OCFSRB 2017

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board raising concerns about a children's aid society's conduct during child protection proceedings.

The Board dismissed the application at the pre-hearing stage.

It found that allegations regarding court affidavits and assessment delays were outside its jurisdiction as they were matters before the courts.

The Board further held that the remaining allegations mirrored those in a previous application that had been fully resolved through Minutes of Settlement, and allowing them to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The applicant brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking a review of the respondent society's decisions regarding sibling access to a child who was made a Crown ward and subsequently adopted.

The Board determined it only had jurisdiction to consider whether the society failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

Following a written hearing, the Board found that the society had provided meaningful reasons to the applicant throughout the court proceedings, explaining that it had no obligation to arrange access after the Crown wardship order and no decision-making role after the adoption.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear her concerns or provide reasons regarding an after-hours call she made about being denied access to her child by the maternal grandmother.

The Child and Family Services Review Board proceeded by way of a written hearing.

The Board found that the society met its obligation to hear the applicant by returning her call and inviting her to speak, and met its obligation to provide reasons through its submissions to the Board.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, the maternal grandfather and step-grandmother of a Crown ward, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's refusal to place the child with them for adoption.

The child had been thriving in a foster home since before her first birthday, and the foster parents also planned to adopt her.

The Board found that removing the child from her stable foster home would not be in her best interests, particularly given the step-grandmother's lack of commitment to the adoption plan and her failure to attend the hearing.

The Board confirmed the society's decision to refuse the adoption placement.

The applicant filed applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the placement of a child.

The respondent society submitted that two plans regarding the child's placement were currently before the Superior Court of Justice.

The Board determined it would not consider the applications while the matter was before the Court and directed the applicant to notify the Board of the Court's outcome.

The applicants brought an application under section 144 of the Child and Family Services Act to review the respondent society's refusal of their adoption plan.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the application was premature as the child was not yet a Crown ward and no formal adoption application had been refused.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, noting that section 144 does not require a child to be a Crown ward before a refusal can be reviewed.

However, because a Crown wardship proceeding was scheduled for the following month, the Board adjourned the application to avoid planning in a vacuum.

The applicant filed an application under section 68(4) of the Child and Family Services Act.

After several adjournments of pre-hearing conferences at the applicant's request, a hearing date was set on consent.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing, claiming she did not receive notice and was moving, and requested a last-minute adjournment by email.

The Society appeared and opposed the adjournment.

The Board found the applicant had received proper notice and her failure to appear constituted an abuse of process and abandonment.

The application was dismissed.

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

At the hearing, the applicants requested to withdraw their application because the society changed its position and agreed to support the adoption application for the child and the child's sibling.

The society consented to the withdrawal.

The panel granted the request to withdraw the application and closed the file.

The child applicant sought a review of her 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, it concluded the respondent failed to establish that the child had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, or that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The Board granted the application and ordered the child's release.