Wendell White

The appellant appealed an expulsion under section 311.7 of the Education Act.

On consent of the parties, the Child and Family Services Review Board ordered that the expulsion be sealed for two years and subsequently expunged from the student's Ontario Student Record, provided the student does not breach the Ontario School Code of Conduct regarding drugs, alcohol, or weapons resulting in a suspension during that period.

The applicants filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging that the Society failed to hear their service concerns and did not provide reasons for decisions regarding the safety of their child in the care of the biological father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had held multiple meetings with the applicants to address their concerns and explain its decisions.

The Board concluded that the Society appropriately focused on the child's wellbeing and had provided the required explanations.

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

The Board was required to determine whether the child met the criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, including whether she had a mental disorder.

The Board found that the respondent facility failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a clinical assessment, to establish that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission.

Because the first criterion was not met, the Board ordered the child's release from the secure treatment program.

The Applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent Society failed to hear his concerns regarding the mother's physical discipline and neglect of their children, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the Society did not give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard about his concerns or about the decisions taken in response to third-party allegations.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written explanation to the Applicant regarding its response to the allegations and its decision-making process.

The applicant filed a service complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Society, alleging bias and a failure to hear concerns or provide reasons regarding child protection decisions.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were before the family court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding bias, finding it lacked jurisdiction as the applicant was raising the same issue before the court.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over the remaining complaints, finding that the service complaints about whether the Society heard the applicant and provided reasons were distinct from the substantive child protection and access issues before the court.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society after it temporarily suspended her access to her daughter and placed the child with her father.

The applicant alleged the Society failed to listen to her concerns regarding a conflict of interest, parental alienation, and the basis for its risk assessment, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that despite numerous communications, the applicant did not have a clear understanding of the Society's actions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a written explanation addressing the applicant's specific concerns.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society, alleging failure to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over five of the six complaints as they were matters before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over the complaint that the respondent failed to provide reasons for not implementing recommendations from an Internal Complaint Review Panel regarding access visits.

The Board upheld this complaint and ordered the respondent to provide written reasons.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's investigation into allegations of excessive use of force against his children.

The Applicant argued the Society failed to hear his concerns regarding parental alienation, failed to conduct a proper investigation, and failed to notify his Native Band promptly.

The Board found that the Society failed to follow mandatory child protection standards during its investigation by not interviewing other adults in the home, thereby failing to hear the Applicant.

The Board ordered a note reflecting this decision be placed on the Applicant's file.

The remaining complaints regarding reasons for decisions and Band notification were dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a decision of the respondent society's Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP).

The applicant alleged that the ICRP failed to hear his 39 complaints, failed to address them in its written summary, and was improperly constituted.

The Board found that while the ICRP was properly constituted under the legislation, it failed to hear the applicant's concerns and failed to provide a written summary that addressed them.

The Board ordered the society to conduct a new ICRP meeting to hear all concerns and to provide a detailed written summary with reasons for its decisions.

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 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 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 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 applicant mother filed complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's handling of her children's foster care.

The society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the matters were before the court.

The Board held that while access issues were before the court and outside its jurisdiction, it retained jurisdiction to hear complaints about the society's failure to listen to the applicant's concerns and provide reasonable responses, as these were not matters to be decided by the court.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent Society's handling of his concerns about his child's mother having unsupervised access.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant had already presented his allegations of abuse before the Superior Court of Justice in a custody action.

Consequently, pursuant to section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the issues had already been decided by the court.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the respondent school board's decision to expel his son for allegedly threatening two students with a knife while walking home from school.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the incident occurred approximately half a mile from the school and not during a school-related activity.

As the Education Act required the infraction to occur at school or during a school-related activity for a mandatory expulsion, the school board lacked the authority to expel the student.

The expulsion was overturned and ordered expunged from the student's record.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the children's aid society's decision to close his foster home and reduce funding for the youth in his care.

The society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the youth was not being removed from the home, but rather the financial arrangement was being changed to a lodger agreement.

The Board agreed it lacked jurisdiction under s. 61 of the Child and Family Services Act over contractual and funding arrangements where no removal of the child was proposed, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to act when she raised concerns that her son had been sexually abused.

The respondent brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act because the issues were currently before the court in a related Crown wardship proceeding.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the court would decide custody and access, the specific issue of whether the respondent provided the applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding her abuse concerns was not a matter to be decided by the court.

The Board affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaint on its merits.

The applicant filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society regarding the apprehension of his daughter and poor communication.

The Board found that communication had significantly improved and the parties were working productively together, resolving that issue.

Regarding the apprehension, the Board held that the Society appropriately delayed identifying itself until it was safe to do so, given historical concerns and drug use involving the applicant's partner.

The complaints were dismissed.