CAS protest leaders disown breaking windows

How divided are local protesters on the use of vigilantism? Photo CKReview

By Greg Holden

Sometimes columns just write themselves. I sit and watch, and lo and behold my sight is drawn to something so compelling that I cannot turn away. That describes my Thursday as I sweltered my way through a mesmerizing display of mixed messages by CAS protesters. Most of these people disowned the notion of breaking some windows to make their point, but the underlying feeling was that breaking the law this way was understandable, excusable and trivialized.

There is no evidence at all that three broken windows at the CIS building in Chatham was anything other than a random event. In a Facebook page dedicated to CAS protesters, yours truly broke the story of the broken windows and asked if the event was random, and if not then how it would be good to hear from those who can explain taking the law into their own hands. The unfolding dilemma tore at the very fabric of this community that strives for legitimacy. Most of these people have had their children taken away or have been so closely affected that it adds up the same. Their lives are often in ruins and they live with resentment and anger constantly. Imagine seeing grave injustice in the face of every child you ever see, and knowing you can’t see your own. For whatever reason that someone loses custody of their child, the fallout is immeasurable.

An Ongoing Issue

The problem now is that children’s aid societies are privatized and there is no oversight of them. They are not government bodies, they are privately run businesses. Protesters complain that CAS are paid per child. I have heard them quote $90,000 for a full adoption to be complete beginning to end. That leaves CAS agencies very motivated in the eyes of the protesters, who address CAS as CA$. Every Ombudsman in Ontario since the 1970′s has sought oversight of the CAS and never gotten it. Every other province in Canada has oversight.

At CAS protests you can mingle and meet with protesters, they are happy to talk. Mothers and fathers united on the street, they have nothing to hide. A common problem is that their case is before the court so they do not wish to be named. I made video recordings of passionate pleas for help from people who are afraid to have it shown. These people have good jobs, they have been pillars of the community quite literally. And they have had enough of the current Children’s Aid system. The protesters are adamant, driven and defensive. Those who take to the streets are empowered, taking charge, and in many instances will probably overcome the odds and restore what there is left of their family lives.


Then there are those with less hope. To them the government is not helping, the police are not helping, the courts, the crown, the press, even the protests can’t help them. They may have lost their children or not, just that they feel so harassed by the process and that no-one is listening. This is where vigilantism is born. It doesn’t need to be about the bricks through the windows here in Chatham. Extremist views do exist in very small and isolated pockets of the CAS protesters community, independent of the windows.

Neil Haskett, who runs an online social group and speaks often on behalf of the movement immediately and unreservedly distanced the group from acts like breaking windows. As expected, the leadership gave good reasons not to go that route. He challenged followers to consider that no gains have ever been made that way and chastises the notion entirely. Clearly very sensitive to the issue, he found time to “lol” a comment that suggested a mistake was made by leaving the building standing. Haskett pulled his lol, when it became clear the member of the group was serious. The internet being what it is, the difference in opinion was clear, and this is where the story wrote itself.

An Unexpected Turn

“If someone is taking away your home and your children then I think that you are quite justified in behaving violently towards them.”, said Paul, a user of the group. “The consequences for many families are very dire and lifelong.” Another woman suggested she would do an interview on supporting vigilantism, but didn’t. Paul however continued along, “Just because something is legal (sanctioned by a corrupt court), this does not make it moral.” An appeal to separate the difference between legal rights and moral rights, with their moral right being the last word that decides whether violence is acceptable. “Politicians are deaf to our complaints, one ombudsman office will make little to no difference. CAS agencies should be tried in the world court at Le Hague as crimes against humanity.” Finally an appeal to the greater community, part of the subtext to any vigilante. Make no mistake, these are a call to arms.

Chris Carter from Canada Court Watch declared he would never break a window. “I would never do anything like break the CA$s windows nor counsel others to take such action. In fact were anyone to come to me with such a proposal (and nobody ever has) I would argue against it. That being said I’m very surprised this type of action hasn’t been happening more often. I argue that the fact that we haven’t responded to their ugly criminality with criminality is one of our strongest positions. They destroy. We protest.” Carter assists families in need with legal and peer support, often soon after their children have been taken away. He acts as one of the leading representatives, particularly in Chatham-Kent. Carter then went on to write, “Were I to come into possession of such info about this umm “crime”: I can’t imagine a situation where I would volunteer information about it. Remember the Underground Railroad was completely and totally illegal but it was also unimpeachably correct, courageous and one of the most moral responses possible to the disgusting fraud of slavery.” Carter had a new angle where he wouldn’t do it, he would tell people not to do it, but if he found out about it he wouldn’t report it. His reasons for looking the other way are justified by what Paul used to defend the violence itself. Morality, his morality, trumps the legal system.

CAS Protesters Rarely Agree With Vigilantism

If this article leaves an impression the whole group thinks that way it would be a serious misconception; by far most of the people who protest the CAS would never support criminal acts. They have good reason not to, they are winning the hearts and minds of politicians and the general public. Pat Niagara, one of the leaders of rallies in Niagara Falls, was explicit in his condemnation, saying, “We here in Niagara would absolutely not condone any of this type of behaviour. Criminal acts would get reported as we are on the side of the truth.” Without saying what condoning exactly was he continued, “By condoning these acts it is sending the wrong message to the public that violence is the answer. As much as we all feel like smashing some windows at times, and we may have all felt like that, it is childish behaviour like this that will set this movement back.”

Haskett was just as sincere in suggesting that police or CAS workers may be behind the broken windows, and more than one protester suggested the same thing. I tried to remind everyone that no-one knows if the windows were simply broken by a drunk passerby who didn’t know or care who owned the window. No matter, the story had a life of its own.

The last thing the CAS protesters need is to portray themselves as an out-of-control mob. Pat Niagara and Neil Haskett had it right. Chris Carter almost had it right. Guys like Paul (last name not used) had it wrong. The leaders of this loosely knit organization need to emphasize, without the mixed messages, to members like Paul and others who think vigilantism is ok, that political movement is at hand, change is on the way, and the hope that exists is real. They know the endless hours they have put into making change, and what is at stake, and they keep their eye on the ball. But have they lost track of some of their members?

The police may never catch whoever broke those windows. I hope they do catch them and the culprit has nothing to do with the protesters. However those who support breaking the law, in revenge for what injustices they experience through the legal system, are among the most dangerous of our citizens and must be stopped.

Back at the CKReview… harassing comments started in response to the report of the broken windows that was linked to the Facebook page, and my comments about writing this article. Karen Robinet and myself were named as spies for the CAS. Next time I see her we will share some Sherlock Holmes lines and laugh. Thing is she will get to be Holmes.

13 Responses to CAS protest leaders disown breaking windows

  1. Mary Najdzion-Gagnon

    June 22, 2021 at 9:26 am

    Oh dear….broken windows at CAS.Do I sound sarcastice????? I wonder why?Do I feel badly for CAS? Not at all…they have lots of OUR money to fix their windows.Do I condone the action? Of course not.
    Aren’t these acts usually performed by angry adolescents????? CAS has certainly ‘created’ hundreds of those in our city.
    Most of the protesters are adult and KNOW that you don’t fight CAS with violence.
    Families have witnessed CAS violence in the removal of children, and in the reports from foster children of the violence THEY experience in foster homes. We, the protesters will NEVER come DOWN to the the level of CAS tactics!!!!!

  2. Cindy Kelly

    June 22, 2021 at 12:07 pm

    Not only Chatham cas,but all cas facilities in Ontario are a form of mafia.WE,and when I say we I mean our family,mother father and 17 year old brother are very upset with what Sarnia cas is doing to our family.They are taking away our son who is 12,and moving him farther and farther away from use making access very difficult.They threatned to move him to Thunderbay months ago,but at a case conferance yesterday,june 21st 2012 told us they are going to take baby steps and just move him from London Ontario,to Stratford Ontario.So we have access to our son every other weekend,and we drive and pick him up on Fridays,returning him on sundays.The desistion to drive him back and forth from home to what ever facility they decide to was made by the society after a complaint was made by our son that the volenteer driver from Sarnia cas had punched him in the face,causing him to return to Vaneir childrens services cover in blood.Sarnia cas said they do not want to put their volenteer drivers in this type of danger,so if we wanted our son home on weekends then we would have to transport him.There is no reason at all that our son can’t return back to us.We as a family will stand together and fight till we are physically unable to fight.I will contact every activist,and reporter till this type of mafia is know longer!
    Sincerly a concerned family

    • John

      June 23, 2021 at 12:57 pm

      Walking into homes without “JUSTE CAUSE”…. immediately “FORCING children, parents and at times entire families into a TORNADO OF HELL”….. “dragging these poor vulnerable and helpless human beings into “PRE-AGENDA’D” youth courts”….. “presenting reports to the courts filled with TONS of purely false, clearly misleading and exceptionally inaccurate information” ….. all in the name of supporting a massive runaway train which in more ways than one appears to resemble “nothing more than a criminal organization” (when 2 people or more get together to commit criminal acts = this equals a criminal organization)…..
      and ruining families - this by placing them in a position where children are removed from good homes ALL IN THE NAME OF PROFIT TO SUSTAIN THIS SAME ENTITY …… and all they worry about is a few broken windows…….. I may not have the best conscience in the world, but I do know one thing ….. I’d be unable to sleep if I was doing what they do to people. Whether you break the law using misinterpretations of “a law that was designed to protect children” (and remove children from good family homes placing them at serious risk where they are killed by strangers entrusted to care for them by the government - AND COVER IT UP WHENEVER IT HAPPENS)…. or whether you break the law by causing some type of “property damage”…. which can be fixed by replacing the materials that may have been damaged…… ITS ALL THE SAME = BREAKING THE LAW IS NOT RIGHT!





      • Mary Najdzion-Gagnon

        June 23, 2021 at 10:02 pm

        Dear John.
        Thank you so much for your eloquent words. You obviously understand the WHOLE situation very clearly. My trust in society, my health, my adult son’s trust in society and health, my teenage grand daughter’s trust in the world and her mental and physical health have all been destroyed with our 3 1/2 year involvement with the Demonic CAS in Chatham Kent. Ontario needs HELP!!!! It is and has been my opinion for 4 years now that the CAS is actually dealing in human trafficing…..the more children they apprehend, the more $$$$$ they get…THAT IS HUMAN TRAFFICING AT IT’S BEST WHEN THE $$$$$$$$$$$$$ COMES FROM THE GOVERNMENT…..The public needs educated!!!!! The Province needs OVERSITE AND ACCOUNTABILITY.Our children need saved.John…I am

      • Cindy Kelly

        June 25, 2021 at 1:02 am

        Dear John
        I have been reading your posts but one came up in my email box.I am also the person that gave you the web site to watch the documentary you need a password and its powerful,I am not sure if you watched it but I feel that I am going to loss our son to suicide if we can’t stop Sarnia cas from moving our son from Vaneir childrens service to stratford childrens services.I have recorded everything and we need to stop this by july 4th.Our family is so desperate to get help,our son is only 12 and he has been threatning this at vaneir if they make him a crown ward.My husband and other son don’t know what to do or who to ask anymore.I am not sure how much pull you have but we need HELP!I can email you all the recordings please help us,please I beg you.Also if you do any homework on this form of mafia,thats what I call them you will find that in Sarnia Lambton childrens aid there is NOT 1 registered socialworker,NOT ONE!!!!I do have people setting up a rally to stop vehicles coming and going out of Vanier the day of Bradleys move and the media will all be invited.Our son has been so upset with not being able to come home that he has been tying things around his kneck to choke himself.We are so worried.The next 2 weeks is going to be very difficult on all of us.what I would like to know is who is going to be the fucking iddiot I will go after if he really hurts himself!!!I RECORDED IT!!!!!!!!!!!ALL OF IT!!!!!!!!!!1Even our son cry,crying for his mother father and 17 year old brother!!!!!!!!He is a client to the PROFIT!!!But he is our world.and NO amount of money will bring him back if he dies!!!!!!!! Sincerly Doug,Cindy and James Kelly

  3. Chris Carter

    June 22, 2021 at 1:01 pm

    hi Greg.

    as always thanks for the coverage of the issues.

    just one correction in regards to your understanding of my position in regards to not volunteering any info re this terrible and shocking “crime” (hahaha):

    i believe that this was done as a expression of anger at the multi-decade unrelenting child and family hating criminality of the CA$s which is undeniably severe but only understood…

    (even for those of us who have invested the effort to try and obtain an accurate understanding of exactly how demented, injurious and destructive it has been)

    …in a type of “scratching the surface” manner.

    you wrote that i believe that my morality trumps the legal sytem:

    “His reasons for looking the other way are justified by what Paul used to defend the violence itself. Morality, his morality, trumps the legal system.”

    first of all there is absolutely nothing “legal” about the gov’t of Ont.’s MCYS-CA$-police-courts-judgies-office of the Children’s lawyer et al “child protection litigation(fraud)” system.

    i am aware of numerous examples of the fraud and corruption of the system such as the recent case here which saw a Chatham-Kent CA$ staff member’s home reportedly busted for drugs and guns and ammunition but her children were left in the home with her. if that was anyone other than a CA$ staffer, those kids would be in foster care Greg.

    and please understand that i’m not necessarily asserting that the children should automatically be removed from the care of their parents or parent in a case like this, but rather that this case very clearly highlighted an as of yet unquestioned CA$ imposed double standard: one set of rules for our CA$ staff but another set of rules for the public.

    secondly, it is primarily the empathy that i feel for the children and families who have been destroyed by CA$ criminality which would prevent me from volunteering information in regards to this ahhhh “crime.”

    that plus the feeling that the CA$ gets away with such severe criminality on a daily and unrelenting basis balanced against three broken windows…

    i remember reading an article a couple of years ago in regards to a prostitute in Kitchener who was asked why she made her living that way. she spoke about how during her years of being unlawfully incarcerated by the gov’t of Ont.’s CA$ Crown ward group home incarceration system…

    you do understand don’t you Greg that the foster care and group home incarceration system here in Ontario is, for some but perhaps not all, fundamentally illegal against the children and youth trapped in that system…you do understand the legal issues in that regard don’t you Greg?)

    …her mother had become deathly ill. once she found out about that, she asked to be allowed to spend some time with her mom. the CA$ very typically refused…

    (these workeranimals love perpetrating that specific type of abuse the most Greg…the emotional and psychologically abuse of kids in their ummm “care”…they look at it as “bonuses”)

    …and her mom died. then she asked to be allowed to attend her mom’s funeral Greg.

    can you guess what the Waterloo Regional CA$’s response was Greg?

    did you guess that they said: “No you can’t attend your mom’s funeral.”

    if you did, you guessed right.

    according to her account, it was these experiences that drove her into a life of prostitution Greg.

    that’s the way i’m wired: if i had been alive in France back in the Nazis era and i saw that my neighbors were harboring Jews (another “illegal” activity), i wouldn’t have volunteered information about that either.

    rather than writing about broken windows Greg, wouldn’t you please consider writing a follow up to this 1981 Globe and Mail story:

    System was misguided, officials admit
    Thousands of children needlessly uprooted

    YVES LAVIGNE. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont: Nov 23, 2021 . pg. P.1

    i have a freedom of information request in for the 1979 MCSS internal document referred to in the article.

    i should take possession of it in a couple of months and i’ll be happy to let you get a copy so that you can write the much needed follow up expose to that 1981 article.

    and just one final question Greg: it appears that you didn’t specifically contact the CA$ to obtain comments from them re: the broken windows.

    may i ask, what was your rationale in that regard?

    • Greg Holden

      June 22, 2021 at 4:25 pm

      Chris Carter,

      Thanks for the feedback. I know some people think this was done by a protester. I do not share that view. I simply have no idea who did. I prodded the group on FB because beyond these windows there is an underlying sentiment to overlook this kind of thing, or diminish it if and when it occurs. It’s as if the argument is “this could happen more, but doesn’t which says our side is quite good”. When it should just be disowned totally.

      The instance of saying your moral views trump the legal system is with an understanding that what the courts resolve as the “legal system”.

      “if that was anyone other than a CA$ staffer, those kids would be in foster care Greg.”

      And how do I corroborate that happened? That is a helluva story if I can write it.

      “you do understand don’t you Greg that the foster care and group home incarceration system here in Ontario is, for some but perhaps not all, fundamentally illegal against the children and youth trapped in that system…you do understand the legal issues in that regard don’t you Greg?)”

      I understand it is contentious, but my use of the word legal is meant to identify specifically any resolution of the court that presently stands as law. I can give many instances of where the law and my own moral views clash. I recognize that my personal views are not compliant with the laws of the land. By law, that is all I have to refer to… what is on the books and the decisions of the courts.

      “that plus the feeling that the CA$ gets away with such severe criminality on a daily and unrelenting basis balanced against three broken windows…”

      And three broken windows that have not shown to be anything other than a random event with no evidence at all it is connected to a protester. Really the windows just got the conversation rolling Chris.

      I did try to contact CAS yesterday, and I did not get an answer at all. I tried a half dozen times. Today I was covering an unrelated story in the court and meandered over to the CIS building, which I understand is different than the CAS building is that right? I didn`t even know where any of those building were exactly, my wife said “no it`s that one”. She knew only because we had our daughter get a dental exam in another building and we sought financial coverage to get it done. She had walked in there looking for the other building about 2 years ago. Today I get there and I asked about the windows, I wanted to photograph it even if they were fixed by now. The blond woman at the front desk looked at me like I was wrong when I said I tried to get them all day yesterday and indeed another lady was on the phone answering call after call. So I ensured I had the right number. The blonde summoned someone else to reply to me, but it was 2:50 and we had to get our daughter at school at 3. I left my number and asked them to call. I gave the website and said “there are CAS articles now, and all of them are opposed to the CAS”`… I include mine today as being opposed as well, although apparently to others I am a CAS spy. I also asked if they suspected a protester. I also asked if they live in fear of the protesters. Neither of those got me an answer. Indeed she wouldn`t even provide her name to me. When she denied me a name, I then asked “do workers live in fear of protesters?”

      That has been my only contact thus far with any CAS worker to my knowledge. I expect more. I want them to write in opposition to charges levelled at them from within these pages, in particular things like over 500 deaths in 5 years, oversight of course, that they are private as well.

      I also recieved an email today from Esther Buckareff who thinks I am wrong in saying that CAS is private, and in doing so I am exonerating the governments responsibility. “By referring to the CAS as a private agency, you/they are abdicating public responsibility for a social service provided by the Province of Ontario - the paying public” Do you know her? ( She sent a video as well.

      As per that 1981 article… meet me for a coffee and show me what you are on about. 31-year-old articles are a hard sale for news, but if it lends to an editorial worth reading then I might. I`d prefer you write it to be honest, as I am literally swamped.

      And why do your and only your comments need to be authorized when everyone else can post right away? Strange to say the least.

  4. Kelly Mackin

    June 22, 2021 at 1:40 pm

    I have research to prove what I now am stating.
    6 thus far, convicted sexual abusers. ALL foster parents. This is in Ontario and the ones that we the public know about. children, yes little children takking Zyprexa, Seroquel etc for disorders. How many children have died in ‘care’??
    Jeffrey Baldwin, Sara Podneiwizc, Jordan Heikamp,nothing has ever been done. Most recent Katelynn Sampson. who cares though right??? A handful of people out of millions in Ontario.
    That list goes on as well.
    Child protection !! I would say it is a big joke but, it really is not it is completely and utterly disgusting. People need to get a backbone and stand up for these kids who mostly end up in jails and homeless with horrible addictions!

    Always a big forcus on how wonderful (NOT) this system is.
    1.4 Billion a year to unaccountable private corporations.
    WOW!! When I finish college for social work I suppose I too should get a job that is very high paying and better money than most organizations. I think not!!

  5. Kelly Mackin

    June 22, 2021 at 1:50 pm

    Oh pardon me, these convicted sexual abusers have all been in less than 2 yrs. Orgies, making of pornography with several teens over 8 yrs. Fathering a child to a 14 yr old ‘girl’.
    Ask for help with CAS in Windsor and the foster ‘mother’ feeds the young buy drugs,alcohol and has sex with him.
    Foster parent of the year molests girls. There are still youth in the home.
    Maurice Lavigueur from elland is facing several juvenile prostitution charges…I suppose he is out bail too!!
    over 5 yrs ago the Globe and Mail reported at great length that Nearly half of kids in Crown care are medicated. Nothing has been done for these innocent children. Lots more $$$ for CA$ for children with so-called disabilities!!

  6. Kelly Mackin

    June 22, 2021 at 1:53 pm

    Maurice Lavigueur was also Foster Parent of the Year!!

  7. Darlene Burk

    June 22, 2021 at 4:26 pm

    I agree with Mary and Chris, I couldn’t put it out there any better. I just want to say thank-you to Greg Holden for printing this story. We, as a group are out there being constructive, not distructive.Many of us don’t even have CAS involvement, we simply see the need for change. We are causing a disruption in the CAS corruption, and breaking windows would not aid in accomplishing our goals. We congregate, investigate and educate.

  8. Former crown ward

    June 23, 2021 at 1:31 am

    I am a Former Crown Ward. Kelly Mackin told me to NOT report the abuse I experienced in the system. Canada Court Watch may have broke those windows?

  9. Chris Carter

    June 25, 2021 at 4:55 pm

    Hi again Greg.

    Issue 1: an example of the fundamental unlawfulness of CA$ “child protection” litigation:

    Greg, one of the most important aspects of litigation are the “principles of fundamental justice.”

    Here is a wikipedia link to an explanation of this concept:

    There are a number of CA$ cases which have made it as far as the Supreme Court of Canada but the most important so far has been a 1999 case which originated in New Brunswick commonly called: the Minister of Health New Brunswick v. GJ.

    Here is perhaps the most important section from that SSC 1999 Case Law (this is a “binding” as opposed to a “persuasive” decision Greg; in theory and practice the judgies are obligated to abide by the legal precepts determined in this case…only they don’t Greg; the judgies urinate and defecate all over this Case Law and the Law in general on a daily basis throughout the CA$ Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) courts here in Ontario and elsewhere):

    “The Minister’s application to extend the original custody order threatened to restrict the appellant’s right to security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter. This right protects both the physical and psychological integrity of the individual and this protection extends beyond the criminal law and can be engaged in child protection proceedings. For a restriction of security of the person to be made out, the impugned state action must have a serious and profound effect on a person’s psychological integrity. The effects of the state interference must be assessed objectively, with a view to their impact on the psychological integrity of a person of reasonable sensibility. This need not rise to the level of nervous shock or psychiatric illness, but must be greater than ordinary stress or anxiety. State removal of a child from parental custody pursuant to the state’s parens patriae jurisdiction constitutes a serious interference with the psychological integrity of the parent. Besides the obvious distress arising from the loss of companionship of the child, direct state interference with the parent-child relationship, through a procedure in which the relationship is subject to state inspection and review, is a gross intrusion into a private and intimate sphere. Further, the parent is often stigmatized as “unfit” when relieved of custody. As an individual’s status as a parent is often fundamental to personal identity, the stigma and distress resulting from a loss of parental status is a particularly serious consequence of the state’s conduct. A combination of stigmatization, loss of privacy, and disruption of family life are sufficient to constitute a restriction of security of the person.

    This restriction would not have been in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice were the appellant unrepresented by counsel at the custody hearing. Section 7 guarantees every parent the right to a fair hearing when the state seeks to obtain custody of their children. For the hearing to be fair, the parent must have an opportunity to present his or her case effectively. Effective parental participation at the hearing is essential for determining the best interests of the child in circumstances where the parent seeks to maintain custody of the child. While a parent need not always be represented by counsel in order to ensure a fair custody hearing, in some circumstances, depending on the seriousness of the interests at stake, the complexity of the proceedings, and the capacities of the parent, the government may be required to provide an indigent parent with state-funded counsel. A consideration of these factors leads to the conclusion that, in the circumstances of this case, the appellant’s right to a fair hearing required that she be represented by counsel. Without the benefit of counsel, the appellant would not have been able to participate effectively at the hearing, creating an unacceptable risk of error in determining the children’s best interests and thereby threatening to violate both the appellant’s and her children’s s. 7 right to security of the person. Although all custody hearings engage serious interests, the seriousness varies according to the length of the proposed separation of parent from child and the length of any previous separation. Here, the state was seeking to extend a previous custody order by six months and the appellant had already been separated from her children for over a year. The custody hearing was sufficiently complex. Child custody proceedings are adversarial and the parties are responsible for planning and presenting their cases. While the rules of evidence are somewhat relaxed, difficult evidentiary issues are frequently raised. The parent must adduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, make objections and present legal defences in the context of what is to many a foreign environment, and under significant emotional strain. In this case, all the other parties were represented by counsel. The hearing was scheduled to last three days, and counsel for the Minister planned to present 15 affidavits, including two expert reports. Finally, in proceedings as serious and complex as these, an unrepresented parent will ordinarily need to possess superior intelligence or education, communication skills, composure, and familiarity with the legal system in order to effectively present his or her case. There is no evidence here suggesting that the appellant possessed such capacities. The potential s. 7 violation in this case would have been the result of the failure of the New Brunswick government to provide the appellant with state-funded counsel under its Domestic Legal Aid program after initiating proceedings under Part IV of the Family Services Act.”

    I won’t go into all of the details but basically that case decided that:

    1. Child protection litigation is a severely imbalanced environment where the CA$s have this ultimate power and the children and families have next to none…

    2. …and so therefore, child protection litigation threatens our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed right to “security of the person” (section 7 CCRF).
    Life, liberty and security of person

    7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

    3. ….and as we all know our Charter section 7 right to “security of the person” can only be threatened…

    (threatened by the government which the CA$ is…kind of, they’ve really set the CA$s to be completely and totally unaccountable Greg, technically speaking if you want to research the issue the CA$s are termed as “Transfer Payment Agencies”)

    …if and only if the “principles of fundamental justice” have been honoured (see the wikipedia link above for a brief explanation of the “principles of fundamental justice”).

    Greg, even though the SCC established way back in 1999 that “child protection” litigation must adhere to the “principles of fundamental justice” the judgies…

    (obviously as per the instructions they are handed by their CA$ overlords)

    …continue to urinate and defecate all over this SCC binding “GJ” Case Law.

    1999 was, perhaps coincidentally, also the same year that the Mike Harris PC gov’t very erroneously and, for the children of this province, tragically and severely empowered the CA$s (which were already far too powerful and unaccountable) as per the eight fundamental changes made to the CFSA via their Bill 6 the Child and Family Services Amendment Act:

    Here is a link to the hours long debates which occurred back on May 3, 2021 in regards to this Bill 6. It was such a terrible Bill with such expected dire consequences that the politicians left it until the day before the Legislature was scheduled to break to ram it through:

    It was these legislative changes which have, in large part, brought us to this very dire CA$ baby snatching family destroying environment we have today Greg, with Ontario having one of the lowest birth rates anywhere.

    The cries of children begging to be returned to their mommies and daddies and families, the protection and best interests of children, the virtue of Justice: none of that means anything to these powerful and privileged judgies Greg, many of whom are former CA$ lawyers!!! and almost all of whom were born with silver spoons in their mouths and have led nothing but privileged, elitists lives.

    Case in point re: the severe alignment between the judgies and the CA$s: just try, especially as a self-represented litigant (which we all have the Constitutional Right to choose to do=represent ourselves in court), to get a judge to order the CA$ to provide you with “full, complete and proper” disclosure to its “business records” or “internal service case notes” or “file” which the CA$ has compiled in regards to your family.

    It is almost impossible to find a judgie who’ll honour that 1999 SCC “GJ” decision in regards to this issue Greg and when they fail to do so (which is almost all of the time), they violate the “full answer and defence” principle of fundamental justice…but it is done in their secret and secretive CA$ CFSA court and (according to them) it is done “in the best interests of the child” so therefore they get away with it:

    Right to make full answer and defence
    Anyone accused of a criminal charge has the right to know the case against them and put forward a defence. In addition to being a principle of fundamental justice, this right is also protected by the right to a fair trial under section 11(d) of the Charter.

    “Full answer and defence” encompasses a number of things, including the right to counsel (also see section 10), the right to examine witnesses, and most importantly, the right to full disclosure by the Crown (see R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991).

    The judgies do not order the CA$s to provide disclosure because, as the judgies fully know, contained in that CA$ disclosure is evidence of CA$ fraud, malfeasance, incompetence, etc…
    The judgies do not want these “facts of CA$ life” to become known to the general public and they want to assist their CA$ business partners be victorious in the ummmm “child protection” litigation Greg.

    Here is what a family lawyer named Stan Share presented to the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) back in 2004 in regards to the issue of disclosure during a LSUC seminar titled “Best Practices in the Conduct of Child Protection file”:

    “Usually the strongest evidence you’ll have to fight a Children’s Aid Society is what’s contained in their own files. Your client will usually have limited credibility so it’s hoisting them on their own petard. The best stuff is going to be in their file so go and get it. It tells you what you should focus on. Don’t waste time focusing on Finding, if it’s a foregone conclusion the case might only be about Disposition. Find that out at the earliest opportunity. “

    Are you familiar with that expression Greg: “to hoist one up on their own petard” as utilized by Mr. Share in that presentation?

    Here is link to an explanation of it:

    It means: Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.

    So when I write about the unlawfulness of and illegality of their CA$-judgie litigation process and how the children who have been foster “care” or group “home” incarcerated by the CA$s are being held unlawfully, I’m referring to the abject lack of due process and judicially perpetrated “desperate to please the CA$” fraud and malfeasance which the judges who order these kids incarcerated by the CA$s are so very very guilty of.

    The judgies are nothing if not loyal, dedicated and very very subservient to their CA$ overlords Greg.

    Gotta keep that gravy train rolling!

    More to come for sure.