- Cons: CAS Not Held Accountable for illegal activity yet again
- Pros: Letter gets to members at no cost to requester (think fifty+ photo-copies of two or more page letter, stamps, envelopes etc.)
Society counsel appeared at court today for first appearance on the charges against them and their Executive Director Barbara MacKinnon under the Corporations Act. Once at court, Society counsel requested to speak to the Crown regarding the matter. The Crown invited John Dunn into the room as well in order to ensure fairness of the process to all parties.
CAS Counsel finally discussed their reason for why they are choosing to violate the provision of the Corporations Act which enables any person to request a list of the members by refusing to furnish the list. The reason stated by Society counsel was that they feel John Dunn would use the list of members to bombard them with e-mails which are unrelated to the actual purpose for the request because of the fact that he has had continuous communications with the Society on many issues.
John Dunn clarified the fact that he has sworn an affidavit to only use the list for purposes connected with the Corporation as allowed under the Act and only for that one purpose each time a request is legally made and that the members are protected by law from him abusing the use of that list.
John Dunn's ultimate purpose in requesting the list is not just to have the list itself, but for the purpose of communicating with the members so that he can ask them to call a meeting of the Board members to vote on a by-law amendment.
Since this is, and always has been John Dunn's intended and expressed purpose for requesting the list of the Society's members as opposed to just prosecuting the Society for violating the Act, regardless of how much John Dunn feels the Society should be prosecuted for this violation of the Act, a long discussion was held for the purpose of letting Society counsel go back to his client (the Society) for the purpose of obtaining instruction as to whether they will again resolve the matter as was done for the similar request in February of 2007.
In that matter, the resolution of the problem was to have the Crown receive the list of members from the Society in the form of pre-printed, postage-paid envelopes with the addresses of all members printed on them, and for John Dunn to send his letter of advocacy to the members.
The letter of advocacy would be sent to the members in the hope of having them agree to request the Board of Directors to call a meeting of the members as allowed under section 295 of the Corporations Act, for the purpose of having them vote on amending the Society's By-Laws to create a new class of members, other than the existing regular and honorary memberships, that would include former wards of that Society, regardless of where they live, so that they can have a legally protected voice in the affairs of the Society since they are the people who lived under it as children and would have an interest in bringing changes to that Society's policies and practices.
The Society's counsel requested an adjournment of approximately one month to which John Dunn agreed, setting the next appearance at court for the matter to be spoken to as February 11, 2010, 1:30pm in Court room 2010.
Society's counsel also received a letter from a gentleman named 'bizzi' on the Internet that Society's counsel stated was aggressive and alleged was sent to him at his work e-mail address as a result of John Dunn's posting his e-mail address on this news blog.
As a show of good faith, John Dunn has begun removing Society's counsel e-mail address from his news blog and has sent him the following letter as a follow up which mentions that letter from 'bizzi'.
(Counsel for Ottawa CAS)
Rana I am in the process of removing your e-mail address from my blog posts in an attempt to alleviate your concerns regarding me making your e-mail address available to the public.
In addition, and out of courtesy, I just wanted to inform you of the fact that the company you work for, Burke-Robertson has a web page with all of your contact information (including your e-mail address) and much more personally revealing and identifying information such as your educational background, volunteer experience and even your home town of St. John's New Foundland, your interests in chemistry and math, and human rights. It goes on to state that you were recently called to the bar in 2008, that you attempted to open your own practice, and for what ever reason have become employed by Burke Robertson since March 2009. The biography also states more personal information such as the fact that you enjoy basketball, "attempting to play golf", and that you are involved with a trivia league.
Having said that, and given your deep concern with my public posting of just your email address on my blog, I would suggest that you contact your employer, and ask them to remove all of that personally revealing information which could also put you, or those you know at risk by anyone you might become involved with due to the nature of your work. I personally am saddened to think that someone would be so cold as to do such a thing.
If for any reason you do not feel comfortable asking your recent employer to do so, possibly out of fear of retaliation of any sort due to the fact that you are new with them, I could contact Burke-Robertson for you and advocate on your behalf completely free.
Just let me know how to proceed. Regardless of our positions in this particular legal matter, I am more than willing to assist you as a fellow human being who also shares an appreciation of human rights.
Again, if there is anything I can do to help in this regard, feel free to contact me.
For your reference the personally revealing information is posted at the following location on the world wide Internet.
There is also a web site with your e-mail and work address, at the Business Breakfast Club that you are the treasurer of that you may wish to have your e-mail address and other contact information removed from at the URL below.
PS: I read that letter you showed me from 'bizzi' very carefully and although I personally would not write such a letter, I realized, and wanted to let you know that nowhere in that letter were there any threats of violence or anything of that nature. When you said you received a threatening letter, I thought you meant violently threatening. All that letter states is that 'you will be held accountable' followed by what appears to be an indication of what he was referring to in that he mentions the potential of legal action in the form of a class action against your clients (the CAS's) and 'the government' for breaching human rights etc. and that he is busy exposing those he feels are responsible etc. on the Internet. The only part of the letter that could be misconstrued as anything to worry about if read out of context is the line which says 'your clients and you, if you stand beside them are going down'. However if you read on, it states that Foster Care will become accountable, and run by the government... not hte society'.
The line about being held accountable is very similar in nature to the line I have received from Robert C. Morrow of Burke Robertson in his letter dated January 18, 2007 wherein he states 'please be assured that your threat of prosecution will not go unanswered'. When I read that, I felt scared, but when I thought about it for a while, and read it in context with the rest of the letter, I realized that although the tone of Roberts letter appeared to me to be rather agressive that I did not have any threats of physical harm directly stated in it, or implied and therefore I was able to make myself feel better about it. All that to say, I hope this helps you to read the letter to you from bizzi again to see that there are no indications of violence of any kind contained within it.
Anyways, just wanted to let you know overall that I am removing your e-mail addresses from my blog slowly but surely.
The Foster Care Council of Canada
Foster Care News Blog
Also read about the Ride for Accountability in 2010