OCFSRB 2012

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding its handling of her mental health issues, a community caregiver investigation that led to the suspension of her driver's license, and her unemployment.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the society met its statutory obligations under the Child and Family Services Act to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its decisions at each step of its involvement.

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

The child had a history of escalating dangerous behaviours, including self-harm, cutting, and climbing to dangerous heights at night.

The Board applied the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act and found that the child had a mental disorder that caused a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself.

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 was appropriate.

The child's application for release was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to respond to his complaint in a timely manner and failed to hear his concerns regarding the unauthorized access of his confidential adoption file by his former spouse, a society employee.

The Board found that the society breached its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by failing to respond to the complaint within the required timeframe and by failing to meaningfully investigate and communicate with the applicant regarding the privacy breach.

The application was allowed in part, though no further orders were necessary as the society validated the applicant's allegations during the hearing.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding an investigation conducted by the respondent children's aid society.

The Board found that while the applicants did receive a child welfare service in the form of an investigation, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.

Because the applicants had commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice raising the same issues regarding the society's conduct during the investigation, the matter was 'before the court' under section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant grandmother 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 decisions regarding her requests for assistance in re-uniting with her granddaughter.

The society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was merely a spokesperson for the child's mother and had not sought or received a service in her own right.

The Board dismissed the society's motion, finding that the applicant had sought and received a child welfare service separate from her advocacy for the mother, and that she had a direct interest in her family bond with her granddaughter that was affected by the society's decisions.

The applicants, who were foster parents to a 16-month-old child, applied to adopt him.

The Children's Aid Society refused the application due to concerns about the applicants' financial stability and increasing debt.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the refusal.

The Board first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the review even though the child was not yet a Crown ward.

On the merits, the Board found that while the applicants provided excellent care, their financial instability and lack of budgeting posed a risk to the child's future security.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to refuse the adoption application.

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

The Board found that the respondent failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by section 124(2)(a).

The respondent did not provide medical evidence or testimony from the admitting psychiatrist, and the child's behavioural issues, including persistent absences without leave, did not demonstrate a gross impairment of her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board ordered the child's release.

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

The Board reviewed the evidence of the child's escalating behaviours, including threats of self-harm, threats to others, substance abuse, and repeated AWOLs from less restrictive placements.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder and met all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society, alleging the Society failed to hear her service concerns, failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests, and failed to comply with internal complaint procedures regarding her 16-year-old daughter.

The Board dismissed the complaints regarding the internal complaints process, finding the Society complied with the legislation.

However, the Board found that the Society failed to hear the Applicant or provide reasons for its decisions regarding the daughter's placement, the service plan, the suspension of the child tax credit, a crisis call, and the cancellation of counselling services.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations to the Applicant for these decisions.

The appellant appealed the respondent school board's decision to expel his son.

The respondent initially brought a motion on mootness but subsequently withdrew it and advised it would not lead evidence on the appeal.

On consent, the Board ordered that the expulsion be quashed and the pupil's record be expunged.

The Applicant, a 16-year-old crown ward, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her residential placement at a facility located over three hours from her home community.

The Applicant sought to be moved closer to her family and supports to assist her transition to independence.

The Children's Aid Society argued she needed to remain at the current facility to stabilize.

The Board found that the current placement was not in the Applicant's best interests due to the distance from her family, her special needs, and the negative environment at the facility.

The Board ordered the Applicant discharged from the current placement and moved to a placement closer to her family, preferably a treatment foster home.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear her service concerns and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The complaints related to a letter the Society sent to the court and its alleged failure to forward information regarding the father to the court and police.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to communicate genuinely with the applicant between April and mid-June 2012 regarding the court letter, but fulfilled its obligations once direct communication resumed.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the forwarding of documents, finding the Society had no obligation to do so, though it noted the Society should have communicated its reasons more clearly.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society failed to hear him and failed to provide reasons regarding a child protection investigation involving his son.

The Society refused to participate in the hearing on the merits.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by concluding the investigation without notifying or interviewing the Applicant, and by failing to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written explanation to the Applicant.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent society, alleging it failed to follow the legislated internal complaints review procedure and failed to hear him or provide reasons regarding an investigation into his family.

The Board found that the applicant, as a parent under the Act, had a right to be heard and to receive reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Board concluded that the society failed to comply with the statutory complaints process, failed to hear the applicant's concerns about the referral source, and failed to provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The society was ordered to proceed with the complaint according to the legislation and provide a detailed written explanation of its investigation.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's internal complaints process.

The applicant alleged the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons regarding its handling of video evidence and Polaroid pictures related to her ex-husband's behaviour.

The Board found that the Society followed the statutory process and adequately addressed the video evidence concerns.

However, the Board found the Society failed to hear the applicant and provide reasons regarding the Polaroid pictures, ordering the Society's Internal Complaint Review Panel to reconvene to address this specific issue.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his service concerns or provide reasons for decisions regarding his child in foster care.

At the scheduled oral hearing, the applicant declined to call witnesses, testify, or provide documentary evidence.

After the Board explained the process and encouraged him to proceed, the applicant explicitly stated he would not proceed and vacated the premises.

The Board concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The Applicant filed a complaint against the Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act regarding her request for an un-redacted copy of her child welfare file.

The Board found that the Society initially failed to hear the Applicant or provide reasons for its decisions, including incorrectly advising her that she needed a lawyer.

However, the Society subsequently provided reasons and agreed to process the request.

The Board ordered the Society to give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding the costs of file disclosure.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Halton Children's Aid Society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear her and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Society had imposed conditions requiring supervised access and a psychiatric assessment after the mother was briefly hospitalized.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to consult the mother before imposing conditions, failed to properly address her concerns about her baby's health, and failed to assist her when she experienced delays in obtaining the required psychiatric assessment.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written explanation to the mother regarding these failures.

The Applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Board found that the society met its obligations regarding the reduction of access visits and timely responses from workers.

However, the Board found that the society failed to meet its obligations regarding the disclosure of confidential drug test results to the mother's sister and failing to address concerns about the child's health, specifically a burn scar and the use of cloth diapers.

The society was ordered to provide detailed written reasons on these issues.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns regarding parental alienation syndrome, gender bias, and a conflict of interest involving his ex-wife, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society did not meaningfully engage with the applicant's concerns or provide adequate explanations for its actions.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed written explanation addressing the applicant's concerns, its conflict of interest policy, and its position on parental alienation syndrome.