>> IMPORTANT CASE LAW: (Case Law decisions courtesy of www.Canlii.org *)
Here’s important case law that unrepresented people would never know about. If you have lawyer, email the case law to him/her, if they are good lawyers they will accept and use case law with good grace, if they get nasty, they may be dishonest and intend to do little to help you. Some cases here have paragraphs noted for specific issues, other cases without paragraph numbers discuss an issue throughout a decision. The case law can be downloaded from Canlii.org as PDF files or from here. A subject name and paragraph numbers are added here to the file names so you'll remember what the Case Law was for!
>> HOW TO USE THIS PAGE:
When you find false CAS claims and Bad faith acts, review the list here to see what cases are similiar, download those cases and use them to show the court they should dismiss CAS claims and actions that violate the CFSA or Case Law! Visit the Publications Page and download the following to help you present the cases correctly in court: 'How to Use Case Law In Court' and 'How to Make Court Submissions'. There's plenty of other Guides to check out too. It's not unusual to use several different decisions in Case Law to dismiss various aspects of CAS claims at a hearing or trial, so dig in!! It's free, unlike a lawyer!! The idea here is to motivate the court to apply previous decisions to your case!
>> THE CAS IS A 'SOPHISTICATED LITIGANT':
When making submissions on Bad Faith acts, false affidavits, etc, of a CAS, you need to remind the court that the CAS is a 'Sophisticated Litigant'; they have overwhelming experience in the CFSA and have unavoidable knowledge of the affect of their actions on children, parents and misleading the courts. Thus, any Bad Faith Costs should be as close to the full recovery basis as possible and the sanction of the court in a decision must be with the knowledge the CAS intended to infinge on the court's jurisdiction to know the true facts by misleading it. Any light treatment of CAS Bad Faith acts amounts to a Double Standard.
"If you don't use Case Law against the CAS, the CAS will use Case Law against YOU!"
Would you like to do our website Survey ? Start Survey
>> CASE LAW CATEGORIES:
For the purposes of this page, the following categories are identified below. However where it is correct to do so, many cases can be used in different types of litigation.
- Case Law within a CAS proceeding - Case Law at Appeal - Case Law in Lawsuits (Tort)
- Other Case Law: - 'Advocates' - Defamation, Libel - Lawyer Misconduct
- Key Supreme Court of Canada Cases
>> > > CASE LAW WITHIN A CAS CASE:
> Corroboration of CAS claims required, good faith conduct, impartiality:
Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo Region v. B.-C.(Z.)
1996 CanLII 4742 (ON C.J.)
see para 7, sub para 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 a) to g) download .pdf
> Law requires Analysis from Child’s Perspective:
Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. C.A.D.,
2011 ONCA 684
see para 12 download .pdf
> Judge to Intervene to see Justice is done:
Brouillard Also Known As Chatel v. The Queen,
[1985] 1 S.C.R. 39 download .pdf
> Ensure Interests of Justice:
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C.(S.A.),
2005 ONCJ 274
see para 75 - 76 download .pdf
> Natural Justice:
Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. M.W., P.S.
2003 CanLII 2309 (ON S.C.) download .pdf
> Court requirement for a CAS to disclose evidence to court:
Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. M.(R.) (No. 3)
2001 CanLII 25594 (ON C.J.)
see paras 64, 65, 66, 89 download .pdf
> Court requirement for treatment services to parents: CFSA s 15(3)(c)
Children’s Aid Society of Halton Region v. N.(R.R.),
2008 ONCJ 95
see Pg 2…… download .pdf
> Test for Expert Evidence:
R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9, download .pdf
> Statutory Care CFSA s 15(3)(d) required but denied / ignored by CAS:
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. V.F and R.B.
2003 Can LII 49834 (ON CJ)
see para 18 download .pdf
Children and Family Services for York Region v. H.C., C.S. and R.C.
2008 CanLII 64678 (ON S.C.)
see para 106, 107, 118 - last 6 lines download .pdf
> Setting aside Crown Ward Orders, lack of notice, excluded parents:
Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. Lyttle,
1973 S.C.R. 568 1973canlii13 download .pdf
> CAS claims NOT ‘Past Conduct’ under CFSA s 50 (1)(a) & (b):
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.(A.)
2003 CanLII 57523
> see Pg 4, 2nd para download .pdf
Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. Deborah P. and Henry L., download .pdf
2007 CanLII 39363 (Ont. S.C.).
> Decisions must have reasons per Supreme Court Decision:
R. v. Sheppard [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, 2002 SCC 26 download .pdf
The Durham Children's Aid Society of St. Thomas v M.(J.) download .pdf
2003 Canlii 57513 (ON CJ)
> CAS smear of former Crown Ward dismissed by Court:
Children's Aid Society of Toronto v M.(A.) download .pdf
2002 Canlii 45665 (ON CJ)
> see para 47 - 52
> CAS limits access to destroy bond, criticized by court:
Children's Aid Society of Toronto v M.(A.) download .pdf
2002 Canlii 45665 (ON CJ)
> see Pge 12 para 7
> CAS affidavits are NOT 'Credible or Trustworthy':
Children's Aid Society of Toronto v M.(A.) download .pdf
2002 Canlii 45665 (ON CJ)
> see para 23 - 24 and 54 - 74
> Audio Recordings ARE admissible:
R. v P. B. download .pdf
2011 ONSC 4559
see para 25 - 34 and 40 - 42
Lamoureux v. Lamoureux download .pdf
2011 ONSC 3123
see para 3 - 7
> Audio Recordings are NOT admissible - recording gaps:
Children's Aid Society of Waterloo Region v D. D. download .pdf
1995 Canlii 8897 (ON CJ)
> see Pges 4-5 para 4
> 'Emotional Harm' claims requires Expert Evidence:
Children's Aid Society for Owen Sound and the County of Grey v. J.T., C.C., L.T., and S.B.
2003 Canlii 52432 (ON CJ) download .pdf
> see para 163 - 164
>> > > CASE LAW AT APPEAL:
Case Law for Appeals is huge and extensive going all the way past 1927!!! For 1927, a key case was Varette, Supreme Court of Canada, (1927Canlii 11). Varette (and Stolar) seriously limit evidence in criminal and civil cases. But the cases for ‘wider fresh evidence’ for a child’s best interests supercedes these cases - good to know! However, other Appeal Tests applied by the courts seriously limit appeal success. Your appeal grounds must fit within these Tests to even be considered.
Appeal Courts apply a 'Standard of Review' to appeals typically covering:
- question of law
- correctness
- an error of fact
- palpable and overriding error
- significant fresh evidence addressing child's Best Interests
- evidence withheld by CAS
- court Order Obtained By Fraud by CAS
- Statutory Interests of child not met
The correct application of these depends on whether there was a Trial or a Summary Judgment hearing and other factors.
Avoid the Pitfall where your appeal is a de facto 'rehearing of the case' on the same evidence hoping to force a different outcome. An Appeal Court will always respect a judge's earlier decision unless appropriate criteria are met.
Also avoid the Pitfall of 'overstating' your appeal to the extent that you fail to meet the criteria that the appeal court would apply. Frame your appeal grounds conservatively so that the evidence, fresh evidence, transcripts, etc, fully support your claim.
A sampling of cases is posted here that are useful in CAS Appeals and has the ability to trump many CAS claims if actually applicable to your case. Remember, Case Law is most affective when you use it to demonstrate certain legal principles and that other courts have decided these issues earlier. (also use some of the other cases above)
> Court has ‘Parens Patriae Jurisdiction’ over Child:
The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.D.S.de L., A.S.
2008 CanLII 8607 (ON SC)
see para 9 download .pdf
> Wider Fresh Evidence in the Child’s Interest:
Children’s Aid Society of Peel v. M. J. W. AND W. W.
1995 CanLII 593 (ON CA) download .pdf
T.M. v. Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
2004 CanLII 26453 (ON S.C.)
see para 22 to 25 download .pdf
> Law requires Analysis from Child’s Perspective:
Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. C.A.D.,
2011 ONCA 684
see para 12 download .pdf
> Court Review after Crown Wardship:
C.R., M. R., S.G. and T. G., v. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton and The Quamish Nation of British Columbia
2004 CanLII 58384 (ON S.C.) download .pdf
Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (Re),
2010 ONSC 1348
see para 11 download .pdf
> New arguments on Appeal on new evidence:
R. v. Seo
1986 CanLII 109 (ON CA) download .pdf
> Irregular Appeals permitted in some cases:
Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) v. P.,
2002 NSCA 107 (CanLII) download .pdf
> Abuse of Judicial Privilege: (lawyers that mislead the courts)
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto,
[1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 download .pdf
L.A.G v M.E.F.G. download .pdf
2004 CanLII 49975 (ON SC)
> see para 1 - 7
> 'Advocate' Vernon Beck involvement further sets back a
parent's legal position in a CAS matter:
Frontenac Children’s Aid Society v. C. N. (mother) download .pdf
2007 CanLII 9886 (ON SC)
> see para 11-12
If you do a through internet search you'll see Vernon Beck does everything possible to be a 'public person/spectacle' even getting on Cable TV shows when a previous court decision shows that he is a semi-retired (in 2007) air conditioning consultant. (see case above: C.S. v. M.S. 2007Canlii6240 (ON SC) in para 109) He has no training or education to meddle in other people's business where a lawyer is needed. A court right or wrong will hold the direct involvement of layperson 'advocates' against you if you allow them into court with you or they attempt to speak during the proceeding. Just so you know!
> Lawyer: Professional Misconduct, license revoked:
Law Society of Upper Canada v. Mary Martha Coady, download .pdf
2010 ONLSHP 0004
see para 25 , notable quote
> Lawyer: Professional Misconduct, license revoked:
Law Society of Upper Canada v. Marshall Stephen Kazman, download .pdf
2008 ONLSAP 0007
see para 73 - 75
> Lawyer: Professional Misconduct, license revoked, only acceptable outcome:
The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Doron [Jorden] Kolman, download .pdf
2004 ONLSAP 0002
see para 19
> Lawyer: Professional Misconduct, readmission barred:
Peter David Clark v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, download .pdf
2010 ONLSHP 0011
> Negative Complaint tribunal decision cannot bar legal action:
Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), download .pdf
2013 SCC 19
Comments for this case:
It is not unusual for Medical Colleges, Law Societies, etc, to place the private interests of their members above the public interest despite their boastful claims. Medical Colleges and Law Societies among others, are willfully blind past the point of being corrupt!! Thus a complaint will often result in a negative decision. In the Case above the SCC decided that a negative outcome from a Complaint Board cannot limit your access to justice by legal action! Sweet! However, you still have to do all the legwork correctly, but you can be liable for Costs if you lose. So it possible that a court may decide differently based on the same facts!! In short, "a negative Complaint Board decision is not Res Judicata in a court of law". The best possible application of this is seeking a court order against a Lawyer that knowingly misleads a court, where a Law Society refused to disciplne the lawyer. Be sure that you supply conclusive evidence, transcripts and references under Rules of Professional Conduct and the Law Society Act, etc, how the actions of counsel deserve attention from a court!! Be sure that you do not ask for a remedy that is actually beyond a court's jurisdiction or beyond the Limitations Act!!
>> > > OTHER CASE LAW - DEFAMATION, LIBEL:
These cases provide guidance on how you can communicate with the public on matters of public interest concerning CAS abuses. The CAS always tries to stifle free speech since they are beyond the point of no return with decisions obtained by fraud (contrary to FLR 25(19) ) to obtain and abuse public funding by Fraud!! Far worse then ORNGE!!
See the following Supreme Court of Canada decisions below: (courtesy of www.scc.lexum.org )
> No Libel for responsible communication in the public interest:
Grant v Torstar Corp download .pdf
2009 SCC 61
> No Libel for responsible communication in the public interest:
Quan v Cusson download .pdf
2009 SCC 62
> + the publication of Internet Hyperlinks:
Crookes v Newton download .pdf
2011 SCC 47
> + use of confidential sources
R v National Post download .pdf
2010 SCC 16
>> > > OTHER CASE LAW - LAWSUITS (TORT):
Case Law for Lawsuits is huge, extensive, expensive if you lose, expensive if you win and full of pot holes! A key role of a court is to give detailed reasons, not on why a party wins, but why a party lost. This means you can read the Analysis / Reasons part of a decision and get a real taste of what a parent did wrong in the lawsuit - and not make the same mistake!! If you feel wronged or ripped off by a CAS, you must express the wrong commited as a 'tort' term and provide evidence of it that exceeds the 'balance of probabilities' or has greater 'weight' then any evidence provided by a CAS in it's own defence. A common pitfall is to claim a wrongdoing that overreaches the evidence you have or to make a claim with no evidence at all, just your own say-so. If you lose, you pay most or all of a CAS' legal cost from $5,000 to $100,000. It turns any CAS abuse so far into a brutal nightmare where the CAS rapes and robs you of your family and then you have to pay them on top of that!!!! Ugh!
You really need competent legal representation to avoid being burned at the stake here! There's very little room for DIY!
The decisions here are about CAS cases, but other lawsuit cases in unrelated conficts are used to demonstrate legal principles to influence the outcome. What is morally 'right' is not how a court rules, what is 'legal' and allowed by various laws and previous decisions! Sorry, that's not what you expected, I know. It's a fact there are far more possible mistakes that can be made that would undo all the right things you do in a case, which makes reading cases and taking notes of the mistakes made by others all the more important. When a party loses but fails to pay, the winning party can then obtain an enforcement order from the court which means you lose your home and all other assets to make up the Costs order. Make sure your grounds to sue is supported by evidence that would be accepted by the court.
Read these cases and take to heart the mistakes of others so you don't repeat them:
(Some long case names are paraphrased on this list. .pdf files have full case names)
> CAS loses appeal, has to pay $110,000 Damages:
D.B. et al, v CAS of Durham Region and Marion Van Den Bloomen download .pdf
1996 CanLII 1067 (ON C.A.)
(This case started in ~1986 with a false CAS child protection case. The decision above
is the CAS trying to appeal the lawsuit won by D.B. This is considered the first case
where a CAS was successfully sued! It is the Grandaddy of all CAS tort lawsuit
cases! All it takes is 10 years of your life to complete!)
> A CAS sued and won by plaintiff:
Leontine Yelle v CAS of Ottawa-Carlton et al, download .pdf
2002 CanLII 2868 (ON SC)
A.C. and C.C. v Y. J. C. download .pdf
2003 CanLII 2464 (ON SC)
R.H. v CAS of Niagara et al, download .pdf
2002 CanLII 2835 (ON SC)
D.W. v CAS of Durham Region et al, download .pdf
2004 CanLII 22543 (ON CA)
P.B. v. Jewish Family & Child Services download .pdf
2005 CanLII 63822 (ON SC)
B.D., K.D., E.S. v SYL APPS Secure Treatment Centre et al, download .pdf
2006 CanLII 1175 (ON CA)
> Suing a CAS lawyer, lost:
A.A. v. Macri, download .pdf
2010 ONCA 99
Dr. A.D. v York CAS et al, download .pdf
2010 ONSC 3764 (CanLII)
D.M. v. York Region Children’s Aid Society et al, download .pdf
2011 ONSC 5635
2011 ONSC 4261
Roger St Jacques v Toronto Ambulance Service download .pdf
2008 CanLII 9381 (ON SCDC)
A.A. v Hospital for Sick Children et al, download .pdf
2009 CanLII 40557 (ON SC)
> Various Libel Defenses you can use, Qualified Privilege, etc:
Foulidis v. Baker, download .pdf
2012 ONSC 7295 (CanLii)
see para 21 to 76
April 2010 download .pdf
> Tort Lawsuit Summaries
July 2010 download .pdf
> $31 parking ticket Class Action suit loses, costs $70,000! Ouch!
Arenson v. Toronto download .pdf
2012 ONSC 4488
and…
Arenson v. City of Toronto, download .pdf
2011 ONSC 3294
N O T E :
Since 2010 Canadacourtwatch.org founders searched 8,000 decisions, indexed, annotated 3,700 cases in 450 categories! There are of course 100s of thousands of cases across Canada, emphasis is on Ontario and Ontario's CFSA. Not surprisingly, your lawyer will charge case law research fees even if it is a case he/she already has on hand! All these cases are on Canlii.org, see the link on the Resources Page. Westlaw lists some cases exclusively, but is an expensive service. Download all you want Free! Unlike other websites, there are no 'membership' fees or donations needed!
Effective use of any case law relies on the suitability in your matter, context of your matter, filings from all parties, etc. See the Legal Page. Affective and appropriate presentation of case law in court abides by court rules and procedures.
Canadacourtwatch.org relies on volunteers for Case Law searches and does not expect or accept any payment. All Case Law and materials are posted in the public interest for timely use by any parent targeted by the CAS who, within a proceeding timeline would never be able to do so on their own.
* Downloaded Canlii.org decisions have original content, file names with subject and paragraph numbers added as a file name suffix.
FREE: 5 MILLION DOLLARS OF NEGATIVE PUBLICITY:
Litigation threats to silence this site and the case law discovered will get you negative publicity above and the end of the Billion Dollar gravy train of public money and child abuse inflicted by CASs, lawyers and doctors!!