Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Algoma, alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding the interviewing of her children and an investigation into a child attending her daycare.

The Board found that the Society's Internal Complaint Review Panel had properly heard the applicant's concerns and provided adequate reasons for its actions.

The Board noted that the applicant was not entitled to be heard regarding the daycare child as she was not the parent, but the Society had nonetheless provided written reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant, an African Canadian foster mother, alleged that the Oxford and Guelph Children's Aid Societies failed to hear her or provide reasons during an investigation into her foster home, and that racial discrimination played a role.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Societies failed to meet their statutory obligations to hear the Applicant and provide sufficient reasons for their decisions, particularly when she raised concerns about racial prejudice.

The Board ordered the Societies to meet with the Applicant, re-evaluate their findings, investigate the allegations of racial discrimination, and provide detailed written reasons.

The applicants filed complaints against the children's aid society regarding a worker's alleged false statements to the court about social media pictures and the removal of their child.

The Board conducted a written review to determine its jurisdiction.

Finding that the subject matter of the complaints related to issues currently before the court in a child protection proceeding, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act and dismissed the applications.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent children's aid society's refusal to place three children with them for adoption.

Following a hearing, the Board rescinded the society's refusal pursuant to section 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board ordered that the children be placed for adoption with the applicants, with written reasons to follow.

The applicant requested records from the Durham Children's Aid Society relating to her deceased mother, who had been a Crown Ward.

The Society initially agreed to provide the records but later informed the applicant that a court order was required, without providing reasons for the change in decision.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found it had jurisdiction and held that the Society failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed reasons within 10 days.

The Applicant foster mother applied for a review of the Society's decision to remove four foster children from her care.

The removal occurred after the foster father sexually touched one of the foster daughters and the Applicant minimized the incident and intended to have the foster father return to the home.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the application despite the removal being for risk.

The Board concluded that returning the children to the Applicant's care was not in their best interests due to the risk of emotional and physical harm and the children's expressed wishes not to return.

The Society's decision to remove the children was confirmed.

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

The applicant argued that he did not meet the statutory criteria for admission, specifically regarding having a mental disorder, causing or threatening serious bodily harm, and the availability of less restrictive treatment.

The Board found that the applicant suffered from a severe anxiety disorder that grossly impaired his judgment, had exhibited escalating physical aggression towards his mother, and required a locked setting for assessment and treatment.

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

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

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

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder causing severe mood swings and aggressive behaviour, posed a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that the secure treatment program was the only appropriate and effective less restrictive method available.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to enforce a court order granting him access to his daughter.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was already before the court for a status review.

The Board agreed, finding that under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, it cannot review complaints about issues that have been decided by or are before the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to rescind the children's aid society's decision refusing her application to adopt her nephew, a Crown ward.

The society refused to proceed with a homestudy due to the applicant's significant child welfare history, which included verified reports of neglect and parent-child conflict involving her own children.

The Board found that the applicant lacked insight into her past parenting issues and had not demonstrated any positive change in her parenting abilities.

Concluding that the applicant could not meet the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs, the Board determined that the placement was not in the child's best interests and confirmed the society's decision.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding its handling of her child protection concerns about the children's father.

She alleged the Society failed to investigate promptly, limited the scope of its investigation, and failed to hear her or provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society adequately heard the applicant and provided reasons for its ultimate investigation conclusions.

However, the Board found the Society failed to provide reasons at the time it initially decided not to investigate her original complaint.

As fulsome reasons were provided during the hearing, the Board made no further order and dismissed the remaining complaints.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

She alleged that the Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding three incidents involving the foster family and one incident involving alleged racist comments by a Society employee.

The Board found that the Society failed to properly communicate its follow-up actions to the applicant regarding two of the foster family incidents and the employee incident.

However, because the Society provided the necessary explanations to the applicant after she filed her complaint with the Board, the Board declined to make any orders.

The child 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 child suffered from a mental disorder, had attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant sought a review of an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) decision regarding his complaints against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton.

He alleged that the Society's files contained inaccuracies and that the Society failed to address his service concerns or provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that several file entries were inaccurate or in dispute, ordering the Society to place Notices of Disagreement in the applicant's file.

The Board also found that the Society failed to answer four of the applicant's seventeen questions regarding service concerns, ordering the Society to provide written responses to those specific questions.

The applicants filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging that the Society failed to hear their service concerns and did not provide reasons for decisions regarding the safety of their child in the care of the biological father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had held multiple meetings with the applicants to address their concerns and explain its decisions.

The Board concluded that the Society appropriately focused on the child's wellbeing and had provided the required explanations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard regarding her concerns about a social worker and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the Society had responded to the applicant's concerns in a variety of ways, including scheduling regular phone contact, assigning a new worker, and attempting to address the concerns through discussions with a supervisor.

The Board concluded that the Society met its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act and dismissed the application.

The pupil appealed an expulsion decision to the Child and Family Services Review Board.

Prior to the hearing, the parties resolved the appeal and entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued a consent order confirming the settlement, which changed the expulsion from all of the respondent's schools to an expulsion from the pupil's school only, and directed that the pupil's record be amended accordingly.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto regarding an internal complaints review process (ICRP) related to a child protection investigation.

The applicant alleged that he was not heard at the ICRP and disagreed with the Society's decisions, including the placement of his children and his removal from the home following domestic violence charges.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the Society had complied with its statutory obligations by providing the applicant with an opportunity to be heard and meaningful explanations for its decisions.

The applicant brought an application under section 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act, seeking review of an Internal Complaints Review Panel decision.

The applicant raised concerns regarding inaccuracies in the Society's file and the Society's failure to address service concerns or provide reasons for its decisions.

Following a hearing, the Board issued an interim order directing the Society to provide written answers to four specific questions raised by the applicant regarding the child protection worker's observations and the Society's investigation steps.

The Board reserved its decision on the alleged file inaccuracies.

The appellant appealed the expulsion of his son from all schools of the respondent school board.

The pupil had been expelled after allegedly threatening to kill another student.

The Board found that the school board's policy regarding the alleged misconduct was permissive rather than mandatory regarding suspensions.

Under the Education Act, a pupil can only be expelled for an activity if the school board's policy mandates a suspension for that activity.

Consequently, the Board quashed the expulsion and ordered the pupil's record expunged.