Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 144(3) of the Child and Family Services Act for a review of the respondent Society's decision refusing their application to adopt a child.

After hearing the evidence and representations, the Board granted the application.

The Board annulled the Society's decision and ordered that the child be placed with the applicants for adoption, with reasons to follow.

The applicants, former foster parents of the child, sought a review of the Society's decision to refuse their adoption application.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the child was placed with another family by a court order and subsequently made a Crown ward.

The Board held that the final Crown wardship order superseded previous interim placement orders and returned the child to the Society's care to determine long-term placement.

Therefore, the Society's refusal of the applicants' adoption request was a reviewable decision under section 144(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, and the Board confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Society brought a motion arguing that the Child and Family Services Review Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the applicants' request under section 144(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board determined that it had jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing.

The Board also ordered the Society to comply with a previous disclosure order and set deadlines for the applicants' disclosure.

A confidentiality order was issued prohibiting the distribution or publication of any documents or information related to the proceedings.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Society's refusal of his application to adopt his grandchild.

The application was adjourned pending a status review in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court subsequently ordered Crown Wardship of the grandchild without access to the applicant.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it could not make an order inconsistent with the court's order denying access.

The Applicant, a youth in the care of the Society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 36 of the Child and Family Services Act for a review of her residential placement.

She sought a transfer to a less restrictive placement such as a group home or youth shelter.

The Society argued that the current placement was necessary to address the Applicant's complex mental health needs and to facilitate family reintegration.

The Board found that the current placement was in the Applicant's best interests, given her significant psychiatric needs, the lack of appropriate less restrictive alternatives, and the need for continuity of care.

The application was dismissed and the current placement was confirmed.

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

The facility argued the admission was necessary due to the Child's aggressive behaviours and risk of self-harm.

The Board found that while the Child had a mental disorder, the facility failed to prove that he had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, or that no less restrictive treatment method was appropriate.

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

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding access to his infant daughter.

The society argued the board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the court in a temporary care and custody proceeding.

The board reviewed the court materials and found that the issues complained about were indeed before the court.

Consequently, pursuant to section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, the board determined it had no jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board issued an interim decision regarding a residential placement review, addressing motions on jurisdiction and the disclosure of Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) records.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to review the child welfare placement despite a purported bail condition.

The Board also provided guidance and suggested wording for future motions to the Youth Court to obtain broader access to YCJA records without improperly delegating screening to the Board.

The Society brought a pre-hearing motion seeking access to Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) assessments for a residential placement review before the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Youth Court had ordered the records released subject to a further screening order by the Board under the Wagg framework.

The Board held that delegating the screening process to the Board was inappropriate, as the Youth Court has exclusive jurisdiction and expertise under the YCJA to balance privacy and public interest concerns.

However, given the Youth Court's delegation in this specific case, the Board ordered the records released for the hearing subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

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

The facility bore the burden of proving that all five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that while the child had a mental disorder, the facility failed to prove that she 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.

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

The Board found that while the child had a mental disorder, she had not made a substantial threat to cause serious bodily harm to herself or others, and that less restrictive methods of providing treatment had not been fully explored.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The Applicant alleged that the Society failed to comply with a previous Board order requiring it to explain why it did not follow confidentiality policies when sharing documents.

The Board found that the Society's responses did not provide the detailed explanation ordered, but confirmed that no one had turned their mind to the policies at the time.

Given the limits on its enforcement powers under section 68 of the Child and Family Services Act, the Board declined to probe the issue further.

The Board amended its Confidentiality Order to permit the Applicant to use the Board's decisions and refer to information from the proceedings in a civil action against the Society.

The appellant appealed an expulsion under section 311.7 of the Education Act.

On consent of the parties, the Child and Family Services Review Board ordered that the expulsion be sealed for two years and subsequently expunged from the student's Ontario Student Record, provided the student does not breach the Ontario School Code of Conduct regarding drugs, alcohol, or weapons resulting in a suspension during that period.

The applicant applied for a review of her placement under section 36(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

During the hearing, a witness testified that a psychiatrist had dictated a consulting note for the applicant's file.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered the witness to provide a copy of the consulting note to the society, and for the society to produce it to the Board and the applicant's counsel.

The applicants brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for its decision regarding an Intake Worker's discussion with a community speech pathologist.

The applicants were concerned about a breach of privacy regarding the mother's health and the Society's involvement with their younger child.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its statutory obligation to provide meaningful explanations for its decisions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written response addressing the reasons for the discussion and the applicants' privacy concerns.

The applicants, parents of a child in temporary wardship, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Toronto Children's Aid Society.

The applicants alleged that the Society failed to hear their concerns and provide reasons for its decision to stop community access visits.

The Society had curtailed the visits citing new information about the parents' criminal records and alleged gang affiliation.

The Board found that while the Society heard the applicants' concerns, it failed to provide adequate reasons for its decisions regarding the specific criminal convictions considered, the basis for the gang affiliation allegation, the rejection of a risk-mitigating proposal, and the role of medical marijuana use.

The Board ordered the Society to meet with the applicants and provide detailed written reasons on these four issues.

The applicant grandparents sought a review of a decision by the Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) regarding the care of their grandchildren.

They alleged the Society failed to properly act on information about the mother's mental health and her partner's proximity to the children, and that the Society did not follow the legislated complaints process.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the Society failed to meet statutory timelines and improperly included the Executive Director on the ICRP, the applicants were fully heard and provided with meaningful reasons.

The application was dismissed with no orders made regarding the procedural breaches, as they caused no prejudice.

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

The local Children's Aid Society sought her admission due to her absences from her foster home and high-risk behaviours in the community.

The Board found that the secure facility failed to provide psychiatric evidence to establish that the child had a mental disorder as defined by the Child and Family Services Act.

As the statutory criteria for emergency admission were not met, the Board granted the application and ordered the child's release.

The 15-year-old applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The applicant had a history of trauma, substance abuse, and running away from home, prompting her father to seek her admission.

The Board found that while the applicant suffered from a mental disorder, she did not pose a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that less restrictive methods of treatment had not been fully explored or exhausted.

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

The Child and Family Services Review Board issued an amended confidentiality order regarding an application under section 36 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The order prohibits the sharing or disclosure of Board documents or information outside the proceedings, with specific exceptions.

The Society is permitted to share the decisions with a children's health program and an upcoming foster home.

The applicant may share the decisions with their advocate at the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, and a redacted version may be shared with counsel for the applicant's mother in the child protection proceedings.