Suzanne Gilbert

The respondent society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaint because the issues were before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the court determines the child protection issues, the Board retains jurisdiction over service-related complaints regarding the society's statutory obligation to provide reasons for its decisions.

The applicants, who were foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for removing a foster child from their care.

The Board held a hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The Board found that foster parents do not fall within the definition of a parent and were not receiving a 'service' from the Society, as there was no child protection investigation into their conduct.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and closed the file.

The applicants, who are parents and foster parents, filed a complaint against the Durham Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to hear their concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding a child protection investigation involving their nine-year-old son.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to hear the applicants and provide sufficient reasons regarding several aspects of the investigation, including interviewing the child alone, the outcome meeting, and the inclusion of their names in the Provincial Database.

The Board ordered the Society to meet with the applicants to hear their perspective and provide a written report.

The applicant brought a motion before the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Society's failure to investigate child protection concerns and other service issues.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in an ongoing protection application.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear complaints relating to the applicant's right to be heard and to receive reasons under the Child and Family Services Act, but lacked jurisdiction over issues relating to court-ordered access and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Children's Aid Society's failure to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting his access to his children.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the parties were involved in ongoing child protection proceedings before the court.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding that the applicant's complaints related to the Society's exercise of discretion regarding access and home visits, which were separate from the substantive issues before the court.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

She alleged that the Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding three incidents involving the foster family and one incident involving alleged racist comments by a Society employee.

The Board found that the Society failed to properly communicate its follow-up actions to the applicant regarding two of the foster family incidents and the employee incident.

However, because the Society provided the necessary explanations to the applicant after she filed her complaint with the Board, the Board declined to make any orders.

The applicant sought a review of an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) decision regarding his complaints against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton.

He alleged that the Society's files contained inaccuracies and that the Society failed to address his service concerns or provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that several file entries were inaccurate or in dispute, ordering the Society to place Notices of Disagreement in the applicant's file.

The Board also found that the Society failed to answer four of the applicant's seventeen questions regarding service concerns, ordering the Society to provide written responses to those specific questions.

The pupil appealed an expulsion decision to the Child and Family Services Review Board.

Prior to the hearing, the parties resolved the appeal and entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued a consent order confirming the settlement, which changed the expulsion from all of the respondent's schools to an expulsion from the pupil's school only, and directed that the pupil's record be amended accordingly.

The applicant brought an application under section 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act, seeking review of an Internal Complaints Review Panel decision.

The applicant raised concerns regarding inaccuracies in the Society's file and the Society's failure to address service concerns or provide reasons for its decisions.

Following a hearing, the Board issued an interim order directing the Society to provide written answers to four specific questions raised by the applicant regarding the child protection worker's observations and the Society's investigation steps.

The Board reserved its decision on the alleged file inaccuracies.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to provide reasons for its decision to contact his friend.

The society's worker had contacted the friend after receiving a report that her granddaughter was visiting the applicant unsupervised, while his access to his own children was supervised.

The Board found that the worker had provided sufficient explanation to the applicant during their telephone conversation, given her limited knowledge of his file and the fact that no specific personal information was disclosed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a 13-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a history of severe substance abuse, running away, self-harm, and a serious suicide attempt.

The Board found that the child met all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, including having a mental disorder that caused her to attempt or threaten serious bodily harm, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to listen to her concerns regarding her child's safety while living with the father, and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

Following an oral hearing, the Board found that the Society failed to adequately investigate and communicate with the Applicant regarding several safety concerns, including the child's alcohol use, school absences, and a stalking incident.

The Board also found the Society failed to include the Applicant in planning for the child's placement after apprehension.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its decisions on these matters.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to respond to his complaint in a timely manner and failed to hear his concerns regarding the unauthorized access of his confidential adoption file by his former spouse, a society employee.

The Board found that the society breached its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by failing to respond to the complaint within the required timeframe and by failing to meaningfully investigate and communicate with the applicant regarding the privacy breach.

The application was allowed in part, though no further orders were necessary as the society validated the applicant's allegations during the hearing.

The applicants, who were foster parents to a 16-month-old child, applied to adopt him.

The Children's Aid Society refused the application due to concerns about the applicants' financial stability and increasing debt.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the refusal.

The Board first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the review even though the child was not yet a Crown ward.

On the merits, the Board found that while the applicants provided excellent care, their financial instability and lack of budgeting posed a risk to the child's future security.

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

The appellant appealed the respondent school board's decision to expel his son.

The respondent initially brought a motion on mootness but subsequently withdrew it and advised it would not lead evidence on the appeal.

On consent, the Board ordered that the expulsion be quashed and the pupil's record be expunged.

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 service concerns and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The complaints related to a letter the Society sent to the court and its alleged failure to forward information regarding the father to the court and police.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to communicate genuinely with the applicant between April and mid-June 2012 regarding the court letter, but fulfilled its obligations once direct communication resumed.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the forwarding of documents, finding the Society had no obligation to do so, though it noted the Society should have communicated its reasons more clearly.

The Applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Board found that the society met its obligations regarding the reduction of access visits and timely responses from workers.

However, the Board found that the society failed to meet its obligations regarding the disclosure of confidential drug test results to the mother's sister and failing to address concerns about the child's health, specifically a burn scar and the use of cloth diapers.

The society was ordered to provide detailed written reasons on these issues.

The applicants, former foster parents of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their adoption application and its failure to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Society had removed the child from the applicants' care following child protection investigations that verified the use of unapproved caregivers and corporal punishment.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to refuse the adoption application, finding that the applicants could not meet the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs.

The Board also found that while the Society provided reasons for its child protection investigation decisions, it failed to provide reasons for the adoption refusal.

The applicant sought a written review of his complaint that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his concerns or provide explanations regarding his request for copies of his, his wife's, and his son's files.

The society required photo identification and, for the wife's file, a signed consent, in accordance with its policies.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the society had met its statutory obligations to hear the applicant and provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board noted it lacked jurisdiction to review the correctness of the society's policy itself.

The child Applicant and her former adoptive parents filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton regarding the child's removal from a kinship placement with her former foster parents.

The Applicants alleged that the Society failed to hear their concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions not to return the child to the kinship placement or to the former adoptive parents.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to comply with its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act to communicate with the Applicants, hear their concerns, and provide complete explanations.

The Board ordered the Society to provide meaningful written explanations to both Applicants.