OHRC: Under Suspicion: Concerns About Child Welfare.
In a National Post feature article in June 2009, Kevin Libin portrayed an industry in which abuses are all too common. One source, a professor of social work, claims that a shocking 15%-20% of children under CAS oversight suffer injury or neglect. Several CAS insiders whom Libin interviewed regard the situation as systemically hopeless. A clinical psychologist with decades of experience advocating for children said, “I would love to just demolish the system and start from scratch again.”
The Motherisk Commission details years of rights infringements by courts. "If the same problems were identified in criminal court, there would be a huge public outcry." Tammy Law.
“Harmful Impacts” is the title of the commission report written by the Honourable Judith C. Beaman after two years of study. After reading it, “harmful” seems almost to be putting it lightly. The 56 cases the commission examined in which the flawed Motherisk tests, administered by SickKids Hospital between 2005 and 2015, were determined to have a “substantial impact” on the decisions of child protection agencies, led to children being permanently removed from their families and files being left open.
According to the Toronto Star out of the cases they reviewed Motherisk reported positive results 93% of the time and lets say Motherisk only strongly influence decisons to apprehend children in 56 cases, how many times did Motherisk results strongly influence the decision to keep files open and how much did that cost the taxpayers?
The 2017-2018 Expenditure Estimates set out details of the operating and capital spending requirements of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 2017.
Restated total operating expense $4,369,258,414
$4,306,237,616
The report also points to the larger problem that allowed the the CAS's use of the Motherisk lab to cause so much damage: the system unfairly targets poor families — especially, the report details, Indigenous and racialized families; the legal deck is stacked against those families, denying them due process to a staggering degree; and authorities are too quick to take children from their parents in the absence of evidence of severe abuse or neglect.
Removal from the home — permanent removal — is not supposed to be a move taken lightly. The report goes over the legal principles, laying out that it should be a last resort. It is the “capital punishment” of child protection, according to one citation, absolutely devastating to parents, and for children it is “often the beginning of a life sentence.”
Yet in the cases reviewed here, it is imposed, often apparently cavalierly and without even a trial, for reasons that amount to a punishment for being poor.
Rich parents who are alcoholics, after all, are not having their children taken from them after a single relapse. Few rich parents, in fact, are having their children taken from them at all.
Lives were ruined. Parents’ lives, and quite possibly children’s lives. Siblings and grandparents and other family members’ lives, too. Irreversibly ruined. And in many cases, it seems this was allowed to happen primarily because people were poor.
It is hard to think of anything more harmful than that.
The Motherisk lab was shut down in 2015 — too long after the problems with it were known, exposed in part due to the reporting of my Star colleague Rachel Mendleson, after far too much damage was done. But reading the report, it becomes clear that shutting down the lab solves only one small part of the problem. The entire system needs to be overhauled.
The problems detailed in the report’s 278 pages are too numerous to go into in detail. They document the many problems with the SickKids lab’s testing and with the child protection system’s overreliance on those results. The hair testing process produced inconsistent and untrustworthy results despite being perceived as carrying the unimpeachable weight of scientific authority. That much we pretty much knew because of earlier reporting, though the detailed breakdown of it and the specific case references make the injustice of it sickeningly vivid.
“There are lots of kids in group homes all over Ontario and they are not doing well — and everybody knows it,” says Kiaras Gharabaghi, a member of a government-appointed panel that examined the residential care system in 2016.
“It is stunning to me how these children... are rendered invisible while they are alive and invisible in their death,” said Irwin Elman, Ontario’s advocate for children and youth. Between 90 and 120 children and youth connected to children’s aid die every year. (rendered invisible by the PDRC)
The PDRC isn't at all about preventing the deaths of children in care, it's about preventing real investigations into the death of each child and saving a lot of money while insiders like OACAS CEO Scary Mary Ballantyne maintain the status quo year after year.
William and Lila Young would have been considered pioneers of child welfare in Canada - until they couldn't hide the bodies anymore and they didn't have a PDRC to absolve them of their CRIMES
DOES THE PRDC COMPLETE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OR SIMPLY REVIEW THE INFORMATION THE SOCIETY WAS WILLING TO RECORD AND AGREE WITH THE DECISION BASED ON THAT INFORMATION ALONE?
THE PDRC PROCESS: "CAS INTERNAL DEATH REVIEW," REVIEWED?
THE PDRC PROCESS: "CAS INTERNAL DEATH REVIEW," REVIEWED?
The CAS that provided service to the family submits a serious occurrence report and within 14 days of the death submits a Child Fatality Case Summary Report to the PDRC. The Executive Committee of the PDRC screens these reports and, within 7 days, a decision is made whether the CAS will be required to complete an - Internal Review - for the purposes of a future PDRC review. (A POSSIBLE REVIEW SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD?)
Don’t ‘blow up’ Ontario’s child welfare system.
Don’t ‘blow up’ Ontario’s child welfare system.
BY SCARY MARY BALLANTYNE, CEO/OACAS. Fri., Jan. 1, 2016
Children’s aid societies welcome feedback (unless your a forcibly inducted "client") on their work with those Ontario families who struggle with overwhelming challenges related to poverty, violence, addiction mental health issues and slander. The Ontario child welfare model which relies on community involvement does indeed reflect Ontario’s history of local accountability; it has many demonstrable advantages.
The effect of provincial policies on struggling families was especially apparent in the late 1990s, when the Conservative government slashed welfare payments and social service funding while at the same time, it introduced in child protection the notion of maltreatment by “omission,” including not having enough food in the home and this after giving the society what amounted to an unlimited funding scheme. The number of children taken into care spiked as did their funding.
“The ministry has been pretty clear with us that advocacy is not part of our mandate,” Goodman said speaking for the society. “It’s not like they’re asking for the (poverty) data. They’re not.” Goodman then when on to suggest the silence suited the government more than the silence suited the society's funding goals.
Neglect is one of the most common child protection concerns in Ontario: Q & A with OACAS’ CEO
Neglect is one of the most common child protection concerns in Ontario.
Mary Ballantyne, CEO of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, discusses how Children’s Aid Societies help families dealing with this issue.
How is neglect a form of child abuse?
The inquest into Jeffrey Baldwin's death was supposed to shed light on the child welfare system and prevent more needless child deaths. Baldwin's inquest jury made 103recommendations. Sep 06, 2013
Nearly six months after the inquest into the death of Katelynn Sampson began, jurors delivered another 173 recommendations. APRIL 29, 2016
If implemented and implemented correctly those recommendations would have should have completely overhauled the province's child welfare system so at this point does anyone still believe another inquest and more recommendations are going to change anything or save any lives?
Despite being one of 276 recommendations to come out of two most recent inquests into the deaths of children in Ontario's care the ministry is not contemplating amalgamation, said MacCharles, and is instead choosing to focus on a shared services approach.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/07/03/physical-restraint-common-in-toronto-group-homes-and-youth-residences.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/07/03/kids-in-toronto-group-homes-can-be-arrested-for-being-kids.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/08/15/report-shines-light-on-povertys-role-on-kids-in-cas-system.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/sudden-infant-death-syndrome-undetermined-cause-nunavut-1.3880978
https://criminology.regis.edu/criminology-programs/resources/blog/undetermined-death
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/01/01/dont-blow-up-ontarios-child-welfare-system.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/12/01/kids-are-going-through-trauma-staff-are-getting-assaulted-we-are-all-in-the-trenches-together.html
The written PDRC report.
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/DeathInvestigations/office_coroner/PublicationsandReports/PDRC/2013Report/PDRC_2013.html
Between 2014\15 the Ontario children's aid society claim to have spent $467.9 million dollars providing protective services that doesn't seem to extend to the 90 to 120 children that die in Ontario's care every year.
C.A.S. ATTITUDE: WIN CHILD WELFARE CASES AT ALL COSTS $$$
By Gene C. Colman of Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre posted in Child Welfare on Thursday, January 1, 2015.It should not be a matter of "win" or "lose" when it comes to Ontario child welfare law. Ontario's Child and Family Services Act tells us that the paramount purpose is to "promote the best interests, protection and well being of children." One might note the glaring lack of any reference to family. In fact, there is a paucity of references to family throughout the entire CFSA even though many judges recognize the importance of maintaining family whenever possible.
I had a recent experience with CAS counsel at court when representing a family unjustly caught up in the system. Our office had prepared a very persuasive and comprehensive response to the Society's Application. We attended at the mandated five day hearing that follows apprehensions from parental care. The CAS certainly had not expected such forcefulness; normally parents are so overwhelmed at this early stage that they are unable to mount an effective defence. Generally, the court will rubber stamp the CAS requests. We did not agree to just stand idly by at the first appearance and CAS counsel was surprised by our aggressive (yet fair) approach.
Our written material seemed to have persuaded the judge. He instructed the lawyers to prepare a consent endorsement along the lines that we were seeking (which of course included an immediate return of the children to parental care). As we were returning to the courtroom after preparing the consent, the experienced and respected CAS counsel turned to me and my clients and remarked: "This is the third time your lawyer has beaten me."
The CAS counsel's comment was made innocently enough and indeed was intended to be complimentary. But still I was shocked (but probably should not have been). Why was I so shocked?
https://www.complexfamilylaw.com/blog/2015/01/cas-attitude-win-child-welfare-cases-at-all-costs.shtml
Tammy Law's delusional thoughts, excuses, rationalizations and justifications for using the Motherisk test to justify denying parents due process and circumventing the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and the principles of fundamental Justice behind the closed doors of Ontario's family courts.
Posted on February 27, 2018 by Tammy Law
After 2 years, and the review of more than 1200 cases, the Motherisk Commission came out with its report yesterday. The Report is required reading for everyone who has any role to play in child welfare – social workers, lawyers, courts, litigants. It describes a system that is dysfunctional, unfair, and undignified. In addition to its criticism of how CASs have handled drug addiction.
The Motherisk Commission details years of rights infringements by courts. "If the same problems were identified in criminal court, there would be a huge public outcry." Tammy Law.
I want to be clear about what I think some of the fundamental problems are and how I think we can start to change this system. Because I am first and foremost a lawyer, my thoughts naturally focus on the role of lawyers in this mess. My thoughts are summarized as follows:
As lawyers, we need to recognize that good intentions are not enough. It is really easy to hide behind “the best interests of the child” and agree or acquiesce to all types of infringements of our clients’ basic human and Charter rights. This needs to stop. Lawyers need to start seeing their role in the context of defending our clients’ very real rights to human dignity and security of the person.
The culture of cooperation has gone too far. While I agree that it is very very important to work with the Children’s Aid Society to address their concerns, a line must be drawn when they demand cooperation that crosses the line. As a state agent, the Society has an obligation to ensure that it works in the most minimally intrusive way possible – respecting the client’s right to individual freedom while trying to ensure that its clients are served. This is a difficult job. Lawyers and courts should be there to ensure that the fine line is respected.
Society counsel need to understand that they have a public interest role. They should be providing advice to their clients in the context of being a public interest litigant. They have a duty to the court to be fair. This means that if unreliable evidence is being tendered (and there were many signs of this with respect to the Motherisk testing), they should be advising their clients about the unfairness of relying on it. Lawyers are and should be gatekeepers of evidence as much as courts are.
We need to be more vigilant. As noted in the report, our role as advocates is to raise every defence possible for our clients.
HOW ABOUT PRESENTING EVIDENCE THAT COUNTERS SWORN AFFIDAVITS WHEN CLIENTS HAVE IT IN ABUNDANCE - JUST SAYIN'..
Our clients are often extremely vulnerable, having lived lives that were challenged by multiple obstacles.
SO LAWYERS FAILING TO REPRESENT THEIR CLIENTS ISN'T JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE OBSTACLES???
Many have made admirable attempts to parent their children. We need to be fearless in our advocacy for them. As a lawyer, I have experienced and seen derisive, sarcastic, or rude comments directed at myself and other lawyers who attempt to defend their clients. This needs to stop. It’s our client’s right – their children’s right – that they have a full defence.
http://www.tammylaw.ca/2018/02/27/report-of-the-motherisk-commission/
A corrupt agency aided and abetted by a corrupt provincial court is a travesty of justice for Canadians an insult to the judicial system, to the constitution of Canada, and to life, liberty, and justice for all.
It results in tyranny, oppression, and absolute despotism of the people. There is no greater criminal than the criminal that sits on the bench robbing children of their FAMILY HERITAGE .
Social work researchers argue that risk assessment tools in Ontario are biased and perpetuate racism because they do not account for structural inequalities, such as racial discrimination, that may affect a child’s well-being. Parents may be blamed for these external factors, even though they are largely out of their control. We heard that relying on these tools, coupled with worker bias – which may be conscious or unconscious – may contribute to assumptions about racialized children and families being “inherently wrong or deficient.” This can lead to incorrect assumptions about the level of risk children are exposed to. (see confirmation bias)
We also heard concerns about risk assessment standards that relate to poverty – for example, the number of children allowed per bedroom. Poverty in racialized and Indigenous families may be seen as a sign of neglect, providing a basis for a child welfare agency to become involved. We heard that these standards can affect what is seen as acceptable in a home and contribute to CAS decisions to intervene. (see confirmation bias)
It is unclear to what extent child welfare risk assessment standards and tools reflect real risk to children in all cases, or arise from White, Western, Christian middle-class norms. When standards and tools are not based on objective factors, but on the cultural norms of the dominant group, they may contribute to racial profiling. (see confirmation bias)
Concerns about biased decision-making
Concerns were also raised both about the perceived bias of authorities or individuals that refer to CASs, and perceived bias in decision-making practices when child welfare workers and authorities become involved with families. Participants said that child welfare workers, many of whom are White, may be more likely to construe family situations or the actions of Indigenous or racialized people as “risky.” (see confirmation bias)
Overall, consultation participants agreed with the following broad strategies to prevent and address racial/financial profiling:
Anti-bias training
Developing policies, procedures and guidelines
Effective accountability monitoring and accountability
mechanisms, including:
complaint procedures
disciplinary measures
collecting, analyzing and reporting on data
Holistic organizational change strategy
Leadership
Communication (external and internal)
Engagement with affected stakeholders.
To file a human rights claim (called an application), contact the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario at:
If you need legal help, contact the Human Rights Legal Support Centre at:
Toll Free: 1-866-625-5179
TTY Toll Free: 1-866-612-8627
Website: www.hrlsc.on.ca
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/under-suspicion-concerns-about-child-welfare
According to OACAS CEO Mary Ballantyne the reason why so many frontline workers today wouldn't qualify for registration with the College of Social Work is due to the children's aid society expanding beyond the field of just social work.
Mary Ballantyne CEO of OACAS says, the next step is to have Ontario's estimated 5,160 child protection social workers registered and regulated by a professional college. Fifty-five per cent have a bachelor's (BSW) or master's degree in social work. A BSW is the minimum required to join the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, which is discussing the registration process with societies. Apr 03, 2016.
MARY HERSELF HAS NO CHILD CARE OR SOCIAL WORK CREDENTIALS BUT MARY CLAIMS HER DECADES OF ON THE JOB EXPERIENCE MORE THAN MAKES UP FOR IT.
Mary Ballantyne, CEO of Ontario's Association of Children's Aid Societies academic credentials include and are limited to a Bachelor of Applied Science from the University of Guelph and a Masters of Industrial Relations – Human Resource Management from Queens University and has been upgading her skill set volunteering to hold a seat on the independent PDRC.
The report, Towards regulation: Child protection and professional regulation in the province of Ontario, notes that the CAS workforce has expanded beyond social workers since 2000 to include child and youth workers and those with general degrees and diplomas. (that means they took a two year college course sometime after leaving high school)
WHY HAS THE CAS WORKFORCE EXPANDED BEYOND SOCIAL WORK AND IN WHAT DIRECTION
WOULD THE CAS HAVE GOVERNMENT FUNDING HAD THEY REFUSED TO PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BEFORE GETTING FULL GOVERNMENT FUNDING?
Here's an example of of an unregistered worker with a general degree..
Both the worker and the police officer claimed he was only here to provide security for both parties but you can see the in videos how much the worker relies on the police officer to bully her way in without reasonable grounds or a warrant.
The worker is under the impression if she employers have the power to order her to enter our home with a warrant. it was later revealed after a judge had ordered FCSLLG to give us our file disclosure three months after FCSLLG started court proceedings against us that the police officer had volunteered to come along with the worker.
WHY DID THE POLICEMAN VOLUNTEER TO HELP THE UNREGISTERED WORKER:
https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/502236246652811/
WITHIN MINUTES OF ALLOWING THE WORKER AND HER POLICE ESCORT MY WIFE STARTS RECORDING:
https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/502533319956437/
THE WORKER AND THE POLICEMAN RETURN:
https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/504782689731500/
FCSLLG WITHDREW THEIR APPLICATION FOR A SUPERVISION ORDER AFTER WE REFUSED TO SIGN CONSENT FORMS FOR ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS.
THE COMPLAINT PROCESS WITH FORMER UNREGISTERED DIRECTOR OF SERVICE KIM MORROW:
https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/499149713628131/
THE APOLOGY LETTER? PART ONE:
https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/photos/a.421920498017720/768744430001990/
THE APOLOGY LETTER? PART TWO:
https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/photos/a.421920498017720/768744490001984/
And here's an example of a worker with a university education but not in social work or child care who fancied herself a child care expert with split second child assessment skills. The worker in this video swore an affidavit our child were fat, depressed and suffering from depression that was so bad our daughter was unable to speak.
She was unable to explain why her on the spot assessment of our children was so off the mark or the why 100 plus pages of school and medical documents showed children that were thriving in school and out, and all were capable of speech and had all their medical needs looked after as demonstrated by the 100 plus pages of documentation
THE KINGSTON CAS UNREGISTERED RAPID RESPONSE WORKER, SUN WAI:
https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/570836186459483/
THE KINGSTON CAS WITHDREW A MOTION AND APPLICATION FOR A SUPERVISION ORDER FOR OUR CHILDREN AFTER FCSLLG ACCUSED MY WIFE OF HACKING.
THE INTENTION BEHIND THE KINGSTON CAS COMING AFTER OUR CHILDREN WAS SIMPLE, GET CONTROL OF OUR CHILDREN AND USE THEM AGAINST DURING THE TRIAL.
THE KINGSTON HAD REQUESTED THE JUDGE ORDER MY WIFE AND I TO ANSWER ALL THEIR QUESTIONS AND KEEP THEM UPDATED ON THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS.
THE KINGSTON CAS LAWYER PROMISED ANYTHING THEY LEARNED WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH FCSLLG.
READ ALL ABOUT WHAT HAPPEN HERE:
https://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/153438/ontario-cas-dirty-tricks
A 2013 OACAS survey found that only 70% of relevant job classifications would qualify for registration with the College of Social Workers. CUPE members working as child protection workers could suddenly without any kind of warning be deemed unqualified if they could not register with the College of Social Workers.
Since it began operations in 2000, the OCSWSSW has worked steadily to address the issue of child protection workers. Unfortunately, many CASs have been circumventing professional regulation of their staff by requiring that staff have social work education yet discouraging those same staff from registering with the OCSWSSW.
The new regulation was updated to only require Local Directors of Children’s Aid Societies to be registered with the College so it's up to all of us now to encourage the employees of the children's aid societies that enter family homes, schools and hospitals to be registered and their credentials checked before they are allowed to enter said places.
The majority of local directors, supervisors, child protection workers and adoption workers have social work or social service work education, yet fewer than 10% are registered with the OCSWSSW.
If you have any practice questions or concerns related to the new CYFSA, please contact the Professional Practice Department at 416-972-9882 or 1-877-828-9380 or email practice@ocswssw.org.
Submission-re-Proposed-Regulations-under-the-CYFSA-January-25-2018. OCSWSSW May 1, 2018
https://www.ocswssw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/OCSWSSW-Submission-re-Proposed-Regulations-under-the-CYFSA-January-25-2018.pdf
In January 2017, the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS) launched a revamped set of curriculum for Ontario’s child protection workers. The Child Welfare Pathway to Authorization Series is designed to be more responsive and better reflect the realities of child welfare work in Ontario using an anti-oppressive framework. New training will cover topics such as equity, human rights, and anti-racism.
Imagine that, an agency that has been called as "Powerful As God" needs anti-oppressive, anti-racist human rights training in an anti-oppressive framework and here I thought Canada's Constitution, Charter of Rights and Fundamental Justice was an anti-oppressive framework.
Powerful As God on IMDB:
The Children's Aid Societies of Ontario is a documentary that delves into society's most controversial and secretive topics. The film navigates 'truth' by engaging twenty-six witnesses with diverse experiences into conversation. By facilitating a voice for individuals whose lives have been tragically affected, with observations and recommendations by experts who have worked directly with the agency (such as doctors, social workers and lawyers), the film reveals a child welfare system plagued by systemic and bureaucratic abuse that urgently requires public attention. Financed by tax dollars and wielding extraordinary power, the Children's Aid Society is deconstructed to reveal a broken system where employees have been heard to describe their influence over children and families to be as powerful as god.
The film, Powerful As God, won the MADA award (Children’s Issues) at Commffest Film Festival in Toronto, 2012. The documentary screened at three festivals and is now released online (Blackout.ca), it was nationally broadcast on television during 2013, and received television, radio and newspaper media coverage.
When the children's aid society say they have more oversight than anyone else while every journalist working for the mainstream media in Ontario say the only oversight comes directly from the Ontario government - who do you believe?
Former Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian wrote:
“I am disheartened by the complete lack of action to ensure transparency and accountability by these organizations that received significant public funding. As part of the modernization of the Acts, I call on the government to finally address this glaring omission and ensure that Children’s Aid Societies are added to the list of institutions covered.”
The only oversight for the province’s children’s aid agencies comes from Ontario’s Ministry of Children and Youth Services.
"As the law stands now clients of the Ontario Children's Aid Society under Wynne's liberals are routinely denied a timely (often heavily censored) file disclosure before the court begins making decisions and the clients can not request files/disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act nor can censored information reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario or the federal counter-part."
In her 2004 annual report, which was released on June 22, 2005, the Commissioner called for amendments that would bring virtually all organizations that are primarily funded by government dollars under FOI for the purposes of transparency and accountability: This would include the various children’s aid agencies in the Province of Ontario. Many parents and families complain about how difficult it is, if not impossible, to obtain information from children’s aid agencies. Many citizens complain that CAS agencies appear to operate under a veil of secrecy. Unlicensed and untrained CAS workers are making decisions which are literally destroying families, yet there is little or no accountability for their actions short of a lawsuit long after the damage is done, if ever. The vast majority of CAS victims can't afford lawyers.
“Hundreds of organizations that are recipients of large transfer payments from the government are not subject to the provincial or municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts,” said the Commissioner, “which means they are not subject to public scrutiny.” Among the examples she cites are hospitals and Children’s Aid Societies. “Openness and transparency of all publicly funded bodies is essential – they should be publicly accountable.”
In her annual report for 2013 released on June 17 there is just one paragraph on children's aid on page 12:
In my 2004, 2009, and 2012 Annual Reports I recommended that Children’s Aid Societies, which provide services for some of our most vulnerable citizens – children and youth in government care, be brought under FIPPA. I am disheartened by the complete lack of action to ensure transparency and accountability by these organizations that received significant public funding. As part of the modernization of the Acts, I call on the government to finally address this glaring omission and ensure that Children’s Aid Societies are added to the list of institutions covered.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner is appointed by and reports to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and is independent of the government of the day. The Commissioner's mandate includes overseeing the access and privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and the Personal Health Information Protection Act, and commenting on other access and privacy issues.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/beef-up-information-laws-ontario-privacy-czar-says/article1120573/
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/commissioner-cavoukian-calls-on-government-to-preserve-freedom-and-liberty-514463911.html
“We’re taking it up to that next level so that the public has confidence that when someone knocks on their door they know that they have met these minimum requirements,” says Mary Ballantyne, CEO of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS) whose association represents all but three of Ontario’s societies.
I THINK WILLING COOPERATION WITH THE OMBUDSMAN, THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER AND NOT REFUSING TO REGISTER WITH THE COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORK FOR PROFESSIONAL REGULATION WOULD GO A LOT FARTHER TO INSPIRE CONFIDENCE. DON'T YOU?
Bill 110 - EXPLANATORY NOTE.
The Bill amends the Ombudsman Act to allow the Ombudsman to investigate any decision or recommendation made or any act done or omitted in the course of the administration of a children’s aid society.
-> Been nice if this had passed but Premiere Kathleen Wynne killed the bill saying the the CAS had enough oversight already leaving the children of Ontario with only one layer of protection from potential abusers. The children's aid society and their good intentions.
https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-40/session-1/bill-110
No comments:
Post a Comment