Guy Babineau and Associate

GUY BABINEAU 45 SOUTHAMPTON DR. TORONTO, ONTARIO M1K 4V6

Tel.: 416-264-5819

January 13, 2010

Ms. Cecile Brookes, President Foster Parent Society of Ontario Email: [email protected]

Dear Ms. Brookes

Re: National Foster Parent Coalition for Allegation Reform

As Canada’s Director for National Foster Parent Coalition for Allegation Reform (NFPCAR), the President of that organization has brought to my attention the fact that you had expressed an interest in joining this organization’s Yahoo Group and that your application had been accepted.

Ms. Brookes, Marilyn has brought to my attention the fact that she had requested information from you regarding the group that you preside; namely: the Foster Parents Society of Ontario (FPSO) and that her request has remained unanswered.

I find this very disturbing because both groups should have the same common primary purpose; that is, to ensure that the State does not abuse its authority in the guise of protecting children best interest.

However, from reading the material that is available to me and that I could find on the Internet, it appears to me that both groups might be working at cross purposes. This is not to say that FPSO is not performing a commendable function but my concerns is that the close proximity of your organization with Children’s Aid Societies (CAS) agencies in Ontario and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services might act as a deterrent to Ms. Cecile Brookes, President Foster Parent Society of Ontario January 13, 2010 protecting children against State abuses. I stand to be corrected and please do so if I am wrong. First and foremost, I think that it is important go into my background for a number of years I acted as big brother to a number of young boys starting in the early seventies up to the mid nineties. I had a brief period in the late seventies when I was involved with the Big Brothers organization but found that I could be more effective if I became involved with them privately; that is when people who knew those boys and their mothers asked me to become involved. The boys felt that I became involved because I cared and not necessarily because they might be problems and needed someone involvement in their lives. I am not saying that Big Brothers do not perform a viable function but what I am saying is that my approach worked best for me.

I saw the needs for such involvement while working for Ontario Housing Corporation (OHC), as it was then, as one of ten District Accountants in Toronto responsible for accounting functions of approximately three thousand gear to income rental units and reporting to head office regarding the adherence to OHC policies both of accounting natures as well as the others. As the senior in that position I was sometime called upon to assists in the other districts for a total of over 30,000 units. Because my involvement span beyond accounting function, I had to deal with people employed as districts’ community relation workers (CRW), this brought me in close contact with the reality of problems that occurs in high density residential area in so far as children are concerned. This was followed by a brief period working as one of two branch accountants for the Day Nurseries Branch in Toronto before that Branch was reorganized into four regions. There again, I became involved in doing my best to ensure that children’s needs were met.

About a year or so before, Bill 14—Access to Justice Act, 2006, it was brought to my attention that there were various paralegal organizations in Ontario and based on the experience, some of which I will deal with latter, that I should become involved. And, I did.

As a result of this involvement, I was made aware of many problem related to family law including the involvement of CAS agencies.

2 Ms. Cecile Brookes, President Foster Parent Society of Ontario January 13, 2010

Before sharing my experience in dealing with the judicial system, I will share with you some of my findings in four cases where CAS were involved in Canada two of which are in Ontario the other two are from Nova Scotia.

Case No. 1: Is a man who fathered a daughter out of a common law relationship. When that relationship failed, he suggested that his ex-partner should return to Newfoundland to be closer to her son who was living with her parents. When his ex-partner wanted to move to Alberta, she got CAS involved by raising false allegation which he was successfully exonerated in April of last year. Nothing to state about the emotional hardship that those false allegation had on him or financial hardship but he is now completely depleted both financially and emotionally to start reunification proceedings to become reunited with his daughter. Who pays the price may be him but could it be his daughter who has been deprive of having a caring father in her life by CAS’ action. What if CAS was wrong in their assessment of this mother and the child was place in a precarious situation.

Case No. 2: Again from Nova Scotia where CAS appeared to have been involved in drumming up false sexual allegation which were against a father who were subsequently dropped after the proceeding for adoption were initiated so that he could not fight for his daughter. CAS apparently used his daughter half sister to raised sexual allegations knowing that this problem young girl had raised similar allegation against her biological father who were also found to be unfounded. It appears that this father was denied proper representation from get go because of his initial lawyer close relationship with some of that CAS agency. Again, it is a case of a previous common law relationship that was terminated but this time on amicable terms. It is only when a jealous father of a forth child, got CAS involved, that he loss his right to be father to his daughter. As a footnote, this self righteous man who got CAS involved also lost custody of his son in the process.

Case No. 3: From Ontario, when the mother of this man children could get the Court to agree to her ploy, she got CAS involved and was successful in having getting CAS to obtain a child protection order against this father that for a number of years have frustrated this father’s relationship with his children. CAS has refused to properly investigate his allegation that children’s maternal grand mother had sexually his daughter in an attempt to

3 Ms. Cecile Brookes, President Foster Parent Society of Ontario January 13, 2010 frame him. When bringing the daughter to the hospital in an attempt to frame him failed. His daughter was brought to the family doctor for a second kick at the can. It was not until his pre school son accused him of the incident that he became aware of what happened and contacted CAS to investigate. He attempted to get the police involved in the situation but before he could get to the bottom of it the lady cop who was involved in the investigation committed a murder suicide killing a retired officer in what appears to be a love triangle gone wrong.

Case No. 4: Again in Ontario, the ex-common law partner was charge initially charge with attempted murder causing bodily harm. She pleaded to guilty to a lesser charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, she was court rewarded for saving the Crown time by having to properly prosecuting the case by the grant of a two year suspended sentence. CAS was involved what if this women had intentionally tried to kill her ex- common law partner is there any way that a cigarette dropped on ceramic tiled floor of a porch entrance to a sauna could have cause a combustion so great that it would have force the door to open without the aid of an accelerant. She had come to the where he was court order to reside briefly to say goodbye rather than goodnight pickup cigarette and a lighter. She was in the process of a court estate settlement as well as an insurance policy settlement from the accidental death of her estranged husband who had custody of their two sons. Could he could be in a way because she apparently had met someone else and that he had become worth more dead than alive to her because of insurance policies that she could also have collected from and other assets. CAS was involved in that case and to this day is refusing to release the file that he ought to have had when he self- represented himself during the court proceedings. Could CAS involvement have placed those children at risk and is there a possibility that although CAS case is closed those children could continue to be at risk.

It is for reasons like these that it is important to clarify FPSO purposes.

Now I will share some of my experience with the judicial system that raises more questions that it answers.

First, I think that it is important to set a little of my background, I became interested in politics at approximately age seven dating back to 1952 a series

4 Ms. Cecile Brookes, President Foster Parent Society of Ontario January 13, 2010 of event occurred around that time that piqué my interest and became active as a political activist. I hope that you will bear with me as I take you in an adventure that lasted some fifteen years following the publication of my report on the status of the French language in Manitoba. There reason why this is important is that I am following the same approach in my fight for abuse at the hand of Children’s Aid Societies in Canada as well as addressing issues related to CPS abuses in the United States which perform somewhat similar functions in the States as CAS Agencies perform in Canada. I hope that as Canada’s Director for NFPCAR to be import the concept with appropriate modification because I don’t feel that there is a body that addresses the needs of the victims of CAS abusive tactics.

I have sought the assistance of every Members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly to bring Honourable Laurel Broten Minister of Child and Youth whose responsibilities also includes the oversight of CAS agencies in Ontario as well as the Child Family Services Review Board and none of them have yet stood up to the plate.

Reading the material at my disposition it appears that FPSO is embedded with CAS agencies with the result of being to close to the forest to see the trees. I am not sure that FPSO is place in a position to combat or advocate on behalf of the victims of CAS abusive tactic. If I am wrong; then how FPSO does addresses such abusive tactics?

When you read the following page it contains but a small portion of my involvement in advocacy. I have rarely shied away form difficult situation health permitting and I am looking forward to address some of the concerns that my involvement with people that have been unduly affected by CAS agencies are bringing to the forefront as I have outlined above.

I cannot but deplore the lack of political will to bring the Honourable Laurel Broten to her sense after returning form hiatus from the McGuinty Administration.

After having commented on the Honorable Broten I will now comment on a letter dated May 15, 1963 where Prime Minister Pearson wrote to the Provincial Premiers regarding the creation of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. In 1955, Acadians celebrated the

5 Ms. Cecile Brookes, President Foster Parent Society of Ontario January 13, 2010 bicentennial of the Acadian deportation. This was a special event in my village because of the role Monsignor Marcel François Richard fostering the Acadian cause in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He built the first National Acadian Monument in the village. This event led to my becoming involved in advocacy. My first appearance was before a federal board in Moncton, New Brunswick when I successfully obtained an adjournment of the proceeding so that subsequent proceeding in the matter before the board could be conducted in the French language. I felt that the Royal Commission would fail to properly address the francophone rights across Canada and my intuition served me right. The Commission Report – Book I – General Introduction – The Official Languages stated a p. 50 – paragraph 147 that the Manitoba’s English Official Language Act of 1890 making English the sole language to be used in the records and journals of the legislature and in all Manitoba court as well as in the publication of all Manitoba statutes had never been tested in a court of law.

Mr. R.F. Scott had published an article which appeared in the University of Toronto Law Journal – (1950) Vol. VIII, entitled – The British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949 p. 201 at 205 in which he stated as a footnote that the Act of 1890 had never been tested in the courts. The late Mr. Scott was one of commissioners named to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. When I prepared the my report Manitoba vs. Justice – A Defence for Linguistic Rights to Their Own Language (A personal research conducted at the University of Moncton that will take a look into the Manitoba Linguistic Statute) I assumed that the Royal Commissioners including the late R.F. Scott knew what they were talking about, and based on that information I restated their position that the Act of 1890 had never been tested in a court.

However after hitting a brick wall in trying to get the Governor General to act on my finding when the Federal Official Languages Act was presented to him for Royal assent and various federal authorities as well as various provincial authorities in Manitoba, I returned to the University of Moncton that summer and did some research au Centre des Recherches Acadiennes and found that Mr. Justice Prud’homme had ruled the 1890 Act ultra vires the Province in Tuesday, March 22nd, 1892 edition of Le Moniteur Acadien.

After finding that decision I made an appointment to meet with the Reverent Clément Cormier, c.s.c., former rector of the University of Moncton who was also one of the ten commissioners and advised him that I had found a decision and he stated that since the commission had completed its work there was nothing that could be done. I had the opportunity to meet RF Scott at the hearing of the three appeals of the Provincial Reference of Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland Re Resolution to Amend the Constitution and tell him that I had found copy of the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Prud’homme published in Le Manitoba, Wednesday, March 9th, 1892. He told me that he was now aware of that Court decision. I had found the reasons for decision while conducting research at the Library of the National Assembly of Quebec when the Quebec Bill – The Charter of the French Language was first introduced in the National Assembly since I had the opportunity to be in Quebec City on that occasion. What I was trying to establish was that the Quebec Government would succeed in embarrassing the Governor General for refusing to disallow the Act of 1890 and the Manitoba lack of backbone for enforcing its 1892 Court decision but would fail because the Act in so far as it abrogated section 133 rights would be declared ultra vires the Province of Quebec just as the Act of 1890 was declared ultra vires the Province in 1892.

What is interesting to note is that the Charter of the French Language was adopted on August 26, 1977 and received Royal assent that day. Part that affected section 133 was declared ultra vires on January 23, 1978 that ruling was upheld by the Quebec Court of appeal on November 27, 1978 and by the Supreme Court of Canada on December 13, 1979. In contrast the Attorney General of Manitoba refused to abide by the Dureault decision of December 14, 1976. The Manitoba refused to hear Forest appeal from the Registrar refusal to admit French documents for filing on June 22, 1977 on the basis that the Court of the Queen’s Bench was forum convenient. On July 18, 1978, the Chief Justice of the Queen Bench refused to hear the application. On April 25, 1979 the Court of Appeal rendered it decision. And on June 4, 1979 the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal from that the decision of the Court of the Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal (Martland, Ritchie and Pratte, JJ.) The Appeal was dismissed December 13, 1979.

It is to be noted that the appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal was heard pm June 11 and 12, 1979 (Chief Justice Laskin and Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntire JJ.) while leave to appeal was from the Manitoba Court was only granted a few days before on June 4th. On June 12, 1979 the Chief Justice granted a motion to state a constitutional question in the matter of the Manitoba Appeal it appears that that motion was granted following the hearing of the Quebec Appeal heard earlier that day in which the Chief Justice was sitting on the quorum of the Court. The Manitoba Appeal was heard on October 10, 1979, (Martland, Richie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and McIntyre JJ.)

The constitutional question raised on the Manitoba Appeal was similar to the question raised in the Quebec Appeal but I felt that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada would not resolve the emphasis reached between somewhat conflicting ruling between the Quebec Courts and the Manitoba Court of appeal with regards to the requirements setout in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 with regards to Quebec and similar provision in section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870; therefore I sought leave to intervene in the Manitoba Appeal appearing before Mr. Justice Martland on September 21, 1979 and upon hearing of the motion judgment was reserved. I was informed a few days latter that my application for leave had been dismissed. I proceeded to prepare a factum and filed it with a law firm in trust the day before the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal at paragraph 50 of my factum, I stated: “The intervenor respectfully submits that because the Legislative Assembly has refused to abide by Mr. Justice Prud’homme decision of 1892 quoted on page 20 article 37 line 27 or appeal the same, the Legislative Assembly has been illegally constituted. The same would follow for the curt, established by the said legislature. Base on the argument presented in this factum, it is respectfully submitted restricts this Honourable Court from taking further action in this appeal.”

In preparing my factum, I knew that my position would be supported by the Quebec Court of Appeal which was waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada to release its decision on the Quebec Court of Appeal in the Blaikie case before releasing it decision in the Société Asbestos Ltée. c. Société Nationale de l’Amiante, [1979] C.A. 342 at 355 where Mr. Montgomery agreed with Mr. Justice Lajoie’s reasons for judgment and stated: In particular, I agree with him that Bills No. 70 and 121 were not validly

8 Ms. Cecile Brookes, President Foster Parent Society of Ontario January 13, 2010 enacted, having regards to the decision of our court in the Blaikie case, to which he refers, were we unanimously dismissed an appeal against a judgment of Chief Justice Deschệnes. It follows that the respondent Société nationale de l’amiante (S.N.A.) has no legal existence. Mr. Justice Bernier concurred with (Lajoie and Montgomery JJ.A) making that ruling a unanimous decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal. The Quebec Court of Appeal validated my arguments that the Manitoba Legislative Assembly and the Manitoba Court of Appeal had no legal existence.

Saddled with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Quebec Court of Appeal, the National Assembly of Quebec worked through the night to reenact the Act that failed to comply with section 133. What did Manitoba do enact a colorable legislation that failed when I forced the Governor General in Council to bring about the Manitoba Language Reference following my seeking leave to intervene in the Bilodeau case in which I was seeking to have his appeal dismissed on the basis that the Manitoba Court of Appeal had no legal existence. It took me fifteen years to obtain that reference and in the process the Parti Québécois had shamed the Governor General in Council for refusing to disallow the Act of 1890 and for refusing to take any part where Mr. Justice Monnin the only francophone Judge of the Manitoba Court of Appeal stated:1

Notwithstanding the press statement of the federal Minister of Justice, the federal Crown has been of no assistance since counsel appearing on its behalf stated that he had nothing to say at this stage of the proceedings.

If the Attorney General had noting to say what the purpose of his was seeking leave to intervene in the first place and what is deplorable is that Mr. Scollin, Q.C. was latter appointed Judge of the Manitoba Court of the Queen’s Bench if he had nothing to say. It is Attorney General’s duty to ensure that Provincial Governments abide by the Constitution as legal advisor to the Governor General in Council.

Monnin, J.A. further stated in the paragraph that followed:

1 Re Forest and Registrar of Court of Appeal of Manitoba, 77 D.L.R. (3d) 445 at 467

It would, in my view, have been of interest to this Court to have the views of his department on the matters of waiver, urgency of the issue in the present Canadian context, the necessity of a historical underpinning, the federal and provincial implication as to costs and timing should the Official Language Act be found ultra vires the Province. Let the record show that the federal Crown was of no assistance to this Court.

Not only was the federal Crown was of no assistance to the Manitoba Court of Appeal but opposing my leave to intervene in the case when that case came before the Supreme Court of Canada stand as an affront to those who sought to defend French Canadian’s rights in this country. I could understand the Government of Manitoba setting roadblock in my attempt but for the federal Crown to support such an assault of francophone rights in this country is repressible to say the least. It is to the federal Crown credit that it did not appear in Justice Beetz Chambers when I sought leave to intervene in the Bilodeau case.

Returning to what Mr. Justice Monnin had to say about the historical underpinning if the New Brunswick Chief Justice would have dealt with the Language Reference in the context of the historical underpinning referred to by Monnin J.A., he was then, it is doubtful that he would have shied away as he did when in reference to the factum that I had filed with the New Brunswick Court of Appeal he stated (35 D.L.R. (3d) 272 at 377-8): “In one factum filed with the Court our attention was drawn to certain provisions of the Manitoba Act, 1870 (Can.), 33 Victoria, c. 3 authorizing the use of the English and the French languages in debates of the Houses of the Legislature and in any pleading or process, in or issuing from any court of Canada established under the B.N.A. Act, 1867 or in or from all or any of the Court of the Province, which Act was deemed valid and effectual by the B.N.A. Act, 1871, 34-35 Victoria, (U.K.) c. 28 passed by The Imperial Parliament. Also noted was a provision of the North-West Territories Act, 1875 (Can.) c. 49 authorizing the use of the English and the French languages in the Northwest Territories. It is of course unnecessary for us to consider those Acts on the present reference as they have no application to this Province.”

The point that the Chief Justice of New Brunswick missed was that the federal government had legislated in matter related to the French language in

1870 and such legislation were considered valid and effectual by the Imperial Parliament in 1871 it would therefore follow that the 1875 enactment would also be valid and effectual; therefore dealing with those two enactment in their respective historical context it would follow that the enactment of the federal government of and the provincial government of New Brunswick would also be valid and effectual. Having dealt with the New Brunswick Language Reference in its historical context would have force other provinces and the federal government to abide by the law earlier than later.

I am indebted to the Board of Directors of NFPCAR for their support. It is hope that in the weeks and months to come we will be able to duplicate in Canada with appropriate modifications what is currently working in the United States. In this endeavor, I hope that we will be able to count on the support of FPSO leadership.

If you have persevered you will not that copy of this email will be sent to the President of NFPCAR and published on its Yahoo Group as well as the Members of the Ontario Legislature amongst others.

Yours truly,

Guy Babineau cc. The President of NFPCAR and NFPCAR’s Yahoo Group Members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly and others