Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicants sought a review of the Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt their granddaughter.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the application was filed outside the 10-day statutory limit and that the issues were already before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, ruling that the 10-day limit was not triggered because the Society's refusal notice failed to adequately inform the applicants of their review rights.

Furthermore, the Board held that its jurisdiction to review an adoption refusal is distinct from the court's jurisdiction in a child protection proceeding.

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 criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, had made substantial threats to cause serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

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

The child argued that three of the five criteria for admission under the Child and Family Services Act were not met.

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

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

The respondents, grandparents of two children, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the applicant Society's response to their reports of child abuse.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grandparents had not sought or received a service from the Society.

The Board granted the motion, finding that making a referral about child protection concerns does not constitute seeking or receiving a service under the Child and Family Services Act, and therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to hear the application.

The applicant, a kinship foster parent, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board after the respondent society removed her niece and nephew from her care.

The Board conducted a written review to determine if the applicant was eligible to bring a complaint under section 68.1(4) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that foster parents provide services to the society rather than receive services from it, and therefore the applicant did not fall within the statutory categories of persons eligible to apply to the Board.

The applicant, an employee of the respondent Society, was the subject of an anonymous child protection referral that was transferred to another agency due to a conflict of interest.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its handling of the referral.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, which was dismissed.

On the merits, the Board found that the Society had adequately answered most of the applicant's questions through correspondence and meetings.

While the Society failed to provide written reasons regarding its file disclosure protocol and a misunderstanding about how the referral was routed, the Board declined to order a remedy because detailed explanations were provided during the hearing.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to provide them with an opportunity to be heard and meaningful explanations regarding their adoption of a child.

The applicants had requested additional information about the child and expressed concerns about delays in the placement process.

The Board found that the society deliberately withheld available information without explanation and failed to adequately explain delays in responding to the provincial ministry.

The Board ordered the society to provide detailed written explanations for the delays and the misinformation provided regarding the requirement of a Statement of Live Birth.

The applicants, former foster parents, filed a complaint against the children's aid society for failing to provide reasons why an adoption placement was not made and for failing to respond to their request for an Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP).

The Board found that the society closed the applicants' adoption file without written notice and failed to process their complaint.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons for the file closure, explain the steps required for a general adoption application, and process the ICRP request in accordance with the regulations.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking a review of the respondent society's decisions regarding access to her children and alleged inaccuracies in her file.

The Board dismissed the application without a full hearing.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to review the access issue because the children had already been made Crown wards with no access by court order.

Furthermore, the Board held that the applicant must first exhaust the society's internal complaint process before seeking a review of the file inaccuracies.

The Applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent Society failed to hear his concerns regarding the mother's physical discipline and neglect of their children, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the Society did not give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard about his concerns or about the decisions taken in response to third-party allegations.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written explanation to the Applicant regarding its response to the allegations and its decision-making process.

The Applicant filed a complaint against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging that the Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests regarding her infant son.

The Board found that the Society met its obligations in most instances, including her request for support prior to apprehension, concerns about her son's constipation and clothing, and requests for information.

However, the Board found that the Society failed to properly communicate with the Applicant regarding her concerns about her son's skin rash and her request for a change in family services worker.

The applicant, a 12-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board assessed whether the criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the child did not have a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act, as her capacity to make reasoned judgments was not grossly impaired.

Consequently, the criteria for emergency admission were not satisfied, and the Board ordered the child's release from the secure treatment program.

The applicant father applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his treatment by the respondent children's aid society, alleging the society failed to hear his concerns or provide reasons for its decisions.

The society submitted that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the subject matter of the complaint was currently before the Superior Court in a child protection application.

The Board agreed, finding that the court proceeding encompassed the issues raised in the complaint.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants, the aunt and uncle of a Crown ward, applied to adopt her.

The Children's Aid Society refused the application before completing the homestudy, citing the severe and destructive history of the child's biological parents in disrupting family placements.

The applicants requested a review by the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Board found that the applicants were excellent candidates who had the maturity and resources to protect the child from her biological parents.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision, concluding that adoption by the applicants was in the child's best interests, subject to the completion of the homestudy visitation phase.

The applicant filed a service complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Society, alleging bias and a failure to hear concerns or provide reasons regarding child protection decisions.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were before the family court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding bias, finding it lacked jurisdiction as the applicant was raising the same issue before the court.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over the remaining complaints, finding that the service complaints about whether the Society heard the applicant and provided reasons were distinct from the substantive child protection and access issues before the court.

The child, a 14-year-old ward of the Children's Aid Society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her 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 facility failed to present strong and compelling evidence that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission.

The evidence demonstrated that the child engaged in serious risky behaviours, but did not have a substantial disorder of emotional processes that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board ordered the child's release from the secure treatment program.

The applicant filed a complaint against the society regarding child protection services.

The Board previously ordered the society to provide a written summary of an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting.

The applicant raised concerns about the society's compliance with the order.

The Board reviewed the correspondence and found that the society fully complied with the order by providing the required summary, steps taken, and conclusions.

The Board's file was closed.

The applicants, who were the foster parents of a young child, applied for a review of the children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt the child.

The society had planned to place the child with her biological siblings, who had been adopted by an employee of the society.

The Board found that the society had a conflict of interest and failed to properly consider the applicants' application.

The Board rescinded the society's decision and ordered that the child remain with the applicants pending a full and fair assessment of their adoption application by an independent children's aid society.

The applicant complained that the Halton Children's Aid Society failed to fully comply with a previous Board order requiring detailed written reasons for its actions in response to child abuse allegations.

The Board reviewed the Society's written response and the applicant's objections.

The Board concluded that the Society had fully complied with its directions by providing the relevant standards, coding information, and sufficient detail to explain its decisions.

The Board found the Society in full compliance and closed the file.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Society, alleging a failure to provide an opportunity to be heard regarding a youth who lived with him.

The Society argued the applicant was not a 'parent' under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the applicant did not have lawful custody and did not demonstrate a settled intention to treat the youth as a child of his family within the relevant 12-month period prior to the Society's initial intervention.

Consequently, the applicant did not meet the definition of a parent, and his complaint under s. 68.1(4) 4 was deemed ineligible for review.