Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a complaint against the society for refusing her as a kin placement for her grandson.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was already before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the issue of the applicant's suitability as a kin caregiver, including her child welfare history and a parenting capacity assessment, was squarely before the court.

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

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the society failed to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding a reintegration plan for her common-law partner.

The Board found that the society failed to communicate effectively, changed its position on the reintegration plan without consulting the applicant, and did not provide timely reasons for its decisions.

The Board concluded that the society breached its obligations under section 2(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction to hear an application under section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board determined that it has jurisdiction and will proceed to hear the application.

Reasons for the decision will follow with the decision on the merits.

The Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding the applicant's residential placement.

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered that the applicant be discharged from the residential placement program on June 23, 2014.

The appellant appealed the expulsion of her two sons from their school by the Toronto District School Board.

The pupils were expelled for committing a physical assault on another student that caused bodily harm requiring medical treatment.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the assault did occur and met the criteria for expulsion, mitigating factors applied.

Specifically, the pupils reasonably believed they were facing an imminent threat of assault, and the school board had failed to use a progressive discipline approach in the past.

The Board quashed the expulsion, expunged the records, and held that the initial 20-day suspension was the appropriate consequence.

The applicant, a former foster mother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's decision to close her foster home and alleged inaccuracies in her file.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the foster home closure because the applicant provided services but did not seek or receive them.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction over the alleged file inaccuracies because the applicant had not yet exhausted the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel process.

The application was dismissed.

The twelve-year-old applicant child sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The child had been diagnosed with major depression and exhibited escalating suicidal ideation, self-harm, and impulsive behaviours.

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

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired his capacity to make reasoned judgments, that he was at serious risk of causing bodily harm to himself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

The Applicant grandfather filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide reasons for decisions related to the apprehension of his grandchild.

The Applicant claimed the Society failed to explain why his home was not considered a place of safety, why he and the father were not contacted prior to apprehension, and why protection concerns were not shared.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the Society could not share third-party personal information without consent, that the after-hours worker acted properly during the apprehension, and that the Applicant's refusal to collaborate with the Society justified its decision not to assess his home as a place of safety.

The appellant appealed the expulsion of pupils from the Toronto District School Board.

The Child and Family Services Review Board allowed the appeal, quashing the expulsion and permitting the pupils to return to any school within the board.

The Board further ordered that the record of the expulsion be expunged from all school board records.

A youth applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

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

The Board found that the youth had a mental disorder, had attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of providing treatment was appropriate given her escalating suicidal behaviours.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding service obligations, specifically concerning supervised access, his inability to reside with his children, the children's alleged fear of workers, and alleged racism by an intake worker.

The review board found that the society had provided the applicant with sufficient opportunities to be heard and adequate reasons for its decisions, which were based on concerns about his mental health and recent hospital admission.

The board found no evidence of racism and dismissed the complaint.

The respondent society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaint because the issues were before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the court determines the child protection issues, the Board retains jurisdiction over service-related complaints regarding the society's statutory obligation to provide reasons for its decisions.

The applicants, who were foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for removing a foster child from their care.

The Board held a hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The Board found that foster parents do not fall within the definition of a parent and were not receiving a 'service' from the Society, as there was no child protection investigation into their conduct.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and closed the file.

The Applicants, the grandfather and uncle of a child, filed an application alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests under s. 68.1(4) 5 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that while the Society adequately explained a delay in providing DNA test results, it failed to provide reasons for several other significant decisions.

These included denying the uncle access to the child, contacting hospitals and landlords without notice, and attending the Applicants' home unannounced.

The application was granted in part, and the Society was ordered to provide detailed written explanations for its decisions.

The applicants, former foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding a young woman residing with them and maintained inaccurate documents in their file.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the complaint regarding file inaccuracies required the applicants to first exhaust the Society's internal complaints process.

Regarding the young woman, the Board determined the applicants were not seeking or receiving services for themselves, as they had no parental relationship with the adult woman who was the actual recipient of the Society's services.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Dufferin Child and Family Services regarding its failure to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her children.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the children were the subject of an ongoing protection application before the court.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to review the Society's communication and responsiveness to the applicant, as these were not issues before the court.

However, the Board declined jurisdiction over complaints regarding inaccurate file documentation, as those matters involved evidence relevant to the court proceeding.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard about her service concerns and failed to give reasons for its decisions affecting her interests regarding the safety of her children in their father's care.

The society challenged the tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were before the family court.

The tribunal found it had jurisdiction, as the complaint concerned the society's service delivery, not the custody dispute.

The tribunal allowed the application, finding the society failed to adequately communicate with the applicant, hear her concerns, or provide reasons for its decisions, and ordered the society to provide written responses and reasons.

The Applicant father filed a service complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns regarding his daughter's safety and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

His primary concern was the Society's decision to allow the child's mother's fiancé to reside in the home despite past abusive behaviour.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had engaged in lengthy discussions with the Applicant, investigated the incidents, and imposed conditions on the mother and fiancé.

The Board concluded the Society had heard the Applicant's concerns and provided reasons for its decisions, and dismissed the application.

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

The admission was sought due to her history of running away, high-risk behaviours, and a recent brief hospitalization.

The Board found that the evidence, including testimony from the admitting psychiatrist, did not establish that the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments at the time of admission.

Because the first statutory criterion under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act was not met, the Board ordered the child's release.

The Child, a 13-year-old girl, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board considered whether the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met, specifically whether the Child had a mental disorder, whether she posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others, and whether a less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The Board found that the Child's conduct disorder grossly impaired her judgement, leading to high-risk behaviours including running away, self-harm, and joyriding.

The Board concluded that all statutory criteria were met and dismissed the application for release.