Suzanne Gilbert

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the Children's Aid Society, specifically complaining about the investigation, apprehension, and medical decisions regarding her newborn child.

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

The Board agreed, finding that the court had already addressed the Society's investigation, the supervision order, and the consideration of the child's health reports.

The Society's motion on jurisdiction was granted and the file was closed.

The appellant appealed the Toronto District School Board's decision to expel the pupil from all of its schools.

The Child and Family Services Review Board quashed the expulsion decision and ordered that any record of the expulsion be amended accordingly.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's refusal to place her medically fragile infant nephew with her for adoption.

The applicant had previously adopted the child's two older half-siblings, who also have special needs.

The Board considered the child's significant medical and developmental challenges resulting from prenatal drug and alcohol exposure, as well as the applicant's current parenting demands and diminished support system.

The Board concluded that the applicant would not be able to meet the complex needs of the child and confirmed the society's decision to refuse the adoption placement.

The appellant appealed the Toronto Catholic School Board's decision to expel the pupil from all schools of the Board under section 311.7 of the Education Act.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered that the expulsion be changed to an expulsion from the pupil's school only.

The Board also ordered that any record of the expulsion be amended.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

The applicant filed a complaint to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding referrals made to the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The Board previously determined it had jurisdiction over two specific referrals.

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed he did not wish to pursue the complaint regarding one referral, which involved a marital dispute.

The Board found that the second referral had been transferred to another Children's Aid Society for investigation, meaning the respondent was not the correct party to the complaint.

Consequently, the application was dismissed and the file closed.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services provided by the respondent children's aid society.

The society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction to hear four of the six issues raised, arguing they were either before the court or had already been decided by the court.

The Board agreed, finding it lacked jurisdiction over issues concerning worker licensing, file transfer, and medical records because they had been addressed in the child protection proceedings.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction over the status of the Office of the Children's Lawyer representative, as legal representation is ordered by the court and is not a service provided by the society.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the society failed to hear her concerns or provide reasons for decisions regarding her 7-year-old son.

The child was apprehended after expressing suicidal ideation at school, which the mother refused to have medically assessed.

The Review Board found that the society adequately explained the reasons for the apprehension and addressed most of the mother's concerns regarding the foster care placement, including water quality, minor injuries, and second-hand smoke.

While the society initially failed to address the mother's concerns about the child's diet, it made efforts to do so after the application was filed.

The Board made no orders but noted the society's commitment to exploring a foster placement closer to the mother's residence.

The applicant, a childcare worker, sought a review of a decision by the Children's Aid Society's Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP), which upheld a finding that she had placed children at risk of harm.

The applicant alleged the ICRP failed to hear her side of the story and did not provide adequate reasons.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the ICRP's decision lacked sufficient reasons, failed to consider the daycare's internal policies, and did not assess whether the investigation complied with Child Protection Standards.

The Board redirected the matter to the ICRP for further review.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to rescind the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing their application to adopt two high-needs children.

The Society had removed the children from the applicants' foster care due to concerns about communication, the applicants' ability to work with the Society, and the impact on the applicants' other special-needs child.

The Board found that the communication issues stemmed from the applicant's neurological deficits and stressful circumstances, not malicious intent.

Concluding that the applicants had the capacity to meet the children's complex needs and that the children required continuity and a secure family relationship, the Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered the children placed with the applicants for adoption.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt two children.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered that the children be placed for adoption with the applicants, with the transfer to be completed by a specified date.

The applicants, former foster parents of the child, sought a review of the Society's decision to refuse their adoption application.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the child was placed with another family by a court order and subsequently made a Crown ward.

The Board held that the final Crown wardship order superseded previous interim placement orders and returned the child to the Society's care to determine long-term placement.

Therefore, the Society's refusal of the applicants' adoption request was a reviewable decision under section 144(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, and the Board confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Society brought a motion arguing that the Child and Family Services Review Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the applicants' request under section 144(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board determined that it had jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing.

The Board also ordered the Society to comply with a previous disclosure order and set deadlines for the applicants' disclosure.

A confidentiality order was issued prohibiting the distribution or publication of any documents or information related to the proceedings.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns or provide explanations for decisions affecting her interests, specifically by ignoring a letter she faxed.

The Board found that the Society breached its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by failing to respond to the Applicant's letter, even though a child protection application was being prepared.

However, because the Society apologized and provided reasons prior to the hearing, the Board declined to issue a formal order.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Halton Children's Aid Society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions.

Specifically, he complained that the Society interviewed his children at school without his prior consent or notice, and failed to obtain a doctor's opinion regarding a suspected burn on his daughter's arm.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the Society was not obligated to contact the parent prior to investigating a priority child protection concern, and that the Society had provided sufficient reasons and made adequate attempts to hear the applicant's concerns after the fact.

The applicants sought a review of the Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt their three nephews, who were Crown wards.

The children had significant high needs, including behavioral, cognitive, and emotional challenges, and were currently in stable foster placements.

The Board considered the children's needs, the importance of continuity of care, and the applicants' ability to meet those needs.

The Board found that while the applicants were loving and well-intentioned, they lacked the exceptional parenting skills and resources required to care for three high-needs children, posing a significant risk of placement breakdown.

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

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the society failed to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding a reintegration plan for her common-law partner.

The Board found that the society failed to communicate effectively, changed its position on the reintegration plan without consulting the applicant, and did not provide timely reasons for its decisions.

The Board concluded that the society breached its obligations under section 2(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding the applicant's residential placement.

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered that the applicant be discharged from the residential placement program on June 23, 2014.

The appellant appealed the expulsion of her two sons from their school by the Toronto District School Board.

The pupils were expelled for committing a physical assault on another student that caused bodily harm requiring medical treatment.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the assault did occur and met the criteria for expulsion, mitigating factors applied.

Specifically, the pupils reasonably believed they were facing an imminent threat of assault, and the school board had failed to use a progressive discipline approach in the past.

The Board quashed the expulsion, expunged the records, and held that the initial 20-day suspension was the appropriate consequence.

The Applicant grandfather filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide reasons for decisions related to the apprehension of his grandchild.

The Applicant claimed the Society failed to explain why his home was not considered a place of safety, why he and the father were not contacted prior to apprehension, and why protection concerns were not shared.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the Society could not share third-party personal information without consent, that the after-hours worker acted properly during the apprehension, and that the Applicant's refusal to collaborate with the Society justified its decision not to assess his home as a place of safety.

The appellant appealed the expulsion of pupils from the Toronto District School Board.

The Child and Family Services Review Board allowed the appeal, quashing the expulsion and permitting the pupils to return to any school within the board.

The Board further ordered that the record of the expulsion be expunged from all school board records.