CC: email@example.com; Yvonne.Goebel@ottawa.ca
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 08:44:38 -0400
Yours very truly,
Robert C. Morrow
Assistant to Robert C. Morrow
Tel: (613) 236-9665
Fax: (613) 235-4430
Dunn's response is shown below:
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
CC: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: RE: 2009 Request Clarification
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:37:45 -0400
I wanted to ask if you could respond to this latest e-mail from Robert C. Morrow since during our mediation talks, I made it very clear that we would deal with the matter at hand, which once we resolved the matter I would not continue to, or attempt to prosecute the same matter, something which could not have been done anyways since the six month limitation period had already expired.
I also made it very clear that I would never enter into any agreement with the Society which would enable them to commit an offence in the future and for me to sit back and let that happen as it would be both immoral and illegal for me to do so.
I was very clear that the agreement pertained only to the offence which was committed in February 2007 and that nothing would prevent me from prosecuting any similar or different offence in the future should one be committed.
As I recall Yvonne Goebel also understood that the resolution/agreement only pertained to the February 2007 incident or occurrence and not to any future incidents should they occur.
I fail to understand how Robert C. Morrow as a Lawyer, could possibly think that a Crown Prosecutor in good standing would have at any time permitted an agreement to take place between two parties which would have involved either party as part of the agreement seeking as part of a resolution, the ability to commit an offence in the future without it being prosecuted should any person decide to prosecute any such incident.
Thinking this way would be akin to a Crown Prosecutor allowing a person charged with drinking and driving to enter into an agreement to never be prosecuted for drinking and driving in the future regardless of how many times the person commits the offence.
Yvonne, if you could please clarify for Robert C. Morrow and for the Society what the agreement was as you recall it, it would be greatly appreciated.
Again, I entered into the agreement with the Society in good faith at their request to resolve the issue. The Society complied with their end of the agreement, and I complied with my end of the agreement and dropped the charge against Barbara MacKinnon and stayed the second charge against the Society. Only one member of the Society responded in favour of the proposed by-law amendment to make kids in care automatic members and I left it at that as agreed.
I would also like to ask you Robert C. Morrow, if the Society would have ever entered into an agreement which would allow them to commit an offence in the future without being prosecuted for it?
This is a new and separate legitimate request which has been made over two and a half years later which is any citizen's right to do if done in accordance with section 307 (1) of the Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C-39.
I am reminding the Society that as of today, Monday July 06, 2009, both Barbara MacKinnon and the Society have contravened subsection 307 (5) of the Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-38 which is an Offence.
For your convenience I have included the offence creating provision of the Act below:
(5)Every corporation or transfer agent that fails to furnish a list in accordance with subsection (1) when so required is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000, and every director or officer of such corporation or transfer agent who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in such offence is also guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a like fine.
The Foster Care Council of Canada
Yvonne responded with the following message:
RE: 2009 Request Clarification
From: Goebel, Yvonne (Yvonne.Goebel@ottawa.ca)
Sent: August 5, 2009 10:58:11 AM
To: Jane Thompson (firstname.lastname@example.org); John Dunn (email@example.com)
Hi Robert, Jane and John,
I just got back from vacation and acknowledge having received your correspondence.
Unfortunately, I have not kept the agreement from October 2008. I intervened solely to allow communication between both parties.
I do recall , however, that the resolution only pertained to the February 2007 incident.
I believe that we also discussed that nothing would prevent Mr. Dunn from prosecuting different offences in the future should they arise.
Pursuant to the Provincial Offence Act sec. 23.(1) Any person who, on reasonable and probable grounds, believes that one or more persons have committed an offence, may lay an information in the prescribed form and under oath before a justice alleging the offence and the justice shall receive the information.
I would never have entertained a resolution/mediation that would have prevented anyone from exercising their fundamental rights.
I hope this clarifies my understanding of the 2008 agreement