Mary Wong

The 10-year-old applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The child had a history of severe physical aggression, violent outbursts, and complex mental health issues, including PTSD and ADHD.

The Board reviewed the five criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Finding that the child had a mental disorder, posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm, required the secure program to prevent harm, had appropriate treatment available at the facility, and had exhausted less restrictive community alternatives, the Board concluded all criteria were met and denied the application for release.

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A dissenting member would have rescinded the decision to allow the grandmother's application to proceed.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 father filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society refused to deal with his complaints, failed to give him an opportunity to be heard regarding the care plan for his children, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board dismissed the first two complaints, finding the Society had responded to his written complaints and had heard his concerns prior to seeking a court order.

However, the Board granted the third complaint, finding the Society failed to provide reasons for how it implemented the supervision order and its lack of communication regarding the children.

The Society was ordered to provide written reasons to the Applicant.

The applicant 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 that the child had a mental disorder, had attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that the secure treatment program was necessary and appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant, a former foster parent, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel decision.

The applicant alleged that the Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decision to close her foster home following a child protection investigation.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was given ample opportunity to express her concerns during the internal review process and that the Society had provided written reasons for its decisions.

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 mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging failure to investigate child protection concerns, bias in favour of her former partner, and failure to provide reasons for limiting her access to her child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the merits of the application under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board dismissed the majority of the complaints, finding the Society had investigated concerns and provided reasons.

However, the Board upheld complaints regarding a cancelled access visit when the mother was late, and found the Society was inconsistent and biased in its treatment of the mother compared to the father regarding drug use and child removal.

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 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 applicant foster parent sought a review of the Society's decision to remove a foster child who had been in her care for over six years.

The child was a kinship placement.

The Society removed the child after discovering the applicant's husband had relapsed into substance abuse and the applicant had also used marijuana.

The Board found that while the child had strong emotional ties to the foster family, the protection concerns justified the removal.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to remove the child, noting the public interest in ensuring foster homes meet safety standards.

The applicant, the maternal grandmother of a child in the care of the respondent children's aid society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 68 of the Child and Family Services Act to review complaints about the society.

The applicant alleged that the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel did not listen to key issues and improperly excluded her daughter from the meeting.

During the hearing on the merits, the parties reached an agreement.

The Board issued a consent order requiring the society to convene a new ICRP to hear the applicant's complaints in accordance with the statutory timelines and procedures.

The applicant brought a complaint against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging various failures by the Society, including refusing to investigate child protection concerns, poor treatment during access visits, and bias.

The Society brought a preliminary motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were currently before the Superior Court of Justice in a status review proceeding.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear seven of the eight complaints, as they related to the applicant's right to be heard and the Society's complaint procedures, which the court would not determine.

The Board declined jurisdiction over the complaint regarding late service of court documents, finding that to be within the court's purview.

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 appellant father appealed the school board's decision to expel his 13-year-old son from all schools for allegedly possessing a weapon and threatening another student.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the student possessed a pocketknife and a razor blade but did not use them to threaten others, instead using them to insinuate self-harm.

The Board also found that the student's online messages did not constitute a threat.

Concluding that the student's actions were a cry for help due to serious emotional needs rather than a safety risk, the Board quashed the expulsion, ordered the student reinstated, and directed that the expulsion be expunged from his record.

The 15-year-old applicant child sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child contested four of the five criteria for admission under section 124(2).

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired his capacity to make reasoned judgments, had caused or threatened bodily harm to others, and that the secure treatment program was the least restrictive method appropriate for his needs.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging it refused to investigate his concerns that his daughter was suffering emotional harm due to alienation from him and his family.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction as the applicant was not receiving services.

The Board found it had jurisdiction over the failure to investigate complaint, but not over alleged inaccuracies in another family's file.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding the Society properly heard the applicant's concerns but correctly concluded that his lack of access was a custody matter for the courts, not a child protection issue requiring a new investigation.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review complaints against the children's aid society, alleging a failure to investigate reports of inappropriate sexual touching and physical discipline, and a failure to deliver medical supplies to his son.

After the society withdrew from the proceedings, the applicant agreed to accept the society's offer to provide a written explanation of the steps taken to address the complaints.

The Board issued a consent order requiring the society to provide written reasons addressing the three issues.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review complaints that the children's aid society failed to listen to her concerns and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests following the apprehension of her children.

The Board reviewed six complaints, including allegations regarding drug testing, foster care conditions, and unprofessional conduct by society workers.

The Board found that the society failed to provide reasons for testing the applicant's hair for crystal meth and ordered the society to provide written reasons.

The remaining five complaints were dismissed as the society had either provided adequate reasons, provided an opportunity to be heard, or the allegations were unsubstantiated.