the couple must undertake to present a joint parenting plan.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to expel her son from all schools following a swarming and stabbing incident.

The review board found on a balance of probabilities that the pupil was involved in the attack and possessed a knife.

The board considered mitigating factors, including a recent psychotic episode, but found them insufficient to mitigate the seriousness of the incident.

The expulsion from all schools of the board was confirmed.

The child applicant sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The child brought a non-suit motion, which the Board dismissed, finding there was some evidence that could satisfy the admission criteria.

On the merits, the Board found that the child had a mental disorder that caused her to self-harm and make substantial threats of suicide.

The Board concluded that the secure treatment program would be effective, appropriate treatment was available, and no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The 13-year-old applicant 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 five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

While the Board found the applicant had a mental disorder and that the program would be effective and appropriate, it was not satisfied that she had caused or attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself or others as a result of the disorder.

Furthermore, the Board found that less restrictive methods of providing treatment had not been adequately explored or ruled out.

As all five criteria must be met to maintain the admission, the Board ordered the applicant's release.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the actions of the Hastings Children's Aid Society following the apprehension of their children.

The applicants alleged that the Society ignored their complaints, failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding access visits and the children's care, and did not give them an opportunity to be heard.

The Board found that while the Society had provided some explanations, it failed to adequately address all of the applicants' concerns or provide written reasons.

The Board ordered the Society to meet with the applicants to address their concerns and to provide written reasons and responses to all complaints within thirty days.

The applicant filed a complaint against the society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging that the society failed to provide reasons for its decision to attend his home and attempt to remove his children.

The Board found that the society acted on a court's direction but failed to communicate the reasons for its actions to the applicant.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons for its decisions regarding the events in question.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent Society's failure to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were currently before the court in a protection application.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over issues of access and custody, which were before the court.

However, the Board determined it had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaints that the Society failed to inform her of expectations regarding a joint parenting plan and failed to respond to her request that her sister be considered for kinship care.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa failed to provide reasons for denying him and his mother access to his children, and failed to give him an opportunity to be heard regarding his access requests and concerns about the children's mother.

The Board found that the Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions affecting the Applicant's interests and failed to give him an opportunity to be heard.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its decisions and delay, and to respond to the Applicant regarding access.

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

The child argued that the criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act had not been met.

The majority of the Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder, had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, and that the secure treatment program was necessary and appropriate.

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

A dissenting member would have released the child, finding insufficient evidence that appropriate treatment was available or that less restrictive methods were inappropriate.

The applicant foster mother sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to close her foster home and remove a 15-year-old foster child who had lived with her for over three years.

The Society's decision was based on allegations of inadequate supervision of young children in the applicant's daycare, though no concerns were raised regarding the care of the foster child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to consider the foster child's best interests or wishes.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to remain with the applicant and rescinded the Society's removal decision.