Remember here we are dealing with governments and the courts we will skip, the niceties of false beliefs, in effectiveness of both administrative and judiciary.

 

How long do you think that it took me to have the conclusion reached, by the report that I allude to earlier. It is from that report that I have reproduced the Kennedy’s quote. Namely a conclusion giving reasons for Canada’s Governor General acting under advice of his Council to bring a Constitutional Reference before the Supreme Court of Canada?

 

Taker for five years

 

Maybe ten years

 

Or even fifteen years

 

My friends, it took sixteen years for Canada’s Highest Court to ensure that a provincial government and its Lieutenant Governor abide by a 1892 court decision declaring a 1890 enactment unconstitutional.

 

After being victim of a Supreme Court of Canada, Cambers Judge gags. Being, denied leave to intervene, with regard to an appeal. Undaunted by Canada’s Highest Court bias, I prepared a factum. Filed copy of that Factum, in thrust with a law firm on the eave of the hearing.

 

I took a position, Ladies and Gentlemen, that was about to be endorsed by the Quebec Court of Appeal. A decision, that was awaiting, the release of the Supreme Court of Canada rulings and was released immediately after. The year was 1979 ten year after the release of my report.

 

Since the Supreme Court had not resolved the issue that I sought to address, that issue came back to haunt the wisdom of that Court in 1984. That year, I again sought leave to intervene. This time I had learned my lesson from my earlier experience as to how best deal with judicial bias from the top down.

 

Not paranoid but a healthy fear that I would once more fall prey of Canada’s highest form of bias: the gag.

 

Undaunted, being known in my younger years, as a spoiled brat, it propelled me to place that Court’s on notice that bias was not acceptable under Canada’s form of constitutional democracy.

 

Fear is healthy, Ladies and Gentlemen, when its serves to place one on guard. It was as a result of this fear, that I had placed a rider in my 1894 application to the Supreme Court of Canada. A rider that if granted of leave, I would also be seeking leave to abridge the time to bring a motion to quash the appeal on a ground that was now supported by the 1979 Quebec Court of Appeal’s ruling.

 

This decision including the argument raised in my 1979 Factum that the Court had denied me an opportunity to argue.

 

Now, on the Bench there was a lose cannon. The first women appointed to sit in the Supreme Court of Canada. A Lady that had experience first hand bigotry while a law student by the sheer fact that she was a mature women. A Judge that at time stood alone in her dissenting ruling on discriminatory issues

 

If, the learned Judge would have taken notice of my involvement, she might have placed the parties on notice based on my arguments and the 1979 decision referred earlier. The Court’s inherent jurisdiction to raise a motion on question of its jurisdictions to entertain an appeal.

 

At the hearing of my 1884 motion the federal Attorney General was not in the Judge Chambers. Attorney Generals at both the federal level as well as the provincial level, except on one occasion when the Quebec Attorney General took no position. Since time immemorial Attorney Generals sought to prevent me from defending issues where they, themselves, lacked moral turpitude to do so.

 

Less than a month after the second gag, the Governor General acting on the advice of his Council submitted a constitutional reference a reference that I had sought since 1969.

 

The 1984 absence of federal Attorney General in the Chambers at Canada’s Highest Court provided me hope, hope, that I was on the road to victory. That the federal Attorney General would attempt to circumvent the eventuality of the Court’s questioning its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

 

In 1985, the Court relied on the rule of law to bridge the impact of chaos that would have arisen if all the laws of that province were declared of no force and effect.

 

What about, the rule of law, that governments are duty bound to abide by judicial decision and that it is a Lieutenant Governor’s constitutional duty to ensure that governments abide by the constitutional imperatives before presenting a Bill for discretionary exercise of the authority to grant Royal assent to a Bill. A discretion that is couched with the restriction that a Bill must conform with the constitution

 

How could a provincial Lieutenant Governor have ignored a 1892 court decision, a similar decision in 1909, followed by the decision of 1976? The last challenge Ladies and Gentlemen involved a mere five dollars fine and court costs. That five dollar fine would bring the government to its knees and demonstrates the existence of judicial bias.

 

Why am I here today? It is because there is another type of gagged proceedings taking place in Canada. This one involves provincial children’s aid societies’ bodies performing similar role than child protection services performs in every States.

 

This brings me back to the topic of my presentation: Canada’s Judicial Gag: Whose interest does it protect?

 

On my journey, I sought to demonstrate some forty years ago that there were some who by lack of political or judicial will were deafer than I was.

 

Following that success, some twenty years later, was I the last one to dream that I would jump from fire to the frying pan? With, the same fiery determination of my long lost youth, refusing, to go to pasture. While, there is so much to accomplish for the sake of children. My friends, I was not the last one but the first to believe that once more I would jump to action mode. I never defer to others my heart’s calling.

 

I will share with you some what that calling has shown me.

 

The cases, I will refer involve fathers. The dynamics in Canada appears to be somewhat different than in the States as I understand. In Canada, there is a gender bias that I think is not so prevalent in your country. This is why when speaking with the organizers of this Rally, I was told that there is no differences in how American’s viewed false allegations within the context of the family and children’s entitlement to have both parents involvement in their lives. It is within that context that I accepted the unanimous vote of National Foster Parent Coalition for Allegation Reform’s Board of Directors appointment as Canada Director to that Organization. An Organization dedicated to assist Foster, Biological as well as Adoptive Parents in their struggle against false allegations and child protection services workers’ abuse of their authority. It was an honor to be informed that I would also be representing the spirit of that Organization here today.

 

No one denies that abuses do exist and victims must be protected from such abuses. However, when shelters, lawyers and police in Canada coach some to raise allegations in order to place one in a better position over another, it sounds an alarm that must be responded to.

 

Here I am referring to children being used as pawn in vindictive process. Whether it be parents against parents, neighbors against neighbors, children’s against their parents or the likes. Sometimes a rebellious child could place his siblings in jeopardy by making a call to the authorities that could set in motion the intervention of an over zealot worker. Thereby, placing children, in a worst situation, that, they, were found.

 

The first, scenario involves a common law relationship that had deteriorated and its effect on the child of that relationship. The father suggested that his partner move to an adjoining province since she had a teenage son by an earlier relationship who was living with his maternal grandparents under the understanding that he would visit his child and have liberal access. When she became re-involved with a man from an earlier relationship and wanted to move to western Canada from the east coast. False allegations were raised, to facilitate the process and with the assistance of the children’s aid society, the crown attorneys, as prosecutors, and the police as bi-product of the allegations. She succeeded.

 

After a few years, his trial was heard and was acquitted of all charges. Prior to the trial, the earlier proceedings, traveling between two Provinces, had both financially and emotionally bankrupted him. He was able to secure one of the province best criminal lawyer to take his case, a case that took a week and this lawyer had accepted payment as could be manage without financial burden. It has been a year since his acquittal and he has yet to find the wherewithal to take the steps toward reunification with his child.

 

The second scenario involves a Canadian Native whose child, a Métis, with Native Status. It appears that a vindictive society worker coached child half sibling to raise allegations. Even though his grandmother was an accredited foster parent with glowing prior acknowledgement of her services by the society, this worker refused to do a home visit to see if the home could provide appropriate accommodation for the child.

 

This was before the charges against him were laid.

 

As a result of the charge being laid the worker gave the accuser a bicycle, as what was to be understood as grading present while giving nothing to the other siblings. I don’t Know about you; but . . .

In a series of proceedings that led to the final proceeding that would determine whether the child would be return to either parent or placed in the permanent care of the crown. His lawyer resign just prior to that proceeding citing his friendship with one of the workers could impede his ability to properly represent him and his child. The court was presented with a society’s generated psychological assessment, but an independent assessment was not ready for trial.

 

Could it have been an oversight of his lawyer?

 

Although, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the child right’s to independent counsel, a right denied by the courts at both trial level and on appeal. Once the appeal decision was rendered, adoption process was initiated. Following this, the charges were dropped.

 

Since the adoption process had already been initiated, he had no apparent recourse at law.

 

While reviewing the matter as a non-lawyer, I recommended that he seek counsel advice on having the adoption order set-aside on the basis that it could have been obtained either by fraud or other recognized grounds. This appears to be another case where a person becomes too emotionally depleted to take action within the limitation provided by law. As footnote, the Native society refused to intervene until the child was being placed for adoption. What good was the Native agency’s in protecting the right of this father? A duty owed to him and to his child based on their Native status.

 

The third case involves an acrimonious separation of a married couple. At first the father had agreed to temporary sole custody of his four children to their mother on the understanding that he would have liberal access. This was not to be the case.

 

There was allegations that sugar was put in his gas tank as well as his bake lining severed including having some individuals assigned to beat him up. The later incident, he was able to defuse when he explained to his aggressor what was happening. It is alleged that these incidences were not properly pursued by the police.

 

The mother on her own sought to obtain a child protection order which the court refused to grant.

 

Following her failed attempt, she sought the assistance of the society. As a result of the Society’s involvement, an order was granted restricting access his children to supervised visit.

 

After some time, although, the society could find nothing wrong with his parental ability. They continued their involvement beyond a reasonable time; time that ought not have justify such an intrusion.

 

The society’s responsibility was to ensure that the mother would live up to her obligations. The society’s failed to ensure that the mother conforms by have the children ready even for such restricted access. The combine action of the society’s and the mother’s has resulted in a classic case of parental alienation. He is no longer able sees his children.

 

When the mother had sole custody of the children he had no access to his children’s medical file.

 

On the subsequent visit prior to the supervised visit, as he was giving, his youngest daughter her nightly bath, his five year old son came to the bathroom door and asked him: Why did he try to push his sister’s, pee pee in? The father, in shock, asked his daughter what had happened. At first, according to him, his daughter was somewhat upset by the question and he did not press the issue. On her own, sometime later that evening, she volunteered: her maternal grandmother had took her on her knee and used her other to press against her genital. The mother then took the daughter to the hospital and it was found that no apparent sexual improprieties had occurred. This happened shortly after the children had returned from a weekend visit with their father. A few days latter, the child was brought to the family doctor for a second opinion with similar result.

 

What was the purpose of that second visit?

 

Upon learning what had happen he took the children to the society but since it was on a weekend only notes were taken of the occurrence without a proper investigation of the children stories.

 

At the time that he took the children to the society. he was unaware of the visit to the hospital emergency and to the doctor’s office. It was only when the society was forced under court order to grant him access to the files that he became somewhat aware of the extent of the societies involvement and was able to obtain documents from the doctor as well as the hospital of regarding that occurrence.

 

What does it take in Ontario to move those responsible for children’s well being a death or serious injury . . . The society subsequently advised the mother of their concern and requested a visit. During that visit, is it not surprising, that, they were unable to substantiate the allegation that the father had raised. If they would have pursued the incidence once they became aware of existence of both hospital’s and family doctor’s record. What would their conclusion have been based on an assumption that it had the wherewithal to carry a competent investigation within the agency. The society’s response was that he should be satisfied that both the hospital and the family doctor had found no evidence to substantiate the allegation.

 

If both the hospital and the family doctor would have been aware of what his daughter had told him about the incidence, could be that their observations would have validated what his daughter had told him: A question ladies and gentlemen that begs for an answer.

 

How many children will have to die; yes, ladies and gentlemen how many children will have to die in the province of Ontario before the Minister responsible under legislative dictates to accept her duties under the McGuinty’s Administration. I, as well others, have been in contact with four succeeding Ministers under McGuinty’s guard.

 

There is more to this story as there is more to others stories that time permits to explore during this presentation.

 

The forth was not per se subjected to judicial gag because it stemmed from a custody battle and not society’s initiated proceeding. However, the society’s position when the father sought to bring the matter of the society’s conduct by way of an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board, the society contested the Board’s jurisdiction and succeeded in its attempts to gag proceedings on their merits on the basis that the matter had been previously decided by the Court. This is another example, ladies and gentlemen, of gagged proceedings.

 

It is to be noted that the society had never been a party to the proceedings. Its only involvement was by way of similar letters addressed to both counsels outlining the society’s position. The letter was appended as an exhibit to his ex-common law partner’s affidavit. Following that affidavit two more letters were written on same day. Both were faxed to counsels the day prior to the initial hearing.

 

When, the court first ruled on interim custody. Even though the letters were sent the same day as he swore his affidavit, they were not included and he was not aware of their existence.

 

Since his lawyer had change law firm, her former firm sent him the firm’s file excluding correspondence that was not filed with the court.

 

He subsequently sent me the banker’s box and asked me to review it. Previously, he had sent me copies of the firm’s statements of account.

 

Upon my review of the file and the billing, I noticed correspondence missing. I drafted letters for his signature requesting copies missing letters.

 

One of the reasons that I was interested in those letters was because I had a copy of both counsels’ factum. The second reason was that his ex-partner had been previously charged with arson causing bodily harm; as a result of fire that stated at the entrance of a sauna adjacent to the matrimonial home where he was court ordered to reside. Just prior to the fire, his ex-partner had returned to the sauna asking for cigarettes and matches. Within moments after her leaving a fire engulfed the porch forcing, the only door, to burst open, as a result of combustion. He was forces to escape through a small window resulting in burns and lacerations treated at the hospital. It was later that it discovered, that he also had a fractured neck.

 

She, subsequently, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, as a result of a plea bargain.

  

In the initial court proceeding when he was granted sole interim custody of his child with the mother having access under the supervision of her father, since one of her bail conditions she reside with him. The society, in their letters, prior to that hearing, saw no need to intervene, by way of supervised visit since her father would be performing that function. However, a little more than a month after that temporary order she obtained a variance of her bail conditions so that she could moved in a recently purchased home. Her parenting skills were no longer, under supervision, in flagrant contravention of the court endorsement since she was no longer being supervised as a result of moving out her fathers’ home.

 

This ought to have given rise to a red flag, necessitating closer societies’ involvement with the possibility of reinstating supervision in compliance with the endorsement.

 

A few weeks after she moved out of her fathers home, the matter returned before the same judge and in her second endorsement the concern that she had expressed in her first endorsement regarding supervision was not addressed.

 

When told that was no recording those proceedings. I made some inquires, I was informed that the first proceeding was not recorded but that court staff had located the recording of the second proceeding. I asked the father to get copy of the transcript. The purpose was to determine the society’s involvement. There was only an oblique reference to the society’s first letter. The need for supervision was not addressed even though there was no material change in circumstances resulting from the charges against her except for the change in the bail conditions that absolved her father from his supervisory duty.

 

As stated there was no mention during the proceeding that the visit should be supervised even though the society had expressed no concerns with her parenting skills since it assumed that she was adequately supervised by her father. It noted in the court first endorsement.

 

At the custody trial two children’s aid workers were called by counsel for his ex-partner’s in an effort to reverse the custody arrangement.

 

Since his own lawyer and her lawyer by what could be termed a series of frivolous and vexatious proceedings; proceedings that depleted his liquid assets including the placement of lien on the matrimonial home, he was forced to represent himself at the trial with no lawyer appointed to represent the interest of their daughter. He was, however able, to get both those witnesses to admit under his cross-examinations that neither of them had read the police report on file.

 

Either, they had been coached or were utterly incompetent either way not a very positive prognosis. When, he requested a society’s internal review. He was unaware of the society’s earlier position, as a results of their last two letters.

 

 He felt that the society had failed the duty of care owed to his daughter. Since, the Society’s internal review process had not been forthcoming in addressing the lack of follow up when the child’s mother parenting skills ceased to be supervised by her father considering her guilty plea to criminal charge. This ought to have given rise to concerns regarding his daughter’s safety. A concern expressed by the trial judge. It appears from the transcripts of both societies witnesses’ failure to address safety concerns and the failure of counsels to adequately canvas that concerns during the second interim hearing might have led to the judge’s failure to give proper weight to that concern as a relevant factor under the concept of judicial exercises of discretion as mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada given the fact that judge had expressed concern in her first endorsement when she granted the father’s sole custody under the conditions referred above.

 

No wonder that the society was reluctant to have the Child and Family Services Review Board review the society’s conduct and the conduct of its internal review process.

 

Both the conduct of the society and the Board are currently the subject of judicial review proceeding filed in the Ontario Divisional Court as a result of this father’s application.

 

There will be a number of complaints launched with The Law Society of Upper Canada besides those already filed regarding the conduct of lawyers involved in these proceedings as well as other proceedings.

 

In closing, this is part of my journey and I want to express my gratitude to the organizer of this Rally for its invitation. Thank you for your attention and for the American’s hospitality that you have demonstrated toward this Canadian.

 

God Bless America’s children! And, in passing, God Bless Canada’s children, too!

 

Thank you!

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~