Child and Family Services Review Board

The Applicant father filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society refused to deal with his complaints, failed to give him an opportunity to be heard regarding the care plan for his children, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board dismissed the first two complaints, finding the Society had responded to his written complaints and had heard his concerns prior to seeking a court order.

However, the Board granted the third complaint, finding the Society failed to provide reasons for how it implemented the supervision order and its lack of communication regarding the children.

The Society was ordered to provide written reasons to the Applicant.

The appellant father appealed a school board's decision to expel his son from all of its schools following allegations of sexual assault during a school trip.

The student and two peers were accused of inappropriately touching two female students.

The Review Board found that the student had committed sexual assault and that his actions posed an unacceptable risk to the safety of others.

The Board concluded that no mitigating factors applied and upheld the decision to expel the student from all schools of the board.

The applicant 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 five 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 attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that the secure treatment program was necessary and appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant, a foster parent residing in Saskatchewan, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton's decision to refuse her application to adopt a three-year-old child.

The child had previously lived with the applicant in foster care for two years before being moved to Ontario.

The Society refused the adoption due to concerns about delay, sibling contact, and finances.

The Board found that the Society's concerns were unsubstantiated and that the pre-existing bond between the child and the applicant strongly favoured returning the child to her care.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and recommended the child be placed with the applicant for adoption.

The applicant father filed complaints against the society regarding the apprehension of his special needs son.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to hear complaints about the society's alleged refusal to process written complaints and alleged harassment, as those matters were either before the court or lacked evidentiary foundation.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over the complaint regarding the child's apprehension on Christmas Eve.

The Board found that the society failed to provide the applicant with reasons for denying him access and location information during the apprehension, contrary to the Child and Family Services Act.

The society was ordered to provide detailed written reasons for its actions.

The complaint regarding the child's nutrition was dismissed as the hospital was responsible for his care during that period.

The applicant, a former foster parent, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel decision.

The applicant alleged that the Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decision to close her foster home following a child protection investigation.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was given ample opportunity to express her concerns during the internal review process and that the Society had provided written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant brought several complaints against the respondent children's aid society regarding a worker's failure to follow complaint procedures, exclusion from a meeting with a parenting coordinator, and a worker allegedly lying about an access visit.

The Child and Family Services Review Board previously determined it had jurisdiction over these specific complaints.

On consent, the Board ordered the respondent to immediately convene an Internal Complaints Review Panel to address the three complaints in accordance with the statutory complaint review procedure.

The applicant child sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a history of running away, medication non-compliance, and aggressive behaviour, and was diagnosed with a mental disorder related to prenatal alcohol exposure.

The Board applied the criteria for emergency admission under the governing child and family services legislation.

Finding that the child posed a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that no less restrictive treatment method was appropriate, the Board dismissed the application and ordered that the child remain in the secure treatment program.

The child applied for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child's counsel brought a motion for release based on errors in the admission forms, which the Board dismissed, finding substantial compliance.

On the merits, the Board found that the child had a mental disorder, had made substantial threats of serious bodily harm to his family and girlfriend, and that the secure treatment program was necessary and the least restrictive method of providing appropriate treatment.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicants (a mother, her partner, and maternal grandparents) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa, alleging failure to comply with complaint review procedures and failure to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over several issues as they had already been decided by the court, including the apprehension and placement of the children.

For the issues within its jurisdiction, the Board found the Society had been responsive to the applicants' complaints and provided them with an opportunity to be heard.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Toronto District School Board's decision to expel her special needs son from all schools following an incident where he pushed a vice principal.

The Child and Family Services Review Board quashed the expulsion, finding that the incident—a simple assault—did not fall within the mandatory suspension and expulsion provisions of section 310 of the Education Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that even if the incident had qualified, mitigating factors under Ontario Regulation 472/07, including the pupil's special needs, his Individual Education Plan, and the lack of risk to the safety of others, rendered expulsion an inappropriate disciplinary response.

The applicants appealed the decision of the Children's Aid Society to remove two foster children from their care.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants' foster home had been closed.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the applicants were foster parents at the time of the removal.

Applying the best interests of the child test under section 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the Board concluded that returning the children to the applicants' restrictive environment would not be in their best interests, particularly given their need for native cultural exposure and psychological assessment which the Society was funding in their current placement.

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

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging failure to investigate child protection concerns, bias in favour of her former partner, and failure to provide reasons for limiting her access to her child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the merits of the application under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board dismissed the majority of the complaints, finding the Society had investigated concerns and provided reasons.

However, the Board upheld complaints regarding a cancelled access visit when the mother was late, and found the Society was inconsistent and biased in its treatment of the mother compared to the father regarding drug use and child removal.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove two foster children from her home.

The children had lived with the applicant for over five years.

The Society removed the children after the applicant requested relief due to the older child's escalating behavioural issues.

The Board found that the older child's behaviours were exacerbated by a lack of appropriate supports and that the younger child was negatively impacted by the removal.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered the immediate return of the younger child and the graduated return of the older child once necessary supports were implemented.

The applicant filed several complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the society regarding its handling of his case, including access issues, medical concerns, and the complaint process itself.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were already decided by or before the family court in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints related to access, medical concerns, and case notes, as these were central to the court proceedings.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over complaints regarding the society's failure to follow its own complaint procedure, a meeting held without the applicant, and an allegation that a worker lied, as these were not before the court.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society regarding ten issues related to his child's apprehension and access visits.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were dealt with in a concurrent child protection trial.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over issues already decided by the court, such as allegations of physical harm and the child's emotional problems.

For the remaining issues where jurisdiction existed, the Board dismissed the complaints on the merits due to a lack of evidence or findings that the Society had appropriately heard the applicant's concerns and provided reasons for its decisions.

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

The respondent facility argued that the child met the criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child did not have a mental disorder within the meaning of the Act, concluding that her aggressive behaviour was the result of parent-child conflict rather than a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought, or cognition.

Furthermore, the Board found that the child did not cause or threaten serious bodily harm.

As the criteria for admission were not met, the Board ordered the child's release.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to provide her an opportunity to be heard regarding what she and her partner needed to do to present a joint parenting plan.

The Board found that the Society had sent contradictory messages to the Applicant regarding its expectations for joint parenting.

The Board ordered the Society to respond in writing to the Applicant's complaint by outlining its specific expectations for steps or services the couple must undertake to present a joint parenting plan.

The appellant appealed the school board's decision to expel her son from all schools following a swarming and stabbing incident.

The review board found on a balance of probabilities that the pupil was involved in the attack and possessed a knife.

The board considered mitigating factors, including a recent psychotic episode, but found them insufficient to mitigate the seriousness of the incident.

The expulsion from all schools of the board was confirmed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decision to intervene with his family following the birth of his child.

The society had intervened because the parents refused to provide their names at the hospital.

The Board reviewed the written correspondence between the parties and found that the society had provided meaningful reasons for its intervention, explaining its statutory obligation to investigate potential child protection concerns.

The application was dismissed without an oral hearing.