Your Right to Complain to a Children’s Aid Society.

Your Right to Complain to a Children’s Aid Society.

If you have a question or concern about services from a children’s aid society, you can talk to the unregistered worker who is helping you, the worker’s unregistered supervisor, or someone else at the society. If you do not want to first speak to them or if speaking to your worker or others at the society does not answer your questions, you have the right to start a formal process to complain to the society. Societies are required, by law, to establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel to review formal complaints submitted in writing who will totally deny any wrongdoing by their workers or themselves.

Meet former director of service for FCSLLG Kim Morrow speaking to Kelley Denham about her formal complaint..

https://youtu.be/kq6JCx5FlfA

Your society may also offer alternate less official complaints processes like retired judges who were formerly in their careers employed by a CAS as you will hear in the video linked below or to discredit your formal complaint with other processes such as years long criminal trials, college disciplinary hearings and multi-million dollar lawsuits as you will read below the linked video.

https://youtu.be/HALda2OHg4s

https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/605844719625296/

http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/childrensaid/societies/ocascomplaint.aspx

:::

2020: CAS whistleblower acquitted.

After a four-month investigation, Kelley 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.Jun 4, 2020.

https://canoe.com/news/local-news/it-was-four-years-of-my-life-on-hold-cas-whistleblower-cleared-of-hacking-charges/wcm/2f3b7325-e10e-438e-add8-c078b7508921

https://www.recorder.ca/news/local-news/cas-whistleblower-acquitted

WHAT CAME FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?

If "everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system," wasn't FCSLLG guilty of committing an offense when Kelley was inadvertently able to access the information without logging on to FCSLLG'S public information website or FCSLLG's alleged secure portal OR DOES THE LAW SAY SOMEWHERE - UNLESS THEY'RE GROSSLY INCOMPETENT, NEGLIGENT, AND WORK DIRECTLY FOR THE GOVERNMENT?

https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/875041352705630/

:::

THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN -and- KELLY J. DENHAM

APPEARANCES: FOR THE CROWN: Mr. Corbella

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Mr. Mansour

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These are reasons for judgment concerning Kelly J. Denham who stands charged with the following counts under the Criminal Code of Canada, and the Child and Family Services Act of Ontario, specifically:

- Criminal Code s. 430(1.1)(c): that between 31 January 2016 and 18 April 2016 she did obstruct, interrupt or interfere with the lawful use of computer data of the Family and Child Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville.

- Criminal Code s. 430(1.1)(d): that between 31 January 2016 and 18 April 2016 she did obstruct, interrupt or interfere with a person in the lawful use of computer data, or denied access to computer data to a person who was entitled to access it.

2 - Criminal Code s. 342.1(1)(c): that between 31 January 2016 and 18 April 2016, she did fraudulently and without colour of right, use, or cause to be used, directly or indirectly a computer system with intent to commit an offence under s. 430 in relation to computer data.

And under the Child and Family Services Act

- Child and Family Services Act of Ontario s. 76: that on 18 April 2016 she published information that has the effect of identifying a witness at, or a participant in a hearing, or a party to a hearing, to wit; the names of clients of Family and Children Services.

- Child and Family Services Act of Ontario s. 45(8): on 18 April 2016 did publish information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at, or a participant in a hearing, or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parents, or foster parents, or a member of the child’s family, to wit; the names of clients of Family and Children Services.

The trial took place before me at Perth. It was agreed by counsel that the information alleging offences under the Criminal Code would be tried together with the information under the Child and Family Services Act of Ontario, with the evidence received applying to both.

At the conclusion of the evidence on 15 August 2019, counsel requested and I agreed to an adjournment for oral and written argument. Argument was finally 3 concluded on 17 December 2019, and the matter was adjourned ultimately to this date for judgement.

Overview of the Evidence:

The facts are not disputed.

It is common ground that Ms. Denham had dealings with the Family and Children Services of Lanark Leeds and Grenville, hereinafter referred to by its initials as FCSLLG, an agency accredited and operating under the Child and Family Services Act of Ontario. Those dealings commenced in April 2015. Ms. Denham soon became dissatisfied with the actions of the FCSLLG.

In January 2016, Ms. Denham complained in writing to FCSLLG, and subsequently met with the Director. That meeting was secretly taped by Ms. Denham.

The FCSLLG on its own initiative had by this time established a computer web site. The object of the website was twofold; they wished to create a public portal that would be open to the public to provide an overview of the applicable legislation of child protection and the agencies role within the community in fulfilling that role, and a private portal to disseminate private information concerning the FCSLLG and its activities that would be available only to its board members.

4 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.

It is acknowledged that Ms. Denham accessed the FCSLLG website and entered what was intended to be the private portal. She thereby gained access to the confidential FCSLLG board information including an Excel spreadsheet that contained the names of mothers and families who had been referred to sought out FCSLLG for service.

In early February 2016 FCSLLG became aware that a video of the meeting between Ms. Denham and its Director entitled “Full Interview with Director of Service” had been posted to You Tube. During the video various FCSLLG documents that it had considered private and confidential were shown on the screen.

When this came to the attention of FCSLLG in early February 2016 FCSLLG shut the website down and hired David Schmidt, the son-in-law of Margaret Row who at the time was employed by FCSLLG as a program manager

5 charged with the responsibility of oversight of the computer site, and instructed him to determine how this had happened and rectify any breach of security.

Mr. Schmidt gave evidence at trial and was qualified on consent as an expert in the field of computers in general and in website security analysis.

In his investigation of the website, Mr. Schmidt discovered that two IP addresses associated with Ms. Denham had accessed the FCSLLG website files.

He further reported on the inherent lack of security in the website and made recommendations to correct and secure the private information.

Mr. Schmidt determined that 252 discrete files that the FCSLLG intended to be private had in fact been downloaded, and the defense does not dispute that the accused accessed and downloaded the material.

FCSLLG implemented some but not all of Mr. Schmidt’s recommendations.

In particular Mr. Schmidt advised that the two-portal system in place on the single website should be separated to provide full security. He recommended that there be two distinct and separate websites, one for each task.

Contrary to that recommendation, the private Board portal containing the private documentation intended for Board eyes only remained on the single website, however attempts were made to close the file directory through which it was determined that Ms. Denham had obtained access to the private documentation intended for Board use only. FCSLLG took the position at the time that, contrary

6 to the report of Mr. Schmidt, that this was sufficient security to put the website back on line.

In fact, the actions of the FCSLLG, did not secure the private information.

On April 18, 2016, Ms. Denham posted a hyperlink of a spreadsheet (0-5intake-stats.xslsx) that contained the names of 285 mothers of children who had had interactions with FCSLLG on the Facebook account of “Smiths Falls Swap Shop”.

Smiths Falls Swap Shop is a private group that requires permission for membership and has some minor limiting conditions for membership and agreement that group rules be followed.

The link, if clicked, provided direct access to the document on the FCSLLG website. Two women, amongst others, accessed the material and seeing their names complained to FCSLLG concerning the privacy breach. Another woman accessed the link and complained to both FCSLLG and to the police.

FCSLLG on being advised of this fresh breach again shut the website down and contacted the police.

These charges are the result.

THE LAW AND THE SPECIFIC CHARGES:

In argument the Crown quite properly cautioned that the competence of the FCSLLG in the manner in which it dealt with the establishment and maintenance

7 of the confidentiality of its clients is not the issue. I agree. The issue is simply whether or not the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that in her actions the accused has violated all elements of the various counts before the Court.

As to the charges under s. 430(1.1) of the Criminal Code, the section provides that:

Everyone commits mischief who willfully

(a) destroys or alters computer data

(b) renders computer data meaningless, useless or ineffective

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of computer

data; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with a person in the lawful use of

computer data or denies access to computer data to a person who is

entitled to access to it.

The accused is charged under subsections (c) and (d) as set out above.

The accused is also charged under s. 342.1(1)(c), which provides:

Everyone who, fraudulently and without color of right,

(a) obtains, directly or indirectly any computer service;

(b) …intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any

function of a computer system;

(c) uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system

with intent to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or (b) or an

offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system,”

Section 342.1(2) defines computer system and data as:

computer system means a devise that, or a group of interconnected or related

devises, one or more of which,

(a) contains computer programs or other data, and

(b) pursuant to computer programs,

(i)performs logic and control, and

(ii)may perform any other function;

8 data means representations of information or of concepts that are being prepared or have been prepared in a form suitable for use in a computer system

To succeed in relation to the charges under s. 430(1.1) the Crown is required to satisfy the criminal burden and prove, that Ms. Denham; obstructed interrupted or interfered with the lawful use of computer data (subsection (c)), and/or that she obstructed, interrupted or interfered with a person in the lawful use of computer data or denied access to computer data to a person entitled to access to it, and that she did so willfully, that is with knowledge or recklessness as to the consequences of her actions.

The Crown’s theory in relation to the criminal counts casts FCSLLG as a victim that as a result of the actions of the accused was obliged to: shut down their website and disable the hyperlink to confidential material; hire a consultant; delete documents; issue a cease and desist letter to the administrator of the Facebook page where the link was posted; and notify proper authorities.

Factually the Crown likens the situation to a victim failing to lock its back door and an accused entering and committing mischief to the interior. The rhetorical analogy is not particularly helpful to the analysis. The facts and the applicable law in the charging sections are specific and determinative of the issues.

9 The defense argued the matter on the basis that the actions of the accused were not fraudulent and fraud is a necessary element of the offence; and further that the actions of the accused did not obstruct, interrupt or interfere with the computer data.

I note first of all that the focus of these sections is on computer data not hardware or the computer program employed, and I find there was here no obstruction, interruption or interference with the data. Interference is defined in the Dictionary of Canadian Law (Thomson Carswell (third edition) 2004), as: “To obstruct; to disrupt.”

On the facts, the accused copied various documents, specifically she copied 252 documents from the FCSLLG website and the hyperlink which, if followed by others by a simple click, would lead them directly to and open spreadsheet (0-5intake-stats.xslsx), information that FCSLLG intended to be private.

She did not however alter or destroy any computer data on the website of the FCSLLG. The documents remained available and unaltered at all times. Their delivery was temporarily interrupted at the election of the FCSLLG, once it became apparent that the documents were accessible by the world at large. But the closure of the website was the result of decisions made by FCSLLG once they became aware of the shortcomings of their security provisions. While off line the data remained intact and unaltered.

10 I note that in R. v. Livingston, [2018] O.J. No. 254, the obstruction interruption or interference with the data involved the deliberate erasure or deletion of data, while in R. v. Charania [2012] O.J. No. 5113 a case where an unauthorized user name and password were employed to copy personnel records, the court specifically based its finding not on the taking of the documents, but on the fact that doing so resulted in the complainant being locked out of the computer system.

The locking out however was not, as is the case before us, of a decision by the complainant to do so because of a perceived breach of its privacy, but rather an automatic computer programing function, beyond the control of the complainant.

The automatic computer function activated by the accused denied access to the complainant. The court held; “In this case, the Crown has specifically proven … that (the accused) actually obstructed and interfered with (the complainant’s) lawful use of data by preventing her from accessing data on the Ritz Villa computer system…The finding of guilt is not based upon the confidentiality of the data in (the complainants’) email account.” (para 120) I cannot find any obstruction, interruption or interference to the data. In the first instance the accused took a picture or copy of the data found on the site. In the second she took a picture or copy of the hyperlink leading to the spread sheet data and posted that to the Smiths Falls Swap Shop web site.

It is common ground that the FCSLLG closed down the website on two occasions in order to investigate the supposed security breach and to address the

11 and then readdress and remedy the problem. The evidence shows and I find as a fact that the FCSLLG was in total control of the website. The FCSLLG created it, operated it and chose to shut it down. The cause of the shutdown was the system’s inherent security defect. The accused may have discovered the security shortcomings, she did not however cause those shortcomings nor the shutdown. I agree.

The FCSLLG witnesses, Mr. Lemay, Ms. Row, acknowledge that on learning of the inadequacies with the security of the Website, the site was shut down. They acknowledge further that the site would have been closed regardless of the manner in which the security inadequacies were brought to the agency’s attention. The accused demonstrated the inadequacies, but did not create them.

Her actions then must be seen on the light of a notifier of the problem but not as a cause. It was the security problem itself that caused the complainant to shut down the website.

Turning to the element of fraud. The defense argues that fraud is a necessary element of the charge of unauthorized use of a computer, and that the accused in accessing and downloading the information did not engage in any fraudulent act.

As noted previously, the website was theoretically designed for the dual purpose of providing both public and private information. The public was invited to receive public information as to the workings of the FCSLLG; board members

12 were thought to have access to private information unavailable to others. The accused did obtain private information, but was able to do so not through deceit falsehood or other fraudulent means but because of the design flaws inherent in the system.

The private information was publicly available. There was no need for a password or user name restricting access. Nor, I find, did the accused require any particular or peculiar skill or ability to gain access. The information was available.

This is confirmed in the evidence of Mr. Schmidt, the expert relied upon by FCSLLG:

Q: In this case the directory had no password, nothing in it was intended to stop you from getting to it.

A: That’s correct. (Transcript p. 105 – 106)

The absence of fraud distinguishes the cases relied upon by the Crown. In R. v. Livingston (supra) Lipson J. of this court expressly found:

“The totality of evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was neither justified nor authorized nor had the color of right to arrange for the wiping of the hard drives…He was clearly aware of his obligation to retain records…Nevertheless, (he) resorted to extreme and unauthorized measures to permanently delete records…” (emphasis added)

The court went on to find and enumerate the fraudulent methods he employed to do so. That is not this case. Nor is R. v. Charia (supra) where deception was found as a fact to be used to obtain the desired material.

13 I am for those reasons left with a reasonable doubt and unable to find Ms. Denham guilty of the criminal charges before the court.

Turning then to the charges under the Child and Family Services Act.

Section 45(8) of the Act provides that “No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.”

Section 76 of the Act is similar in object and wording, “No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a witness at or a participant in a hearing, or a party to a hearing other than a society.”

The elements of the offences charged are; the act of publishing or making public; information that has the effect of identifying the specified participants, parties, witnesses or children; who are involved in a hearing or proceeding.

The Crown argues that all elements of these offences have been met.

On the element of “publishing or making public”, the accused, by posting information on Facebook made that information public. The fact that the particular site on which it was posted, Smiths Falls Swap Shop, requires an application for membership that must be accepted by the sites controllers is irrelevant. Even if the site had only one member it would still constitute publishing.

14 As to the element of “identification” the Crown argues that revealing the client list as set out in spreadsheet 0-5intake-stats.xslsx, some (six) of who were engaged in a hearing is sufficient to satisfy the element of identification.

The defense argues that on the facts of this case the Crown has failed to establish that the actions of the accused, constituted publishing or making public information, and has failed to establish that her posts identified a witness, participant or party in a hearing.

Section 45(8) was discussed in Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton–Wentworth v. D.–G. (E.), [1995] 21 OR (3d) 643, where Rosenberg J. (as he then was) held on behalf of the Divisional Court, that given the objective of s. 45(8) there must be a link or coupling between the identification of an individual and their involvement in a proceeding or hearing.

“The impugned publication must make reference to the proceedings or be contrary to some other provision of the Act to justify an injunction based on the Act. … It must, to offend the Act, require the disclosure that there are proceedings either directly or impliedly and couple the person identified with those proceedings.”

Section 76 of the CFSA is similar in object and wording and in my view should be interpreted in the same manner.

It is interesting to note that the wording of both sections in restricting publication of information that “has the effect of identifying” is narrower than that used in section 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada which

15 authorizes the court to direct the nonpublication of “any information that could identify the victim or a witness…” If the legislature, in drafting the prohibition, sought to cast a wider net it was open to it to do so and the it has chosen not to.

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.

45(8) of the Act, nor “…the effect of identifying a witness at or a participant in a hearing, or a party to a hearing…” as set out in s. 76 of the Act.

I turn then to second point raised by the defense that being that the accused did not “publish or make public” the information by posting the hyperlink on the Smiths Falls Swap Shop.

The terms “publish” and “make public” are not defined in the legislation. The Crown argues that reference to s. 299 of the Criminal Code which, defines publish in the context of the provisions against criminal defamatory libel should apply. That section provides:

“A person publishes a libel when he

(a) exhibits it in public;

17

(b) causes it to be read or seen; or

(c) shows or delivers it with intent that it should be read or seen by the

person it defames or by any other person.”

The Crown further argues that whatever definition is employed the fact is that “making public”, the alternate wording of the impugned act is satisfied by the simple act of placing information on Facebook. The Crown argues that in this case the accused made the material public by posting the information to Smiths Falls Swap Shop, and that would be so even if the

Swap Shop group had only one member.

The defense notes that the Information laid particularizes the offence as one of publishing without reference to the alternative of making public. I note that no amendment was sought or granted. That said, given the common definition of “publish” that follows, the point is largely moot.

In Re Orr’s Stated Case (sub nom R. Leong), [1961] 38 WWR 114 at para.9 the court noted:

“Where the word “publication” is used in a penal statute without definition, and with context which would assign to it a special meaning, it must be considered to bear the meaning it would bear in in ordinary English speech.

Certainly, where crime is involved a court should not go out of its way to attribute to the word an extraordinary meaning involving the culpability of the accused, but should rather hew strictly to the line resolving any possible doubt in favour of the accused.”

These are propositions that I find to be a fair statement of the law.

18 I turn then to commonly used dictionaries for definitions of the term.

In Black’s Law Dictionary “publish” is defined as: to make public, to circulate, to make known to people in general: …An advising of the public or making known of something to the public for a purpose. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary: to declare publicly; make generally known;

… to place before the public (as through mass medium), circulate, while Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “publish” as: to make generally known; to make public announcement of; to place before the public; to produce or release for publication. Lastly, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines “publish” as: prepare and issue (a book, a newspaper, information in electronic form, computer software, etc.) for public consumption; make generally known.

The accused in this case posted 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 background and context in Cook v. Newton differs of course from this situation. The FCSLLG as the creator of the spreadsheet intended that it be for the information of board members only. The principles discussed however remain. The accused exercised no control over the contents of the document, she simply provided the reference to its existence, and that, I find, falls short of publishing.

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.

:::

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

:::

FOUR YEAR LEGAL ORDEAL STARTED WITH A POCKET DIAL..

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

:::

Children's Aid: A Glaring Omission In Provincial And Federal Privacy Laws:

As far back as 2004, Ontario's Privacy Commissioner has lobbied for oversight and accountability for the Children’s Aid Society and been completely ignored.

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. CAS workers are making decisions which are literally destroying families, yet there is little or no accountability for their actions short of a lawsuit after the damage is done.

"As the law stands now clients of the Ontario Children's Aid Society under Ministry are routinely denied a timely (often heavily censored) file disclosure before the court begins making life altering decisions 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."

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. This Charter provision provides both substantive and procedural rights. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

“Each year,” said former Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian , “my office has to tell Ontarians, again and again: ‘We’re sorry, but the situation you describe doesn’t fall under Ontario privacy legislation.’ Residents of several other Canadian provinces have more effective privacy protection than Ontarians. Ontario, Canada’s most populous province and the hub of business, needs a made-in-Ontario privacy law that will cover all of the private sector and non-government sectors, similar to laws in Alberta, B.C. and Quebec. This would be the final cornerstone statute for privacy protection in Ontario.”

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.

“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.”

Her recommendations would include making changes to the law which would make a number of publicly funded organizations more accountable to the public, include Children’s Aid Agencies.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/beef-up-information-laws-ontario-privacy-czar-says/article1120573/

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/commissioner-cavoukian-calls-on-government-to-preserve-freedom-and-liberty-514463911.html

CAS actions are shrouded in secrecy, and media investigations are chilled by CAS (a multi-billion dollar private corporation) lawyers, who claim to be protecting the privacy rights of all involved to the exclusion of all other rights.

The GONE theory holds that Greed, Opportunity, Need and the Expectation of not being caught are what lay the groundwork for fraud. Greed and/or need provides the motive.

:::

2016: Frontline worker Nancy Simone, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees local representing 275 workers at the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, argues child protection workers already have levels of oversight that include workplace supervisors, family courts, coroners’ inquests and annual case audits by the ministry.

“Our work is already regulated to death.”

https://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news-story/6437856-children-s-aid-societies-launch-major-training-reforms/

http://thecaribbeancamera.com/training-for-childrens-aid-societies/

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/03/childrens-aid-societies-launch-major-training-reforms.html

:::

2009: Caseworkers come armed with vaster powers than any police officer investigating crime and shrouded in secrecy. It is an immense authority easily abused, without vigilant restraint.

Whether we wanted it or not, knew it or not, over time, the work of child-welfare organizations has become “parenting by the state and the imposition of their value system on other people,” says Marty McKay, a clinical psychologist who has worked on abuse cases in the U.S and Canada. Provincial agencies have the power to intervene when children are considered “at risk” of abuse or neglect — even if none has actually occurred.

http://www.nationalpost.com/children+society+workers+should+reined+critics/1690967/story.html

:::

Considering how the children's aid society works with the police, the courts and the ministry perhaps the SIU could rein in this rogue agency...

The Special Investigations Unit is the civilian oversight agency responsible for investigating circumstances involving police that have resulted in a death, serious injury, or allegations of sexual assault of a civilian in Ontario, Canada.

https://www.siu.on.ca/en/index.php

:::

Regulation Of Child Protection Workers By Ontario College Of Social Workers And Social Service Workers: CUPE Responds.

In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth like child protection in Ontario is a rogue agency gone mad with power.

There are those who engage in denialist tactics because they are protecting some "overvalued idea" which is critical to their identity. Since legitimate dialogue is not a valid option for those who are interested in protecting bigoted or unreasonable ideas from facts, their only recourse is to use these types of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument and legitimate debate, when there is none.

DRAFT Letter 4 (the slippery slope) – Accountability: "Mandatory registration and regulation by the College is not in The Best Interest of Child Protection Workers and ultimately , not in the best interest of vulnerable children, youth and families."

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. It is also called a fallacy, an informal logical fallacy, and an informal fallacy. All logical fallacies are nonsequiturs—arguments in which a conclusion doesn't follow logically from what preceded it.

Here are some facts and figures I think point to significant problems for the child welfare sector and for underprivileged families in particular:

• There are over 5,000 child protection workers in Ontario (5160)

• The College regulates about 17,000 social workers and social service workers

• In Ontario, only 7% of College-registered social workers are employed by a CAS

• Only 4% of members of the Ontario Association of Social Workers work for a CAS

• Between 30% and 50% of Ontario’s child welfare workers do NOT hold a BSW

• Only 63% of direct service staff in CASs have a BSW or MSW (in 2012, it was 57%)

• Only 78% of direct service supervisors have a BSW or MSW (in 2012, it was 75.5%)

• The 2013 OACAS Human Resources survey estimates that 70% of relevant CAS job classifications would qualify for registration with the College (so about 1500 CAS currently employed workers would be unable to register with the College)

• From 2002 to 2014, 41 child welfare employees who did not hold a BSW or MSW submitted equivalency applications to register as social workers; only 16 were successful and 25 were refused so OACAS created a new training program even a child protection worker could pass.

http://cupe2190.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SSWCC_CAS-letters-re-college-regulation_Nov.-2016.pdf

https://mydefence.ca/ontario-college-of-social-workers-and-social-services-defence-lawyer/

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they're often very sneakily used by child protection social workers and the ministry to fool people. Don't be fooled!

This post has been designed to help you identify and call out dodgy child poaching funding predator logic wherever it may raise its ugly, incoherent head.

Follow the link and rollover the icons to click for examples. If you see a child protection social worker committing a fallacy, link them to it ...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-logical-fallacy-1691259

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

:::

2004: Child Welfare Reform: Protecting Children or Policing the Poor?

It was in the context of dramatic media coverage of tragic child welfare outcomes and a rapidly shrinking welfare state that Ontario's child welfare reform was introduced in 1997. The reform involves a series of changes to both law and policy that have transformed child welfare in this province within a very short time. The initiatives to support this new and much more focused direction, as we will show, have produced a high level of surveillance and intrusion into the lives of clients and suspected client of the system.

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=jlsp

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/jlsp/vol19/iss1/1/

:::

OACAS: The duty to report.

“Reasonable grounds” refers to the information that an average person, using normal and honest judgment, would need in order to decide to report. This standard has been recognized by courts in Ontario as establishing a lower threshold for reasonable grounds.

Can there really be two thresholds for reasonable grounds and still be reasonable?

http://www.oacas.org/childrens-aid-child-protection/duty-to-report/

:::

2019: Executive director Elaina Groves does say it's important for the public to know that child protection workers investigate differently than police.

Decisions are made on a "balance of probabilities" which often means there's not enough evidence for criminal charges let alone a conviction which is probably why child protection social workers in Ontario refused to comply with the social worker registration act claiming there are no practical benefits for them agreeing to register with a college of social work that also uses a "balance of probabilities" to determine the "facts.."

The College of Social Work takes reports about concerns from the public and applies their own standard for investigating complaints as does the society and the same "balance of probabilities" making a ruling.

Groves says some may think that sounds "subjective" but she says rulings on abuse are based on the "impressions" of the unqualified unregistered social worker, the opinions of questionable medical professionals, as well as other evidence like the fraudulent Motherisk Test.

Balance of Probabilities Definition: Burden of proof in civil trials.

The common distinction is made with the burden of truth in a criminal trial, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial, one party's case need only be more probable than the other.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/cas-daycare-operator-dowling-sudbury-child-abuse-1.4826325

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/home-daycare-lawsuit-cas-police-investigation-1.4537023

:::

You can hear former MPP Frank Klees say in a video linked below the very reason the social worker act was introduced and became law in 1998 was to regulate the "children's aid societies" and they ignored that..

FORMER ONTARIO MPP FRANK KLEES EXPLAINS "A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE."

I'M NOT A SOCIAL WORKER, I'M A CHILD PROTECTION WORKER!

https://youtu.be/SA1YyWO0RTQ?list=PLsYhw09i3If44rMBDuZQ0ztayzSQU35Fy

Two decades later...

Without the deterrents professional regulation provides what prevents child protection social workers from being or becoming a danger to children and their families?

The union representing child protection social workers is firmly opposed to oversight from a professional college and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, which regulates and funds child protection, is so far staying out of it.

The report Towards Regulation notes that the “clearest path forward” would be for the provincial government to -again- legislate the necessity of professional regulation, which would be an appallingly heavy-handed move according to OACAS/Cupe.

http://joincupe2190.ca/files/2015/10/Professional-regulation-at-childrens-aid-societies.pdf

:::