This
is my synopsized prose version of Justice Walker's 140-page judgement presented
in several segments that reveal the substance of Walker's overview of evidence that
demanded his verdict against the Ministry of Children's Child Protection. No
stated opinion or fact appears here that does not also appear in the Justice
Walker's ruling (legal document). It is public information
The
Ministry failed to carry out its obligations to protect the children from harm
and to act in their best interests, yet the fault cannot be attributed to a
single Ministry employee. Rather, many
opportunities arose for the Director to conduct a proper assessment and
investigation of the reports of sexual abuse. She frequently received evidence
and other information and different employees were at fault at different stages
for various reasons. What is compellingly obvious is that the Director and her
agents formed their opinions prematurely, before the children were interviewed,
and so concluded that J.P. fabricated her report information and there really
was not merit to her allegations of sexual abuse by the children's father.
Most startling is the fact that until the
64th day of the First Trial, the Director maintained this view that the
allegations were groundless and that J.P. was unfit to parent. Then the Director
changed her mind. Nevertheless, the Director supported B.G.’s claim for custody
of the children and to the detriment of the children, unreasonably preserved
that plan until March 29, 2012.
Justice Walker did determine that B.G.
sexually abused P.G., the youngest child, at the time that the Director allowed
him unsupervised access. The Director has exhibited lack of regard for
directions from this court as well as for her obligation to present candid,
full disclosure to the Court during the Apprehension Proceeding. The Province
is responsible in law to pay for any damages suffered as a result, and is
liable for special costs of the first trial.
When finally the children were returned
to their mother, the Director thwarted the plaintiffs’ request for funds from
another branch of the provincial government that provides compensation to
victims of criminal acts. The plaintiffs proved this. 
