 |
| Robert Glen Harrison |
From the April 2008 article by Jeff Davies written for CBC, Robert Glen Harrison speaks about his two year journey of horror as his reputation was destroyed by an accusation that was untrue. "I've spent many sleepless nights — the panic that you get … will grip you when you realize what they are saying about you, and it's not true," he said.
He and his wife were running a daycare in Sechelt when in 1996 a complaint was laid against him about which he knew nothing until years later. That complaint was so vague that authorities did not act upon it but the complaint remained in a government file that had now been established with Harrison's name. Someone ostensibly at or near enough to the Harrison family home had informed child welfare authorities that noises had been heard that sounded like heavy breathing, the squeaking of bed springs and a child saying "No, Daddy," at the family's home. The complainant went on to suggest that Harrison might have been abusing his five-year-old daughter.
Ten years later Harrison landed a job as a therapist at a troubled youth facility in the lower mainland. The customary background check was done and a resource worker with MCFD informed the new employer about the old complaint and made the recommendation that Harrison not be allowed to work alone with young people. Harrison was let go. He fought back with a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner asserting that his privacy rights had been violated. In 2009 the commissioner dismissed his complaint. He didn't stop. He took the matter to the Supreme Court of B.C. where Justice Ian Pitfield quashed the earlier ruling and ruled instead that the Ministry's conduct had denied Harrison his right to employment in child care by disclosing unsubstantiated information. Pitfield wrote, "This is a striking example of the harm that an individual may suffer as a consequence of a provincial government ministry accumulating, retaining, using and disclosing personal information, purportedly in a manner consistent with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act." “Justice cannot allow FIPPA [the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act] to be used in a manner that accords rumours and unfounded allegations made to a public body about the character, reputation or behaviour of any individual undeserved legitimacy,” said Justice Ian Pitfield in reviewing the case. Pitfield recommended that the allegations made against Robert Glen Harrison, 49, be expunged from the records. Then remarkably Pitfield stated that Harrison may be compelled to sue for defamation or negligence.
Harrison drove a limousine as he waited for exoneration. At the time, Darrell Evans, then executive director of the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association expressed that Harrison's case was not unique. "We're constantly emphasizing how dangerous false information in an individual's file can be, and the fact that false information can come from very unreliable sources," Evans says. "You know, one false report in a file can destroy a life."
The defendants in the court case were the Ministry of Children and Family Development which cannot be sued and two MCFD employees who were the named defendants, Bruce McNeill and Joan Bischoff.
Harrison immediately launched a $520 million lawsuit against the BC Government Ministry of Children and Family Development claiming his career was destroyed by a false allegation of child abuse. In June 2008, CBC ran a story that relates this aspect of the story and also provides a link to the defence statement dated May 14, 2008 and posted in its entirety here. In that defence statement, the argument is that the government employees followed proper record-keeping procedures and that Robert Harrison signed a consent form to have his file disclosed, not knowing it contained the allegation. It would seem that Harrison expected this could be settled out of court but the Ministry communicated that it intended to book a 10-day trial in March 2009. Once again Darrell Evans said this was a landmark case and that his organization, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association supported Harrison.
Gerry Bellett of the Vancouver Sun wrote the story on May 2010 that discloses that the B.C. Court of Appeal has quashed an attempt by a former child care worker to sue the government for $520 million after unsubstantiated allegations that he sexually abused a child cost him his job. However, a B.C. Supreme Court judge said the issue regarding Bischoff's part should go to trial as he did not have enough information to dismiss the action.
The Supreme Court of Canada has an online record of docket 33250 Robert Glen Harrison, et al. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia, et al. Regarding a sealing order on his file.
Vancouver Sun Article April 10 2008
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.
It would seem as if the privacy laws are there to protect the guilty, and to punish the innocent. How many times have we heard of cases where we are denied information on the basis of privacy law, yet that same law never seems to protect our own privacy.
ReplyDeleteFalse allegations and accusations are a serious problem in our society, especially with respect to child protection. False allegations have destroyed countless lives, including the lives of innocent, vulnerable children. Those who make false allegations deserve to be punished, as they not only destroy innocent lives, but corrupt justice.
Stat Counter: 111,034. Excellent work, Ron!
ReplyDeleteThank you Van.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at www.Injusticebusters.com site,It has been about 4 years or more since they Won thier battle of acusations by CPS and Police but never a apology! This site is a collection of Tragedies within the Legal System!
ReplyDeleteThis Blog is also becoming another collection within itself and hopes that it will remain long after to serve others in trouble!
Very helpful link site Anon NB 7:35 AM
ReplyDeleteI read this story when it first came out. It looks like there may be a later follow-up with the lady who advised Mr. Harrion's employer he was a risk to children.
ReplyDeleteThe fellow clearly has a valid point, but him asking for 520 million and expecting a high settlement was likely presumptuous. Some comments from readers on the CBC story said as much. If he succeeded in any measure at all, there would be a gold rush on MCFD to claim damages. However, as we see, MCFD is well equipped to protect themselves from this threat.
Every MCFD file, even police files where charges have not been laid have the potential for a great deal of damage to people if portions are disclosed to others. MCFD intake reports will often quote fragments of any available police files, deliberately taking them out of context. this is their primary job function as this increases the effect of a report to court.
The difference is the way that police do a police check, they don’t reveal unproven allegations, versus MCFD in this case giving the opinion the man should not be around children. Big difference.
If there is a mistake to be identified, it is Mr. Harris not knowing MCFD's true nature ahead of time. He would now know he should have first requested a copy of all files on him, addressed and rectified the inaccurate information, got that letter from Bruce McNeil before a disclosure, and perhaps if he was able, apply to lock the file to eliminate future inappropriate disclosures. The only thing MCFD should be revealing is if child protection concerns that were validated by finding of a court.
This case exposes many MCFD shortcomings, such as improper investigation of the intake in the first place and not having a conclusion. Worse, permitting foster parenting by Mr. Harrison with this inconclusive information on file (without his knowledge), then later saying it has relevance in preventing him from working with kids.
The long and short of it, is Mr. Harrison likely did not have enough legal horsepower to properly argue his case. When you get up to the level of a Court of Appeal and the stakes are so high, it is much easier for experienced lawyers to beat down an unrepresented litigant. I my opinion, it does not mean his case was completely without merit, despite the comments I read from the Appeal judge.
The question I had reading the extraordinary level of work Mr. Harrison did, was how does a fellow who was working for $15/hr for the job he was fired from manage this level of litigation?
Win or lose, it is a remarkable accomplishment that I believe a lot of us who have suffered similar problems with MCFD should draw encouragement from. I hope Mr. Harrison posts his experience online and provides good context that better illustrates MCFD inner workings. Perhaps the next person that follows his example will learn from that experience.
The Appeal judgment reveals that after the allegation in 1996, Mr. Harrison was approved as a foster parent, where the allegations on file would have been known. Later, he is fired from his job because of the "interpretation" from the divulging worker he should not be allowed to work with children based exclusively on the unproven allegation. This is the meat of the lawsuit. The problem is, he gave his permission for MCFD to read off his file to someone else. Likely this organization receives funding from MCFD.
The Appeal link on Canlii.org is:
http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=robert%20glen%20harrison&language=en&searchTitle=Search%20all%20CanLII%20Databases&path=/en/bc/bcca/doc/2010/2010bcca220/2010bcca220.html
The promise of anonymity often brings to light things deserving attention but, as we see, inappropriate handling of information creates so much havoc that I wonder what kind of people would give info into the hands of any official.
ReplyDeleteNext, we ask, why get involved at all.
So the question that begs an answer is, "Are they any people of wisdom in gov't agencies?" Of course, but responsibility for other people's lives is something that needs to be protected on all levels in this world. There need not be a contest of any people group's value in law in Canada.
Would people behave more responsibly if they could be sued as individuals or ministries? Fewer people would work for the MCFD. I think the first to resign would be the Chilliwack MCFD director and his helpers. Would that be so bad?
Social worker training programs would change the perspective from which they teach. They would emphasize the need to research anonymous information as to its credibility in court if info was not allowed to be anonymous. Good, good, good!! People attacked have no protection from wrongful MCFD treatment in the present scenario.
Thank the King of Kings for people like Doug Christie, Ray Ferris, Ron Unruh and all the other innumerable gallant warriors of righteousness who are joining together to fight for worthwhile issues of life. Thank God for people who go to courtrooms to support others who are wronged. Thank God for these media people who have risked. All the above mentioned are open to be sued for anything and everything as in fact, the Baynes are. Remember, the Baynes haven't even been charged. They are just in court. Really!! How crazy does the imbalance get!!!
There are so many great people and only a few Caesar types who wouldn't dare walk the streets without protection!!
A few days ago a blogger played devil's advocate and said "let us look at it from the social workers' point of view etc" Prior protection concerns. Protection report from a minister. Services received. New protection report with strong medical evidence. More later.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely agreed compelling stuff---if you think and act like a robot. A responsible professional would read those reports in detail and learn a great deal about the problems of dealing with premature babies. I know I did, just as I constantly learned new stuff when I was supervisor of long-term foster care. Your social work degree is simply your license to learn--nothing more. A careful reading would have shown that the original diagnosis on the premature boy was revised by an expert on prematurity and accepted by the first doctor. It was a medical condition and not abuse.?Their own doctor gave them high praise. At that time the social workers did a thorough and professionally sound job. Among other things they showed the Baynes that their child was so fragile that a common act like strapping into a car carrier could cause a fracture and training was needed. The social workers gave them a letter exonerating them.
A good worker would learn from this and try to avoid a second erroneous diagnosis. When the family profile contradicted a likelihood of abuse, great caution should have been used. Second opinions should be sought etc. Instead they changed the profile to fit an abuse fit. Great stuff!!
The social workers found them difficult, unco-operative and publicity hungry. True. If it had ever occurred to the social workers for one minute that the parents might be totally innocent, then their behaviour was totally understandable. Why should they co-operate with staff who insisted that they admit their fault and sought to keep their children from them? When they had spent all their money on lawyers and were no closer to getting back their children, why should they not try the media as a desperate last resort?
Let us just ignore the fact that the RCMP could find no evidence. Also we now know that the pastor could only give scuttlebut evidence. Let us overlook the fact that their own lawyer advised them to drop the case and return the boys immediately. Instead the director saw himself as constantly being backed into a corner by damaging publicity, which also compelled him to move the boys frequently. Really? Yes, he did get backed into a corner, but he backed himself there. If he had only half a brain, he would have known that moving the boys around was damaging for them and leaving them in limbo with a lengthy court case was definitely not in their best interests. All he had to do was to take the advice of Finn Jensen QC. and he would not have been in the corner and he would not be constantly damaging the Bayne family today.
This case now has nothing whatever to do with child protection, or promoting the best interests of the children. This case is all about beating the Baynes at whatever cost. Why is it necessary to beat the Baynes? Simply to save getting egg on the face of the director, the deputy minister and the minister That is why it is necessary to blame everthing on the parents and that is why they fight to the last ditch to defame and smear these poor people. They continue to do this, even when they know they cannot win the case. That is why the last week of court was a week of dirty tricks.
www.Injusticebusters.com
ReplyDeleteis indeed a great link. Thanks for providing it.
Today I saw my SW and my therapist and my FP worker and my case manager. All these people employed to take care of my parenting. SO, it is determined that I am mentally ill, although the psychiatrist and the doctors do not think so. A SW with much less training insists I am and will make it so in my file because they have the power to write whatever they want.
ReplyDeleteThe SW tells the therapist what to work on with me, early life trauma, apparently, yet I am not worried about that personally. I was not traumatized in my early life, actually. Then a big report will be given to the SW and kept forever on my file to be used against me. If I do not do the therapy I do not get my son back. What did I do to deserve this? Well I had an ex-spouse who called me in for housekeeping and a neighbour who called in and said stuff that is so strange how could it be true?
A very flawed system, most definitely.
Thank you for your honest story Anon 6:46PM. I am sorry for the treatment that you are receiving.
ReplyDeleteAnon at September 10, 2010 10:15 AM wrote:
ReplyDelete"The question I had reading the extraordinary level of work Mr. Harrison did, was how does a fellow who was working for $15/hr for the job he was fired from manage this level of litigation?"
Actually, the courts can be very helpful to self-represented litigants, and all you really need is a bit of time, a computer, a printer and a photocopier. If you are willing to learn the ropes, it's not as difficult as it might seem. Besides, there are a lot of really bad lawyers out there, so you can actually save a ton of money, and even build a better case, if you take the time to learn to do it yourself.
Hi, Just came across this column. Interesting speculation that has developed. I have to laugh at some of the suggestion that I had signed consent to allow the Ministry to give personal information to my employer. Number (1) the Ministry is forbidden under the Privacy Act to not notify you when there is information that can harm you. Number (2) the method that was used to get my"consent" was illegal under section 32 of FIPPA. Number (3) the "information" was a false criminal allegation that was ignored for ten years on their database. People of Canada have a little piece of legislation called the Charter that provides presumption of innocence. The appeal court lied when they tried to say that the disclosure was a duty of care. In order to find a "duty of care" allowing the Ministry to harm someone in the interests of protecting children, there needed to be a foreseeable risk. Yet, the Ministry never contacted me prior to the disclosure. How did they know I posed a risk, if they did not know whether I would have cooperated if asked? That little problem was not addressed by the appeal court, and even when I tried to introduce the evidence that another division of the appeal court had ordered the Privacy Commissioner to review section 28, which is the bad faith section of the Privacy Act, the appeal court shut me down. Justice Smith commented to Province counsel that it was apparent the defendant Joan Bischoff had been untruthful in her affidavit. The lawyer then mumbled "but...not bad faith my lord." It was pathetic. The appeal court had no business interfering in Justice Ehrcke's decision that this matter should proceed to a full trial. The Supreme Court of BC was very outraged at the Province, but the Province knows, the Court of Appeal is there to save their asses. But the SCC does not play favourites, and there are plenty of grounds before the Court, particularly when the Province can't explain what the risk was that forced them to harm me without giving me a chance to cooperate. In addition, the Province changed their story from one judge to the other. We will see what happens in the SCC. I have faith.
ReplyDeleteThank you Robert for writing. I could not find any contact information to confer with you prior to using the media information, but I am pleased for the data you have included here. Do I understand you to say that your case has not been completed and that you still wait for a Supreme Court ruling?
ReplyDeleteHello Ron,
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I am grateful for the forum. There is an application before the Supreme Court of Canada. The appeal court that dismissed my action, was incorrect in their use of duty of care principles. The BC court also failed to acknowledge multiple examples of bad faith, including the fact that the SW lied in her email communications to my employer, and in her affidavit. There are also clear grounds for misfeasance due to the breach of a statute, an obvious breach that the appeal court closed their eyes to. If you understand the principles in Syl Apps Secure Treatment Center, you will quickly know that the application of conflicting duty of care does not fit in these circumstances and the BC appeal court was wrong. The bottom line here is that the last I heard from the Ministry in '96 was not to worry about the false allegation, they were not doing an investigation and it would not affect me; I have that in writing. And Bruce McNeill defined the file in June '06 as "not a barrier to employment in a position of trust with children." How then did the BCCA arbitrarily decide that there was a risk sufficient to justify ruining my life? Corruption that is how. I will add, that someone mentioned the SCBC was helpful for lay litigants. That was not my experience. The SCBC was less than useless, I believe they were deliberately discouraging me throughout, and when it hit the appellate court they flatly refused to even speak to me. Anyway, Ron thanks again and I am available for a conversation at emailrobharrison@yahoo.ca.
I would really like to address the issue of the 520 million. First of all, I am seeking 10 million in general damages. I believe this is very fair considering the Province has completely eliminated any possibility of proving my innocence. Who will now believe my daughter if she insisted that this abuse never occurred? There will always be doubt. Did I deserve that? No, and the Province is the expected authority on child abuse, if the government says you did it, it must mean they are willing to risk a challenge in court. Pretty convincing stuff. Second, I can never work in childcare again, even if the Province pays me and admits they got caught doing something wrong. I enjoyed working with children, I was good at it. The Province illegally took that away from me, and they can afford to fix what they did better than any other defendant. Their ability to pay is what is supposed to keep them legal. That is why the Province has fought tooth and nail here because of their ability to fix what they did.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I am seeking 10 million for statutory damages because these damages are there to ensure governments do not break the law when they harm you.
I am petitioning the court to apply 500 million in punitive damages because apply a deterrent to an entity that does not respect any money they may have to pay? It is not their money, they did not earn it. They don't care unless the people whose money it is vote them out of office for their stupidity. The 500 million is completely discretionary for the courts, it is the punitive amount that I believe will put the fear of God into them.
I stick my heels in for the ten mil, the rest is in the hands of the court.
Hi, I wanted to clarify the comments regarding the help of the BCSC. The judges in the BC Supreme Court were unbelievable in their support of me. Justice Pitfield was incredible, he made the Privacy Commission lawyer squirm so bad I thought she was going to run out the door. She was literally trembling because Justice Pitfield was so upset with what the Commissioner had done. Justice Pitfield also tried to compel the Ministry to appear before him because I had failed to name them on my Petition against the Commissioner. Justice Ehrcke was also amazing. He knew the Province's story regarding duty of care did not make sense. Justice Ehrcke had the AG lawyer stumbling so bad in her responses to his questions it was embarrassing. What I wanted to clarify was that the BC Supreme Court self-help center was very discouraging. I am not sure if it was because of the nature of the complaint against me, or whether I somehow was a threat, I am not sure; but the self-help people were rude to me, and I felt like I was inconveniencing them. The BCSC Judges were awesome, I cannot thank them enough. But, how does the Appeal Court suddenly find the Province argument had merit and there was no bad faith? It is very disturbing. I did not get a fair hearing in the court of appeal and I believe it was because the court knew that if they did anything except dismiss my claim, and they could simply have sent it for the full trial ordered by Erhcke J, the Province would not only be found liable for a tort they could not fix, but the actions of the Province throughout this ordeal would be on full view. The court of appeal and the Province could simply not allow that; so Justice Levine, Justice Frankel and Justice Smith and the Province conspired to get rid of me. However, their argument in the reasons simply does not add up. There are so many holes in the reasons that they have to be concerned if the Supreme Court of Canada gets wind of the unfairness. Should the SCC grant leave, the Province will be in a very compromised position of having to explain how their story changed from the judicial review to the civil action. Two different positions regarding the role of the Commissioner, two different courts, same government. The AG lawyer in the judicial review says the Commissioner is the authority regarding the Privacy Act and the Court should not interfere. The other AG lawyer in the civil action says the Privacy Commissioner is insignificant, that his decisions are quasi-judicial and should be ignored by the court. Which is the truth? They can't both be right, and why is the Province saying the Privacy Commissioner has no power? Corruption that is why. The Province tried to use sensitive child protection legislation for their own benefit; to save their own sorry butts. That legislation is designed to be used only when a child's life is in danger, and the Province pops it over their heads as soon as one of their employees with a God-complex does something out of line. Its appalling. One of these days crying wolf will not save a child from harm because the Province abuses section 79(a) of the CFCSA when it is convenient for them. Okay then. I think I will stop here if anyone is still reading my incoherent rambling.
ReplyDelete"Today I saw my SW and my therapist and my FP worker and my case manager. All these people employed to take care of my parenting. SO, it is determined that I am mentally ill, although the psychiatrist and the doctors do not think so. A SW with much less training insists I am and will make it so in my file because they have the power to write whatever they want.
ReplyDeleteThe SW tells the therapist what to work on with me, early life trauma, apparently, yet I am not worried about that personally. I was not traumatized in my early life, actually. Then a big report will be given to the SW and kept forever on my file to be used against me. If I do not do the therapy I do not get my son back. What did I do to deserve this? Well I had an ex-spouse who called me in for housekeeping and a neighbour who called in and said stuff that is so strange how could it be true?
A very flawed system, most definitely."
Ooh boy, I couldn't help read this and become upset. Yikes. Okay people, the first thing you have to realize is that MCFD is a quasi-judicial tribunal whose decisions are reviewable in court. This woman has professionals who disagree with the SW. There are definitely judges in the BCSC who are twigged to the Ministry's game. Take the Ministry to court, even if you have to do it yourself. You can and you can get indigent status to do it if you can convince a judge you cannot afford to pay; not that hard. The Ministry may even back off, and agree to avoid court, it is done. The Ministry is not the court, and unless the Ministry can convince a judge a child is at risk, the Ministry had better make sense of what they are saying. Trust the BCSC Judges, I do.
I would take issue with the phrase "Trust the BSCS Judges..."
ReplyDeleteIt is true, it is possible as a self represented litigant a judge will treat you with respect as if you were a lawyer, but this would appear to be a crap shoot.
At the Provincial level, there is little doubt the Ministry gets the benefit of the doubt, which accounts for their 98% success rate at presentation hearings.
In smaller courtrooms, the same judges, lawyers (on opposing sides), the judicial case manager, the filing clerks are all on first name basis and see each other regularly. Generally speaking, court is not a safe place to be for parents.
In a custody matter that referenced a simultaneous MCFD case, I went as far as the Court of Appeal, and I was shocked to start off having three judges glowering down at me, obviously with their minds made up. There was no way a layman would win an appeal against a highly respected BCSC judge. I paid thousands for a factum done by a firm that there only job was to write such factums, and that was completely ignored and not mentioned at all in the decision.
In my case my children were removed, then returned two years later, the Ministry simply withdrew. No forced parenting courses afterwards, no follow-up visits to check on the kids. There was nothing to appeal or complain against.
MCFD's only evidence they planned to use was the children's psychologist report and the parenting company reports, and some foster parent emails. No witnesses, no intakes reports, no risk assessments, no medical evidence, none of the 1,000 pages of previously disclosed files, just a thin 100 pages expected with two weeks of court time. The one day was enough.
I understand exactly what this parent went through, because that happened to me. I just didn't buckle in and accept a supervision order. I had full intention of making MCFD work for their application, they quit in response.
Later, I heard from a number of other parents where they stuck to their guns, and MCFD also withdrew
Specifically with MCFD I can attest to some measure of success in raising an MCFD matter to BC Supreme Court representing myself.
ReplyDeleteMCFD withdrew in my case, unconditionally and I got full custody of my children in a few minutes of court time. This, after waiting for well over a year for a Provincial court date.
Still, it took a dozen preliminary attendances in Provincial and BC Supreme court to get to that point.