OCFSRB 2008

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 applicants appealed the decision of the Children's Aid Society to remove two foster children from their care.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants' foster home had been closed.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the applicants were foster parents at the time of the removal.

Applying the best interests of the child test under section 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the Board concluded that returning the children to the applicants' restrictive environment would not be in their best interests, particularly given their need for native cultural exposure and psychological assessment which the Society was funding in their current placement.

The Society's decision to remove the children was confirmed.

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 applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove two foster children from her home.

The children had lived with the applicant for over five years.

The Society removed the children after the applicant requested relief due to the older child's escalating behavioural issues.

The Board found that the older child's behaviours were exacerbated by a lack of appropriate supports and that the younger child was negatively impacted by the removal.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered the immediate return of the younger child and the graduated return of the older child once necessary supports were implemented.

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 applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society regarding ten issues related to his child's apprehension and access visits.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were dealt with in a concurrent child protection trial.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over issues already decided by the court, such as allegations of physical harm and the child's emotional problems.

For the remaining issues where jurisdiction existed, the Board dismissed the complaints on the merits due to a lack of evidence or findings that the Society had appropriately heard the applicant's concerns and provided reasons for its decisions.

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 applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decision to intervene with his family following the birth of his child.

The society had intervened because the parents refused to provide their names at the hospital.

The Board reviewed the written correspondence between the parties and found that the society had provided meaningful reasons for its intervention, explaining its statutory obligation to investigate potential child protection concerns.

The application was dismissed without an oral hearing.

The applicant appealed a school board's decision to expel her 13-year-old daughter for cyberbullying.

The student had created fake Facebook accounts to impersonate another student and send death threats.

The Child and Family Services Review Board upheld the expulsion, finding that although the conduct occurred off school property, it severely impacted the school climate.

The Board rejected arguments that the student's Central Auditory Processing Difficulty prevented her from understanding the consequences of her actions, concluding the conduct was premeditated and the expulsion was justified.

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 applicants, the mother and grandmother of a Crown ward, filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

They alleged the Society failed to listen to their concerns regarding the child's group home placement, safety, and care, and failed to include the family in a Wish Foundation trip.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the first five complaints, finding the Society had provided the applicants with an opportunity to be heard and had adequately explained its decisions.

However, the Board found the Society failed to provide a detailed explanation regarding the Wish Foundation application process and ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its actions.

The applicant father applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review three complaints against the children's aid society: failure to consider kinship placements, placement of children in an unapproved foster home, and harassment.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had already been decided by the court or through other statutory decision-making processes.

The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear any of the complaints, as the kinship and foster home issues had been addressed in prior child protection proceedings and director's reviews, and the harassment complaint lacked particulars and had been addressed through the society's internal complaint process.

The applications were dismissed.

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 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 applicants, parents of children apprehended by the Children's Aid Society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review six complaints regarding the Society's conduct and services.

The Board found that the Society failed to process the applicants' written complaint in accordance with the statutory internal complaint review procedure and ordered the Society to do so.

The Board also found that the Society failed to provide reasons for not implementing promised home visits and ordered it to provide written reasons.

The remaining complaints regarding rudeness, access visit changes, therapy meetings, and ignored self-improvement efforts were dismissed, as the Board found the applicants had been given reasons and an opportunity to be heard.

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.