Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant appealed a school board's decision to expel her 13-year-old daughter for cyberbullying.

The student had created fake Facebook accounts to impersonate another student and send death threats.

The Child and Family Services Review Board upheld the expulsion, finding that although the conduct occurred off school property, it severely impacted the school climate.

The Board rejected arguments that the student's Central Auditory Processing Difficulty prevented her from understanding the consequences of her actions, concluding the conduct was premeditated and the expulsion was justified.

The child applicant sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The child brought a non-suit motion, which the Board dismissed, finding there was some evidence that could satisfy the admission criteria.

On the merits, the Board found that the child had a mental disorder that caused her to self-harm and make substantial threats of suicide.

The Board concluded that the secure treatment program would be effective, appropriate treatment was available, and no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The 13-year-old applicant 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 five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

While the Board found the applicant had a mental disorder and that the program would be effective and appropriate, it was not satisfied that she had caused or attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself or others as a result of the disorder.

Furthermore, the Board found that less restrictive methods of providing treatment had not been adequately explored or ruled out.

As all five criteria must be met to maintain the admission, the Board ordered the applicant's release.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the actions of the Hastings Children's Aid Society following the apprehension of their children.

The applicants alleged that the Society ignored their complaints, failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding access visits and the children's care, and did not give them an opportunity to be heard.

The Board found that while the Society had provided some explanations, it failed to adequately address all of the applicants' concerns or provide written reasons.

The Board ordered the Society to meet with the applicants to address their concerns and to provide written reasons and responses to all complaints within thirty days.

The applicants, the mother and grandmother of a Crown ward, filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

They alleged the Society failed to listen to their concerns regarding the child's group home placement, safety, and care, and failed to include the family in a Wish Foundation trip.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the first five complaints, finding the Society had provided the applicants with an opportunity to be heard and had adequately explained its decisions.

However, the Board found the Society failed to provide a detailed explanation regarding the Wish Foundation application process and ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its actions.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the Society's decision to remove a foster child who had been in her care for over six years.

The child was a kinship placement.

The Society removed the child after discovering the applicant's husband had relapsed into substance abuse and the applicant had also used marijuana.

The Board found that while the child had strong emotional ties to the foster family, the protection concerns justified the removal.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to remove the child, noting the public interest in ensuring foster homes meet safety standards.

The applicant father applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review three complaints against the children's aid society: failure to consider kinship placements, placement of children in an unapproved foster home, and harassment.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had already been decided by the court or through other statutory decision-making processes.

The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear any of the complaints, as the kinship and foster home issues had been addressed in prior child protection proceedings and director's reviews, and the harassment complaint lacked particulars and had been addressed through the society's internal complaint process.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint against the society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging that the society failed to provide reasons for its decision to attend his home and attempt to remove his children.

The Board found that the society acted on a court's direction but failed to communicate the reasons for its actions to the applicant.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons for its decisions regarding the events in question.

The applicants, parents of children apprehended by the Children's Aid Society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review six complaints regarding the Society's conduct and services.

The Board found that the Society failed to process the applicants' written complaint in accordance with the statutory internal complaint review procedure and ordered the Society to do so.

The Board also found that the Society failed to provide reasons for not implementing promised home visits and ordered it to provide written reasons.

The remaining complaints regarding rudeness, access visit changes, therapy meetings, and ignored self-improvement efforts were dismissed, as the Board found the applicants had been given reasons and an opportunity to be heard.

The applicant father applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent Children's Aid Society's handling of his complaints.

The applicant alleged the Society failed to conduct a protection investigation regarding his son, sent a damaging letter, maintained inaccurate files, and failed to establish an Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP).

The Board dismissed the first two complaints, finding the Society provided adequate reasons for its decisions, and found it lacked jurisdiction over the file inaccuracy complaint.

However, the Board found the Society failed to hold an ICRP as requested and ordered the Society to arrange one within 14 days.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent Society's failure to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were currently before the court in a protection application.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over issues of access and custody, which were before the court.

However, the Board determined it had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaints that the Society failed to inform her of expectations regarding a joint parenting plan and failed to respond to her request that her sister be considered for kinship care.

The applicant, the maternal grandmother of a child in the care of the respondent children's aid society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 68 of the Child and Family Services Act to review complaints about the society.

The applicant alleged that the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel did not listen to key issues and improperly excluded her daughter from the meeting.

During the hearing on the merits, the parties reached an agreement.

The Board issued a consent order requiring the society to convene a new ICRP to hear the applicant's complaints in accordance with the statutory timelines and procedures.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Durham Children's Aid Society alleging inaccuracies in her file, failure to provide reasons for a decision, discrimination affecting her employment, and the undermining of her parenting rights.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the first three issues because the applicant had not exhausted internal review procedures and the complaints did not relate to services provided by the Society.

The fourth issue was dismissed for lack of any factual basis.

The applicant brought a complaint against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging various failures by the Society, including refusing to investigate child protection concerns, poor treatment during access visits, and bias.

The Society brought a preliminary motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were currently before the Superior Court of Justice in a status review proceeding.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear seven of the eight complaints, as they related to the applicant's right to be heard and the Society's complaint procedures, which the court would not determine.

The Board declined jurisdiction over the complaint regarding late service of court documents, finding that to be within the court's purview.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa failed to provide reasons for denying him and his mother access to his children, and failed to give him an opportunity to be heard regarding his access requests and concerns about the children's mother.

The Board found that the Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions affecting the Applicant's interests and failed to give him an opportunity to be heard.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its decisions and delay, and to respond to the Applicant regarding access.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society portrayed him in its records as a child abuser and a risk to his children without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

The Society did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the Applicant had not been given the opportunity to be heard regarding the allegations as required under section 2(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board ordered the Society to conduct an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard.

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

The child argued that the criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act had not been met.

The majority of the Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder, had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, and that the secure treatment program was necessary and appropriate.

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

A dissenting member would have released the child, finding insufficient evidence that appropriate treatment was available or that less restrictive methods were inappropriate.

The appellant father appealed the school board's decision to expel his 13-year-old son from all schools for allegedly possessing a weapon and threatening another student.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the student possessed a pocketknife and a razor blade but did not use them to threaten others, instead using them to insinuate self-harm.

The Board also found that the student's online messages did not constitute a threat.

Concluding that the student's actions were a cry for help due to serious emotional needs rather than a safety risk, the Board quashed the expulsion, ordered the student reinstated, and directed that the expulsion be expunged from his record.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the society failed to hear her concerns regarding her children in foster care.

The complaints included allegations of poor hygiene, abuse in foster care, loss of traditional objects, and cancelled access visits.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the society had appropriately listened to, investigated, and responded to all of the applicant's concerns, and that the allegations of abuse were unsubstantiated by police and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The child applied for release from an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board found that the facility failed to establish that the child suffered from a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by the legislation.

The facility relied on a dated diagnosis and the child had been assessed as stable by a hospital psychiatrist immediately prior to admission.

The application for release was granted.