Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Crown's Decision to Allow Charges Against CAS Under Review

To ensure you read the latest version of this post, please visit http://www.fostercarenews.blogspot.com as this post may have been modified since being sent out.

A Crown's decision to allow John Dunn to prosecute the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa for violating the Corporations Act is now under review. John Dunn was contacted by a Crown Attorney who informed him of the fact that a review of the other Crown's decision to allow him to prosecute the matter is under way.

It is Dunn's belief that the Government of Ontario, through one of it's ministries, or the Attorney General's office has initiated this review, although at this time it is only speculation on his part and he also believes that who ever has initiated this review does not want the prosecution to proceed and hopes to have the decision of the Crown not to intervene overturned and for a stay of the charges to be initiated by the Crown's office.

Updates will be posted as they come in

9 comments:

  1. Does this surprise you?

    How dare you or anyone stand up for the rights of Families and Children and try to hold CAS or the Government accountable to the citizens of Ontario?

    CAS has a purpose but they have lost site of that purpose for the sake of the almighty dollar. WHO has given them their Power? I am telling you it begins with the Premier and the MCFS.
    Is there a licensing requirement for CAS in order to be funded by the Ministry? Does the ministry hold a review of EACH Agency they provide funding to or do they blindly just continue to pay for services regardless of the complaints recieved?

    With all that has happened to children in care I say we need to demand an Inquiry into the practice of this Ministry funding these services.
    How many criminal offenses have been through the courts concerning the employees of this taxpayer funded agency and the government continues to ignore society's RIGHT for accountability?

    In my opinion this ranks right up there with the residential schools. the government needs to listen..if not.. history is going to repeat itself and those who were violated by this agency will need to be compensated..and well they should be. Thier voices are not being heard and Ontario has turned a blind eye to what this agency was to represent. It no longer works to support families and children. Thier role now is about Destroying families and traumatizing these children beyond recovery.

    If the Ministry cannot/willnot hold these agencies accountable.. then the OMBUDSMAN needs to be given the authourity. It is our RIGHT and our rights are being violated by this province.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why do you speak about yourself in the third person?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lol I know it appears funny but it is good to do it as a way to assist newspapers or media to simply "Copy and paste" the material if they feel like quoting from it. I don't do this in real life lol :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. It just makes it so they don't have to take time to interview or gather names, etc, a streamlining if you will. When anyone else on the Internet feels like grabbing, copying or quoting it makes it easier for people reading it from different sources to "understand" what is going on rather than reading "I did this" or "he did that" when it may not refer to the original source. Just planning for the internet age really. :) Good question however. That is probably why the OACAS staff all say to each other that I have a "mental health issue" lol

    ReplyDelete
  5. I believe it was Rory Gleeson of the Toronto CAS who asked me why I refer to myself in the third person. Am I correct in my guess?

    ReplyDelete
  6. John, isn't this the same kind of nonsense that happened in Tracy's case?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Accusations based on referring to oneself in the third person only hold weight if they come from accredited psych experts. The rest is defamation of character. Anyone from CAS or OACAS would do well to remember that--witch hunts are so last century.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You mean the mental health allegations? If so, I guess so eh?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The nonsense I was referring to was "get a decision then go to any lengths to play judges and counsel off against each other to get it thrown out the window."

    ReplyDelete