OCFSRB 2016

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto regarding its handling of her child protection case.

After a settlement agreement was reached, the applicant alleged the Society failed to comply with its terms, specifically regarding the provision of reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written hearing and found that the Society provided adequate reasons for some issues but failed to do so for others.

The Board ordered the Society to provide further written answers and specific records to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the Children's Aid Society, specifically complaining about the investigation, apprehension, and medical decisions regarding her newborn child.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act because the issues had already been decided by or were before the court.

The Board agreed, finding that the court had already addressed the Society's investigation, the supervision order, and the consideration of the child's health reports.

The Society's motion on jurisdiction was granted and the file was closed.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding his request for file disclosure and communication with workers.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society had responded to his disclosure request within its standard six-month timeframe and had acted in accordance with a previously agreed-upon communication protocol.

The Board concluded the society met its statutory obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons, and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the Toronto District School Board's decision to expel the pupil from all of its schools.

The Child and Family Services Review Board quashed the expulsion decision and ordered that any record of the expulsion be amended accordingly.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's refusal to place her medically fragile infant nephew with her for adoption.

The applicant had previously adopted the child's two older half-siblings, who also have special needs.

The Board considered the child's significant medical and developmental challenges resulting from prenatal drug and alcohol exposure, as well as the applicant's current parenting demands and diminished support system.

The Board concluded that the applicant would not be able to meet the complex needs of the child and confirmed the society's decision to refuse the adoption placement.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Catholic School Board's decision to expel the pupil from all schools of the Board under section 311.7 of the Education Act.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered that the expulsion be changed to an expulsion from the pupil's school only.

The Board also ordered that any record of the expulsion be amended.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

The applicant filed a complaint to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding referrals made to the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The Board previously determined it had jurisdiction over two specific referrals.

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed he did not wish to pursue the complaint regarding one referral, which involved a marital dispute.

The Board found that the second referral had been transferred to another Children's Aid Society for investigation, meaning the respondent was not the correct party to the complaint.

Consequently, the application was dismissed and the file closed.

The Applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's refusal to place a medically fragile child with them for adoption.

The child had previously been in their foster care but was removed after the Applicants refused to accept a minor adjustment to the child's feeding schedule recommended by a medical specialist.

The Board found that the child was thriving in her current foster placement and that the Applicants' extreme reaction to medical advice demonstrated a lack of openness to expert opinions.

Concluding that continuity of the current environment was in the child's best interests, the Board confirmed the Society's decision.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding alleged bias, unprofessional conduct by a worker, and a worker's failure to attend court.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to review the bias complaint as it related to access issues currently before the court.

On the remaining issues, the Board found that the Society had met its statutory obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its actions.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

The Society had reversed its initial decision to place the child with the Applicants after learning that one of the Applicants had been criminally charged with a historical sexual assault relating to a former adult client.

The Board found that the risk of disruption to the child's continuity of care was low and that the Applicants were well-suited to meet the child's needs.

The Board concluded it was in the best interests of the child to be placed with the Applicants and rescinded the Society's refusal.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

After a multi-day hearing, the Board considered the best interests of the child and confirmed the society's decision to refuse the adoption placement.

Written reasons were to follow.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

Following a hearing, the Board determined that it was in the best interests of the child to be placed for adoption with the applicants.

The Board rescinded the society's refusal under subsection 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act and ordered the child to be placed with the applicants.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society breached her privacy by including observations about her personal relationships in a court affidavit.

The Board conducted a written review and determined it lacked jurisdiction to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The application was dismissed because the applicant had not raised her concerns with the society before applying to the Board, thereby depriving the society of the opportunity to hear the concern and provide reasons for its actions.

The applicant filed a complaint against the society alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding a worker assigned to his file in 2012, a request for a change in worker, and the outcome of a 2012 investigation.

The Board found that the society met its obligation to hear the applicant's concerns but failed to provide sufficient reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons for refusing the request for a change in workers and a written summary of the investigation process.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging that it failed to hear her service concerns and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests regarding her child.

The child had been apprehended and placed in the father's care.

The Board reviewed eight specific issues raised by the applicant, including access visits, medical concerns, and parenting courses.

The Board found that the society had met its statutory obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide sufficient reasons for its decisions or explanations where it lacked decision-making authority.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant, a custodial father, filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Niagara Region alleging that the Society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding a child abuse investigation involving the child's mother.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society generally met its obligations to hear the Applicant's concerns and provide reasons verbally.

However, the Board ordered the Society to provide the Applicant with a written summary of its decision regarding his initial report and a written overview of the investigation process and reasons for the delay.

The Applicant's complaints regarding failure to provide services and unfair treatment were dismissed.

The applicant filed applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his service concerns and did not provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The applicant's concerns related to the society's investigation of emotional harm, alleged bias, and failure to consider a psychological report.

Following a hearing where the parties worked constructively, the Board ordered the society to provide written responses to ten specific questions raised by the applicant.

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

The Board reviewed the statutory criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

While the Board found the child had a mental disorder and had made threats of self-harm, it concluded that the requirement that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate had not been met.

The application for release was granted.

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

The society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction to hear four of the six issues raised, arguing they were either before the court or had already been decided by the court.

The Board agreed, finding it lacked jurisdiction over issues concerning worker licensing, file transfer, and medical records because they had been addressed in the child protection proceedings.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction over the status of the Office of the Children's Lawyer representative, as legal representation is ordered by the court and is not a service provided by the society.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Halton Children's Aid Society regarding unaddressed service concerns and a failure to provide reasons for decisions.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the court in the applicant's civil negligence claim.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints about the right to be heard, as those factual issues overlapped with the negligence claim.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over complaints regarding the Society's failure to provide reasons for its decisions, as this was not an element of the civil claim.