Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant, a grandfather, filed a complaint against the respondent Society alleging that it failed to hear his service concerns regarding a worker's alleged bias and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was merely a referral source.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the applicant was receiving a child welfare service as a caregiver in the home where the children resided.

On the merits, the Board found that the Society met some of its obligations but failed to provide meaningful reasons for several decisions affecting the applicant's interests.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons addressing specific questions about its handling of the applicant's complaints.

The applicants, who are parents and foster parents, filed a complaint against the Durham Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to hear their concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding a child protection investigation involving their nine-year-old son.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to hear the applicants and provide sufficient reasons regarding several aspects of the investigation, including interviewing the child alone, the outcome meeting, and the inclusion of their names in the Provincial Database.

The Board ordered the Society to meet with the applicants to hear their perspective and provide a written report.

The applicant brought an application under s. 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act regarding the implementation of a previous Board decision.

The Board reviewed whether the Society had complied with three previous orders.

The Board found that the Society complied with the orders relating to the service plan and email accommodation policy.

However, the Society failed to comply with the order to investigate and assess the impact of inconsistent access and domestic violence on the child.

The Board ordered the Society to consult with the child's therapist and provide a written explanation of its assessment.

The applicants, former foster parents, sought a review of the removal of a foster child from their care.

Following a pre-hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board confirmed it had jurisdiction to proceed to a hearing.

The Board issued interim orders directing a children's aid society to produce documents relating to the investigation and removal of the foster child to the applicants' counsel and the respondent.

The Board also ordered the sharing of the child's file with the child's counsel and set a deadline for all parties to exchange documents intended to be admitted in evidence.

The Applicant, an employee of the Society, was caring for her brother's foster child under a safety plan.

Following allegations of sexual abuse against the brother, the Society removed the child from the Applicant's care and investigated her for risk of emotional harm and sexual abuse.

The Applicant brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions during the investigation.

The Board found that the Society breached its statutory obligation under s. 68.1(4)5 of the Child and Family Services Act by failing to provide sufficient information to allow the Applicant to understand how and why decisions were made, and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons.

The applicants, the maternal grandparents of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Society's refusal of their application to adopt the child.

The Society refused the application prior to completing a homestudy, citing concerns about the grandparents' commitment to adoption versus grand-parenting.

The Board found that the grandparents' preferred role was to be grandparents and that their primary concern was ensuring family contact.

Given the Society's commitment to an openness arrangement with the child's new adoptive family, the Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to confirm the Society's refusal.

The 12-year-old applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The Board excluded hearsay medical documents authored by the admitting psychiatrist, citing procedural fairness.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Board found that Youthdale failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by s. 124(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board concluded the child's behaviours were an expected reaction to recent trauma and apprehension, rather than a substantial disorder of emotional processes.

The application was granted and the child was released.

The child 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 child met the statutory criteria for admission under the Child and Family Services Act, specifically whether she had a 'mental disorder' as defined by the Act.

Based on the evidence of the admitting psychiatrist, the Board found that the child's level of impairment was moderate and did not meet the threshold of a gross impairment of capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant child sought a review of his admission to a secure treatment program by the respondent treatment centre.

The child had a history of running away from foster placements and engaging in self-harm.

The Board refused to admit hearsay medical documents tendered by the respondent, as the admitting psychiatrist was not available for cross-examination.

The Board found that the respondent failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by section 124(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Consequently, the Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant youth applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of 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.

The Board found that the facility did not present sufficient evidence to establish that the youth had a mental disorder as defined by the Act, because his capacity to make reasoned judgments was not grossly impaired.

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

The applicant brought a motion before the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Society's failure to investigate child protection concerns and other service issues.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in an ongoing protection application.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear complaints relating to the applicant's right to be heard and to receive reasons under the Child and Family Services Act, but lacked jurisdiction over issues relating to court-ordered access and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to proceed with her complaint regarding inaccuracies in her file, failed to hear her service concerns, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the Society failed to hear the applicant, failed to provide reasons for refusing to disclose her file, and failed to process her complaint through the internal complaints review procedure (ICRP).

The Board ordered the Society to provide specific answers to the applicant's questions and to proceed with the ICRP.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding its handling of her concerns about her daughter and grandchild.

The Society brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the applicant had not sought or received a service from the Society.

The Board found that making a referral about child protection concerns does not constitute seeking a service for oneself under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board granted the Society's motion and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Children's Aid Society's failure to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting his access to his children.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the parties were involved in ongoing child protection proceedings before the court.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding that the applicant's complaints related to the Society's exercise of discretion regarding access and home visits, which were separate from the substantive issues before the court.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant brought an application regarding the implementation of a previous Board decision that ordered two Children's Aid Societies to investigate her service concerns about racial discrimination.

The Board found that while Guelph complied with the order to hear from the applicant, neither Society complied with the orders to properly investigate the racial discrimination concerns.

The Board concluded its role in the matter but granted the applicant permission to use a redacted version of the decision in her upcoming application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to respond to or provide reasons regarding her reports that her children were being abused during access visits.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had already been decided by the court in previous child protection proceedings.

The Board agreed, finding that the court had previously examined the Society's response to the abuse allegations and made findings of fact.

As the subject matter of the complaint had been decided by the court, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of a Children's Aid Society decision refusing their application to adopt a two-year-old child.

The Society had approved both the applicants and another family as adoptive parents, but chose the other family because they had previously adopted the child's half-sibling.

The Board found that the child had special needs, including a global developmental delay, and that the applicants were better equipped to address these needs and to maintain the child's existing relationship with her maternal grandmother.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered that the child be placed for adoption with the applicants.

The 14-year-old applicant sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while some criteria for admission were met, the requirement under section 124(2)(e) of the Child and Family Services Act—that no less restrictive method of providing appropriate treatment was available—was not satisfied.

The Board noted that appropriate services in a less intrusive setting had not been adequately investigated.

Consequently, the Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant, an access parent, filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto alleging it failed to properly investigate his concerns about his child's care and failed to provide disclosure of the family's file.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The Board dismissed the allegations regarding the child's care, finding the Society had appropriately heard the applicant and provided reasons for its decisions.

However, the Board found the Society failed to meet its statutory obligations regarding the file disclosure request, as it did not provide a meaningful response or consider the applicant's rights under a court order and the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Board ordered the Society to hear the applicant regarding the disclosure request or provide a redacted file.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the services she received from the Society, alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her child's access visits with the father.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its obligations in several areas, including communication, investigating the father's residences, and addressing the child's well-being during specific access incidents.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons and address the Applicant's concerns, while dismissing other complaints.