Child and Family Services Review Board

The appellant appealed a school board's decision to expel her 13-year-old son from all its schools after he accidentally cut another student with a pocket knife on a school bus.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the student possessed a weapon, there was no intent to harm, and the incident did not negatively impact the school climate to the extent requiring expulsion.

The Board also found the school board failed to properly consider mitigating factors, including the student's age, his history of being bullied, and the lack of progressive discipline.

The expulsion order was quashed and expunged from the student's record.

The applicant, a former foster parent, sought a review of the actions of the respondent children's aid society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The complaints related to decisions regarding a foster child and the applicant's biological son, who was the subject of sexual assault allegations and an ongoing civil lawsuit against the society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant did not meet the definition of a parent seeking services with respect to the foster child, and that the issues regarding the biological son were precluded from review because they were the subject of an active civil lawsuit before the courts.

The applicant applied under section 144(3) of the Child and Family Services Act for a review of the respondent society's decision refusing to place a child for adoption with the applicant.

Following a multi-day hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board considered the best interests of the child and confirmed the society's decision to refuse the adoption placement under section 144(11) of the Act.

Written reasons were to follow.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to expel the pupil from all schools of the board.

The Child and Family Services Review Board quashed the expulsion decision, permitted the pupil to enroll in Grade 9 in any school of the board, and ordered the expulsion record expunged from the Ontario Student Record.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

The applicants, the grandmother and aunt of a child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board requesting a review of the actions of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

They alleged the Society failed to listen to their concerns about the child's safety and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants were not persons who sought or received services from the Society.

The Board agreed, finding that the applicants were fulfilling their duty to report child protection concerns, but were not seeking or receiving a service themselves.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's involvement with her family.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the same issues were currently before the court in a child protection application.

The Board agreed, noting that section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act prohibits the Board from reviewing issues that are before the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear him or provide reasons for decisions regarding access to his daughter, the apprehension of his son at birth, and communications with a child protection worker.

After the applicant failed to attend the second day of the hearing, the Board heard evidence from the Society's workers.

The Board found that the Society had provided the applicant with meaningful reasons for its decisions, which were based on concerns about untreated mental health and substance use issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant father brought an application alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to hear him or provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests regarding his daughter.

The Board reviewed the society's involvement, which included numerous meetings and communications with the applicant regarding his concerns about the child's mother.

The Board found that the society had met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide meaningful reasons for its decisions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, two older siblings in extended care, filed complaints against the children's aid society for failing to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests.

Specifically, they sought reasons for the society's support of a custody order for their two younger siblings and its refusal to facilitate sibling access visits while the younger siblings were in care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society failed to provide the applicants with timely and detailed reasons or meaningful opportunities for input.

The Board ordered the society to provide comprehensive written reasons for both decisions.

The applicants, who were the former foster parents of the child and current foster parents of the child's full sibling, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's refusal of their application to adopt the child.

The society had preferred a permanency plan involving the child's paternal uncle.

The Board considered the best interests of the child under the Child and Family Services Act, emphasizing the importance of continuity of care, the child's level of development, and the benefit of the child growing up with her full sibling.

The Board concluded that it was in the best interests of the child to be placed for adoption with the applicants and rescinded the society's decision.

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 brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding sibling access to a child who was made a Crown ward and subsequently adopted.

The Board found that the substantive issue of access had been decided by the courts, but it had jurisdiction to determine if reasons were provided.

The Board concluded that the society had provided meaningful reasons to the applicant throughout the court proceedings, explaining that access was not in the child's best interests and that the society had no decision-making role post-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.