The information was publicly available, the judge ruled. He said there was no hacking and Denham didn’t break any Children’s Aid Society (CAS) laws about identifying children involved in court proceeding.
2016: ‘Disgruntled client’ posts names of 285 children’s aid families on Facebook. 2020: Vindicated Whistleblower Acquitted On All Counts...
Denham’s life took a rapid turn in April 2016 when police broke through her garage door to execute a search warrant to seize phones, computers, a gaming system, and USB sticks — anything that could store evidence related to her access to the website.
In the early-morning raid, Denham said they put her husband in handcuffs.
“I woke up to police in my bedroom and after I yelled for them to take the ‘cuffs off of him, they did. They also wouldn’t let me call a lawyer.”
On her full acquittal, a relieved Denham said: “I’m glad it’s over. It was four years of my life on hold.
The judge noted that the CAS did not take appropriate measures to secure private information. The judge also noted there were no special computer skills or deception required to access the files, which were not marked as confidential and came with no warnings or disclaimers.
The information was publicly available, the judge ruled. He said there was no hacking and Denham didn’t break any Children’s Aid Society (CAS) laws about identifying children involved in court proceeding.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/it-was-four-years-of-my-life-on-hold-cas-whistleblower-cleared-of-hacking-charges
After an alleged four-month investigation, the Smiths Falls police, the Perth crown's office and FCSLLG along with the law firm FASKEN colluded to scapegoat Denham who was charged with hacking and identifying children involved in court proceedings, when in fact she did neither, and earlier this week Ontario Court Justice Charles D. Anderson acquitted her of all charges and cleared her name after trial.
(Fasken is a full-service multi-national law firm with offices in Canada, the U.K., South Africa and China. We work with clients around the globe, offering expertise in legal issues affecting all types of industry, government and individual objectives. https://www.fasken.com/en/)
For four years Kelley Denham refused every sweet deal the Perth crown's office offered her in exchange for a guilty plea.. (many times against the best professional advice Kelley couldn't afford)
The online “private portal” hosted by a server in Michigan didn’t have any security and the US based server provided none. No firewall. No password, username or hacker skills required to view unencrypted client, corporate documents and resumes going back to when they the site first went online listed by year and month — just a simple click of a button and you could access its confidential client list, hundreds of other client documents and internal corporate documents considered private for the children’s aid society.
It was Kelley Denham, 32, who blew the whistle on the website’s absence of security and in February 2016 posted some documents online that the board of the children’s aid agency considered confidential.
She wanted the children’s aid society to take it down, and for her trouble, the agency called Smiths Falls Police.
FOUR YEAR LEGAL ORDEAL STARTED WITH A POCKET DIAL..
When Denham first publicized the absence of security on the child-welfare agency’s website, they shut it down and figured it was time to hire a computer security expert.
At the time, the agency’s program manager in charge of the website was Margaret Row. The child-welfare agency hired Margaret Row’s son-in-law, David Schmidt, (instead of calling the ministries cybersecurity experts for help) to investigate what happened and fix any breach of security even though there wasn’t one, according to undisputed facts in the judge’s decision.
Schmidt’s investigation revealed that IP addresses linked to Denham had accessed the children’s aid society’s public website, just like anyone else could.
Schmidt also reported about the website’s absence of security, something Denham, an adult-education teacher, had already exposed. Schmidt made several recommendations to boost security — notably for the child-welfare agency to have two separate websites: one for the online public, and an intranet exclusively for board members with VPN only access..
Hometown News... https://www.hometownnews.ca/digital-edition/
and press the arrow to advance to page two article.
What happened after the pocket dial?
The audio in the video linked just below is a copy of the non-emergency call obtained through the freedom of information act that sent three police officers racing through the streets of Smiths Falls one beautiful Monday morning about two years ago. The events in this video were the beginning of Families United Ontario's advocacy for other families being abused and molested by a system gone terribly wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssK0m90SJxk
:::
WHAT IS DEFAMATION IN ONTARIO LAW?
Defamation (sometimes referred to as defamation of character) is a statement to a third party about an identifiable individual that is false and damaging to the person’s feelings, pocket book, or reputation.
The test to determine whether a statement is damaging to one’s reputation is whether or not the statement would lower the opinion of the person in the minds of others or cause a person to be shunned or avoided or exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule.
The test is an objective test and not a subjective one. In other words, it is not relevant if the victim thinks that the words are damaging, rather the relevant inquiry is what the average person would think.
In Ontario, in most cases, it is not necessary to prove that the defamatory statements were made maliciously.
https://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/defamation-articles/definition-defamation/
https://www.cjfe.org/defamation_libel_and_slander_what_are_my_rights_to_free_expression
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90l12
:::
Ontario's Whistleblower Regime: Civil Cause of Action for Reprisals Now Possible.
The amendments provide that any relevant whistleblower claiming an improper reprisal may bring an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice or make a complaint to be resolved by binding arbitration. In any such case, the company will have the legal burden of proof to demonstrate that it did not engage in a reprisal.
Under the Ontario Securities Act, the OSC may take enforcement action against corporations who take reprisals against whistleblowers.
https://www.mcmillan.ca/ontarios-whistleblower-regime-civil-cause-of-action-for-reprisals-now-possible
https://www.kcyatlaw.ca/what-is-whistleblowing-guide-whistleblowing-in-canada/
:::
Ontario Anti-SLAPP Law.
The intersection of freedom of speech and protection of one’s reputation from defamation has, and almost always will be, a complex problem to solve in any democratic jurisdiction. On the one hand, it is a vital component of a free and just democratic society that we allow (truthful) speech, even if the truth harms another; yet, at the same time, we must prevent false speech (sometimes masquerading as the truth) from inflicting harm on others – that is the basic foundation of modern defamation law: truthful speech is allowed, false speech is not (with certain ‘grey areas’ where things get really interesting).
https://www.cambridgellp.com/publications/ontario-anti-slapp-law-2/
https://www.thelitigator.ca/2020/01/test-for-anti-slapp-motions-reaffirmed-by-the-ontario-court-of-appeal/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=LinkedIn-integration
:::
Unfair or Indefensible - Costs Against C.A.S.?
On behalf of Gene C. Colman Family Law Centre posted in Child Welfare on Tuesday, January 7, 2014.
There is a presumption that a successful party is entitled to the costs of a motion, enforcement, case or appeal (Ontario Family Law Rules, R. 24(1)). There is, however, no such presumption for costs in a child protection case (Rule 24(2)). Does that mean that a successful parent can never obtain a costs order against a children's aid society? Let us delve a little further.
The lack of presumption for costs is perfectly understandable. The Courts have been hesitant to impose cost orders against children's aid societies as they are faced with the difficult statutory duty of protecting children from harm and the law tells us that they should not be punished (through costs orders) for errors of judgment. A further reason for courts rarely awarding costs against societies stems from the view that societies should not be discouraged from taking action because of the risk of an adverse costs order.
Rule 24(2) does not give children's aid societies the authority to behave with impunity though. The courts have (and will) order costs against children's aid societies in limited circumstances. For example the 2013 matter of Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. SSB awarded costs to the mother and Office of the Children's Lawyer for the procedural failings of the CCAST. This case affirms the courts' approach in awarding costs against children's aid societies in that a society will not be shielded from costs where its behaviour is "unfair or indefensible or where exceptional circumstances exist".
In SSB the CCAST sought disclosure of "clinical investigation notes" from the OCL. The OCL claimed that the requested documents were subject to solicitor-client privilege and therefore could not be disclosed as the disclosure would amount to a serious breach of trust between the OCL and the children. The prevailing concern was that the CCAST had sought to obtain the privileged documents on three separate occasions (only to withdraw their motion before a decision could be delivered) and had put the mother and OCL to considerable expense in defending the motions. The judge considered that the repeated attempts to obtain disclosure was tantamount to an abuse of process and verged on acting in bad faith. The judge, most helpfully, summarized the responsibility of the CCAST as follows [at paragraph 12]:
... Like any other litigant, the society must conduct itself according to the rules. It is given broad investigative scope, and cannot and should not be liable for costs for actions it takes in good faith in its duty to investigate cases. That, however, does not give a society licence to ignore the general rules of procedural fairness. When it does, it should be liable in costs.
The CCAST matter also made reference to the 2005 decision of Children's Aid Society of Niagara Region v. B. (C.), which provides guidance for the circumstances when children's aid societies should and should not be liable for costs. These can be summarized as follows [paragraphs 89-100]:
1. Bad Faith Not Required: To attract an adverse award of costs, a children's aid society need not have acted in bad faith;
2. Fairness: Costs may be awarded against a society, "where it conducts itself... in a way where it would be perceived by ordinary persons as having acted unfairly";
3. Indefensible Behaviour: Many cases hold that a children's aid society should only be visited with an adverse award of costs where it has taken a step or position that is "indefensible", ie. "admitting of no defence".
4. Exceptional Circumstances: There is a line of decisions holding that costs should not be awarded against a society "unless exceptional circumstances exist";
5. Error in Judgment not sufficient to attract costs: A society should not be punished for a mere error of judgement (an error of judgement can truly arise only where one has considered all courses of action reasonably available at the time);
6. Society Not to Be Dissuaded by Costs: A society should not be dissuaded from its statutory mandate by costs considerations;
7. Society to Re-assess Its Position: A children's aid society must be even-handed and act in good faith. To this end a society must be prepared to re-assess its position as an investigation unfolds and more information becomes known;
8. Accountability: "Children's aid societies must be accountable" for the manner in which it investigates a case and in the way it chooses to litigate that case (one method of achieving accountability is through costs sanctions);
The judge in CASNR tells us that a society can attract an adverse costs award where it fails in any of the following seven areas (paragraph 102):
1. Investigation before apprehension;
2. Continued investigation after apprehension;
3. Consideration of all appropriate protective measures;
4. Formation of a fair and defensible position;
5. Reassessment of that position as circumstances warrant;
6. Use of properly trained workers; and
7. Accessing independent experts in the field of child psychology.
This more critical approach adopted by some courts should provide some modest encouragement to parents who have been subjected to biased investigations or litigation undertaken by a children's aid society where the C.A.S. actions were patently unfair or indefensible. These factors should be relevant not only to a costs determination but also to the expected standard of care to which child protection authority must adhere. Holding these agencies accountable to such standards should hopefully be encouraged by the case management judge as the case unfolds.
If you have a matter where a children's aid society has acted unfairly, indefensibly or there are exceptional circumstances, you may benefit from a consultation with our experienced child welfare lawyers.
Tags: CAS, Child Custody, Child Protection, Child Welfare, Children's Aid Society, Costs, Procedural Fairness
Related Posts: THE EASTER BUNNY AND C.A.S. ABUSE OF POWER, Do's and Don'ts of a CAS Apprehension of Your Child, C.A.S. Attitude: Win child welfare cases at all costs, PROPORTIONALITY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SELF REPRESENTED CHILD WELFARE LITIGANTS
https://www.complexfamilylaw.com/blog/2018/03/the-easter-bunny-and-cas-abuse-of-power.shtml
:::
What Are The Consequences Of Filing A False Report To Your Insurance Company In Canada And To The Police (if your employed by a children's aid society that is)
What are the offences someone can be charged with under the Criminal Code of Canada for filing a false police report or lying to the police?
The offence under the Criminal Code which would be most applicable is committing public mischief under section 140. That section states:
140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by...
making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;
The purpose of the law is to discourage and punish false reporting and of course to prohibit people from falsely accusing others. Making a false statement transpires when the person makes the statement with the intention of misleading justice. One cannot be convicted if it is determined that they genuinely believed the statement to be true at the time it was made.
In addition to public mischief, there are several other offences under the Criminal Code that a person could find themselves charged with if they file a false police report or lie to the police. These include the following:
Perjury under section 131 of the Code if the person, with intent to mislead, knowingly gives a false statement under oath, affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition;
Fabricating Evidence under section 137 of the Code if the person, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything (such as a police report) with the intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding; and
Obstructing Justice under section 139 (2) of the Code if the person wilfully attempts to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
These offences involving the misleading of justice and which include lying to the authorities are taken very seriously. This is clear when looking at the potential and maximum penalties under the Code. Perjury and fabricating evidence are indictable offences with potential prison terms of up to 14 years, while obstruct justice under 139 (2) of the Criminal Code is an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of imprisonment for 10 years.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/
The penalties for committing public mischief are outlined at section 140(2) of the Criminal Code. If the Crown Attorney perceives the case as serious and elects to proceed by indictment, then an accused who is found guilty is potentially liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. If the Crown decides to proceed summarily (less serious case) and an accused is found guilty then they are liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or to both. The actual punishment imposed for those convicted will vary according to the facts of each case and the circumstances of each offender.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
https://www.mondaq.com/canada/crime/787224/what-are-the-consequences-of-filing-a-false-police-report-in-canada
:::
M.M. v. Lanark, Leeds and Grenville Children’s Aid Society, 2018 ONSC 5032 (CanLII) 2018-08-23.
[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.
[5] Ms. Denham delivered a Statement of Defence and included a $15 million Crossclaim against the Society Defendants for negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, defamation, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
[1] In 2016, pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992,[1] M.M., who had been subject to a child protection inquiry, brought a proposed class action against: (a) Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (“the Society”), a children’s aid society, then regulated by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services of the Ontario government; (b) Raymond Lemay, the Executive Director of the Society, (b) Tracy MacCharles in her capacity as the Minister of Children and Youth Services, (d) Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (“Ontario”), and (e) Jane Doe, who was later identified in an Amended Statement of Claim to be (f) Kelley Denham.
[2] On December 21, 2017, M.M. moved for certification of her action as a class action. The Defendants consented or did not oppose certification, and the action was certified as a class proceeding against the Society to advance three causes of action; namely: negligence, intrusion upon seclusion and breach of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and against Ms. Denham to advance an intrusion upon seclusion claim.[2]
[3] In the class action, the Class Members claim $75 million in general, special, and punitive damages from the Society and $1 in damages from Ms. Denham.
[4] After the certification of the action, the pleadings were completed. The Society delivered a Statement of Defence and included a Crossclaim for contribution and indemnity from Ms. Denham, whom it blamed for the disclosure of the Class Member’s private and confidential information.
[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.
[7] The request for a sealing order, which was not opposed, should be granted.
[8] Section 87 of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 prohibits the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a child who is the subject of a child protection proceeding.
[9] In order to defend itself to Ms. Denham’s Crossclaim or Counterclaim, the Society may need to identify a child who is the subject of a child protection proceeding, and the Society is rightly concerned that there be no breach of s.87 of Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 or of s.70 (1) of the Children's Law Reform Act.
[10] The Society’s request for a sealing order will permit it to defend itself to Ms. Denham’s Crossclaim or Counterclaim without beaching these statutes.
[11] Moreover, a sealing order would be appropriate in accordance with the common law test for sealing a court file or otherwise limiting the open court principle.[5]
[12] Turning to the other requests for relief, the only area of contention is whether the class action and the third party proceeding should be case managed in Toronto or whether these actions should be transferred and case managed by a judge of the East Region of this court.
[13] M.M., who is represented by Flaherty, McCarthy LLP, a downtown Toronto law firm, and the Society Defendants, who are represented by Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, a downtown Toronto law firm oppose the transfer of the action to the East Region.
[14] Apart from the location of M.M.’s and the Society Defendants’ lawyers, there is nothing to connect the proposed class action to Toronto. All the events in the class action, all the events in the third party proceedings, and all the events in the counterclaim in the third party proceeding occurred in the East Region.
[15] The class action and the third party proceeding are inextricably interwoven, with multiple overlapping issues of fact and law to be determined. There is a substantial overlap between the events of the class action and of the third party proceeding, which should not be separated, and where there is no overlap, the events have no connection to Toronto.
[16] Although the current litigation plan does not envision any individual proceedings, if the Class Members were to advance individual claims for idiosyncratic special or general damages caused by the release of the private and confidential information, the venue of those individual proceedings would have no connection to Toronto unless the Class Member happened to have moved.
[17] Apart from the convenience to counsel, there are no advantages to having the class action managed in Toronto and there is no advantage to having the various actions determined by trial or by summary judgment motion in Toronto.
[18] Ms. Denham’s, M.M.’s and the representative of the Society’s examinations for discover will or should occur in the East Region where the parties reside.
[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.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc5032/2018onsc5032.html
:::
ClassActionNews:
The law firm of Flaherty McCarthy LLP has commenced a multi-million dollar Class Action against Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, and others, seeking damages arising from a serious and unprecedented privacy breach. The allegations contained in the Statement of Claim have not yet been proven in Court. The proposed Class Proceeding seeks $75 million dollars in damages on behalf of 285 people and their family members whose names were on a list of 285 families involved with children’s services, which was leaked on Facebook. Those affected individuals should receive notice from CAS of the privacy breach. The CAS had contacted 194 of the affected individuals by April 25, 2016.
At this point, the matter is a proposed class proceeding. As a class member, you do not have to do anything more to be involved in this lawsuit. You will be a member of the class until you are given the opportunity to opt out, which will be your choice.
Class Counsel has commenced and served a new proposed Class Proceeding bearing Court File No. CV-16-557244-00CP. This was necessitated by concerns raised by Counsel for the Crown Defendant that adequate notice of the original action had not been provided in accordance with applicable Statutes. Rather than getting in to a lengthy dispute on this issue, we felt it was more appropriate to commence a fresh action that accorded with the applicable notice provisions. This also allowed us to make several changes to the original claim to further particularize the allegations, causes of action and common issues. This new claim has now been served on all parties. At the appropriate time in the future, we will seek Court approval to discontinue the original action and proceed only on the new action. This does not affect the rights of Class Members in any way.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Perell has been appointed as the Judge responsible for managing this proposed Class Proceeding.
A Judicial Case Conference was held on October 7, 2016 for the purpose of setting a Certification Motion Schedule. Subsequent to this Conference, the plaintiffs have chosen to discontinue the action against all defendants EXCEPT Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville and Jane Doe.
The Certification Motion will proceed in November 2017. The plaintiffs served their Certification Motion Record in January 2017.
On December 21, 2017, we were successful in having the lawsuit certified as a class action. The litigation administrator, Deloitte LLP, will be providing notice to class members of the Certification Order and the opt-out process in early 2018. Deloitte LLP will be providing this notice to class members based on their last known contact information stated in the private and confidential FCSLLG document at issue. Therefore, if you are concerned that the document may not have your most recent address and contact information, please contact Deloitte LLP at classactions@deloitte.ca.
The Court appointed litigation administrator has now given notice that this matter has been certified as a Class Proceeding, in accordance with the Order of the Court.
http://www.casprivacybreach.com/whats-new/
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/toronto-firm-files-statement-of-claim-against-province-seeking-75-million-over-data-leak
:::
DENHAM ARTICLE CONTINUES:
The accused in this case posted (a screenshot of) a hyperlink, which if clicked, led directly to the spreadsheet on the FCSLLG website. The test question to be answered is simply, does this action constitute publishing as that term is commonly defined.
In Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47 the Supreme Court held, within the civil context of defamation, that posting a hyperlink to a defamatory document created and controlled by another did not constitute publishing by the person posting the hyperlink.
19 The court outlined the function and effect of a hyperlink in the following terms.
“Hyperlinks are, in essence, references. By clicking on the link, readers are directed to other sources. Hyperlinks may be inserted with or without the knowledge of the operator of the site containing the secondary article. Because the content of the secondary article is often produced by someone other than the person who inserted the hyperlink in the primary article, the content on the other end of the link can be changed at any time by whoever controls the secondary page. Although the primary author controls whether there is a hyperlink and what article that word or phrase is linked to, inserting a hyperlink gives the primary author no control over the content in the secondary article to which he or she has linked.”
The court then went on to find that this lack of control over the content of the material discoverable through the hyperlink has the effect of making the poster of the hyperlink not the publisher of the material. The court went on:
“Communicating something is very different from merely communicating that something exists or where it exists. … Even where the goal of the person referring to a defamatory publication is to expand the publications audience, his or her participation is merely ancillary to that of the initial publisher.”
The judge noted that the CAS did not take appropriate measures to secure private information. The judge also noted there were no special computer skills or deception required to access the files, which were not marked as confidential and came with no warnings or disclaimers.
The information was publicly available, the judge ruled. He said there was no hacking and Denham didn’t break any Children’s Aid Society (CAS) laws about identifying children involved in court proceedings.
In reality the website created by FCSLLG did not contain an adequate or any firewall limiting access to the portal containing private information. No special skills or deceptive techniques were necessary to gain access to the board information intended to be private. Nor were there any warnings or disclaimers that the information in the private portal was private or confidential and intended only to be seen by the intended restricted group. In effect the information intended for sole use of the FCSLLG board was available to any interested person.
When Denham first publicized the absence of security on the child-welfare agency’s website, they shut it down and figured it was time to hire a computer security expert.
The evidence shows that the spreadsheet 0-5intake-stats.xslsx contained some 285 client names. The purpose of the document was to report to the Board on compliance by the agency with ministry service time guidelines. There is no reference in the document to clients or matters that were or had been before the court in any proceeding or hearing. In fact, some six clients listed in the spreadsheet were involved in court proceedings, but on the information in the spreadsheet their identity as participants in court proceedings could not be determined.
The evidence was, and I find, that the determination of who if any of the named clients were involved in proceedings and to be able to conclude that anyone was so involved in a hearing or proceeding, required a records search of the legal department by Karen Von Cramon, whose evidence was given by an agreed statement of facts, filed.
The website and spreadsheet accessed by the accused did not contain the records of the legal department. They did not contain any information as to who was involved in a hearing or proceeding. The necessary link between 16 the list of client names and their involvement in any hearing or proceeding is absent.
The agency does far more than proceed to court to protect children. It provides multiple services to people in the community that do not involve any court proceeding or hearing. The nonpublication provisions only apply to proceedings or hearings. It is not an offence under the Act to divulge the names of persons who are clients of the FCSLLG.
I find accordingly that the information contained in the spreadsheet did not have “... the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding…” as required in s.
For these reasons, again I am left with a reasonable doubt, and am unable to find the accused guilty of these charges under the Child and Family Service Act.
20 CONCLUSION:
There will be an acquittal on all charges.
Due to the Covid 19 difficulties currently plaguing the nation and closing the court, these reasons are being delivered in writing. The Information is not before me to endorse. If possible, I authorize the clerk of the court to endorse the dismissal on my behalf. Alternatively, I shall endorse the record and Information when next in Perth.
DATED AT BROCKVILLE FOR DELIVERY IN PERTH, THIS 1 MAY 2020
Charles D. Anderson, J.
UNTIL IT'S POSTED ON CANLII THE COMPLETE DECISION CAN BE READ HERE: kelleyandderek.weebly.com
:::
SEE RELATED NEWS: NO, NOT JUST TWO BREACHES OF ALLEGED SECURITY. THERE WERE THREE BREACHES OF ALLEGED SECURITY.
2018: Ransomware attacks hit two Ontario children’s aid societies.
Ransomware attacks at two children’s aid societies have spurred the Ontario government to tighten cybersecurity around a new, $123-million provincial database for children in care.
Officials with the other agency — Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville — claim they saw an English ransom message flash on their computer screens, demanding $60,000, when they tried to access their database in November.
“It encrypted most of our servers,” says the Lanark agency’s executive director, Raymond Lemay. “No data was taken out of our system. It was just an attempt by whatever you call these people to get a ransom.”
Cybersecurity experts from the province’s Ministry of Children and Youth Services, along with a private internet security firm, swooped into the agency to neutralize the malware in the infected servers.
ISN'T JUST ONE LIE ENOUGH TO QUESTION ALL TRUTHS?
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2018/02/22/ransomware-attacks-hit-two-ontario-childrens-aid-societies.html
:::
Back in 2015: CAS watchdog opens new local chapter.
NEWS by Desmond Devoy Smiths Falls Record News
A new watchdog group is promising to keep tabs on the local Children’s Aid Society.
The Citizens Committee for Public and Private Accountability of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, an off-shoot of sorts to a similar, national organizatiSmiths Falls CAS vids.. http://www.liveleak.com/c/space-coyote
https://www.insideottawavalley.com/news-story/5926359-cas-watchdog-opens-new-local-chapter/
Perth, ON. Canada Court Watch public info session on dealing with a Children's Aid Society. Sep 18, 2015.
..This is an audio of our Canada Court Watch public info session on your rights when dealing with a Children's Aid Society. Presented by Mr. Vernon Beck, founder of Canada Court Watch and Social Justice Advocate. Held at His House, 40 North St., Perth, ON., on Sept. 17, 2015. Thanks to all who came out!on, Canada Court Watch (CCW), had its first major meeting last week.
https://youtu.be/8j7C9UhYUM0?list=PLsYhw09i3If44rMBDuZQ0ztayzSQU35Fy
:::
2020: Smiths Falls' Kelley Denham acquitted in Family and Children’s Services computer case.
When Denham first publicized the absence of security on the child-welfare agency’s website, they shut it down and figured it was time to hire a computer security expert.
At the time, the agency’s program manager in charge of the website was Margaret Row. The child-welfare agency hired Margaret Row’s son-in-law, David Schmidt, to investigate what happened and fix any breach of security even though there wasn’t one, according to undisputed facts in the judge’s decision.
After a completely impartial four-month investigation (?), Denham was charged with hacking and identifying children involved in court proceedings, when in fact she did neither, and earlier this week Ontario Court Justice Charles D. Anderson acquitted her of all charges and cleared her name after trial.
https://ottawasun.com/2016/04/19/police-probe-leak-of-ids-of-lanark-leeds-and-grenville-childrens-aid-clients-over-web/wcm/4cf5287c-6921-4267-922b-bfb6838a7a0c
The judge noted that the CAS did not take appropriate measures to secure private information. The judge also noted there were no special computer skills or deception required to access the files, which were not marked as confidential and came with no warnings or disclaimers.
The information was publicly available, the judge ruled. He said there was no hacking and Denham didn’t break any Children’s Aid Society (CAS) laws about identifying children involved in court proceedings.
https://www.insideottawavalley.com/news-story/10014328-smiths-falls-kelley-denham-acquitted-in-family-and-children-s-services-computer-case/
The Smiths Falls woman was found not guilty of all five charges she was facing. Because of the ongoing COVID-19 state of emergency, the judge in the case, the Hon.Jun 4, 2020.
Denham’s life took a rapid turn in April 2016 when police broke through her garage door to execute a search warrant to seize phones, computers, a gaming system, and USB sticks — anything that could store evidence related to her access to the website.
In the early-morning raid, Denham said they put her husband in handcuffs.
“I woke up to police in my bedroom and after I yelled for them to take the ‘cuffs off of him, they did. They also wouldn’t let me call a lawyer.”
Kelley Denham was accused of hacking confidential information from the Family and Children's Services of Lanark Leeds, and Grenville website. The courts have exonerated her. WAYNE CUDDINGTON / Ottawa Citizen/ Postmedia.
https://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/news/local-news/cas-whistleblower-acquitted/wcm/47bd011b-db67-4893-b4b0-66643b263a2e
She was found not guilty on several charges:
• Mischief over $5,000 (section 430 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCA);
• Mischief of data (section 430 (5) of the CCA);
• Unauthorized use of a computer (section 342 of the CCA);
• Publication of identifying information (section 85 (3) of the Child and Family Services Act of Ontario — CFSA); and,
• Another charge under section 76 of the CFSA, referring to identifying parties to a protected hearing.
MAR. 21, 2018 THE FOLLOWING CHARGES AGAINST KELLEY DENHAM WERE DROPPED:
1) Theft under $5000 - s. 334 Criminal Code of Canada
2) Traffick in identity Information - s. 402.2(2) Criminal Code of Canada
:::
INTERVIEW with Director of Service for Family and Children's Services of Lanark Leeds and Grenville.
https://youtu.be/kq6JCx5FlfA
:::
2016: The night of the raid.. Part one.
It was the end of a long day in 2016, we had forced the CAS to withdraw their alleged concerns about the welfare of our children for the first time just a few short months ago and my wife had just recently spoken to CTV's Annie Bergeron about the breach of alleged security at FCSLLG when a rare event happened..
All four of our children went to sleep at bedtime without a fight. A few relaxing hours later my wife an I were deeply and very comfortably asleep.
https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/names-of-285-people-referred-to-children-s-aid-in-lanark-leeds-and-grenville-posted-online-1.2865944
Suddenly flying off the bed I hear what I think is a giant crash, I can only think one of the kids had gotten up and maybe pushed a dresser down the stair. I run out of our bedroom fearing a child is hurt when I see flashlights shining through the widow of the kitchen door. I go closer and peer through the glass as three officer light up their own faces.
I'm still groggy with sleep but I can guess who they are looking for after all the media attention. I remember my wife went to sleep in the buff, I raise one finger and try to say, one second I'll get her, I'm not sure if anything came out of my mouth they could hear.. I turned to get her so she could get dressed and crash there goes the kitchen door, frame and all.. I had a second to start wonder how I was going to close and lock the door to keep our special needs child and other children safe inside before I was in handcuffs. One of them is showing me a warrant and explaining why it expired 30 minutes ago.
My wife comes out of the bedroom dressed with a male officer right behind her. She sees me in cuffs and starts yelling at them to take the cuffs off and they did.. It's the first time in the last few minutes I thought maybe I was going to get to see my kids again and maybe the last time the kids saw me I wouldn't be in handcuffs, maybe weren't going to lose our kids ..
But that all changed a little while later..
End of Part One...
No comments:
Post a Comment