ALLEGED ONTARIO CAS HACKER KELLEY DENHAM'S TRIAL ADJOURNED

GOSSIP, RUMORS AND TRIAL TALK

IS IT ALL REALLY JUST AN UNFORTUNATE SERIES OF COINCIDENCES, SYSTEMIC ISSUES AND BUMPS ON THE ROAD?

IN A LAST, LAST MINUTE APPLICATION TO ADJOURN THE TRIAL THAT WOULD ALLOW MISS DENHAM'S NEW LEGAL COUNCIL TIME TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL

THE JUDGE REVERSED HIS EARLIER DECISION TO DENY MISS DENHAM'S APPLICATION TO ADJOURN THE TRIAL AND FIRST REQUEST FOR A DELAY IN TWO YEARS.

THIS WILL MOST CERTAINTY UPSET THE CROWN'S CASE AGAINST MISS DENHAM AS IT HAD BEEN CONSIDERABLY SHORTENED FROM THE TEN DAY TRIAL ORIGINALLY SET LAST YEAR

THE WITNESS LIST WAS SHORTENED TO ONLY INCLUDE A FEW SMITHS FALLS LOCALS OF VERY QUESTIONABLE CHARACTER AND ONE MEMBER OF FCSLLG STAFF MARGRET ROW AND HER SON-IN-LAW WHO DESCRIBES HIMSELF AS BEING A WHITE HAT HACKER  WITH HIS OWN INTERNET COMPANY (OF SOME KIND) AND WAS EVEN ONCE INVITED TO A LARGE INTERNET SECURITY EVENT

AFTER THE CROWN REQUESTED THE TRIAL BE CANCELLED TO ESSENTIALLY ALLOW FCSLLG MORE TIME TO PREPARE TO TESTIFY AFTER MISS DENHAM'S FIRST LAWYER LEFT AFTER
THE CANCELLATION.

https://hunchneck.blogspot.com/2018/09/in-paper-entitled-safeguarding-non.html

The agency lawyer says she had no knowledge of what the previous letter relates to. She said she knew nothing about the family’s history before this referral. She also says this was done intentionally to prevent any bias or conflict with the investigation.

:::

Here's an "apology" letter from FCSLLG's former unregistered director of service, Kim Morrow that doesn't really apologize, it actually blames us for everything they did wrong and it doesn't excuse the not so veiled threats to remove our children if we failed to cooperate fully without telling us what their concerns were and failing to tell us what the concerns were based on while attempting to coerce my wife an I into signing consent forms - or for bringing my wife an I to court for refusing to sign consent forms or claiming taking my family to court and asking the judge to order one year of supervision (funding) was only part of their "investigative process."

Page one:
https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/photos/a.421920498017720/768744430001990/

Page two:
https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/photos/a.421920498017720/768744490001984/
:::

She goes on to say that while the parents were “shoving” a camera in the worker’s face, they were also saying that they were refusing to cooperate and that we insisted they bring us to court. The agency lawyer says it would be inappropriate to award costs to “people largely the author of their own misfortune.”

The CAS lawyer tried to argue the order was unfair (imagine that) then grabbed her stuff up and she and the worker Sun Wai were gone with their tails between their legs before we could leave the courtroom. It was a very good day. Not too long after, we dropped a small gift off to that Paralegal. If he hadn't been there, the CAS would in all likelihood be in possession of our children now.

https://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/153438/ontario-cas-dirty-tricks

ONE YEAR LATER CAS ORDERED TO REPLAY OR LEGAL COSTS.

LINK TO CHEQUE:
https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/photos/a.421920498017720/766241483585618/

SHOULD FCSLLG BE ALLOWED TO USE CHILD PROTECTION LEGISLATION TO SEAL THE COURT RECORDS IN A CASE THAT REVOLVES AROUND THE CHILD PROTECTION AGENCY ITSELF BUT DOESN'T INVOLVE A CHILD PROTECTION MATTER?

[6]               Now before the court are several motions for a diverse mix of procedural and evidentiary orders.

a.      M.M. seeks to discontinue her action against Ms. Denham.

b.      The Society, which, as noted above, had crossclaimed against Ms. Denham, seeks an Order converting its Crossclaim into a Third Party Claim and converting Ms Denham’s Crossclaim into a Counterclaim in the Third Party Action.

c.      The Society seeks an Order that the Third Party Action including its Counterclaim be case managed in Toronto as a part of the class action and be tried together with or immediately following the class action.

d.      The Society seeks a sealing order. The sealing Order is said to be required to address confidentiality concerns arising because of s. 87 (8) of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017[3] and s.70(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act.[4]

e.      Ms. Denham does not oppose the continuation of the crossclaims within a Third Party Action, but she opposes the request for case management in Toronto and asks the court to transfer the Third Party Action to Perth, where she lives and where apparently she will have a lawyer prepared to act for her in defending the Third Party Action and in prosecuting her Counterclaim.

[19]           The events of the various actions, which attracted the attention of the media in Perth, Ontario, are of interest to the citizens of the East Region, who have an interest in the operation of their local children’s aid societies, but the events are of little more than of prurient interest to the citizens of Toronto.

[20]           Ms. Denman, who is the central actor either as a commendable whistleblower or as a deplorable newsmonger and hacker and leaker of confidential information is seriously inconvenienced and possibly prejudiced by having to defend or prosecute the various proceedings in Toronto, where she has been unable to obtain a lawyer to represent her.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc5032/2018onsc5032.html