2020: Kelley Denham was accused of hacking confidential information from the Leeds and Grenville Family and Children's Services. The courts have exonerated her. WAYNE CUDDINGTON / OTTAWA CITIZEN/ POSTMEDIA.
https://www.recorder.ca/news/local-news/cas-whistleblower-acquitted
2019: DISCIPLINE DECISION SUMMARY – KELLEY JEAN DENHAM
Spring 2020, Discipline Decision Summaries, News
The College publishes summaries of decisions of the Discipline Committee and/or provides links to full-text, neutralized versions of its decisions. Information that is subject to a publication ban or that could reveal the identity of witnesses or clients, including the name of the facility, has been removed as necessary, or has been anonymized. As of January 2019, decisions are also available via the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII).
By publishing decisions, the College endeavours to:
Illustrate for social workers, social service workers and members of the public, what does or does not constitute professional misconduct.
Provide social workers and social service workers with direction about the College’s Standards of Practice and professional behaviour, to be applied in future, should they find themselves in similar circumstances.
Implement the Discipline Committee’s decision.
Provide social workers, social service workers and members of the public with an understanding of the College’s discipline process.
Kelley Jean Denham, #826163
The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers found that Kelley Jean Denham is guilty of professional misconduct in that she violated sections 2.2, 2.29 and 2.36 of O. Reg. 384/00 (Professional Misconduct) to the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, and Interpretation 5.1 of Principle V of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice Handbook (Standards of Practice).
Kelley Jean Denham, # 826163 (Discipline Decision Summary and Reasons)*
*Attachments referenced have not been included. Penalty decision pending.
https://perspective.ocswssw.org/discipline-decision-summary-kelley-jean-denham/
:::
CAS whistleblower cleared of hacking charges. By Gary Dimmock.
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.
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
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.
The SF police claimed to have taken four months to investigate a crime that never happened...?
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.
(WHY DIDN'T FCSLLG CALL THE MINISTRIES CYBERSECURITY EXPERTS AT NO EXTRA COST TO THEIR BUDGET AND THE TAXPAYERS?)
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://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/it-was-four-years-of-my-life-on-hold-cas-whistleblower-cleared-of-hacking-charges
https://www.insideottawavalley.com/news-story/10014328-smiths-falls-kelley-denham-acquitted-in-family-and-children-s-services-computer-case/
https://www.recorder.ca/news/local-news/cas-whistleblower-acquitted
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
:::
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. After a 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 public, and one exclusively for board members.
The agency went against the main recommendation and a few months later, Denham was able to access a spreadsheet that listed more than 250 names of clients of the children’s aid society. She posted a photograph of the hyperlink to access the files but did not post any names.
https://www.recorder.ca/news/local-news/cas-whistleblower-acquitted
:::
Court Refuses to Apply Liability Policies’ Electronic Data Exclusions, Cites Lack of Jurisprudence.
Laridae v. Co-operators, 2020 ONSC 2198 (CanLII)
Earlier in May, in Laridae v. Co-operators, 2020 ONSC 2198, an Ontario court was hesitant to offer guidance on the proper application of two “electronic data exclusions” that expressly withdrew coverage for the misappropriation and display of electronic information on the internet. At issue were allegations arising from particularly egregious hacking incidents involving a child protection agency’s website. Noting an apparent lack of guiding authority (“there is no jurisprudence on the proper interpretation of data exclusion clauses”), Pollak J. ordered a liability insurer to separately defend the named and additional insureds.
https://www.canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/71352
https://www.canliiconnects.org/en/cases/2020onsc2198
:::
Canada: Novel Case On Data Exclusion Interpreted In Favour Of Insureds
An Ontario judge recently interpreted a data exclusion in favour of the insureds, ordering the insurer to defend claims arising out of an alleged website security breach.1 A website owned by Family and Children's Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville ("FCS"), was breached when an unauthorized party downloaded and published documents stored in a secured section of the website, which contained personal information about individuals who had been the subject of FCS investigations. A broadly worded claim was subsequently brought against FCS, alleging damages resulting from defamation, breach of privacy and other causes of action. Laridae Communications Inc. had provided advice to FCS on the design and security of FCS's website. FCS issued a third-party claim against Laridae.
Footnotes: 1 Laridae v Co-Operators, 2020 ONSC 2198.
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/insurance-laws-and-products/942318/novel-case-on-data-exclusion-interpreted-in-favour-of-insureds
:::
2020: How the lack of cyber case law worked against an insurer in a $75-million data breach lawsuit.
The lack of cyber case law worked against an insurer in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently, with the court deciding that The Co-operators has a duty to defend two parties named in a $75-million cyber breach class action lawsuit.
https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/how-the-lack-of-cyber-caselaw-worked-against-an-insurer-in-a-75-million-data-breach-lawsuit-1004179343/
:::
2016: Police probe leak of IDs of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville children's aid clients over web.
Lemay said the person behind the breach is likely a disgruntled client who was “looking to embarrass us.”
(SO WHO'S THE DISGRUNTLED PARTY NOW ?)
Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville "learned" of the breach at 1:42 p.m. on Monday after the agency was notified by a client and a member of the community that the members-only Smiths Falls Swapshop Facebook page had a link to the list of names, said Family and Children’s Services executive director Raymond Lemay.
The agency immediately contacted police and other authorities and worked with them to contain the breach.
“To the best of our knowledge the file is no longer live, but we are having the situation monitored.” (YOU SHOULD SEE THE BIG BOX OF FAMILY'S UNITED POSTS THAT ARE RUMORED TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BY TAMMY SHEPHERD OF FCSLLG)
Lemay said there was a previous breach of the agency in February which did not involve the release of confidential information.
Ransomware attacks hit two Ontario children’s aid societies
(One lie is enough to question all truth! Big or small, lies are lies!)
Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville — alleged 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.”
Lemay says his agency didn’t pay up. He says it used an offline backup of computer files to get the agency up and running again in about eight hours.
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.
“It took them about three weeks to find the needle in the haystack,” Lemay says.
The ransomware attack locked the agencies out of local online files that contained private information on the children and families they serve.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2018/02/22/ransomware-attacks-hit-two-ontario-childrens-aid-societies.html
https://www.cira.ca/blog/cybersecurity/weekly-web-security-warning-even-children-arent-safe
http://www.safetravelsmagazine.com/2018/02/26/quick-read-ransomware-attacks-hit-two-ontario-childrens-aid-societies/
The person responsible was a children’s aid client who has been embroiled in a campaign against the agency, including posting hours-long YouTube videos of her interactions with members of the staff that can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjZ_knKT_FWLiUecMh3FFbw
(AND WHO'S EMBROILED IN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST WHO?)
Not only did FCSLLG allege to the media Kelley Denham/Jane Doe Hacker had committed a number of criminal acts resulting in Denham being charged, FCSLLG also initiated a complaint against Denham with the Ontario college of social workers and launched a claim for damages against Denham should the class action members be awarded any damages.
http://www.casprivacybreach.com/
https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/names-of-285-people-referred-to-children-s-aid-in-lanark-leeds-and-grenville-posted-online-1.2865944
Emotions regarding Children’s Aid Societies can run high, but there is no excuse for anyone to deliberately expose clients, said Lemay. Although there have been other examples of clients who have taken their disputes with children’s aid societies to the internet, Lemay know of no other incidents in which confidential lists of names have been released.
The February breach was investigated and the agency’s data systems were reviewed by an external consultant, who assured the agency that its documents were secure.
The woman involved also received a lawyer’s letter.
“She had to know that this was illegal,” said Lemay.
The names released in the most recent breach are those of referrals made to the agency between April and November 2015. The list would have been available only to members of the board. The agency typically has about 1,000 clients a year.
Lemay apologized for the release of the information, and said the agency takes privacy very seriously and will take steps to improve its processes and systems.
Caroline Newton, a spokeswoman for the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, says she is unaware of any other data breach at any of the province’s 47 children’s aid societies. Although there have been cases of children in care or their parents releasing information through social media, Newton can’t recall any recent cases where anyone has been prosecuted for releasing sensitive information.
However, all of the association’s member societies are aware of the need for information to be protected, said Newton. The province is also revamping the Child and Family Services Act.
“We live in an era where there are people determined to hack through security systems. Everybody has to be prepared for it,” said Newton.
Identifying those who are involved with children’s aid is illegal under the Child and Family Services Act. Releasing this information carries a fine of up to $10,000 and three years in jail.
Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville is answering questions from the public and current and former clients at 1-855-667-2726.
WATCH THE VIDEO: "The authors of their own misfortunes."
The audio in the video 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 five 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.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/502236246652811/
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/police-probe-leak-of-ids-of-lanark-leeds-and-grenville-childrens-aid-clients-over-web
:::
2020: Material Uncertainty Related to Going Concern
We draw attention to Note 3 in the financial statements, which indicates that the Society's operating fund revenues exceeded expenses by $206,391 during the year ended March 31, 2020 and, as of that date, the Society's current liabilities exceeded its current assets by $3,866,228. As stated in Note 3, these events or conditions, along with other matters as set forth in Note 3, indicate that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the Society's ability to continue as a going concern. Our opinion is not modified in respect of this matter.
https://fcsllg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Financial-Statements-2020.pdf
:::
Parents Thank Smiths Falls Police After Missing Son Found Safe..
https://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/107146/parents-thank-smiths-falls-police-after-missing-son-found-safe
Ontario CAS Dirty Tricks.
https://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/153438/ontario-cas-dirty-tricks
One lie is enough to question all truths.
:::
The Fascinating Reason Why Liars Keep On Lying.
You know how your mom always told you not to start lying because one fib would lead to more? Part of that age-old advice stems from the simple fact you usually have to keep lying to cover the initial untruths you dished out. But as Alice Park of Time reports, neuroscience now shows that we all should listen to Mom to keep our emotional sense of right, wrong and self, too.
Once a liar, always a liar, the old saying goes. Turns out there’s some scientific truth to that: researchers have tracked down how the brain makes lying easier as the untruths build up, providing some biological evidence for why small lies often balloon into ever larger ones.
In a study published in Nature Neuroscience, Tali Sharot from the department of experimental psychology at University College London and her colleagues devised a clever study to test people’s dishonest tendencies while scanning their brains in an fMRI machine. The 80 people in the study were shown pennies in a glass jar and given different incentives to guide whether they lied or told the truth to a fellow partner about how much money was contained in the jar. In some conditions, both the participant and the partner benefited if the participant lied; in others, just the participant benefited from his fib, or just the partner benefited (with no cost to either). In another set of scenarios, either the participant or partner benefited, but at the expense of the other if the participant lied. In each case, Sharot documented the changes in the people’s brains as they made their decisions.
They found that when people were dishonest, activity in a part of the brain called the amygdala—the hub of emotional processing and arousal—changed. With each scenario, the more dishonestly the participant advised his partner, the less activated the amygdala was on the fMRI. That may be because lying triggers emotional arousal and activates the amygdala (the part of the brain affected in cases of PDST), but with each additional lie, the arousal and conflict of telling an untruth diminishes, making it easier to lie.
Sharot also found that the amygdala became less active mostly when people lied to benefit themselves. In other words, self-interest seems to fuel dishonesty.
“Part of the emotional arousal we see when people lie is because of the conflict between how people see themselves and their actions,” Sharot said during a briefing discussing the results. “So I lie for self-benefit, but at the same time it doesn’t fit the way I want to view myself, which is as an honest person. It’s possible that we learn from the arousal signal…with less emotional arousal, perhaps I’m less likely to see the act as incongruent with my own self perception.”
The researchers were even able to map out how each lie led to less amygdala activation and found that the decrease could predict how much the person’s dishonesty would escalate in the next trial. Biology seems to back up the warnings parents give to their kids: that one lie just leads to another.
https://time.com/4540707/lying-lies-brain/
https://www.inc.com/wanda-thibodeaux/this-brain-study-shows-why-its-so-easy-to-keep-lyi.html
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/06/lying-hoax-false-fibs-science/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFQQVXVDgK8
:::
Cyber Crime Investigations: Bridging the Gaps Between Security Professionals, Law Enforcement, and Prosecutors Paperback – April 4 2007.
https://www.amazon.ca/Cyber-Crime-Investigations-Professionals-Enforcement/dp/1597491330
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cybercrime-investigation-framework_fig3_312324333
https://www.slideshare.net/karnikaseth/cybercrime-investigations-and-it-act2000
Blackstone's Handbook of Cyber Crime Investigation Paperback – March 30 2017.
This authoritative Handbook provides a clear and detailed introduction to cyber crime, offering you an effective operational guide to the complexities and challenges of investigating cyber-related crimes.
https://cata.ca/2018/cyber-crime-fighting-centres/
Concise and accessible, this book is an ideal reference and resource for all operational police officers, the extended police family and partners working to keep communities safe from the online phenomenon of cyber crime.
https://www.amazon.ca/Blackstones-Handbook-Cyber-Crime-Investigation/dp/0198723903
:::
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
:::
Family and Children's services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville
Mission & Values
MISSION
Our mission is to contribute to the wellbeing of children, youth and families by:
Protecting children and youth from abuse and neglect
Supporting families
Providing a consistent, supportive environment for children and youth
Actively engaging with our community to achieve positive outcomes
VALUES
Our values require us to:
Treat all people with dignity and respect
Collaborate with all to achieve our mission
Integrate learning into all that we do
Be accountable for the valuable resource entrusted to us
VISION
Our Vision is: Every child, youth and family shall live in a safe environment, be valued and have opportunity to develop to their fullest potential.
EVERY PERSON IN ONTARIO HAS A DUTY
Every person in Ontario has a duty to report child abuse if they have reasonable grounds to suspect it is occurring. Don’t hesitate to call us for more information if you think a child needs protection.
If you’d like to volunteer at an upcoming event or make a donation to help us cover our current legal fees and other expenses, please contact us at 1‑855‑667‑2726.
https://fcsllg.ca/about-us/mission-values/
https://fcsllg.ca/accountability/
https://fcsllg.ca/news-events/
:::
Canada: Case Study: Laridae v. Co-operators
10 August 2020
by Brian Vail, QC
Field LLP
Your LinkedIn Connections
at this firm
An Ontario Court ordered an insurer to defend a data breach claim in the face of data exclusion clauses where it was unclear whether or not all of the claims against the insured fell within the clauses.
Laridae v. Co-operators, 2020 ONSC 2198, per Pollak, J.
Facts and Issues
Family and Children's Services of Lanark (“FCS”) suffered a data breach in 2016 when an unauthorized hacker accessed a secured portion of the FCS website which should only have been accessible to authorized users with passwords.
FCS retained Laridae Communications Inc. to address the breach:
9. Laridae was retained by FCS to “recommend and implement communication” strategies. Its mandate was to “review and refresh” FCS's website to ensure that the new website and its components are compliant with privacy and other legislative requirements. Laridae advised FCS on issues relating to the design and security of its website.
Laridae added additional security features to the FCS website and advised FCS that it needed to do nothing regarding the confidential documents stored on or referred to in the website.
After that, the same hacker gained access to the FCS website again and downloaded a report which contained personal information of 285 people and posted it on internet sites available to the public.
A class action (the “Class Proceeding”) was brought against FCS seeking $75 million in damages (including punitive damages) alleging breach of the privacy rights in respect of the allegedly defamatory report. The Class Proceeding was framed in many causes of action, including negligence, defamation, negligent misrepresentation, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of confidence and breach of fiduciary duty.
FCS brought a Third Party Claim against Laridae, alleging breach of contract, negligent provision of services under its contract with VCS and negligent misrepresentation. FCS's Third Party Claim was not restricted to contribution and indemnity re: the Class Proceeding. In addition it also sought damages for electronic distribution through the internet and for physical distribution.
Laridae was insured under two policies issued by Co-operators:
A CGL policy, which required Co-operators to cover Laridae as the primary insured (with FCS as an additional insured) for sums legally required to pay as compensatory damages for “personal injury”.
“Personal injury” was defined as injury other than “bodily injury” for, inter alia “[o]ral or written publication of material that libels or slanders a person or organization or disparages a person's or organization's goods, products or services” or “[o]ral or written publication of material that violates a person's right to privacy”.
Co-operators relied on a Data Exclusion in the CGL policy which excluded coverage for:
Data
a. Liability for:
1. erasure, disruption, corruption, misappropriation, misinterpretation of “data”;
2. erroneously creating, amending, entering, deleting or using “data”;
Including any loss of use therefrom;
b. “Personal injury” arising out of the distribution or display of “data” by means of an Internet Website, the Internet, an intranet, extranet, or similar device or system designed or intended for electronic communication of “data”.
A Professional Liability/Errors & Omissions policy (the E&O Policy), which covered Laridae for sums payable as compensatory damages for “any error, omission or negligent act in the course of providing ‘Professional Services'”.
Co-operators relied on a Data Exclusion in the E&O Policy which provided as follows:
Data Exclusion
There shall be no coverage under this policy in connection with any claim based on, attributable to or arising directly, or indirectly from the distribution or display of “data” by means of an Internet Website, the Internet, an intranet, extranet, or similar device or system designed or intended for electronic communication of “data”.
The term “data: in both policies was defined as “representations of information or concepts, in any form.”
The Co-operators agreed that the coverage clauses in both policies provided coverage to FCS for the Class Proceeding and to Laridae with respect to the Third Party Claim but denied coverage based on the Data Exclusions.
HELD: For the insureds; Co-operators directed to defend.
The Court emphasized that the Applications were based on the insurer's duty to defend, as opposed to its duty to indemnify and concluded that where there was a possibility that some of the claims against the insured are covered, the insurer must defend the entire claim:
26 The parties are agreed on the law to be considered on these Applications. It is important to note that these are “duty to defend” and not “duty to indemnify” proceedings. Our Courts have held that even where only some claims are covered under an insurance policy, the insurer has a duty to defend the insured for the whole claim.
27 The Ontario Court of Appeal in Tedford v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2012 ONCA 429, has held that if there is any possibility that a claim falls within liability coverage of an insurance policy, the insurer must defend the insured. The Court outlined the following principles:
a. “an insurer has a duty to defend if the pleadings filed against the insured allege facts, which if true, would require the insurer to indemnify the insured;
b. if there is any possibility that the claim falls within the liability coverage, the insurer must defend;
c. the court must try and ascertain the substance and true nature of the claims;
d. if the pleadings are not sufficiently precise to determine whether the claims would be covered by the policy, the insurer's obligation to defend will be triggered where, on a reasonable reading of the pleadings, a claim within coverage can be inferred; and
e. in determining whether the policy would cover the claim, the usual principles governing the construction of insurance contracts apply, namely: the contra proferentem rule and the principle that coverage clauses should be construed broadly and exclusion clauses narrowly.”
28 The Claims in these Applications are broad and comprehensive and not limited to the distribution of the report on the Internet. The Claims do include damages for non-electronic distribution (i.e. physical distribution) of the report or other private information. Paragraph 19 of the Statement of Claim in the Class Proceeding asserts that “the personal information of the class members can be accessed by any unauthorized third party who accessed the information, bought the information, or found the information posted on the internet...”
29 If this Court finds that the Policies cover at least some of the allegations in the litigation, Co-operators has a duty to defend on all of the Claims. The insurance policies contain an unqualified obligation to defend for these claims. The Policies have no provision limiting the application of Co-operators' duty to defend in respect of “mixed” claims.
30 In Hanis v. University of Western Ontario, 2008 ONCA 678, the Ontario Court of Appeal has held that if some but not all of the claims are covered by an insurance policy, and there is an unqualified obligation in the policy to defend, the insurer must pay all reasonable costs associated with the entire defence.
31 As mentioned above, there is no dispute that the allegations in the litigation are covered by the insurance policies as coverage is provided for oral and written publication of materials that is defamatory or a violation of a person's right of privacy. The only issue on these applications is whether the “Data Exclusion” clauses clearly negate the duty to defend.
32 Co-operators has the burden of proving that the substance of the claims in this litigation clearly fall within the data exclusion clauses. The insureds make submissions regarding the enforceability of these data exclusion clauses. They rely on the argument that the courts will not enforce exclusion clauses which have the effect of nullifying the insurance which the insurer undertook to provide. They submit that Co-operators should not provide general coverage but rely on broadly worded exclusions which would have the effect of eliminating the coverage which it contracted to provide. It is submitted that this is an important issue on these Applications and that a court should not determine this issue in a “duty to defend” application, where such data exclusion clauses have not yet been judicially considered by our courts. I agree that such a novel interpretive issue should be considered on a full record and not in these Applications.
The Court held that the insurer bears the burden of proving that a claim “clearly” falls within an exclusion clause upon which it relies, i.e. that in this case “Co-operators has the burden of proving that the substance of the claims in this litigation clearly fall within the data exclusion clauses” (para 32)
The Court held that in this case the insurer owed an obligation to defend the entirety of both claims.
Pollak, J. held that:
It was not clear that the claims against FCS and Laridae fell within the “broadly worded” Data Exclusion clauses. The Court apparently held that the insureds' submissions on this point gave rise to this possibility:
32 Co-operators has the burden of proving that the substance of the claims in this litigation clearly fall within the data exclusion clauses. The insureds make submissions regarding the enforceability of these data exclusion clauses. They rely on the argument that the courts will not enforce exclusion clauses which have the effect of nullifying the insurance which the insurer undertook to provide. They submit that Co-operators should not provide general coverage but rely on broadly worded exclusions which would have the effect of eliminating the coverage which it contracted to provide. It is submitted that this is an important issue on these Applications and that a court should not determine this issue in a “duty to defend” application, where such data exclusion clauses have not yet been judicially considered by our courts. I agree that such a novel interpretive issue should be considered on a full record and not in these Applications.
33 The insureds submit that the interpretation of the exclusionary clause, as emphasized by Co-operators, is not conclusive in determining whether Co-operators has a duty to defend. As a result of imbalance of negotiating power as between insureds and insurers, interpretive principles have been developed to protect consumers of insurance policies. One of these most fundamental principles is that literal meanings of the policy should not be applied if it would render an unrealistic result wherein coverage provided by the insurance is virtually nullified or would be contrary to the reasonable expectations of the parties at the time the policy was concluded. Courts are to examine the terms of the policy considering the surrounding circumstances in order to determine the intent of the parties and the scope of their understanding.
34 Further, the insureds submit that exclusion clauses should not be enforced, if enforcement would be inconsistent with the main purpose of the insurance coverage, and where it would be contrary to the reasonable expectations of the ordinary person who purchased coverage. The Data Exclusion Clauses would nullify coverage for a significant portion of the services provided by Laridae. The insureds argue that Laridae's business is to create and handle “data” as that term is defined in the Policies. Such data is routinely “distributed” or “displayed” using the Internet or similar forms of technology. It would not make commercial sense that Co-operators be permitted to sell comprehensive insurance policies and rely on “Data Exclusion” clauses that are so broad that they have the effect of nullifying virtually all the coverage which the insurer contracted to provide.
35 Most importantly, it is argued that it cannot be that such an effect would have been within the parties' reasonable expectations.
There was a possibility that some of the claims in the Class Proceeding and the Third Party Claim would trigger the insurer's duty to indemnify in the end. In the Third Party Claim the allegation was based on physical distribution of the data in addition to electronic distribution.
The Court concluded as follows:
36 I agree that until the courts have had an opportunity to adjudicate the complex issues raised by these broadly worded data exclusion clauses, it would be improper for this court, having regard to present jurisprudence to uphold Co-operators' denial of a duty to defend. Further, I cannot find on these Applications that Co-operators has shown that there is no possibility of coverage. I find that Co-operators has not discharged its onus of establishing that the substance of the Claims clearly fall within the Data Exclusion Clauses and that there is no possibility of coverage under the Policies. Rather, in addition to the issue of the interpretation of the data exclusion clauses, it is apparent that there are claims and allegations in the Class Proceeding and the Third-Party Claim that would not excluded by the Data Exclusion Clauses. As there is at least some possibility that the Claims are covered under the Policies, I find that Co-operators owes a duty to defend Laridae and FCS.
[emphasis by the Court]
COMMENTARY: We emphasize two points regarding this decision:
With respect, it is by no means clear that if some claims may be covered the insurer must defend the insured in all cases. There is case law to suggest an apportionment of defence costs and/or responsibility where the covered and non-covered claims can be clearly separated and can be defended separately.
This case is not authority for the proposition that such Data Exclusion clauses exclude coverage for electronic data distribution. Again, this decision only dealt with the duty to defend, as opposed to the duty to indemnity.
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/insurance-laws-and-products/974672/case-study-laridae-v-co-operators-
https://www.recorder.ca/news/local-news/cas-whistleblower-acquitted
2019: DISCIPLINE DECISION SUMMARY – KELLEY JEAN DENHAM
Spring 2020, Discipline Decision Summaries, News
The College publishes summaries of decisions of the Discipline Committee and/or provides links to full-text, neutralized versions of its decisions. Information that is subject to a publication ban or that could reveal the identity of witnesses or clients, including the name of the facility, has been removed as necessary, or has been anonymized. As of January 2019, decisions are also available via the Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII).
By publishing decisions, the College endeavours to:
Illustrate for social workers, social service workers and members of the public, what does or does not constitute professional misconduct.
Provide social workers and social service workers with direction about the College’s Standards of Practice and professional behaviour, to be applied in future, should they find themselves in similar circumstances.
Implement the Discipline Committee’s decision.
Provide social workers, social service workers and members of the public with an understanding of the College’s discipline process.
Kelley Jean Denham, #826163
The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers found that Kelley Jean Denham is guilty of professional misconduct in that she violated sections 2.2, 2.29 and 2.36 of O. Reg. 384/00 (Professional Misconduct) to the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, and Interpretation 5.1 of Principle V of the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice Handbook (Standards of Practice).
Kelley Jean Denham, # 826163 (Discipline Decision Summary and Reasons)*
*Attachments referenced have not been included. Penalty decision pending.
https://perspective.ocswssw.org/discipline-decision-summary-kelley-jean-denham/
:::
CAS whistleblower cleared of hacking charges. By Gary Dimmock.
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.
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
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.
The SF police claimed to have taken four months to investigate a crime that never happened...?
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.
(WHY DIDN'T FCSLLG CALL THE MINISTRIES CYBERSECURITY EXPERTS AT NO EXTRA COST TO THEIR BUDGET AND THE TAXPAYERS?)
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://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/it-was-four-years-of-my-life-on-hold-cas-whistleblower-cleared-of-hacking-charges
https://www.insideottawavalley.com/news-story/10014328-smiths-falls-kelley-denham-acquitted-in-family-and-children-s-services-computer-case/
https://www.recorder.ca/news/local-news/cas-whistleblower-acquitted
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
:::
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. After a 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 public, and one exclusively for board members.
The agency went against the main recommendation and a few months later, Denham was able to access a spreadsheet that listed more than 250 names of clients of the children’s aid society. She posted a photograph of the hyperlink to access the files but did not post any names.
https://www.recorder.ca/news/local-news/cas-whistleblower-acquitted
:::
Court Refuses to Apply Liability Policies’ Electronic Data Exclusions, Cites Lack of Jurisprudence.
Laridae v. Co-operators, 2020 ONSC 2198 (CanLII)
Earlier in May, in Laridae v. Co-operators, 2020 ONSC 2198, an Ontario court was hesitant to offer guidance on the proper application of two “electronic data exclusions” that expressly withdrew coverage for the misappropriation and display of electronic information on the internet. At issue were allegations arising from particularly egregious hacking incidents involving a child protection agency’s website. Noting an apparent lack of guiding authority (“there is no jurisprudence on the proper interpretation of data exclusion clauses”), Pollak J. ordered a liability insurer to separately defend the named and additional insureds.
https://www.canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/71352
https://www.canliiconnects.org/en/cases/2020onsc2198
:::
Canada: Novel Case On Data Exclusion Interpreted In Favour Of Insureds
An Ontario judge recently interpreted a data exclusion in favour of the insureds, ordering the insurer to defend claims arising out of an alleged website security breach.1 A website owned by Family and Children's Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville ("FCS"), was breached when an unauthorized party downloaded and published documents stored in a secured section of the website, which contained personal information about individuals who had been the subject of FCS investigations. A broadly worded claim was subsequently brought against FCS, alleging damages resulting from defamation, breach of privacy and other causes of action. Laridae Communications Inc. had provided advice to FCS on the design and security of FCS's website. FCS issued a third-party claim against Laridae.
Footnotes: 1 Laridae v Co-Operators, 2020 ONSC 2198.
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/insurance-laws-and-products/942318/novel-case-on-data-exclusion-interpreted-in-favour-of-insureds
:::
2020: How the lack of cyber case law worked against an insurer in a $75-million data breach lawsuit.
The lack of cyber case law worked against an insurer in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently, with the court deciding that The Co-operators has a duty to defend two parties named in a $75-million cyber breach class action lawsuit.
https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/how-the-lack-of-cyber-caselaw-worked-against-an-insurer-in-a-75-million-data-breach-lawsuit-1004179343/
:::
2016: Police probe leak of IDs of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville children's aid clients over web.
Lemay said the person behind the breach is likely a disgruntled client who was “looking to embarrass us.”
(SO WHO'S THE DISGRUNTLED PARTY NOW ?)
Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville "learned" of the breach at 1:42 p.m. on Monday after the agency was notified by a client and a member of the community that the members-only Smiths Falls Swapshop Facebook page had a link to the list of names, said Family and Children’s Services executive director Raymond Lemay.
The agency immediately contacted police and other authorities and worked with them to contain the breach.
“To the best of our knowledge the file is no longer live, but we are having the situation monitored.” (YOU SHOULD SEE THE BIG BOX OF FAMILY'S UNITED POSTS THAT ARE RUMORED TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BY TAMMY SHEPHERD OF FCSLLG)
Lemay said there was a previous breach of the agency in February which did not involve the release of confidential information.
Ransomware attacks hit two Ontario children’s aid societies
(One lie is enough to question all truth! Big or small, lies are lies!)
Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville — alleged 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.”
Lemay says his agency didn’t pay up. He says it used an offline backup of computer files to get the agency up and running again in about eight hours.
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.
“It took them about three weeks to find the needle in the haystack,” Lemay says.
The ransomware attack locked the agencies out of local online files that contained private information on the children and families they serve.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2018/02/22/ransomware-attacks-hit-two-ontario-childrens-aid-societies.html
https://www.cira.ca/blog/cybersecurity/weekly-web-security-warning-even-children-arent-safe
http://www.safetravelsmagazine.com/2018/02/26/quick-read-ransomware-attacks-hit-two-ontario-childrens-aid-societies/
The person responsible was a children’s aid client who has been embroiled in a campaign against the agency, including posting hours-long YouTube videos of her interactions with members of the staff that can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjZ_knKT_FWLiUecMh3FFbw
(AND WHO'S EMBROILED IN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST WHO?)
Not only did FCSLLG allege to the media Kelley Denham/Jane Doe Hacker had committed a number of criminal acts resulting in Denham being charged, FCSLLG also initiated a complaint against Denham with the Ontario college of social workers and launched a claim for damages against Denham should the class action members be awarded any damages.
http://www.casprivacybreach.com/
https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/names-of-285-people-referred-to-children-s-aid-in-lanark-leeds-and-grenville-posted-online-1.2865944
Emotions regarding Children’s Aid Societies can run high, but there is no excuse for anyone to deliberately expose clients, said Lemay. Although there have been other examples of clients who have taken their disputes with children’s aid societies to the internet, Lemay know of no other incidents in which confidential lists of names have been released.
The February breach was investigated and the agency’s data systems were reviewed by an external consultant, who assured the agency that its documents were secure.
The woman involved also received a lawyer’s letter.
“She had to know that this was illegal,” said Lemay.
The names released in the most recent breach are those of referrals made to the agency between April and November 2015. The list would have been available only to members of the board. The agency typically has about 1,000 clients a year.
Lemay apologized for the release of the information, and said the agency takes privacy very seriously and will take steps to improve its processes and systems.
Caroline Newton, a spokeswoman for the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, says she is unaware of any other data breach at any of the province’s 47 children’s aid societies. Although there have been cases of children in care or their parents releasing information through social media, Newton can’t recall any recent cases where anyone has been prosecuted for releasing sensitive information.
However, all of the association’s member societies are aware of the need for information to be protected, said Newton. The province is also revamping the Child and Family Services Act.
“We live in an era where there are people determined to hack through security systems. Everybody has to be prepared for it,” said Newton.
Identifying those who are involved with children’s aid is illegal under the Child and Family Services Act. Releasing this information carries a fine of up to $10,000 and three years in jail.
Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville is answering questions from the public and current and former clients at 1-855-667-2726.
WATCH THE VIDEO: "The authors of their own misfortunes."
The audio in the video 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 five 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.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/videos/502236246652811/
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/police-probe-leak-of-ids-of-lanark-leeds-and-grenville-childrens-aid-clients-over-web
:::
2020: Material Uncertainty Related to Going Concern
We draw attention to Note 3 in the financial statements, which indicates that the Society's operating fund revenues exceeded expenses by $206,391 during the year ended March 31, 2020 and, as of that date, the Society's current liabilities exceeded its current assets by $3,866,228. As stated in Note 3, these events or conditions, along with other matters as set forth in Note 3, indicate that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the Society's ability to continue as a going concern. Our opinion is not modified in respect of this matter.
https://fcsllg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Financial-Statements-2020.pdf
:::
Parents Thank Smiths Falls Police After Missing Son Found Safe..
https://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/107146/parents-thank-smiths-falls-police-after-missing-son-found-safe
Ontario CAS Dirty Tricks.
https://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/153438/ontario-cas-dirty-tricks
One lie is enough to question all truths.
:::
The Fascinating Reason Why Liars Keep On Lying.
You know how your mom always told you not to start lying because one fib would lead to more? Part of that age-old advice stems from the simple fact you usually have to keep lying to cover the initial untruths you dished out. But as Alice Park of Time reports, neuroscience now shows that we all should listen to Mom to keep our emotional sense of right, wrong and self, too.
Once a liar, always a liar, the old saying goes. Turns out there’s some scientific truth to that: researchers have tracked down how the brain makes lying easier as the untruths build up, providing some biological evidence for why small lies often balloon into ever larger ones.
In a study published in Nature Neuroscience, Tali Sharot from the department of experimental psychology at University College London and her colleagues devised a clever study to test people’s dishonest tendencies while scanning their brains in an fMRI machine. The 80 people in the study were shown pennies in a glass jar and given different incentives to guide whether they lied or told the truth to a fellow partner about how much money was contained in the jar. In some conditions, both the participant and the partner benefited if the participant lied; in others, just the participant benefited from his fib, or just the partner benefited (with no cost to either). In another set of scenarios, either the participant or partner benefited, but at the expense of the other if the participant lied. In each case, Sharot documented the changes in the people’s brains as they made their decisions.
They found that when people were dishonest, activity in a part of the brain called the amygdala—the hub of emotional processing and arousal—changed. With each scenario, the more dishonestly the participant advised his partner, the less activated the amygdala was on the fMRI. That may be because lying triggers emotional arousal and activates the amygdala (the part of the brain affected in cases of PDST), but with each additional lie, the arousal and conflict of telling an untruth diminishes, making it easier to lie.
Sharot also found that the amygdala became less active mostly when people lied to benefit themselves. In other words, self-interest seems to fuel dishonesty.
“Part of the emotional arousal we see when people lie is because of the conflict between how people see themselves and their actions,” Sharot said during a briefing discussing the results. “So I lie for self-benefit, but at the same time it doesn’t fit the way I want to view myself, which is as an honest person. It’s possible that we learn from the arousal signal…with less emotional arousal, perhaps I’m less likely to see the act as incongruent with my own self perception.”
The researchers were even able to map out how each lie led to less amygdala activation and found that the decrease could predict how much the person’s dishonesty would escalate in the next trial. Biology seems to back up the warnings parents give to their kids: that one lie just leads to another.
https://time.com/4540707/lying-lies-brain/
https://www.inc.com/wanda-thibodeaux/this-brain-study-shows-why-its-so-easy-to-keep-lyi.html
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/06/lying-hoax-false-fibs-science/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFQQVXVDgK8
:::
Cyber Crime Investigations: Bridging the Gaps Between Security Professionals, Law Enforcement, and Prosecutors Paperback – April 4 2007.
https://www.amazon.ca/Cyber-Crime-Investigations-Professionals-Enforcement/dp/1597491330
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cybercrime-investigation-framework_fig3_312324333
https://www.slideshare.net/karnikaseth/cybercrime-investigations-and-it-act2000
Blackstone's Handbook of Cyber Crime Investigation Paperback – March 30 2017.
This authoritative Handbook provides a clear and detailed introduction to cyber crime, offering you an effective operational guide to the complexities and challenges of investigating cyber-related crimes.
https://cata.ca/2018/cyber-crime-fighting-centres/
Concise and accessible, this book is an ideal reference and resource for all operational police officers, the extended police family and partners working to keep communities safe from the online phenomenon of cyber crime.
https://www.amazon.ca/Blackstones-Handbook-Cyber-Crime-Investigation/dp/0198723903
:::
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
:::
Family and Children's services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville
Mission & Values
MISSION
Our mission is to contribute to the wellbeing of children, youth and families by:
Protecting children and youth from abuse and neglect
Supporting families
Providing a consistent, supportive environment for children and youth
Actively engaging with our community to achieve positive outcomes
VALUES
Our values require us to:
Treat all people with dignity and respect
Collaborate with all to achieve our mission
Integrate learning into all that we do
Be accountable for the valuable resource entrusted to us
VISION
Our Vision is: Every child, youth and family shall live in a safe environment, be valued and have opportunity to develop to their fullest potential.
EVERY PERSON IN ONTARIO HAS A DUTY
Every person in Ontario has a duty to report child abuse if they have reasonable grounds to suspect it is occurring. Don’t hesitate to call us for more information if you think a child needs protection.
If you’d like to volunteer at an upcoming event or make a donation to help us cover our current legal fees and other expenses, please contact us at 1‑855‑667‑2726.
https://fcsllg.ca/about-us/mission-values/
https://fcsllg.ca/accountability/
https://fcsllg.ca/news-events/
:::
Canada: Case Study: Laridae v. Co-operators
10 August 2020
by Brian Vail, QC
Field LLP
Your LinkedIn Connections
at this firm
An Ontario Court ordered an insurer to defend a data breach claim in the face of data exclusion clauses where it was unclear whether or not all of the claims against the insured fell within the clauses.
Laridae v. Co-operators, 2020 ONSC 2198, per Pollak, J.
Facts and Issues
Family and Children's Services of Lanark (“FCS”) suffered a data breach in 2016 when an unauthorized hacker accessed a secured portion of the FCS website which should only have been accessible to authorized users with passwords.
FCS retained Laridae Communications Inc. to address the breach:
9. Laridae was retained by FCS to “recommend and implement communication” strategies. Its mandate was to “review and refresh” FCS's website to ensure that the new website and its components are compliant with privacy and other legislative requirements. Laridae advised FCS on issues relating to the design and security of its website.
Laridae added additional security features to the FCS website and advised FCS that it needed to do nothing regarding the confidential documents stored on or referred to in the website.
After that, the same hacker gained access to the FCS website again and downloaded a report which contained personal information of 285 people and posted it on internet sites available to the public.
A class action (the “Class Proceeding”) was brought against FCS seeking $75 million in damages (including punitive damages) alleging breach of the privacy rights in respect of the allegedly defamatory report. The Class Proceeding was framed in many causes of action, including negligence, defamation, negligent misrepresentation, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of confidence and breach of fiduciary duty.
FCS brought a Third Party Claim against Laridae, alleging breach of contract, negligent provision of services under its contract with VCS and negligent misrepresentation. FCS's Third Party Claim was not restricted to contribution and indemnity re: the Class Proceeding. In addition it also sought damages for electronic distribution through the internet and for physical distribution.
Laridae was insured under two policies issued by Co-operators:
A CGL policy, which required Co-operators to cover Laridae as the primary insured (with FCS as an additional insured) for sums legally required to pay as compensatory damages for “personal injury”.
“Personal injury” was defined as injury other than “bodily injury” for, inter alia “[o]ral or written publication of material that libels or slanders a person or organization or disparages a person's or organization's goods, products or services” or “[o]ral or written publication of material that violates a person's right to privacy”.
Co-operators relied on a Data Exclusion in the CGL policy which excluded coverage for:
Data
a. Liability for:
1. erasure, disruption, corruption, misappropriation, misinterpretation of “data”;
2. erroneously creating, amending, entering, deleting or using “data”;
Including any loss of use therefrom;
b. “Personal injury” arising out of the distribution or display of “data” by means of an Internet Website, the Internet, an intranet, extranet, or similar device or system designed or intended for electronic communication of “data”.
A Professional Liability/Errors & Omissions policy (the E&O Policy), which covered Laridae for sums payable as compensatory damages for “any error, omission or negligent act in the course of providing ‘Professional Services'”.
Co-operators relied on a Data Exclusion in the E&O Policy which provided as follows:
Data Exclusion
There shall be no coverage under this policy in connection with any claim based on, attributable to or arising directly, or indirectly from the distribution or display of “data” by means of an Internet Website, the Internet, an intranet, extranet, or similar device or system designed or intended for electronic communication of “data”.
The term “data: in both policies was defined as “representations of information or concepts, in any form.”
The Co-operators agreed that the coverage clauses in both policies provided coverage to FCS for the Class Proceeding and to Laridae with respect to the Third Party Claim but denied coverage based on the Data Exclusions.
HELD: For the insureds; Co-operators directed to defend.
The Court emphasized that the Applications were based on the insurer's duty to defend, as opposed to its duty to indemnify and concluded that where there was a possibility that some of the claims against the insured are covered, the insurer must defend the entire claim:
26 The parties are agreed on the law to be considered on these Applications. It is important to note that these are “duty to defend” and not “duty to indemnify” proceedings. Our Courts have held that even where only some claims are covered under an insurance policy, the insurer has a duty to defend the insured for the whole claim.
27 The Ontario Court of Appeal in Tedford v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2012 ONCA 429, has held that if there is any possibility that a claim falls within liability coverage of an insurance policy, the insurer must defend the insured. The Court outlined the following principles:
a. “an insurer has a duty to defend if the pleadings filed against the insured allege facts, which if true, would require the insurer to indemnify the insured;
b. if there is any possibility that the claim falls within the liability coverage, the insurer must defend;
c. the court must try and ascertain the substance and true nature of the claims;
d. if the pleadings are not sufficiently precise to determine whether the claims would be covered by the policy, the insurer's obligation to defend will be triggered where, on a reasonable reading of the pleadings, a claim within coverage can be inferred; and
e. in determining whether the policy would cover the claim, the usual principles governing the construction of insurance contracts apply, namely: the contra proferentem rule and the principle that coverage clauses should be construed broadly and exclusion clauses narrowly.”
28 The Claims in these Applications are broad and comprehensive and not limited to the distribution of the report on the Internet. The Claims do include damages for non-electronic distribution (i.e. physical distribution) of the report or other private information. Paragraph 19 of the Statement of Claim in the Class Proceeding asserts that “the personal information of the class members can be accessed by any unauthorized third party who accessed the information, bought the information, or found the information posted on the internet...”
29 If this Court finds that the Policies cover at least some of the allegations in the litigation, Co-operators has a duty to defend on all of the Claims. The insurance policies contain an unqualified obligation to defend for these claims. The Policies have no provision limiting the application of Co-operators' duty to defend in respect of “mixed” claims.
30 In Hanis v. University of Western Ontario, 2008 ONCA 678, the Ontario Court of Appeal has held that if some but not all of the claims are covered by an insurance policy, and there is an unqualified obligation in the policy to defend, the insurer must pay all reasonable costs associated with the entire defence.
31 As mentioned above, there is no dispute that the allegations in the litigation are covered by the insurance policies as coverage is provided for oral and written publication of materials that is defamatory or a violation of a person's right of privacy. The only issue on these applications is whether the “Data Exclusion” clauses clearly negate the duty to defend.
32 Co-operators has the burden of proving that the substance of the claims in this litigation clearly fall within the data exclusion clauses. The insureds make submissions regarding the enforceability of these data exclusion clauses. They rely on the argument that the courts will not enforce exclusion clauses which have the effect of nullifying the insurance which the insurer undertook to provide. They submit that Co-operators should not provide general coverage but rely on broadly worded exclusions which would have the effect of eliminating the coverage which it contracted to provide. It is submitted that this is an important issue on these Applications and that a court should not determine this issue in a “duty to defend” application, where such data exclusion clauses have not yet been judicially considered by our courts. I agree that such a novel interpretive issue should be considered on a full record and not in these Applications.
The Court held that the insurer bears the burden of proving that a claim “clearly” falls within an exclusion clause upon which it relies, i.e. that in this case “Co-operators has the burden of proving that the substance of the claims in this litigation clearly fall within the data exclusion clauses” (para 32)
The Court held that in this case the insurer owed an obligation to defend the entirety of both claims.
Pollak, J. held that:
It was not clear that the claims against FCS and Laridae fell within the “broadly worded” Data Exclusion clauses. The Court apparently held that the insureds' submissions on this point gave rise to this possibility:
32 Co-operators has the burden of proving that the substance of the claims in this litigation clearly fall within the data exclusion clauses. The insureds make submissions regarding the enforceability of these data exclusion clauses. They rely on the argument that the courts will not enforce exclusion clauses which have the effect of nullifying the insurance which the insurer undertook to provide. They submit that Co-operators should not provide general coverage but rely on broadly worded exclusions which would have the effect of eliminating the coverage which it contracted to provide. It is submitted that this is an important issue on these Applications and that a court should not determine this issue in a “duty to defend” application, where such data exclusion clauses have not yet been judicially considered by our courts. I agree that such a novel interpretive issue should be considered on a full record and not in these Applications.
33 The insureds submit that the interpretation of the exclusionary clause, as emphasized by Co-operators, is not conclusive in determining whether Co-operators has a duty to defend. As a result of imbalance of negotiating power as between insureds and insurers, interpretive principles have been developed to protect consumers of insurance policies. One of these most fundamental principles is that literal meanings of the policy should not be applied if it would render an unrealistic result wherein coverage provided by the insurance is virtually nullified or would be contrary to the reasonable expectations of the parties at the time the policy was concluded. Courts are to examine the terms of the policy considering the surrounding circumstances in order to determine the intent of the parties and the scope of their understanding.
34 Further, the insureds submit that exclusion clauses should not be enforced, if enforcement would be inconsistent with the main purpose of the insurance coverage, and where it would be contrary to the reasonable expectations of the ordinary person who purchased coverage. The Data Exclusion Clauses would nullify coverage for a significant portion of the services provided by Laridae. The insureds argue that Laridae's business is to create and handle “data” as that term is defined in the Policies. Such data is routinely “distributed” or “displayed” using the Internet or similar forms of technology. It would not make commercial sense that Co-operators be permitted to sell comprehensive insurance policies and rely on “Data Exclusion” clauses that are so broad that they have the effect of nullifying virtually all the coverage which the insurer contracted to provide.
35 Most importantly, it is argued that it cannot be that such an effect would have been within the parties' reasonable expectations.
There was a possibility that some of the claims in the Class Proceeding and the Third Party Claim would trigger the insurer's duty to indemnify in the end. In the Third Party Claim the allegation was based on physical distribution of the data in addition to electronic distribution.
The Court concluded as follows:
36 I agree that until the courts have had an opportunity to adjudicate the complex issues raised by these broadly worded data exclusion clauses, it would be improper for this court, having regard to present jurisprudence to uphold Co-operators' denial of a duty to defend. Further, I cannot find on these Applications that Co-operators has shown that there is no possibility of coverage. I find that Co-operators has not discharged its onus of establishing that the substance of the Claims clearly fall within the Data Exclusion Clauses and that there is no possibility of coverage under the Policies. Rather, in addition to the issue of the interpretation of the data exclusion clauses, it is apparent that there are claims and allegations in the Class Proceeding and the Third-Party Claim that would not excluded by the Data Exclusion Clauses. As there is at least some possibility that the Claims are covered under the Policies, I find that Co-operators owes a duty to defend Laridae and FCS.
[emphasis by the Court]
COMMENTARY: We emphasize two points regarding this decision:
With respect, it is by no means clear that if some claims may be covered the insurer must defend the insured in all cases. There is case law to suggest an apportionment of defence costs and/or responsibility where the covered and non-covered claims can be clearly separated and can be defended separately.
This case is not authority for the proposition that such Data Exclusion clauses exclude coverage for electronic data distribution. Again, this decision only dealt with the duty to defend, as opposed to the duty to indemnity.
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/insurance-laws-and-products/974672/case-study-laridae-v-co-operators-
https://youtu.be/YAU_PjjuBv4
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.
2016: Regulation Of Child Protection Workers By Ontario College Of Social Workers And Social Service Workers: CUPE/Front-line workers Respond.
"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."
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.
"I may not hold a BSW or MSW degree, enjoy membership in the College or be subject to its regulation. But I am a professional practitioner in the child protection sector and, as such, I cannot countenance this move toward the regulation of the child protection workforce. I am resolved to fight it at every step of the way and instead campaign for the measures that will bring real benefits to at-risk youth, children and families.
I’m calling OACAS out on this spurious attempt to bring more oversight to our sector. Regulation will not make children safer; instead, it is distracting attention from what’s really needed to improve safety for children and youth and I hope that [CAS] will back me up on that.
The more I investigate membership in the College, the more becomes plain that regulation and registration for child protection workers will only add a layer of third party public bureaucracy, expense and administration to our many all internal layers of secret corporate bureaucracy.
How could anyone look at this list unnecessary all internal private corporate oversight and possibly think that child protection workers need more oversight? Asking for more ways to regulate and oversee the work of child protection workers is clearly unnecessary and leads me to think there is another agenda at work in this exercise."
CAS in-house management structure, including supervisors, managers, lawyers, and case conferences;
• a society’s internal standards, policies, procedures and protocols, some of which are governed by the Children and Family Services Act;
• a society’s internal disciplinary and complaints procedures;
• Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, which has new powers to investigate CAS workers;
• ministry audits in almost every area of service, including Crown Ward Reviews and Licensing;
• Child and Family Services Review Board, which conducts reviews and hearings of complaints against a CAS worker;
• family courts;
• Ontario’s human rights tribunal;
• the provincial auditor general;
• child death reviews, including the Paediatric Death Review and internal reviews;
• coroner’s inquests.
Regulation by the College makes scapegoats of child protection workers, while permitting the Ministry, the government and children’s aid societies themselves to avoid dealing with the real issues in the sector.
By requiring CASs to hire only College-registered employees, some agencies will be set up for future crisis in recruitment and retention of staff and those who will suffer most will be the vulnerable children, youth and families that societies are meant to help.
There are also criteria around language fluency, residency, and academic qualifications that have little or nothing to do with child protection and would only seek to narrow the group from which child protection has traditionally drawn its workers.
Children’s aid societies outside Ontario’s urban centres have long had difficulties in recruiting and retaining child protection workers. Agencies in northern Ontario, remote and rural regions, and aboriginal nations face ongoing challenges around adequate staffing for their child protection services. Restricting them to recruiting and hiring only College-registered employees can only increase severe staff shortages and under-representation by equity seeking groups.
We should be looking at ways of expanding our approach to our work, not restricting it to fit the strictures of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.
By requiring CASs to hire only College-registered employees, some agencies will be set up for future crisis in recruitment and retention of staff and those who will suffer most will be the vulnerable children, youth and families that societies are meant to help.
These additional requirements will do absolutely nothing to increase the skill sets of child protection workers but will deter many from entering the field. We won’t be better off and neither will the children, youth and families we serve.
Currently, at least seven CUPE collective agreements (CAs) contain articles that prohibit professional regulation as a job requirement to protect unqualified workers, unless such regulation is legislated. These seven CAs represent over half of the full time equivalents (FTEs) in the sector. [This CAS] is a signatory to one of these agreements.
We will fight hard to keep these hard-won entitlements, especially because they offer protection from many of the problems identified above.
Professional registration is a red herring that ignores the real issues in the child protection sector. In order to improve the consistency and quality of child protection, the OACAS and Ministry of Children’s and Youth Services should focus on funding restraints, workload, violence in the workplace and the current insufficient investment in workers’ training.
I am not a social worker; I don’t want to be a social worker. Had I wanted to be a social worker, I would have trained as one. If regulation through the College of Social Work is introduced, what will happen to us child protection workers who don’t have degrees in social work (a BSW or MSW) or a social service worker diploma? After all, we make up to 50% of the child protection workforce.
None of the options currently available to us is appealing: we can try to upgrade to the qualifications that will allow up to keep our jobs. We can move to a different job class. We can accept termination or layoff.
What doesn’t seem to be an option is “grandfathering,” something that would allow child protection workers already in post to keep doing their current jobs.
The College is quite specific that grandfathering is not on the table.
These facts seem to present some insurmountable problems for the child protection sector and represent another compelling reason that regulation by the College is a bad move for the child protection sector and for child protection workers.
(considering they're not qualified for the job we are currently doing the prospects of finding another job are pretty slim and before you know it we'll all be on welfare)
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 non sequiturs—arguments in which a conclusion doesn't follow logically from what preceded it.
-
"One of the rationalizations for registration and regulation with the College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers is the restoration of public confidence in Ontario’s child protection system. But violating my rights to privacy and confidentiality will do nothing to achieve this goal."
(Those employed by another person or agency for financial remuneration are not entitled to personal privacy protection anymore than a police officer or a cashier at Walmart is.)
"Currently, workplace disciplines, complaints and other personnel matters at [CAS] are treated confidentially. But if child protection workers become subject to regulation by the College, previously confidential workplace matters will become matters of public record. (just like everyone else)
My membership in the College would mean that anyone can see information about my status or complaints made against me – and under the College’s rules, there is no time limit in which to make a complaint. Disciplinary hearings are open to the public and once a complaint is made, it is on file forever. There is no process for appeal. (yes there is)
https://mydefence.ca/ontario-college-of-social-workers-and-social-services-defence-lawyer/
Employers must also file a written report with the College if one of its registered members is terminated. This requirement conflicts with an employee’s right to grieve a termination under the collective agreement or appeal it through arbitration, where a termination may be overturned. (just like everyone else)
I also have concerns for my personal safety and that of my family, since college registration is open to public scrutiny and provides no protection from potentially violent clients.
None of the ways that the College deals with personal information, complaints, and discipline allow for a fair or safe process for child protection workers.
There are any number of measures that can be and ought to be taken to restore public confidence in child protection and keep at-risk children and youth safer. Regulation by the college is not one of them."
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.
https://www.siu.on.ca/en/index.php
-
-
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.
http://cupe2190.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SSWCC_CAS-letters-re-college-regulation_Nov.-2016.pdf
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
:::
DRAFT Letter 2 – Professionalism (I feel like a professional)
2016: Regulation of child protection workers by Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers: CUPE responds:
Please send or adapt any of the following letters to the Unregistered Executive Director of your CAS.
I understand that there are plans in the works to force anyone who works in child protection to register with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.
One of the reasons given for this change is that regulation will result in higher quality services and bring greater professionalism to the field and that this will improve the standard of child protection work in Ontario.
I would like to point out that a failure to meet standards of care in child protection work is very rarely the result of professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity on the part of individual child protection workers.
The stated purpose of the College is to protect the public from unqualified, incompetent or unfit practitioners.
But children’s aid societies already set those standards and ensure their adherence: they determine the job qualifications. They deal with employees they deem to be unqualified or incompetent. And CASs decide whether child protection work in their area can be performed by someone who holds a Bachelor’s degree and has child welfare experience.
I may not hold a BSW or MSW degree, enjoy membership in the College or be subject to its regulation. But I am a professional practitioner in the child protection sector and, as such, I cannot countenance this move toward the regulation of the child protection workforce. I am resolved to fight it at every step of the way and instead campaign for the measures that will bring real benefits to at-risk youth, children and families. (I may not be a doctor but I play one on TV)
Sincerely,
http://cupe2190.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SSWCC_CAS-letters-re-college-regulation_Nov.-2016.pdf
https://globalnews.ca/news/5453400/prince-edward-county-cas-executive-director-trial-ag-preliminary-hearing/
https://globalnews.ca/news/4182170/childrens-aid-executive-charged/
https://globalnews.ca/news/4916584/woman-charged-with-sex-assault-of-minors-worked-at-male-cas-group-home-at-time-of-alleged-offences/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-county-foster-care-abuse-negligence-charges-1.4723516
https://www.intelligencer.ca/2014/10/21/three-cas-cases-settled/wcm/3fd07287-3f2a-1755-7386-1c8c2353c943#:~:text=Three%20former%20County%20foster%20children,were%20in%20the%20society's%20care.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5334666/drugs-theft-alcohol-abuse-alleged-childrens-aid-group-home/
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/14/two-teens-harrowing-stories-of-ontario-group-homes.html
https://globalnews.ca/news/5360057/teen-sexual-cult-ontario-foster-home-childrens-aid-society/
https://nypost.com/2019/06/12/childrens-aid-society-in-canada-turned-a-blind-eye-to-sexual-abuse-report/
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/04/30/shocking-conditions-at-now-shuttered-thunder-bay-foster-homes-detailed-in-child-advocates-final-report.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/06/13/province-shuts-down-three-thunder-bay-foster-homes.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/03/14/in_leaked_memo_peel_cas_staff_asked_to_keep_cases_open_to_retain_funding.html
:::
2020: Registration of Children’s Aid Society workers.
SHOULD COMPLAINTS AGAINST ONTARIO CAS WORKERS BE A MATTER FOR THE COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS OR UNION ARBITRATION LIKE THEY'RE FACTORY WORKERS?
One has a duty to protect the public and the other has a duty to protect worker..
And should child clients of the children's aid societies have the right to report bad workers to the College of Social Work with an official completely independent third party public process for children and youth?
The College has allegedly long worked with its stakeholders and with Government to address its concerns about registration requirements under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act while avoiding talking to families who have been harmed by the CAS since 2000.
As a result of past efforts, regulations were updated in 2018 to require Local Directors of CASs to be registered with the College. We also received a commitment from Government at that time to work with the College and the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies toward a goal of requiring registration of CAS supervisors.
We are disappointed that this objective remains unaddressed. (They're disappointed? How meaningful is that total bullshit..)
Registration of all those who are eligible is included as part of the College’s 2020-2023 Strategic Plan as fundamental to achieving our mandate to: serve and protect the public interest; regulate our members; and ensure that we are accountable and accessible to the communities we serve.
https://www.ocswssw.org/2020/08/17/message-from-the-registrar-and-ceo-changes-to-ontarios-child-welfare-system/
Considering how closely the societies work with courts, the police and the ministry maybe the SIU would be a proactive way to deal with the children's aid societies refusal to register with the college.
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 and might easily be adapted to investigated complaints about CAS workers...
https://www.siu.on.ca/en/index.php
:::
2016: Taking off her lanyard in and putting on her union pin 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 all internal secret oversight that include unregistered workplace supervisors, family courts that reverse burden of proof, internal reports bypassing the public coroners’ inquest process and annual rubber stamp case audits by the ministry.
“Our work is already regulated to death.” (minus judicial oversight)
https://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news-story/6437856-children-s-aid-societies-launch-major-training-reforms/
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-coroner-s-report-highlights-need-for-changes-to-child-welfare-system-1.4109439
http://thecaribbeancamera.com/training-for-childrens-aid-societies/
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/09/25/coroners-panel-calls-for-overhaul-of-ontario-child-protection-system.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/03/childrens-aid-societies-launch-major-training-reforms.html
:::
FORMER ONTARIO MPP FRANK KLEES EXPLAINS "A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE." I'M NOT A SOCIAL WORKER, I'M A CHILD PROTECTION WORKER!
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..
Do you care what kind of social workers they call themselves?
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? (See Motherisk Report and the OHRC Report)
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
Can the CAS be trusted with special powers we don't trust the police or the government with? No judicial or ethical oversight and secret records kept on private citizens...?
As far as I know the only thing the liberals, conservatives and NDP have ever agreed on is the children's aid society doesn't need any judicial or third party public ethical oversight other than their own for decades.. Why is that..?
https://youtu.be/PpE-Vuz1gtk
:::
What’s the difference between psychologist, psychological associate, registered psychotherapist, social worker, psychiatrist, therapist, counsellor and a child protection worker?
Some child protection workers have qualifications or minimal qualifications in social work but refuse to register or be accountable to anyone other than the ministry that holds the purse strings..
Should unregistered child protection workers with social worker qualifications have the same privilege registered social workers have?
Social Workers are registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. They have a Bachelor degree in Social Work. Social Workers provide assessment and psychotherapy to clients. They have knowledge of diagnostic criteria, and evidence-based treatments for mental health conditions.
Social Workers often play an integral role in assessment and diagnosis under supervision of Psychologists and/or Psychiatrists. Often, Social Workers have a special interest in how individuals are impacted upon by society and factors such as discrimination.
http://www.hamiltonpsych.ca/faq.html#:~:text=Social%20Workers%20are%20registered%20with,Workers%20and%20Social%20Service%20Workers.&text=Social%20Workers%20often%20play%20an,of%20Psychologists%20and%2For%20Psychiatrists.
In the US: https://www.humanservicesedu.org/lcswvspsychologist.html#context/api/listings/prefilter
:::
2017: Under suspicion: Concerns about child welfare (OHRC)
Racial profiling is an insidious and particularly damaging type of racial discrimination that relates to notions of safety and security. Racial profiling violates people’s rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code). People from many different communities experience racial profiling. However, it is often directed at First Nations, Métis, Inuit and other Indigenous peoples, Muslims, Arabs, West Asians and Black people, and is often influenced by the negative stereotypes that people in these communities face.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Under%20suspicion_research%20and%20consultation%20report%20on%20racial%20profiling%20in%20Ontario_2017.pdf
In 2015, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) began a year-long consultation to learn more about the nature of racial profiling in Ontario. Our aim was to gather information to help us guide organizations, individuals and communities on how to identify, address and prevent racial profiling. We connected with people and organizations representing diverse perspectives. We conducted an online survey, analyzed cases (called applications) at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that alleged racial profiling, held a policy dialogue consultation, and reviewed academic research. We conducted focus groups with Indigenous peoples and received written submissions. Overall, almost 1,650 individuals and organizations told us about their experiences or understanding of racial profiling in Ontario.
We heard concerns about racial profiling in the child welfare sector, particularly affecting Black and Indigenous families. We heard that systemic racism was perceived to be embedded in this system, and that racial profiling that may take place in this sector targets mothers for over-scrutiny most often.
We heard concerns that racialized and Indigenous parents are disproportionately subjected to surveillance and scrutiny, which contributes to families being reported to children’s aid societies (CASs). We also heard that once a referral to child welfare authorities takes place, families are more likely to have prolonged child welfare involvement, and be more at risk of having their children apprehended. Consultation participants suggested these experiences arise in part from referrers’ and child welfare authorities’ incorrect assumptions about risk based on race and related grounds, and intersections between these grounds and poverty.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/under-suspicion-concerns-about-child-welfare
:::
2004: Child Welfare Reform: Protecting Children or Policing the Poor for Fun and Personal Gain?
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/
:::
2016: Report shines light on poverty’s role on kids in CAS system.
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.
https://youtu.be/CG6PT3Hw568
“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.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/08/15/report-shines-light-on-povertys-role-on-kids-in-cas-system.html
:::
2020: TORONTO -- Ontario's child welfare system will be redesigned to focus on prevention and early intervention, the provincial government said Wednesday.
"Child welfare should not be the system that is feared," Dunlop said in a news conference. "No one should be scared to lose their children for speaking to a children's aid society."
Associate Minister of Children and Women's Issues Jill Dunlop said the new strategy will also work to address the over-representation of Black and Indigenous families in the children's aid system.
She said children and youth in care experience worse outcomes than those in a family setting, including lower graduation rates, a higher risk of homelessness and more involvement with the justice system.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-plans-to-redesign-child-welfare-system-to-focus-on-prevention-1.5044299
:::
Your Right to Complain to a Children’s Aid Society (and no one else so it becomes a matter for union arbitration should their employer find discipline justified)
WHAT PROTECTIONS DO INVOLUNTARY CLIENTS OF ONTARIO'S CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES HAVE BEHIND ALL THE CLOSED DOORS?
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.
IS THERE ANY REASON TO TRUST THE MANY FACES OF A SOCIETY SHROUDED IN SECRECY AND THEIR ALL INTERNAL COMPLAINT PROCESSES?
https://stepstojustice.ca/questions/abuse-and-family-violence/how-do-i-complain-about-childrens-aid-society-worker
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/03/14/in_leaked_memo_peel_cas_staff_asked_to_keep_cases_open_to_retain_funding.html
:::
Principles of fundamental justice:
In order to be a principle of fundamental justice, a rule or principle must be (1) a legal principle (2) about which there is significant societal consensus that it is fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate, and (3) it must be identified with sufficient precision to yield a manageable standard against which to measure deprivations of life, liberty or security of the person.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html
:::
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 (voluntary and involuntary) of the Ontario Children's Aid Society are routinely denied a timely (often heavily censored) file disclosure before the court begins making life altering 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."
-
How do you become a client of the CAS?
#1 You can ask for their help.
#2 You can be reported to a CAS, then investigated and submit to their findings.
#3 Or the CAS can take you to their secret courtrooms where the burden of proof is reversed and ask the judge (who may have been a former CAS employee) for anything they want..
The big problem is the CAS only receives funding when they claim there are,or is, a reason for concern and they are using family courts to obtain funding.
-
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..
“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 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.
In her annual report for 2013 released on June 17 there is just one paragraph on children's aid on page 12: 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.
2020 UPDATE: CAS NOW REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO FOI REQUESTS THE SAME AS ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT FUNDED AND CONTROLLED AGENCY SHOULD BE.
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
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE STANDARDS, OR LEGISLATION, OR THE BUREAUCRACY - IT'S ABOUT ETHICS AND APPLICATION. IF YOUR GOING TO FIX WHAT'S WRONG WITH CHILD PROTECTION - START AT THE BEGINNING.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEM THAT LACKS ETHICS, MORALS AND ACCOUNTABILITY OR ACTS IN BAD FAITH - IT THE PEOPLE ENTRUSTED TO OVERSEE THE SYSTEM THAT LACK THOSE THINGS. IT'S NOT BAD SYSTEM THAT MAKES GOOD WORKERS BAD - IT'S BAD WORKERS THAT MAKE A SYSTEM THAT'S NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD, BAD.
:::
CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS?
2019: Ontario coroner getting data for massive analysis of child and youth deaths.
TORONTO – An Ontario youth court judge has granted the coroner’s office access to justice records that will be reviewed as part of a pilot project looking into thousands of deaths of children and young adults in the province.
Chief Coroner Dirk Huyer told Justice Sheilagh O’Connell on Tuesday that more than 7,000 people aged 10 to 24 years old have died in Ontario between 2007 and 2018. He said the project was an effort to better understand the factors at play.
“It’s very important research, so I commend you for this,” O’Connell said as she granted the coroner’s office access to the records.
READ MORE: More needs to be done to protect kids in Ontario’s child welfare system, coroner says
Huyer said outside court that one area of focus for researchers will be the more than 3,000 children and young people who died due to suicide or gun violence.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW:
https://globalnews.ca/news/6249678/ontario-coroner-child-youth-deaths-data/
:::
2019-2020 OMBUDSMAN'S FIRST ANNUAL REPORT: DEATH AND SERIOUS BODILY HARM.. (It takes a village not a private corporation shrouded in secrecy)
Children’s aid societies and licensed residential service providers are legally required to inform the Ombudsman’s Office within 48 hours of any death or serious bodily harm of any child who has sought or received services from a children’s aid society within the past 12 months. Because they must be filed within 2 days of the incident, these reports may involve preliminary information and not findings of investigations by the police, child protection authorities or the coroner.
From May 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020, we received 1,663 reports about 1,433 incidents (some reports were duplicates, from multiple agencies reporting the same incident). These reports related to 122 deaths and 1,473 cases of serious bodily harm (defined as any situation where a young person requires treatment beyond basic first aid, including for physical, sexual or emotional harm). The Ombudsman will report in more detail on our analysis of these statistics in future reports.
TOP CASE TOPICS
1,458 Children’s aid societies
240 Youth justice centres
139 Residential licensees
26 Secure treatment
https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/reports-and-case-summaries/annual-reports/2019-2020-annual-report
OACAS: The duty to report.
It is not necessary to be certain that a child is or may be in need of protection to make a report to a children’s aid society. “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 funding friendly non profit corporate threshold for opening files and billing the taxpayers.
http://www.oacas.org/childrens-aid-child-protection/duty-to-report/
The Special Investigations Unit is the civilian oversight agency responsible for investigating circumstances involving police (but not unregulated CAS workers with law enforcement powers even the police don't have) 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
:::
2015: Teen’s death raises questions about secrecy surrounding kids in care.
“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 former and last advocate for children and youth. Between 90 and 120 children and youth connected to children’s aid die every year.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/12/10/teens-death-raises-questions-about-secrecy-surrounding-kids-in-care.html
:::
2015: Shedding light on the troubles facing kids in group homes.
The Star obtained the reports in a freedom of information request and compiled them according to the type of serious event that occurred — something the ministry does not do.
They note everything from medication errors to emotional meltdowns to deaths.
Restraints were used in more than one-third of 1,200 serious occurrence reports filed in 2013 by group homes and residential treatment centres in the city, according to a Star analysis.
At one treatment facility, 43 of the 119 serious occurrence reports filed to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services include a youth being physically restrained and injected by a registered nurse with a drug, presumably a sedative.
(How is a society that's against spanking isn't against tying children to their beds and drugging them?)
The language used by some group homes evokes an institutional setting rather than a nurturing environment. When children go missing, they are “AWOL.” In one instance in which a child acted out in front of peers, he was described as a “negative contagion.” Often, the reasons for behaviour are not noted. Children are in a “poor space” and are counselled not to make “poor choices.”
Blame is always placed on the child.
Their stories are briefly told in 1,200 Toronto reports describing “serious occurrences” filed to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services in 2013. Most involve children and youth in publicly funded, privately operated group homes.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/07/03/kids-in-toronto-group-homes-can-be-arrested-for-being-kids.html
:::
2016: The ministry doesn’t know how many children are being cared for in Ontario’s 389 licensed group homes. It’s working on a system that will eventually allow it to collect the information.
At the end of September 2017, the group homes had 2,914 beds, almost one-third of them operated by private, for-profit companies. The rest are run by non-profit agencies such as children’s aid societies.
Another 2,005 beds were in foster homes run by companies, where the limit is four kids to a home. A growing number of kids are also being placed in unlicensed homes with live-in staff.
“You know your system is based on the flimsiest of foundations when you have absolutely no standards on who can do this work,” adds Gharabaghi, director of Ryerson University’s school of child and youth care.
https://www.mykawartha.com/news-story/7974974-kids-are-going-through-trauma-staff-are-getting-assaulted-we-are-all-in-the-trenches-together-/
https://www.mcgill.ca/socialwork/channels/news/report-calls-better-oversight-residential-services-young-people-ontario-260997
:::
IS BEING A COMBATANT IN A WAR ZONE SAFER THAN BEING A CHILD IN ONTARIO'S CARE?
“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...
A TOTAL OF 158 CANADIANS SOLDIERS DIED IN AFGHANISTAN BETWEEN 2002 AND 2011.
Canada in Afghanistan - Fallen Canadian Armed Forces Members.
One hundred and fifty-eight (158) Canadian Armed Forces members lost their lives in service while participating in our country’s military efforts in Afghanistan. You can click on the names to explore their entries in the Canadian Virtual War Memorial.
https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/afghanistan-remembered/fallen?filterYr=2009
“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.
:::
2009: Open child-death files: NDP.
Queen's Park is "stonewalling" the provincial child advocate in his bid to get more information about 90 children in Ontario's child welfare system who died in 2007, says New Democratic Party Leader Howard Hampton.
"We are talking about children under the control of children's aid societies. These are troubled children, vulnerable children who are dying," Hampton said in the wake of Irwin Elman's annual report to the Legislature yesterday, which highlighted the deaths.
"As he says in his report, the government is stonewalling him, making it difficult for him to do his job," Hampton said.
Elman, who became the province's first (and last) independent child advocate last summer, said the government's refusal to share detailed information about the deaths with his office limits his ability to act.
"I'm not talking about doing investigations," he said yesterday. "I'm talking about having the information about my children and youth so I know what's going on with them."
He said he will "vigorously pursue" the issue by proposing an amendment to the provincial Coroner's Act to give him full access to all reports concerning the death of children and youth involved in the child welfare system.
In his report, Elman notes that the 90 deaths represent less than a quarter of all children who died in the province in 2007 and are a fraction of the 26,260 open cases of children's aid societies. But the number of deaths is "too high by any standard."
A sombre Premier Dalton McGuinty said the deaths are "troubling."
https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2009/02/24/open_childdeath_files_ndp.html
:::
2009: Why did 90 children die? TORONTO - Ontario's advocate for youth and children says it's unacceptable that 90 children known to child protection services died in 2007.
Irwin Elman, who was appointed to the post last July, says the 2008 Coroner's report suggests most of these deaths were preventable.
Sixteen deaths were accidental, nine were suicides, four were homicides, eight were from natural causes and 22 causes were undetermined.
Another 17 deaths are still to be classified and 14 were not considered appropriate by the Coroner for investigation.
Where the manner of death is known, 45 per cent of the children who died were under one year of age and 32 per cent were between 12 and 18.
In his annual report, Elman says it could be argued that 90 deaths in a small number compared with the 26,260 cases at Children's Aid Societies, but he rejects that, saying the figure is "too high by any standard."
Elman says in his report that "blaming some individuals is not helpful" and that society needs to say that it "cannot accept this."
https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2009/02/23/why_did_90_children_die.html
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ninety-kids-known-to-ont-child-services-died-in-2007-1.373012
https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/90-kids-known-to-ontario-s-child-services-died-in-07-1.373008
:::
2013: A CHILD IN CARE IS A CHILD AT RISK.
Between 2008/2012 natural causes was listed as the least likely way for a child in Ontario's care to die at 7% (only 15 children) out of the total deaths reviewed while "undetermined cause" was listed as the leading cause of death of children in Ontario's child protection system at 43% (92 children) of the total deaths reviewed over a four year period. The rest of the deaths were categorized as homicide, suicide and accidental.
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/DeathInvestigations/office_coroner/PublicationsandReports/PDRC/2013Report/PDRC_2013.html
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/sites/default/files/content/mcscs/images/195633-19.jpg
Undetermined means those 92 children had no pre-existing medical conditions and there was no rational reason for them to have died.
:::
2013: 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 103 recommendations.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/inquest-into-boy-s-death-to-shed-light-on-child-welfare-system-1.1699846
Watch: Failing Jeffrey -Aired April 12 2006 on the fifth estate.
https://youtu.be/-jF2p_dAYFA
:::
2016: Nearly six months after the inquest into the death of Katelynn Sampson began, jurors delivered another 173 recommendations.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/inquest-into-death-of-7-year-old-girl-emphasizes-duty-to-report-abuse/article29798749/?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com
THAT'S 276 OFFICIAL REASONS FOR CONCERN ABOUT CHILDREN IN ONTARIO'S CARE.
MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCESS A DIFFERENT KIND OF CHILD WELFARE EXPERT?
See: Robert D. Hare, C.M. (born 1934 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada) is a researcher in the field of criminal psychology. He developed the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-Revised), used to assess cases of psychopathy. Hare advises the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center (CASMIRC) and consults for various British and North American prison services.
He describes psychopaths as 'social predators', while pointing out that most don't commit murder. One philosophical review described it as having a high moral tone yet tending towards sensationalism and graphic anecdotes, and as providing a useful summary of the assessment of psychopathy but ultimately avoiding the difficult questions regarding internal contradictions in the concept or how it should be classified.
Hare received his Ph.D. in experimental psychology at University of Western Ontario (1963). He is professor emeritus of the University of British Columbia where his studies center on psychopathology and psychophysiology. He was invested as a Member of the Order of Canada on December 30, 2010.
Hare wrote a popular science bestseller published in 1993 entitled Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us (reissued 1999).
http://www.psychology-criminalbehavior-law.com/2015/01/hare-psychopath/
:::
Ford's conservatives shut down 27 ongoing foster home investigations with the closure of the Child Advocate's Office.
2018 - Stalling Tactics: The Ontario government announced in its fall economic statement Thursday afternoon that it would be closing the child advocate office, moving its responsibilities to an expanded Ombudsman's office, one of several cuts announced by a government that has said Ontario faces a $14.5-billion deficit. Nov 16, 2018.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/child-advocate-office-closes-jobs-1.5029935
:::
2019: Ontario deficit sits at $7.4-billion, half of what Premier Doug Ford originally claimed.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-deficit-sits-at-74-billion-half-of-what-premier-doug-ford/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-deficit-update-1.5282527
https://financialpost.com/opinion/doug-fords-ontario-government-spent-billions-more-than-wynne-had-planned-in-2018-19
:::
What do you call an agency granted law enforcement powers, minus judicial oversight (and granted its own laws apart from all other laws and secret courtrooms) that is fully regulated and funded by the Ontario government but is not accountable to public third party oversight or the same transparency and accountability laws the government itself must obey?
The Government Funded Multi-billion Dollar Private Nonprofit Children's Aid Society Corporation..
http://216.201.102.72/inquiries/cornwall/en/report/v1_en_pdf/E_Vol1_CH09.pdf
:::
"Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 proclaimed in force."
The new regulation was updated to only require Local Directors of Children’s Aid Societies to be registered with the College.
http://www.ocswssw.org/resources/legislation-submissions/
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.
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 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.
Ontarians have a right to assume that, when they receive services that are provided by someone who is required to have a social work degree (or a social service work diploma) — whether those services are direct (such as those provided by a child protection worker or adoption worker) or indirect (such as those provided by a local director or supervisor) — that person is registered with, and accountable to, the OCSWSSW.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234353/
As a key stakeholder with respect to numerous issues covered in the CYFSA and the regulations, we were dismayed to learn just prior to the posting of the regulations that we had been left out of the consultation process. We have reached out on more than one occasion to request information about regulations to be made under the CYFSA regarding staff qualifications.
A commitment to public protection, especially when dealing with vulnerable populations such as the children, youth and families served by CASs, is of paramount importance. In short, it is irresponsible for government to propose regulations that would allow CAS staff to operate outside of the very system of public protection and oversight it has established through professional regulation.
Regulations under the CYFSA:
The College has worked with government to address its concerns about regulations under the new CYFSA which set out the qualifications of Children’s Aid Society (CAS) staff. Upon learning in late November that the proposed regulations would continue to allow CAS workers to avoid registration with the College, the College immediately engaged with MCYS and outlined its strong concerns in a letter to the Minister of Children and Youth Services and a submission to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services during the consultation period.
We are pleased to note that, while the new regulation does not currently require CAS supervisors to be registered, we have received a "commitment" FROM THE OUTGOING WYNNE GOVERNMENT to work with the College and the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies toward a goal of requiring registration of CAS supervisors beginning January 2019.
Key concerns: The absence of a requirement for CAS child protection workers to be registered with the College: ignores the public protection mandate of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998 (SWSSWA); avoids the fact that social workers and social service workers are regulated professions in Ontario and ignores the College’s important role in protecting the Ontario public from harm caused by incompetent, unqualified or unfit practitioners; allows CAS staff to operate outside the system of public protection and oversight that the Government has established through professional regulation; and fails to provide the assurance to all Ontarians that they are receiving services from CAS staff who are registered with, and accountable to, the College.
The existing regulations made under the CFSA predated the regulation of social work and social service work in Ontario and therefore their focus on the credential was understandable.
However, today a credential focus is neither reasonable nor defensible. Social work and social service work are regulated professions in Ontario.
Updating the regulations under the new CYFSA provides an important opportunity for the Government to protect the Ontario public from incompetent, unqualified and unfit professionals and to prevent a serious risk of harm to children and youth, as well as their families.
As Minister Coteau said in second reading debate of Bill 89, "protecting and supporting children and youth is not just an obligation, it is our moral imperative, our duty and our privilege—each and every one of us in this Legislature, our privilege—in shaping the future of this province."
A "social worker" or a "social service worker" is by law someone who is registered with the OCSWSSW. Furthermore, as noted previously, the Ontario public has a right to assume that when they receive services that are provided by someone who is required to have a social work degree (or a social service work diploma), that person is registered with the OCSWSSW.
The OCSWSSW also has processes for equivalency, permitting those with a combination of academic qualifications and experience performing the role of a social worker or social service worker to register with the College.
These processes address, among other things, the risk posed by "fake degrees" and other misrepresentations of qualifications, ensuring Ontarians know that a registered social worker or social service worker has the education and/or experience to do their job.
The review of academic credentials and knowledge regarding academic programs is an area of expertise of a professional regulatory body. An individual employer will not have the depth of experience with assessing the validity of academic credentials nor the knowledge of academic institutions to be able to uncover false credentials or misrepresentations of qualifications on a reliable basis.
Setting, maintaining and holding members accountable to the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. These minimum standards apply to all OCSWSSW members, regardless of the areas or context in which they practise. Especially relevant in the child welfare context are principles that address confidentiality and privacy, competence and integrity, record-keeping, and sexual misconduct.
Maintaining fair and rigorous complaints and discipline processes. These processes differ from government oversight systems and process-oriented mechanisms within child welfare, as well as those put in place by individual employers like a CAS. They focus on the conduct of individual professionals.
Furthermore, transparency regarding referrals of allegations of misconduct and discipline findings and sanctions ensures that a person cannot move from employer to employer when there is an allegation referred to a hearing or a finding after a discipline hearing that their practice does not meet minimum standards.
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
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.
ACCORDING TO OACAS'S NEW CEO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A WORKER AT YOUR DOOR YOU SHOULD ASK TO SEE THEIR LANYARD AND THEN JUST ASK THEM WHAT QUALIFICATIONS THEY HAVE BEFORE TAKING THEM AT THEIR WORD AND ALLOWING THEM TO COME IN AND SEARCH YOUR HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT UNDER THE PRETENSE OF ONLY WANTING TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS - AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANY COMPLAINTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST THEM - IN CHILD WELFARE CIRCLES THAT'S COVERED BY THE UNREGISTERED WORKER'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY...
Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice.
The Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice Handbook sets out minimum standards of professional practice and conduct for members of the OCSWSSW. This is in accordance with one of the objects of the College as stated in the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998 “to establish and enforce professional standards and ethical standards applicable to members of the College.” For the purposes of the Act (Section 26), and the Professional Misconduct Regulation (Ontario Regulation 384/00), these standards have been approved in a bylaw of the College as standards of practice for its members. The Standards of Practice are meant to be applied to members’ practice in conjunction with any applicable legislation and with their professional judgment.
http://www.ocswssw.org/professional-practice/code-of-ethics/
http://www.ocswssw.org/members/online-register/
http://www.ocswssw.org/
Updating the regulations under the new CYFSA provides an important opportunity for the Government to protect the Ontario public from incompetent, unqualified and unfit professionals and to prevent a serious risk of harm to children and youth, as well as their families.
As Minister Coteau said in second reading debate of Bill 89, "protecting and supporting children and youth is not just an obligation, it is our moral imperative, our duty and our privilege—each and every one of us in this Legislature, our privilege—in shaping the future of this province."
A "social worker" or a "social service worker" is by law someone who is registered with the OCSWSSW. Furthermore, as noted previously, the Ontario public has a right to assume that when they receive services that are provided by someone who is required to have a social work degree (or a social service work diploma), that person is registered with the OCSWSSW.
The OCSWSSW also has processes for equivalency, permitting those with a combination of academic qualifications and experience performing the role of a social worker or social service worker to register with the College.
These processes address, among other things, the risk posed by "fake degrees" and other misrepresentations of qualifications, ensuring Ontarians know that a registered social worker or social service worker has the education and/or experience to do their job.
The review of academic credentials and knowledge regarding academic programs is an area of expertise of a professional regulatory body. An individual employer will not have the depth of experience with assessing the validity of academic credentials nor the knowledge of academic institutions to be able to uncover false credentials or misrepresentations of qualifications on a reliable basis.
Setting, maintaining and holding members accountable to the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. These minimum standards apply to all OCSWSSW members, regardless of the areas or context in which they practise. Especially relevant in the child welfare context are principles that address confidentiality and privacy, competence and integrity, record-keeping, and sexual misconduct.
Maintaining fair and rigorous complaints and discipline processes. These processes differ from government oversight systems and process-oriented mechanisms within child welfare, as well as those put in place by individual employers like a CAS. They focus on the conduct of individual professionals.
Furthermore, transparency regarding referrals of allegations of misconduct and discipline findings and sanctions ensures that a person cannot move from employer to employer when there is an allegation referred to a hearing or a finding after a discipline hearing that their practice does not meet minimum standards.
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
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@ocswss
https://youtu.be/Qf03U04rqGQ
2016: Regulation Of Child Protection Workers By Ontario College Of Social Workers And Social Service Workers: CUPE/Front-line workers Respond.
"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."
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.
"I may not hold a BSW or MSW degree, enjoy membership in the College or be subject to its regulation. But I am a professional practitioner in the child protection sector and, as such, I cannot countenance this move toward the regulation of the child protection workforce. I am resolved to fight it at every step of the way and instead campaign for the measures that will bring real benefits to at-risk youth, children and families.
I’m calling OACAS out on this spurious attempt to bring more oversight to our sector. Regulation will not make children safer; instead, it is distracting attention from what’s really needed to improve safety for children and youth and I hope that [CAS] will back me up on that.
The more I investigate membership in the College, the more becomes plain that regulation and registration for child protection workers will only add a layer of third party public bureaucracy, expense and administration to our many all internal layers of secret corporate bureaucracy.
How could anyone look at this list unnecessary all internal private corporate oversight and possibly think that child protection workers need more oversight? Asking for more ways to regulate and oversee the work of child protection workers is clearly unnecessary and leads me to think there is another agenda at work in this exercise."
CAS in-house management structure, including supervisors, managers, lawyers, and case conferences;
• a society’s internal standards, policies, procedures and protocols, some of which are governed by the Children and Family Services Act;
• a society’s internal disciplinary and complaints procedures;
• Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, which has new powers to investigate CAS workers;
• ministry audits in almost every area of service, including Crown Ward Reviews and Licensing;
• Child and Family Services Review Board, which conducts reviews and hearings of complaints against a CAS worker;
• family courts;
• Ontario’s human rights tribunal;
• the provincial auditor general;
• child death reviews, including the Paediatric Death Review and internal reviews;
• coroner’s inquests.
Regulation by the College makes scapegoats of child protection workers, while permitting the Ministry, the government and children’s aid societies themselves to avoid dealing with the real issues in the sector.
By requiring CASs to hire only College-registered employees, some agencies will be set up for future crisis in recruitment and retention of staff and those who will suffer most will be the vulnerable children, youth and families that societies are meant to help.
There are also criteria around language fluency, residency, and academic qualifications that have little or nothing to do with child protection and would only seek to narrow the group from which child protection has traditionally drawn its workers.
Children’s aid societies outside Ontario’s urban centres have long had difficulties in recruiting and retaining child protection workers. Agencies in northern Ontario, remote and rural regions, and aboriginal nations face ongoing challenges around adequate staffing for their child protection services. Restricting them to recruiting and hiring only College-registered employees can only increase severe staff shortages and under-representation by equity seeking groups.
We should be looking at ways of expanding our approach to our work, not restricting it to fit the strictures of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.
By requiring CASs to hire only College-registered employees, some agencies will be set up for future crisis in recruitment and retention of staff and those who will suffer most will be the vulnerable children, youth and families that societies are meant to help.
These additional requirements will do absolutely nothing to increase the skill sets of child protection workers but will deter many from entering the field. We won’t be better off and neither will the children, youth and families we serve.
Currently, at least seven CUPE collective agreements (CAs) contain articles that prohibit professional regulation as a job requirement to protect unqualified workers, unless such regulation is legislated. These seven CAs represent over half of the full time equivalents (FTEs) in the sector. [This CAS] is a signatory to one of these agreements.
We will fight hard to keep these hard-won entitlements, especially because they offer protection from many of the problems identified above.
Professional registration is a red herring that ignores the real issues in the child protection sector. In order to improve the consistency and quality of child protection, the OACAS and Ministry of Children’s and Youth Services should focus on funding restraints, workload, violence in the workplace and the current insufficient investment in workers’ training.
I am not a social worker; I don’t want to be a social worker. Had I wanted to be a social worker, I would have trained as one. If regulation through the College of Social Work is introduced, what will happen to us child protection workers who don’t have degrees in social work (a BSW or MSW) or a social service worker diploma? After all, we make up to 50% of the child protection workforce.
None of the options currently available to us is appealing: we can try to upgrade to the qualifications that will allow up to keep our jobs. We can move to a different job class. We can accept termination or layoff.
What doesn’t seem to be an option is “grandfathering,” something that would allow child protection workers already in post to keep doing their current jobs.
The College is quite specific that grandfathering is not on the table.
These facts seem to present some insurmountable problems for the child protection sector and represent another compelling reason that regulation by the College is a bad move for the child protection sector and for child protection workers.
(considering they're not qualified for the job we are currently doing the prospects of finding another job are pretty slim and before you know it we'll all be on welfare)
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 non sequiturs—arguments in which a conclusion doesn't follow logically from what preceded it.
-
"One of the rationalizations for registration and regulation with the College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers is the restoration of public confidence in Ontario’s child protection system. But violating my rights to privacy and confidentiality will do nothing to achieve this goal."
(Those employed by another person or agency for financial remuneration are not entitled to personal privacy protection anymore than a police officer or a cashier at Walmart is.)
"Currently, workplace disciplines, complaints and other personnel matters at [CAS] are treated confidentially. But if child protection workers become subject to regulation by the College, previously confidential workplace matters will become matters of public record. (just like everyone else)
My membership in the College would mean that anyone can see information about my status or complaints made against me – and under the College’s rules, there is no time limit in which to make a complaint. Disciplinary hearings are open to the public and once a complaint is made, it is on file forever. There is no process for appeal. (yes there is)
https://mydefence.ca/ontario-college-of-social-workers-and-social-services-defence-lawyer/
Employers must also file a written report with the College if one of its registered members is terminated. This requirement conflicts with an employee’s right to grieve a termination under the collective agreement or appeal it through arbitration, where a termination may be overturned. (just like everyone else)
I also have concerns for my personal safety and that of my family, since college registration is open to public scrutiny and provides no protection from potentially violent clients.
None of the ways that the College deals with personal information, complaints, and discipline allow for a fair or safe process for child protection workers.
There are any number of measures that can be and ought to be taken to restore public confidence in child protection and keep at-risk children and youth safer. Regulation by the college is not one of them."
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.
https://www.siu.on.ca/en/index.php
-
-
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.
http://cupe2190.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SSWCC_CAS-letters-re-college-regulation_Nov.-2016.pdf
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
:::
DRAFT Letter 2 – Professionalism (I feel like a professional)
2016: Regulation of child protection workers by Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers: CUPE responds:
Please send or adapt any of the following letters to the Unregistered Executive Director of your CAS.
I understand that there are plans in the works to force anyone who works in child protection to register with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers.
One of the reasons given for this change is that regulation will result in higher quality services and bring greater professionalism to the field and that this will improve the standard of child protection work in Ontario.
I would like to point out that a failure to meet standards of care in child protection work is very rarely the result of professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacity on the part of individual child protection workers.
The stated purpose of the College is to protect the public from unqualified, incompetent or unfit practitioners.
But children’s aid societies already set those standards and ensure their adherence: they determine the job qualifications. They deal with employees they deem to be unqualified or incompetent. And CASs decide whether child protection work in their area can be performed by someone who holds a Bachelor’s degree and has child welfare experience.
I may not hold a BSW or MSW degree, enjoy membership in the College or be subject to its regulation. But I am a professional practitioner in the child protection sector and, as such, I cannot countenance this move toward the regulation of the child protection workforce. I am resolved to fight it at every step of the way and instead campaign for the measures that will bring real benefits to at-risk youth, children and families. (I may not be a doctor but I play one on TV)
Sincerely,
http://cupe2190.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SSWCC_CAS-letters-re-college-regulation_Nov.-2016.pdf
https://globalnews.ca/news/5453400/prince-edward-county-cas-executive-director-trial-ag-preliminary-hearing/
https://globalnews.ca/news/4182170/childrens-aid-executive-charged/
https://globalnews.ca/news/4916584/woman-charged-with-sex-assault-of-minors-worked-at-male-cas-group-home-at-time-of-alleged-offences/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-county-foster-care-abuse-negligence-charges-1.4723516
https://www.intelligencer.ca/2014/10/21/three-cas-cases-settled/wcm/3fd07287-3f2a-1755-7386-1c8c2353c943#:~:text=Three%20former%20County%20foster%20children,were%20in%20the%20society's%20care.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5334666/drugs-theft-alcohol-abuse-alleged-childrens-aid-group-home/
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/14/two-teens-harrowing-stories-of-ontario-group-homes.html
https://globalnews.ca/news/5360057/teen-sexual-cult-ontario-foster-home-childrens-aid-society/
https://nypost.com/2019/06/12/childrens-aid-society-in-canada-turned-a-blind-eye-to-sexual-abuse-report/
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/04/30/shocking-conditions-at-now-shuttered-thunder-bay-foster-homes-detailed-in-child-advocates-final-report.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/06/13/province-shuts-down-three-thunder-bay-foster-homes.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/03/14/in_leaked_memo_peel_cas_staff_asked_to_keep_cases_open_to_retain_funding.html
:::
2020: Registration of Children’s Aid Society workers.
SHOULD COMPLAINTS AGAINST ONTARIO CAS WORKERS BE A MATTER FOR THE COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS OR UNION ARBITRATION LIKE THEY'RE FACTORY WORKERS?
One has a duty to protect the public and the other has a duty to protect worker..
And should child clients of the children's aid societies have the right to report bad workers to the College of Social Work with an official completely independent third party public process for children and youth?
The College has allegedly long worked with its stakeholders and with Government to address its concerns about registration requirements under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act while avoiding talking to families who have been harmed by the CAS since 2000.
As a result of past efforts, regulations were updated in 2018 to require Local Directors of CASs to be registered with the College. We also received a commitment from Government at that time to work with the College and the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies toward a goal of requiring registration of CAS supervisors.
We are disappointed that this objective remains unaddressed. (They're disappointed? How meaningful is that total bullshit..)
Registration of all those who are eligible is included as part of the College’s 2020-2023 Strategic Plan as fundamental to achieving our mandate to: serve and protect the public interest; regulate our members; and ensure that we are accountable and accessible to the communities we serve.
https://www.ocswssw.org/2020/08/17/message-from-the-registrar-and-ceo-changes-to-ontarios-child-welfare-system/
Considering how closely the societies work with courts, the police and the ministry maybe the SIU would be a proactive way to deal with the children's aid societies refusal to register with the college.
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 and might easily be adapted to investigated complaints about CAS workers...
https://www.siu.on.ca/en/index.php
:::
2016: Taking off her lanyard in and putting on her union pin 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 all internal secret oversight that include unregistered workplace supervisors, family courts that reverse burden of proof, internal reports bypassing the public coroners’ inquest process and annual rubber stamp case audits by the ministry.
“Our work is already regulated to death.” (minus judicial oversight)
https://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news-story/6437856-children-s-aid-societies-launch-major-training-reforms/
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-coroner-s-report-highlights-need-for-changes-to-child-welfare-system-1.4109439
http://thecaribbeancamera.com/training-for-childrens-aid-societies/
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/09/25/coroners-panel-calls-for-overhaul-of-ontario-child-protection-system.html
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/03/childrens-aid-societies-launch-major-training-reforms.html
:::
FORMER ONTARIO MPP FRANK KLEES EXPLAINS "A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE." I'M NOT A SOCIAL WORKER, I'M A CHILD PROTECTION WORKER!
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..
Do you care what kind of social workers they call themselves?
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? (See Motherisk Report and the OHRC Report)
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
Can the CAS be trusted with special powers we don't trust the police or the government with? No judicial or ethical oversight and secret records kept on private citizens...?
As far as I know the only thing the liberals, conservatives and NDP have ever agreed on is the children's aid society doesn't need any judicial or third party public ethical oversight other than their own for decades.. Why is that..?
https://youtu.be/PpE-Vuz1gtk
:::
What’s the difference between psychologist, psychological associate, registered psychotherapist, social worker, psychiatrist, therapist, counsellor and a child protection worker?
Some child protection workers have qualifications or minimal qualifications in social work but refuse to register or be accountable to anyone other than the ministry that holds the purse strings..
Should unregistered child protection workers with social worker qualifications have the same privilege registered social workers have?
Social Workers are registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. They have a Bachelor degree in Social Work. Social Workers provide assessment and psychotherapy to clients. They have knowledge of diagnostic criteria, and evidence-based treatments for mental health conditions.
Social Workers often play an integral role in assessment and diagnosis under supervision of Psychologists and/or Psychiatrists. Often, Social Workers have a special interest in how individuals are impacted upon by society and factors such as discrimination.
http://www.hamiltonpsych.ca/faq.html#:~:text=Social%20Workers%20are%20registered%20with,Workers%20and%20Social%20Service%20Workers.&text=Social%20Workers%20often%20play%20an,of%20Psychologists%20and%2For%20Psychiatrists.
In the US: https://www.humanservicesedu.org/lcswvspsychologist.html#context/api/listings/prefilter
:::
2017: Under suspicion: Concerns about child welfare (OHRC)
Racial profiling is an insidious and particularly damaging type of racial discrimination that relates to notions of safety and security. Racial profiling violates people’s rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code). People from many different communities experience racial profiling. However, it is often directed at First Nations, Métis, Inuit and other Indigenous peoples, Muslims, Arabs, West Asians and Black people, and is often influenced by the negative stereotypes that people in these communities face.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Under%20suspicion_research%20and%20consultation%20report%20on%20racial%20profiling%20in%20Ontario_2017.pdf
In 2015, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) began a year-long consultation to learn more about the nature of racial profiling in Ontario. Our aim was to gather information to help us guide organizations, individuals and communities on how to identify, address and prevent racial profiling. We connected with people and organizations representing diverse perspectives. We conducted an online survey, analyzed cases (called applications) at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that alleged racial profiling, held a policy dialogue consultation, and reviewed academic research. We conducted focus groups with Indigenous peoples and received written submissions. Overall, almost 1,650 individuals and organizations told us about their experiences or understanding of racial profiling in Ontario.
We heard concerns about racial profiling in the child welfare sector, particularly affecting Black and Indigenous families. We heard that systemic racism was perceived to be embedded in this system, and that racial profiling that may take place in this sector targets mothers for over-scrutiny most often.
We heard concerns that racialized and Indigenous parents are disproportionately subjected to surveillance and scrutiny, which contributes to families being reported to children’s aid societies (CASs). We also heard that once a referral to child welfare authorities takes place, families are more likely to have prolonged child welfare involvement, and be more at risk of having their children apprehended. Consultation participants suggested these experiences arise in part from referrers’ and child welfare authorities’ incorrect assumptions about risk based on race and related grounds, and intersections between these grounds and poverty.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/under-suspicion-concerns-about-child-welfare
:::
2004: Child Welfare Reform: Protecting Children or Policing the Poor for Fun and Personal Gain?
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/
:::
2016: Report shines light on poverty’s role on kids in CAS system.
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.
https://youtu.be/CG6PT3Hw568
“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.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/08/15/report-shines-light-on-povertys-role-on-kids-in-cas-system.html
:::
2020: TORONTO -- Ontario's child welfare system will be redesigned to focus on prevention and early intervention, the provincial government said Wednesday.
"Child welfare should not be the system that is feared," Dunlop said in a news conference. "No one should be scared to lose their children for speaking to a children's aid society."
Associate Minister of Children and Women's Issues Jill Dunlop said the new strategy will also work to address the over-representation of Black and Indigenous families in the children's aid system.
She said children and youth in care experience worse outcomes than those in a family setting, including lower graduation rates, a higher risk of homelessness and more involvement with the justice system.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-plans-to-redesign-child-welfare-system-to-focus-on-prevention-1.5044299
:::
Your Right to Complain to a Children’s Aid Society (and no one else so it becomes a matter for union arbitration should their employer find discipline justified)
WHAT PROTECTIONS DO INVOLUNTARY CLIENTS OF ONTARIO'S CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES HAVE BEHIND ALL THE CLOSED DOORS?
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.
IS THERE ANY REASON TO TRUST THE MANY FACES OF A SOCIETY SHROUDED IN SECRECY AND THEIR ALL INTERNAL COMPLAINT PROCESSES?
https://stepstojustice.ca/questions/abuse-and-family-violence/how-do-i-complain-about-childrens-aid-society-worker
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/03/14/in_leaked_memo_peel_cas_staff_asked_to_keep_cases_open_to_retain_funding.html
:::
Principles of fundamental justice:
In order to be a principle of fundamental justice, a rule or principle must be (1) a legal principle (2) about which there is significant societal consensus that it is fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate, and (3) it must be identified with sufficient precision to yield a manageable standard against which to measure deprivations of life, liberty or security of the person.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html
:::
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 (voluntary and involuntary) of the Ontario Children's Aid Society are routinely denied a timely (often heavily censored) file disclosure before the court begins making life altering 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."
-
How do you become a client of the CAS?
#1 You can ask for their help.
#2 You can be reported to a CAS, then investigated and submit to their findings.
#3 Or the CAS can take you to their secret courtrooms where the burden of proof is reversed and ask the judge (who may have been a former CAS employee) for anything they want..
The big problem is the CAS only receives funding when they claim there are,or is, a reason for concern and they are using family courts to obtain funding.
-
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..
“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 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.
In her annual report for 2013 released on June 17 there is just one paragraph on children's aid on page 12: 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.
2020 UPDATE: CAS NOW REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO FOI REQUESTS THE SAME AS ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT FUNDED AND CONTROLLED AGENCY SHOULD BE.
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
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE STANDARDS, OR LEGISLATION, OR THE BUREAUCRACY - IT'S ABOUT ETHICS AND APPLICATION. IF YOUR GOING TO FIX WHAT'S WRONG WITH CHILD PROTECTION - START AT THE BEGINNING.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEM THAT LACKS ETHICS, MORALS AND ACCOUNTABILITY OR ACTS IN BAD FAITH - IT THE PEOPLE ENTRUSTED TO OVERSEE THE SYSTEM THAT LACK THOSE THINGS. IT'S NOT BAD SYSTEM THAT MAKES GOOD WORKERS BAD - IT'S BAD WORKERS THAT MAKE A SYSTEM THAT'S NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD, BAD.
:::
CHILD PROTECTION WORKERS?
2019: Ontario coroner getting data for massive analysis of child and youth deaths.
TORONTO – An Ontario youth court judge has granted the coroner’s office access to justice records that will be reviewed as part of a pilot project looking into thousands of deaths of children and young adults in the province.
Chief Coroner Dirk Huyer told Justice Sheilagh O’Connell on Tuesday that more than 7,000 people aged 10 to 24 years old have died in Ontario between 2007 and 2018. He said the project was an effort to better understand the factors at play.
“It’s very important research, so I commend you for this,” O’Connell said as she granted the coroner’s office access to the records.
READ MORE: More needs to be done to protect kids in Ontario’s child welfare system, coroner says
Huyer said outside court that one area of focus for researchers will be the more than 3,000 children and young people who died due to suicide or gun violence.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW:
https://globalnews.ca/news/6249678/ontario-coroner-child-youth-deaths-data/
:::
2019-2020 OMBUDSMAN'S FIRST ANNUAL REPORT: DEATH AND SERIOUS BODILY HARM.. (It takes a village not a private corporation shrouded in secrecy)
Children’s aid societies and licensed residential service providers are legally required to inform the Ombudsman’s Office within 48 hours of any death or serious bodily harm of any child who has sought or received services from a children’s aid society within the past 12 months. Because they must be filed within 2 days of the incident, these reports may involve preliminary information and not findings of investigations by the police, child protection authorities or the coroner.
From May 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020, we received 1,663 reports about 1,433 incidents (some reports were duplicates, from multiple agencies reporting the same incident). These reports related to 122 deaths and 1,473 cases of serious bodily harm (defined as any situation where a young person requires treatment beyond basic first aid, including for physical, sexual or emotional harm). The Ombudsman will report in more detail on our analysis of these statistics in future reports.
TOP CASE TOPICS
1,458 Children’s aid societies
240 Youth justice centres
139 Residential licensees
26 Secure treatment
https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/reports-and-case-summaries/annual-reports/2019-2020-annual-report
OACAS: The duty to report.
It is not necessary to be certain that a child is or may be in need of protection to make a report to a children’s aid society. “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 funding friendly non profit corporate threshold for opening files and billing the taxpayers.
http://www.oacas.org/childrens-aid-child-protection/duty-to-report/
The Special Investigations Unit is the civilian oversight agency responsible for investigating circumstances involving police (but not unregulated CAS workers with law enforcement powers even the police don't have) 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
:::
2015: Teen’s death raises questions about secrecy surrounding kids in care.
“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 former and last advocate for children and youth. Between 90 and 120 children and youth connected to children’s aid die every year.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/12/10/teens-death-raises-questions-about-secrecy-surrounding-kids-in-care.html
:::
2015: Shedding light on the troubles facing kids in group homes.
The Star obtained the reports in a freedom of information request and compiled them according to the type of serious event that occurred — something the ministry does not do.
They note everything from medication errors to emotional meltdowns to deaths.
Restraints were used in more than one-third of 1,200 serious occurrence reports filed in 2013 by group homes and residential treatment centres in the city, according to a Star analysis.
At one treatment facility, 43 of the 119 serious occurrence reports filed to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services include a youth being physically restrained and injected by a registered nurse with a drug, presumably a sedative.
(How is a society that's against spanking isn't against tying children to their beds and drugging them?)
The language used by some group homes evokes an institutional setting rather than a nurturing environment. When children go missing, they are “AWOL.” In one instance in which a child acted out in front of peers, he was described as a “negative contagion.” Often, the reasons for behaviour are not noted. Children are in a “poor space” and are counselled not to make “poor choices.”
Blame is always placed on the child.
Their stories are briefly told in 1,200 Toronto reports describing “serious occurrences” filed to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services in 2013. Most involve children and youth in publicly funded, privately operated group homes.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/07/03/kids-in-toronto-group-homes-can-be-arrested-for-being-kids.html
:::
2016: The ministry doesn’t know how many children are being cared for in Ontario’s 389 licensed group homes. It’s working on a system that will eventually allow it to collect the information.
At the end of September 2017, the group homes had 2,914 beds, almost one-third of them operated by private, for-profit companies. The rest are run by non-profit agencies such as children’s aid societies.
Another 2,005 beds were in foster homes run by companies, where the limit is four kids to a home. A growing number of kids are also being placed in unlicensed homes with live-in staff.
“You know your system is based on the flimsiest of foundations when you have absolutely no standards on who can do this work,” adds Gharabaghi, director of Ryerson University’s school of child and youth care.
https://www.mykawartha.com/news-story/7974974-kids-are-going-through-trauma-staff-are-getting-assaulted-we-are-all-in-the-trenches-together-/
https://www.mcgill.ca/socialwork/channels/news/report-calls-better-oversight-residential-services-young-people-ontario-260997
:::
IS BEING A COMBATANT IN A WAR ZONE SAFER THAN BEING A CHILD IN ONTARIO'S CARE?
“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...
A TOTAL OF 158 CANADIANS SOLDIERS DIED IN AFGHANISTAN BETWEEN 2002 AND 2011.
Canada in Afghanistan - Fallen Canadian Armed Forces Members.
One hundred and fifty-eight (158) Canadian Armed Forces members lost their lives in service while participating in our country’s military efforts in Afghanistan. You can click on the names to explore their entries in the Canadian Virtual War Memorial.
https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/afghanistan-remembered/fallen?filterYr=2009
“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.
:::
2009: Open child-death files: NDP.
Queen's Park is "stonewalling" the provincial child advocate in his bid to get more information about 90 children in Ontario's child welfare system who died in 2007, says New Democratic Party Leader Howard Hampton.
"We are talking about children under the control of children's aid societies. These are troubled children, vulnerable children who are dying," Hampton said in the wake of Irwin Elman's annual report to the Legislature yesterday, which highlighted the deaths.
"As he says in his report, the government is stonewalling him, making it difficult for him to do his job," Hampton said.
Elman, who became the province's first (and last) independent child advocate last summer, said the government's refusal to share detailed information about the deaths with his office limits his ability to act.
"I'm not talking about doing investigations," he said yesterday. "I'm talking about having the information about my children and youth so I know what's going on with them."
He said he will "vigorously pursue" the issue by proposing an amendment to the provincial Coroner's Act to give him full access to all reports concerning the death of children and youth involved in the child welfare system.
In his report, Elman notes that the 90 deaths represent less than a quarter of all children who died in the province in 2007 and are a fraction of the 26,260 open cases of children's aid societies. But the number of deaths is "too high by any standard."
A sombre Premier Dalton McGuinty said the deaths are "troubling."
https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2009/02/24/open_childdeath_files_ndp.html
:::
2009: Why did 90 children die? TORONTO - Ontario's advocate for youth and children says it's unacceptable that 90 children known to child protection services died in 2007.
Irwin Elman, who was appointed to the post last July, says the 2008 Coroner's report suggests most of these deaths were preventable.
Sixteen deaths were accidental, nine were suicides, four were homicides, eight were from natural causes and 22 causes were undetermined.
Another 17 deaths are still to be classified and 14 were not considered appropriate by the Coroner for investigation.
Where the manner of death is known, 45 per cent of the children who died were under one year of age and 32 per cent were between 12 and 18.
In his annual report, Elman says it could be argued that 90 deaths in a small number compared with the 26,260 cases at Children's Aid Societies, but he rejects that, saying the figure is "too high by any standard."
Elman says in his report that "blaming some individuals is not helpful" and that society needs to say that it "cannot accept this."
https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2009/02/23/why_did_90_children_die.html
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ninety-kids-known-to-ont-child-services-died-in-2007-1.373012
https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/90-kids-known-to-ontario-s-child-services-died-in-07-1.373008
:::
2013: A CHILD IN CARE IS A CHILD AT RISK.
Between 2008/2012 natural causes was listed as the least likely way for a child in Ontario's care to die at 7% (only 15 children) out of the total deaths reviewed while "undetermined cause" was listed as the leading cause of death of children in Ontario's child protection system at 43% (92 children) of the total deaths reviewed over a four year period. The rest of the deaths were categorized as homicide, suicide and accidental.
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/DeathInvestigations/office_coroner/PublicationsandReports/PDRC/2013Report/PDRC_2013.html
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/sites/default/files/content/mcscs/images/195633-19.jpg
Undetermined means those 92 children had no pre-existing medical conditions and there was no rational reason for them to have died.
:::
2013: 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 103 recommendations.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/inquest-into-boy-s-death-to-shed-light-on-child-welfare-system-1.1699846
Watch: Failing Jeffrey -Aired April 12 2006 on the fifth estate.
https://youtu.be/-jF2p_dAYFA
:::
2016: Nearly six months after the inquest into the death of Katelynn Sampson began, jurors delivered another 173 recommendations.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/inquest-into-death-of-7-year-old-girl-emphasizes-duty-to-report-abuse/article29798749/?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com
THAT'S 276 OFFICIAL REASONS FOR CONCERN ABOUT CHILDREN IN ONTARIO'S CARE.
MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCESS A DIFFERENT KIND OF CHILD WELFARE EXPERT?
See: Robert D. Hare, C.M. (born 1934 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada) is a researcher in the field of criminal psychology. He developed the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-Revised), used to assess cases of psychopathy. Hare advises the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center (CASMIRC) and consults for various British and North American prison services.
He describes psychopaths as 'social predators', while pointing out that most don't commit murder. One philosophical review described it as having a high moral tone yet tending towards sensationalism and graphic anecdotes, and as providing a useful summary of the assessment of psychopathy but ultimately avoiding the difficult questions regarding internal contradictions in the concept or how it should be classified.
Hare received his Ph.D. in experimental psychology at University of Western Ontario (1963). He is professor emeritus of the University of British Columbia where his studies center on psychopathology and psychophysiology. He was invested as a Member of the Order of Canada on December 30, 2010.
Hare wrote a popular science bestseller published in 1993 entitled Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us (reissued 1999).
http://www.psychology-criminalbehavior-law.com/2015/01/hare-psychopath/
:::
Ford's conservatives shut down 27 ongoing foster home investigations with the closure of the Child Advocate's Office.
2018 - Stalling Tactics: The Ontario government announced in its fall economic statement Thursday afternoon that it would be closing the child advocate office, moving its responsibilities to an expanded Ombudsman's office, one of several cuts announced by a government that has said Ontario faces a $14.5-billion deficit. Nov 16, 2018.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/child-advocate-office-closes-jobs-1.5029935
:::
2019: Ontario deficit sits at $7.4-billion, half of what Premier Doug Ford originally claimed.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-deficit-sits-at-74-billion-half-of-what-premier-doug-ford/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-deficit-update-1.5282527
https://financialpost.com/opinion/doug-fords-ontario-government-spent-billions-more-than-wynne-had-planned-in-2018-19
:::
What do you call an agency granted law enforcement powers, minus judicial oversight (and granted its own laws apart from all other laws and secret courtrooms) that is fully regulated and funded by the Ontario government but is not accountable to public third party oversight or the same transparency and accountability laws the government itself must obey?
The Government Funded Multi-billion Dollar Private Nonprofit Children's Aid Society Corporation..
http://216.201.102.72/inquiries/cornwall/en/report/v1_en_pdf/E_Vol1_CH09.pdf
:::
"Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 proclaimed in force."
The new regulation was updated to only require Local Directors of Children’s Aid Societies to be registered with the College.
http://www.ocswssw.org/resources/legislation-submissions/
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.
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 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.
Ontarians have a right to assume that, when they receive services that are provided by someone who is required to have a social work degree (or a social service work diploma) — whether those services are direct (such as those provided by a child protection worker or adoption worker) or indirect (such as those provided by a local director or supervisor) — that person is registered with, and accountable to, the OCSWSSW.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234353/
As a key stakeholder with respect to numerous issues covered in the CYFSA and the regulations, we were dismayed to learn just prior to the posting of the regulations that we had been left out of the consultation process. We have reached out on more than one occasion to request information about regulations to be made under the CYFSA regarding staff qualifications.
A commitment to public protection, especially when dealing with vulnerable populations such as the children, youth and families served by CASs, is of paramount importance. In short, it is irresponsible for government to propose regulations that would allow CAS staff to operate outside of the very system of public protection and oversight it has established through professional regulation.
Regulations under the CYFSA:
The College has worked with government to address its concerns about regulations under the new CYFSA which set out the qualifications of Children’s Aid Society (CAS) staff. Upon learning in late November that the proposed regulations would continue to allow CAS workers to avoid registration with the College, the College immediately engaged with MCYS and outlined its strong concerns in a letter to the Minister of Children and Youth Services and a submission to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services during the consultation period.
We are pleased to note that, while the new regulation does not currently require CAS supervisors to be registered, we have received a "commitment" FROM THE OUTGOING WYNNE GOVERNMENT to work with the College and the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies toward a goal of requiring registration of CAS supervisors beginning January 2019.
Key concerns: The absence of a requirement for CAS child protection workers to be registered with the College: ignores the public protection mandate of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998 (SWSSWA); avoids the fact that social workers and social service workers are regulated professions in Ontario and ignores the College’s important role in protecting the Ontario public from harm caused by incompetent, unqualified or unfit practitioners; allows CAS staff to operate outside the system of public protection and oversight that the Government has established through professional regulation; and fails to provide the assurance to all Ontarians that they are receiving services from CAS staff who are registered with, and accountable to, the College.
The existing regulations made under the CFSA predated the regulation of social work and social service work in Ontario and therefore their focus on the credential was understandable.
However, today a credential focus is neither reasonable nor defensible. Social work and social service work are regulated professions in Ontario.
Updating the regulations under the new CYFSA provides an important opportunity for the Government to protect the Ontario public from incompetent, unqualified and unfit professionals and to prevent a serious risk of harm to children and youth, as well as their families.
As Minister Coteau said in second reading debate of Bill 89, "protecting and supporting children and youth is not just an obligation, it is our moral imperative, our duty and our privilege—each and every one of us in this Legislature, our privilege—in shaping the future of this province."
A "social worker" or a "social service worker" is by law someone who is registered with the OCSWSSW. Furthermore, as noted previously, the Ontario public has a right to assume that when they receive services that are provided by someone who is required to have a social work degree (or a social service work diploma), that person is registered with the OCSWSSW.
The OCSWSSW also has processes for equivalency, permitting those with a combination of academic qualifications and experience performing the role of a social worker or social service worker to register with the College.
These processes address, among other things, the risk posed by "fake degrees" and other misrepresentations of qualifications, ensuring Ontarians know that a registered social worker or social service worker has the education and/or experience to do their job.
The review of academic credentials and knowledge regarding academic programs is an area of expertise of a professional regulatory body. An individual employer will not have the depth of experience with assessing the validity of academic credentials nor the knowledge of academic institutions to be able to uncover false credentials or misrepresentations of qualifications on a reliable basis.
Setting, maintaining and holding members accountable to the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. These minimum standards apply to all OCSWSSW members, regardless of the areas or context in which they practise. Especially relevant in the child welfare context are principles that address confidentiality and privacy, competence and integrity, record-keeping, and sexual misconduct.
Maintaining fair and rigorous complaints and discipline processes. These processes differ from government oversight systems and process-oriented mechanisms within child welfare, as well as those put in place by individual employers like a CAS. They focus on the conduct of individual professionals.
Furthermore, transparency regarding referrals of allegations of misconduct and discipline findings and sanctions ensures that a person cannot move from employer to employer when there is an allegation referred to a hearing or a finding after a discipline hearing that their practice does not meet minimum standards.
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
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.
ACCORDING TO OACAS'S NEW CEO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A WORKER AT YOUR DOOR YOU SHOULD ASK TO SEE THEIR LANYARD AND THEN JUST ASK THEM WHAT QUALIFICATIONS THEY HAVE BEFORE TAKING THEM AT THEIR WORD AND ALLOWING THEM TO COME IN AND SEARCH YOUR HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT UNDER THE PRETENSE OF ONLY WANTING TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS - AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT ANY COMPLAINTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST THEM - IN CHILD WELFARE CIRCLES THAT'S COVERED BY THE UNREGISTERED WORKER'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY...
Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice.
The Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice Handbook sets out minimum standards of professional practice and conduct for members of the OCSWSSW. This is in accordance with one of the objects of the College as stated in the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998 “to establish and enforce professional standards and ethical standards applicable to members of the College.” For the purposes of the Act (Section 26), and the Professional Misconduct Regulation (Ontario Regulation 384/00), these standards have been approved in a bylaw of the College as standards of practice for its members. The Standards of Practice are meant to be applied to members’ practice in conjunction with any applicable legislation and with their professional judgment.
http://www.ocswssw.org/professional-practice/code-of-ethics/
http://www.ocswssw.org/members/online-register/
http://www.ocswssw.org/
Updating the regulations under the new CYFSA provides an important opportunity for the Government to protect the Ontario public from incompetent, unqualified and unfit professionals and to prevent a serious risk of harm to children and youth, as well as their families.
As Minister Coteau said in second reading debate of Bill 89, "protecting and supporting children and youth is not just an obligation, it is our moral imperative, our duty and our privilege—each and every one of us in this Legislature, our privilege—in shaping the future of this province."
A "social worker" or a "social service worker" is by law someone who is registered with the OCSWSSW. Furthermore, as noted previously, the Ontario public has a right to assume that when they receive services that are provided by someone who is required to have a social work degree (or a social service work diploma), that person is registered with the OCSWSSW.
The OCSWSSW also has processes for equivalency, permitting those with a combination of academic qualifications and experience performing the role of a social worker or social service worker to register with the College.
These processes address, among other things, the risk posed by "fake degrees" and other misrepresentations of qualifications, ensuring Ontarians know that a registered social worker or social service worker has the education and/or experience to do their job.
The review of academic credentials and knowledge regarding academic programs is an area of expertise of a professional regulatory body. An individual employer will not have the depth of experience with assessing the validity of academic credentials nor the knowledge of academic institutions to be able to uncover false credentials or misrepresentations of qualifications on a reliable basis.
Setting, maintaining and holding members accountable to the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. These minimum standards apply to all OCSWSSW members, regardless of the areas or context in which they practise. Especially relevant in the child welfare context are principles that address confidentiality and privacy, competence and integrity, record-keeping, and sexual misconduct.
Maintaining fair and rigorous complaints and discipline processes. These processes differ from government oversight systems and process-oriented mechanisms within child welfare, as well as those put in place by individual employers like a CAS. They focus on the conduct of individual professionals.
Furthermore, transparency regarding referrals of allegations of misconduct and discipline findings and sanctions ensures that a person cannot move from employer to employer when there is an allegation referred to a hearing or a finding after a discipline hearing that their practice does not meet minimum standards.
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
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@ocswss
https://youtu.be/Qf03U04rqGQ
No comments:
Post a Comment