Ray Ferris again on the Justice Walker report

This a commentary from Ray Ferris with whom I have a working relationship when advocating for parents and families whom we have identified as recipients of unwarranted assertions or unreasonable treatment. I respect Ray’s familiarity with case law, the child protection Act and what represents fair case work. You will find occasional blog entries on this site which are written by Ray. This piece continues his recent reporting of a case on which Justice Paul Walker dressed down social workers and made a key judgement. Mr. Justice Paul W. Walker (Vancouver) was appointed to Supreme Court June 18, 2008. Walker has been a partner with Guild, Yule and Company LLP since 1984.


Ray will refer to the report transcript which if you care to read it yourself it will be found here.

Journalist Ian Mulgrew wrote a riveting news article for the Vancouver Sun, entltled, ‘Ian Mulgrew: 'Children’s ministry sided with sexually abusive father,court finds.

“I have continued making my way through the Justice Walker report on JP v GB. I do urge anyone who cares about justice to read it. It can easily be understood by any reasonably intelligent person and does not require special expertise to understand. It is an education in itself.

In this judgement, Mr. Justice Paul Walker ordered the children to be given into the custody of the mother and there was to be no access to the father, because the judge was convinced that he had sexually abused his children.

The police and the director of the protection services had both backed the abusive father and the judge was very critical of them. The trial now continues to a second phase, where the mother and her lawyers are suing the ministry for megabucks to try to recover the legal and other expenses. Having completed reading the judgement, I could make a great many comments, but today I will confine myself to asking one or two simple questions. Maybe your readers can answer them?

1. Where is the borderline between poor judgement and plain stupidity?

2. When does the tolerance of gross incompetence on the part of staff add up to organizational malfeasance? (Malfeasance is more than showing bad faith and is more in the realm of criminal wrongdoing.) The act protects staff from things done in good faith, even if the actions are totally stupid and incompetent. 3. In this case and in many others, it has been noted that the social workers are very reluctant to change a position when new facts come to light. Given compelling new information, they usually stonewall or adjourn a court case incessantly. This to me suggests that the parent would have a good reason to claim bad faith and compensation. Why do they not do so more often? Because if they got the kids back they are scared of vindictive retaliation and secondly you need a pile of money to launch such an action and they just don’t have it. Legal fees will eat up your house and home.”