Malcolm M. MacFarlane

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to expel her 16-year-old son from his own school.

The pupil was suspended and subsequently expelled after he filmed an assault on another student in a school washroom and posted the video to a group chat, which then went viral.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the pupil engaged in bullying and cyberbullying, justifying the expulsion.

The Board considered the mitigating factors under Ontario Regulation 472/07, including the pupil's ability to control his behaviour, the foreseeable consequences, and family stress, but concluded that none mitigated the seriousness of the activities or the risk to the victim's psychological safety.

The expulsion was confirmed.

The respondent school board brought a motion requesting particulars regarding the appellant's amended appeal of a student expulsion.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and overly detailed.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the motion for particulars, finding that the amended appeal provided sufficient narrative for the respondent to know the case it must meet.

The Board noted that the appellant was still in the process of obtaining youth records, and any further particulars could be provided during the normal disclosure process.

The appellant appealed the Peel District School Board's decision to expel her 17-year-old son from all schools of the board following two incidents of physical assault and online threats against peers.

The appellant argued that the board failed to consider mitigating factors, including the pupil's recent ADHD diagnosis and allegations of a school culture unsupportive of racialized students.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the pupil engaged in premeditated physical assault causing bodily harm and threatening behaviour.

The Board reviewed the mitigating factors under sections 2 and 3 of Ontario Regulation 472/07 and concluded that none applied, noting the pupil's ability to control his behaviour, the unacceptable risk to the safety of others, and his success in the board's Fresh Start Program.

The expulsion was confirmed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with five terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The terms related to providing reasons for seeking a supervision order, disclosing service plans, outlining expectations for the return of the child, meeting to discuss disclosure concerns, and contacting the child's father regarding alternative dispute resolution.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent had complied with four of the terms and that the fifth term was moot as all parties had since agreed to participate in alternative dispute resolution.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing videoconference and did not respond to subsequent communications and directions from the Board.

The Board concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly.

The applicant sought a review of the respondent Society's decision to refuse his application to adopt two children currently in extended society care.

The applicant, who recently began cohabiting with the children's biological mother, proposed a plan where the children would reside with them.

The Society refused the application due to the brief cohabitation period and the inappropriateness of placing the children with a parent from whom they were removed by court order.

The Child and Family Services Review Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the applicant lacked an adequate understanding of the children's profound physical, mental, and emotional needs, including Autism Spectrum Disorder and suspected Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and that the proposed adoption was not in the children's best interests.

The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring three separate letters regarding the applicant's file and mental health records.

The respondent provided a single consolidated letter that initially contained spelling errors and allegedly blaming language, which was later revised.

The adjudicator found that the revised single letter substantially met the requirements of the settlement agreement and that three separate letters were not strictly necessary.

The non-compliance allegations were dismissed and the file was closed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society, alleging that the society failed to hear her concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions across ten specific issues.

The Board found that the society failed to provide written reasons and failed to hear the applicant on eight of the ten issues, including decisions regarding the child's placement, the opening of investigations, and the development of a Voluntary Service Agreement.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant for the upheld issues.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with two terms of a settlement agreement reached during a mediation.

The adjudicator found that the respondent failed to comply with the first term, as the revised closing letter provided to the applicant contained unnecessary prejudicial details that rendered it unfit for its intended purpose in family court.

However, the adjudicator found that the respondent complied with the second term by holding a meeting with an Equity, Diversity and Inclusion specialist to hear the applicant's concerns regarding the impact of Islamic culture on the investigation.

The adjudicator ordered the respondent to provide a newly revised closing letter with specific language.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The agreement required the respondent to review new evidence, conduct a fresh investigation if warranted, and review concerns regarding the child's developmental delays.

The tribunal reviewed the steps taken by the respondent, including conducting a fresh investigation and providing referral information, and found that the respondent had fulfilled all five terms of the agreement.

The application was dismissed and the file was closed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons why the applicant was not contacted directly during the family finding process for her cousin.

The tribunal held a non-compliance hearing and found that the respondent's letter provided a sufficient description of the family finding process and adequate reasons for its decision, fulfilling the terms of the settlement agreement.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent had complied and closed the file.

The applicant mother filed an application alleging the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard when deciding to place her apprehended child with her mother, who had a history of abusing the applicant.

The Board found that while the respondent was aware of the abuse history, there was no evidence that the respondent engaged in meaningful discussion with the applicant regarding her concerns about the placement on the day of the apprehension.

The Board concluded the respondent did not hear the applicant's concerns, but as the Act limits the Board's remedial powers in these circumstances, no further relief was ordered.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's decision to apprehend her 18-month-old child due to malnourishment concerns.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the same issues were before the Court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns about not being heard and not receiving reasons were inextricably linked to the apprehension and the child's risk of harm, which were squarely before the Court.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging that the Respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns regarding alleged abuse of her child by the father and failed to provide reasons for closing its investigation file.

Following a hearing on the merits, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Respondent had heard the Applicant's concerns on several issues, but failed to adequately review video evidence provided by the Applicant, failed to respond to her written concerns regarding the investigation, and failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision to close the file.

The Board ordered the Respondent to provide written reasons addressing the Applicant's questions and explaining its verification process and application of the Eligibility Spectrum.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring an indigenous circle to address her concerns.

The applicant claimed she felt rushed, lacked a support person, and was dissatisfied with the video platform and answers provided.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent convened the circle within the required timeframe with a neutral facilitator, and that the absence of a support person was due to the applicant's choice.

The Board concluded the respondent complied with the core requirements of the settlement agreement and closed the file.

The applicant father filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding his child's removal and subsequent placement in extended society care.

The child was placed for adoption after the society was unable to locate the father for service during the protection proceedings.

The Board dismissed most of the complaints, finding the society made reasonable efforts to locate the father and appropriately considered his later requests for contact.

The Board upheld the complaint that the society failed to provide reasons for not returning the child to the mother, but ordered no further relief as the father had since obtained the information through court disclosure.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove a 10-year-old child from her care after four years.

The society removed the child without providing the required statutory notice.

The Board considered the child's best interests, including his strong attachment to the applicant, his views and wishes to return to her care, and the importance of continuity.

The Board found that the applicant could manage the child's behavioural challenges if provided with adequate supports, such as respite care.

The Board ordered the child returned to the applicant's care.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons regarding the alleged fraudulent redirection of her welfare payments to her children's foster parents.

The Board directed a hearing in writing.

The Board found no evidence that the applicant had raised these concerns with the respondent prior to filing her application.

Furthermore, the respondent subsequently provided written correspondence confirming that no social assistance payments had been redirected to the foster parents and explaining the legal redirection of the Canada Child Benefit.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising several issues regarding the apprehension of her children and the society's conduct.

The respondent society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were before the court in a child protection proceeding and had been previously dismissed.

The Board found that most of the issues raised were either identical to those in a previously dismissed application or were currently before the court, and thus outside the Board's jurisdiction.

However, the Board allowed one issue to proceed regarding the alleged fraudulent redirection of the applicant's welfare payments to the foster parents, finding it to be a new service issue not before the court.

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

The parties reached a settlement agreement through mediation.

The applicant later alleged non-compliance with the settlement agreement and raised new concerns.

At the compliance hearing, the adjudicator advised that new concerns were beyond the scope of the hearing.

The applicant declined to proceed with reviewing the settlement terms and withdrew the application.

The file was closed as settled.