4 total
Children's Aid Society ordered to provide written reasons for inadequate transitional planning for aging-out Crown ward.
The applicants filed a complaint against the Peel Children's Aid Society regarding the termination of residential placement funding for a Crown ward upon her turning 18.
The applicants alleged the Society failed to provide adequate notice, reasons, or transitional planning, and denied them an opportunity to be heard.
The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the termination of funding was not a discretionary decision, the Society's communication and planning were seriously inadequate.
The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its failure to conduct concurrent planning in the six months leading up to the ward's 18th birthday.
Children's Aid Society ordered to provide sufficient written reasons for refusing an adoption application.
The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board after the Children's Aid Society refused their application to adopt a child and closed their file.
The applicants alleged that the Society failed to provide them with understandable reasons for its decision.
The Board found that while the Society attempted to provide reasons, the written reasons were insufficient and failed to afford the applicants enough information to fully understand the decision.
The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons in language understandable to the applicants within three months.
Board refused to hear viva voce evidence on a preliminary motion to determine the scope of admissible past practice evidence.
In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Boilermakers and the Labourers regarding demolition work, the Labourers sought to adduce viva voce evidence on a preliminary basis to challenge the Board's earlier ruling on the parameters of admissible past practice evidence.
The Board dismissed the request, holding that it has inherent jurisdiction to determine the relevance of evidence without first hearing it, and that evidence regarding the demolition of structures other than field-erected, steam-generating boilers in an operating environment is irrelevant to the specific work in dispute.
Board denies adjournment to late-intervening association and limits scope of evidence in jurisdictional dispute.
In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Boilermakers and the Labourers over the demolition of a boiler, the Board convened a hearing to determine the scope of evidence of Area and Employer Practice to be admitted.
The Metropolitan Toronto Demolition Contractors Association Inc. sought status to intervene and requested an adjournment to retain counsel.
The Board denied the adjournment request, noting the Association's prior notice and failure to participate earlier.
On the evidentiary issue, the Board ruled that evidence would be limited to the dismantling of field-erected, steam-generating boilers for industrial application, originally erected using Boilermakers, in an operating environment in Ontario, as this constitutes the 'particular work' under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.
