OCFSRB 2011

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to respond to a letter regarding abuse allegations in foster care.

At the hearing, the Board considered the preliminary issue of whether the society had actually received the letter.

The applicant provided no documentary or corroborating evidence to prove the letter was faxed or received, while the society's logs showed no record of it.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving the letter was sent and received.

The child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that Youthdale failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the child suffered from a mental disorder as defined by the Act at the time of admission.

The Board excluded the admission summary and Form 14 because Youthdale declined to make the admitting psychiatrist available for cross-examination, which the Board held was necessary for procedural fairness given the deprivation of liberty.

As the criteria for admission were not met, the Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant foster mother applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing her application to adopt a 22-month-old foster child.

The Society had removed the child and the applicant's two adopted children after verifying that the applicant used corporal punishment on one of her adopted children, resulting in criminal charges and her placement on the Child Abuse Registry.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the applicant's altered family dynamics and unresolved parenting challenges meant it was not in the child's best interests to be returned to her care for adoption.

The applicant appealed a decision by the school board to expel her son from all of its schools following his involvement in the robbery of another student's iPod.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the pupil had committed robbery, which is an expellable offence under the Education Act.

Considering the pupil's history of progressive discipline and the unacceptable risk his continued presence posed to the safety of others, the Board upheld the expulsion from all schools.

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

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

Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in D.D., the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the service-related complaints (1-11) because they were not substantive child protection issues decided by or before the court.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaint 12, which was an employment matter subject to the Labour Relations Act.

The applicants, the great-aunt and great-uncle of a 19-month-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their adoption application.

The child, who has severe sleep apnea, had resided with the same foster family since birth.

The foster family also applied to adopt the child.

The Board applied the best interests of the child test under the Child and Family Services Act, weighing the benefits of kinship care against the child's secure attachment to the foster family, his medical needs, and his ongoing relationship with his biological sister and maternal grandparents.

The Board concluded that removing the child from the foster family would disrupt his continuity of care and potentially cause emotional and physical harm.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding it in the child's best interests to be adopted by the foster family.

The applicant filed complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding her treatment by the Children's Aid Society during access visits and the Society's failure to protect and support her child.

The Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the applications under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, as the issues raised in the complaints had already been decided by or were currently before the court in ongoing child protection and civil proceedings.

The applications were dismissed.

The 15-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 found that the admission criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met, specifically because there was insufficient evidence that the applicant had a mental disorder at the time of admission.

The Board excluded hearsay medical documents as procedurally unfair since the authors were not available for cross-examination.

The Board ordered the applicant's release.

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 applicant sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a seven-year-old child who had been placed with her for adoption.

The Society removed the child after investigations into the applicant's behaviour raised concerns about her mental health.

A parenting capacity assessment diagnosed the applicant with a paranoid personality trait and delusional disorder.

The Board found the assessment credible and concluded that the applicant's untreated mental health issues posed significant psychological risks to the child.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the adoption placement was not in the child's best interests.

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

The Board assessed whether the five criteria for admission under section 124(2) were met.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder and had caused or threatened serious bodily harm to herself and others, including fire-setting, self-harm, and physical altercations.

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

The application for release was dismissed.

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

At the hearing, the Board excluded the admitting psychiatrist's Form 14 and Admission Summary because the psychiatrist was not called to testify, finding that admitting the hearsay evidence would violate the child's right to procedural fairness and fundamental justice.

On the merits, the Board found that the facility failed to prove the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired her judgment, or that she had caused serious bodily harm to herself.

As the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met, the Board ordered the child's release.

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 was required to determine whether the child met the criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, including whether she had a mental disorder.

The Board found that the respondent facility failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a clinical assessment, to establish that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission.

Because the first criterion was not met, the Board ordered the child's release from the secure treatment program.

The applicants sought a review of the Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt their granddaughter.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the application was filed outside the 10-day statutory limit and that the issues were already before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, ruling that the 10-day limit was not triggered because the Society's refusal notice failed to adequately inform the applicants of their review rights.

Furthermore, the Board held that its jurisdiction to review an adoption refusal is distinct from the court's jurisdiction in a child protection proceeding.

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 considered whether the 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 no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.