Child and Family Services Review Board

The Child applied for release from a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Child argued that the criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) had not been met.

The Board heard evidence regarding the Child's escalating behavioural issues, substance abuse, and mental disorder diagnosis.

The Board found that all five criteria for secure treatment were satisfied, including that the Child had a mental disorder, posed a substantial threat of harm, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

The Applicant foster parent applied for a review of the Society's decision to remove a severely autistic Crown Ward from her treatment foster home.

The Society removed the child without the required written notice, citing funding concerns and the need for a secure placement.

The Board found that while the Applicant provided appropriate care, the child's placement was tenuous due to funding issues raised by the foster agency.

Considering the child had already been moved to a group home and settled there, the Board concluded it was not in the child's best interests to be moved again and confirmed the removal.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide an opportunity to be heard regarding his children's safety.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the issues were already decided by or before the court.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns regarding child safety, access, and information were subject to existing court orders and ongoing family court proceedings.

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

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society of Toronto's internal complaint review procedure regarding the care of his autistic daughter, a Crown ward.

The Applicant raised concerns about medication, the child's emotional state, foster home care, and access to medical reports.

The Board found that the Society complied with all statutory timeframes for the complaint process and provided the Applicant with ample opportunities to be heard and reasons for its decisions.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society of Niagara refused to reopen an investigation into the suspected sexual abuse of her daughter while in foster care.

The Applicant argued that the Society failed to hear her concerns, failed to provide adequate reasons for its refusal, and failed to proceed with her formal complaint.

The Board found that the Society did not adequately listen to all relevant details provided by the Applicant and failed to provide comprehensive reasons for its decision.

The Society conceded it had not proceeded with the formal complaint process.

The Board ordered the Society to schedule an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting to address the Applicant's concerns.

The applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from a secure treatment program at the respondent facility.

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

The Board reviewed the evidence, including the applicant's history of aggressive behaviour, a suicide threat, and a psychiatric admission summary.

The Board found that the applicant had a mental disorder, posed a risk of serious bodily harm, and required the secure treatment program.

The application for release was denied.

The applicants, former foster parents of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's refusal of their application to adopt the child.

The Society had removed the child and closed the applicants' foster home due to alleged discrepancies in mileage claims, but later cited safety concerns regarding the birth mother's knowledge of the applicants.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the application.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the Board concluded that the long-term safety and security risks posed by the birth family's knowledge of the applicants outweighed the child's attachment to them.

The Society's decision to refuse the adoption application was confirmed.

The applicant father brought an application for review to the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) requirement to convene a meeting regarding child protection concerns, and failed to properly address allegations of abuse by the children's mother.

The Board found that the Society was actively addressing the ICRP requirement by funding an ongoing parental capacity assessment, making the first complaint premature.

The Board also found the second complaint regarding the abuse allegations to be premature, as it was a continuation of the first complaint and should be addressed by the Society upon completion of the assessment.

Both complaints were dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide her an opportunity to be heard and that her case worker was biased and discriminatory.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the core issue was access, which was currently before the court.

The Board ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the access issue but had jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the applicant's treatment by the Society.

Finding that the applicant had not been fully heard by the Society regarding her treatment by the case worker, the Board ordered the Society to convene an Internal Complaint Review Panel to address the complaint.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society regarding the apprehension of his child at birth and the conduct of society workers.

The society raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction, arguing that several of the complaints related to matters currently before the court in a child protection application.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints concerning the child's name, the mother's psychological assessment, and the type of counselling provided, as these were either before the court or outside the Board's statutory mandate.

On the merits of the remaining complaint regarding the workers' conduct, the Board found the society had provided the applicant an opportunity to be heard and had not breached the Act.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding child protection proceedings involving her four children.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had either been previously decided by the Court or were currently before the Court.

The Child and Family Services Review Board agreed, finding that section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act prohibits the Board from reviewing complaints where the subject matter is before or has been decided by the courts.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants sought a review of several complaints against the Children's Aid Society regarding the apprehension of their children, the services provided, access changes, and case worker turnover.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing most issues were before the court or already decided.

The Board agreed that it lacked jurisdiction over the complaints related to court forms, apprehension, services, access, and the psychologist's assessment, as these were matters dealt with in the child protection proceedings.

On the merits of the complaint regarding excessive case worker turnover, the Board found that while the turnover was not optimal, the Society had informed the applicants and had valid reasons for the changes.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant foster parent appealed the Kawartha-Haliburton Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a Crown ward from her therapeutic foster care.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant missed the 10-day appeal window and the child had already been removed.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the Society failed to provide the applicant with the required written notice of her right to apply for a review.

On the merits, the Board determined that it was in the child's best interests to return to the applicant's home, noting the child's significant progress there, the lack of consultation with the child prior to the removal, and the child's expressed wish to return.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision to remove the child.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent Society's failure to respond to his internal complaints and its failure to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had been decided by or were before the court.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints related to court-ordered assessments, access orders, and matters previously addressed under the old complaints process.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding the Society's failure to respond within regulatory timeframes, alleged hostility by a caseworker, and the failure to explain why certain documentary evidence was not relied upon.

The applicant appealed a school board's decision to expel his son from all schools in the board for trafficking marijuana on school property.

The principal observed the student exchanging items with another student and subsequently found individually packaged marijuana, a pipe, and cash on the student.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found on a balance of probabilities that the student was trafficking illegal drugs at school.

After considering the mitigating factors under O. Reg. 472/07, the Board found no factors that would mitigate the seriousness of the offence and upheld the expulsion from all schools.

The child, a Crown Ward with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder and other mental health issues, applied for release from a secure treatment program.

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

The Board reviewed the child's history of aggressive behaviour, threats, and previous unsuccessful placements.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, posed a risk of serious bodily harm, and that the secure treatment program was the least restrictive and most appropriate method of treatment.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant foster parent brought a motion to determine whether the Child and Family Services Review Board had jurisdiction to review the removal of a foster child from her care.

The respondent Society argued that because the child had already been removed, it was no longer a 'proposed removal' under section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act, and thus the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the Society's failure to provide the required 10-day statutory notice could not operate to deny the foster parent's right to a review.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the application on its merits.

The applicant father applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to listen to his concerns regarding the welfare, medical treatment, and cultural heritage of his children, and that the Society's file contained inaccuracies.

The Board found that the Society had provided the applicant with ample opportunity to be heard, had investigated his allegations of abuse, and was not responsible for providing direct medical information or maintaining cultural ties after his access was suspended by the court.

The Board dismissed the first three complaints but ordered the Society to convene an Internal Complaints Review Panel to address the alleged file inaccuracies.

The applicants, a mother and grandparents, filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide reasons for decisions and a failure to allow them to be heard regarding child protection involvement.

The Board reviewed ten specific complaints, including allegations of harassment, threats, and lack of communication.

The Board dismissed nine of the complaints, finding the Society had provided reasons and opportunities to be heard.

However, the Board upheld one complaint regarding the grandmother's health issues, finding she was not given an opportunity to be heard, and ordered the Society to conduct an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting on that issue.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Children's Aid Society's failure to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions related to access visits and communications.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues of access and disclosure were already before the Court.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding it had jurisdiction because the Applicant was complaining about the Society's process, communications, and treatment of her, rather than the substantive issues of access and disclosure which were before the Court.