CAN BINDING ARBITRATION WORK?

Resolving the Contract Impasse between Federation of Teachers versus Provincial Government

The BCFT and the government are in the midst of negotiating a new collective agreement. Negotiations have not gone well. The two parties are far enough apart and each is resistant to further accommodation that potential mediator Vince Ready walked away from the stalemate. Think about it. Over the past three months, both sides have not even met in the same room around a table yet. What kind of collective bargaining is that?

CANADA'S TOP JUDGE SLAMS 'INACCESSIBLE JUSTICE'

The CBA is the largest national lawyer association in Canada. It represents 37,000 lawyers, judges, notaries, law teachers and students. Its annual conference was held at the end of August 2013 in Saskatoon, and special invitees and speakers were Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin, Justice Minister Peter MacKay and CBC's Peter Mansbridge.

Delegates at the annual meeting of the Canadian Bar Association conference in Saskatoon (CBA) were discussing the merits of several proposed legal reforms, some of which derive from a new 54 page report by the CBA, titled Reaching Equal Justice, which was released at conference. The report pointed to severely unequal access to justice in Canada.

Beverly McLachlin, Chief Justice 
the Supreme Court of Canada, ' 
(Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin then spoke to this concern, saying that ensuring that Canadians are able to access the system, is the most pressing challenge facing the administration of justice in this country. She conveyed that peoples' lives are being ruined when they can't get access to justice. McLachlin said, "We know that there are a lot of needs. People just swallow their pain and their loss and live with it, I guess, in some unsatisfactory way feeling they can't get justice."

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.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND CP MEDIATION

Jenelle Schneider, Postmedia News

Ministry of Attorney General: The government website page for the Ministry of the Attorney General contains this page entitled Child Protection Mediation Program. In the post below I am quoting that page in its entirety and without comment from me. This is the mediation option of which the Attorney General’s Office wants you to be aware. I would like to hear what some of you who have been affected by MCFD's child protection practice think about this mediation theory and its delivery.
Attorney General

Child Protection Mediation Program

Sometimes parents or other people who are responsible for the care of a child disagree with child welfare workers in the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) or delegated Aboriginal child and family service agency (DAA) about a child’s safety and well-being. Child protection mediation is a collaborative way to reach agreement on the best plan for a child’s safety with the help of a specially trained, impartial person called a mediator.

WILL A JUDGE RULE CHILD REMOVAL IS UNREASONABLE?

Roadside Check

Now we have something to discuss. What did B.C.’s tough drinking laws and the Ministry’s removal of Ayn Van Dyk from her father have in common? I understand these are not identical issues, not nearly. There are however, commonalities which beg some serious questions. I believe it is a commendable objective to rid our roads of drunk drivers. I also believe that it is laudable to protect children and ensure their security. I sympathize with everyone who has been injured or grieved by someone’s decision to drive while drunk. I am saddened by every incident of parental rage or addiction or neglect that has caused damage or death to a child.

Furthermore, I can understand the complaint of a driver who although unimpaired, has nonetheless failed a roadside screening test and without any opportunity for appealing or countering the judgment, has been tried and sentenced on the road where he was stopped. And believe me, I comprehend the resentment of parents who for reasons that cannot withstand cross examination nevertheless have a child removed from them, with no opportunity to explain, to defend, or to contest this action turned allegation and conviction.

Robert Glen Harrison Tried for $520 M / Part 306 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Robert Glen Harrison

The false accusation of abuse was a nightmare said this BC man.

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.

RAHMAN Family / Part 290 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

You who comment make it clear that the Baynes' experience with the child protection element of MCFD is not unique. This Bayne Campaign for Justice has not been precedent setting. Sure the Bayne case gained some public visibility via CBC and Global TV telecasts and online video links as well as this blog and others. Their campaign backed by a large cast of supporters has also used an online petition and promoted a Trust Fund to finance the incurred legal costs. But so have other complainants.

Rahman children

Consider the RAHMAN Family. On a well designed website with helpful tabs, friends of the family logged the ongoing struggle to establish innocence, acquittal, credibility and recovery.

 Here are details from that site.

One year ago some final web pages were published about their similar horrific experience. On April 9th, 2005, the Rahman children, then aged 2,3,4, and 5 years, were removed from their family after their two-year-old cousin died while in the mother's care.The child's loss was a terrible tragedy. The court documents explain that the niece, a two-year-old girl, fell from a chair while eating and hit her head on a concrete floor. The Rahman mother, Muzzammil Rahman was in the washroom and her own four young children witnessed the niece’s fall and alerted their mother. Finding that the child was unconscious and not breathing, Muzzammil who spoke limited English and had no transportation, took the child to a neighbour. The neighbour found pieces of waffle lodged in the child's throat, removed it and called 911. The 911 recording reveals sounds of the child choking. The story also indicates that the child had a pre-existing but undisclosed medical condition. Muzzammil was charged with manslaughter, (specifically, shaken baby syndrome).

It took three years for this case to come to trial and during that time, the children remained in care. Honourable, Mr. Justice. W.G. Grist B.C. Supreme Court May 21st, 2008 ruled “The Crown says the accused was overwhelmed and over-burdened by the care of her four children and Aisha. There is no direct evidence of this and there is evidence that she was taking proper care of the child.”... “I think it essential in this case to keep in mind the evidence of the events as they unfolded given by these various witnesses.”... “Accordingly, the accused should be discharged.” Muzzammil was acquitted.

Some birthdays later - Rahman children

Immediately Muzzammil and Muhammad Attiq-Ur-Rahman's lawyer began court proceedings to get their children back. Can you appreciate how devastated they must have been when in spite of the acquittal, Surrey Provincial Court Judge Marilynn Borowicz stated in her ruling that the child who died was a victim of "severe, sustained, and unexplained child abuse." She ruled the Rahman children should stay in foster care. Similar to the Baynes, in the Rahman case the MCFD filed for a Continuing Care Order. ( Details taken from Denise Ryan's, Vancouver Sun article of August 13, 2009)

Later, at the Rahmans' appeal to the B.C. Supreme Court, Justice Grant Burnyeat overturned Judge Borowicsz's judgement with a statement saying that Borowicz had made “a critical omission” in her ruling by not giving an explanation for how she arrived at her conclusions. He wrote, "There is a complete failure to either review or analyze any of the expert evidence." He ordered a new trial for Muzzammil and Muhammad Attiq-Ur-Rahman in their fight to regain custody of their children. Their legal costs have been estimated at $200,000.  ( Details taken from Denise Ryan's, Vancouver Sun article of August 13, 2009)

The family was reunited in 2009. A final online post on Thursday, 24 December 2009 11:31, announced that “all the kids have been returned to their parents by an official court order.... We would like to sincerely thank you from the bottom of our hearts for all the moral, financial, and generous support that everybody has provided throughout this ordeal!” The four Rahman children were 10, nine, seven and six when they were returned one year ago – having been for four years in the care of the Ministry and away from their parents. I am so glad for their happiness.