ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 4204/08 (Walkerton)
DATE: 20130322

BETWEEN:

A.L.A.-L.

Carol A. Allen, for the Applicant

Applicant

-and-

M.K.L.

Viola Nabrotzky, for the Respondent

Respondent

HEARD: November 5, 2012

JUDICIAL SUMMARY OF THE THIRD PARTY RECORDS

Conlan J.

[1] On November 5, 2012, I heard oral submissions by counsel with regard to a Motion brought by the Respondent, Mr. L. That Motion sought, among other things, production of various records in the possession of third parties.

[2] Given the positions of the parties and the nature of the records being sought, I recommended to counsel that we embark on a procedure similar to that utilized in the context of a third party records Application in a criminal case.

[3] Counsel agreed with that suggested approach, and thus, I issued a consent Order dated November 5, 2012 directing that the various third party records shall be produced to the Court in sealed envelopes; that the records shall not be disclosed to anyone without further Court Order; and that counsel shall be contacted by the Court office to arrange a further attendance before me once I have reviewed the records for likely relevance.

[4] In order to place counsel in a better position to make submissions at the further Court attendance as to whether some or all of the records ought to be disclosed to Mr. L, I have prepared this document. This is a summary of the third party records delivered to the Court pursuant to my Order made on November 5, 2012.

The Records of Dr. Betty Bedard Bidwell

[5] These records were delivered to the Court in three groups, all contained in a single sealed envelope. I have reviewed all of the documents.

[6] The first group of documents are clinical notes of joint therapy sessions with the children, P and N, between October 12, 2010 and October 1, 2011 (11 sessions total). The focus of the sessions was to help the children deal with the illness and anticipated death of their sister.

[7] The second group of documents are clinical notes of individual therapy sessions with the child, N, between July 7, 2009 and May 2, 2011 (40 sessions total). There are various themes identified in these sessions including but not limited to power, control, anger, adjustment to change, trust and relationships.

[8] The third group of documents are clinical notes of individual therapy sessions with the child, P, between July 7, 2009 and November 8, 2011 (42 sessions total). There are various themes identified in these sessions including but not limited to power, control, loss and grieving, anger and fear.

The Records of Keystone Child, Youth & Family Services

[9] These records were delivered to the Court in one package contained in a sealed envelope. I have reviewed all of the documents.

[10] There are hundreds of documents from Keystone commencing in November 2007. They consist of, in part:

• Client Profile Reports
• Parent Questionnaires
• Consent to Disclosure Forms
• CPRI Psychology Assessment Report for the child N dated April 5, 2007
• Paediatric Therapy and/or Occupational Therapy Reports for the child N
• Child Development Inventory Profile and Diagnostic Inventory for Screening Children (DISC) documents for the child P dated 2007
• Single Session Therapy Report for the child P dated November 29, 2007
• Letter of complaint from the Applicant to the Executive Director of Bruce County CAS dated December 12, 2007
• Progress Notes and Progress Reports for the child N dated December 18, 2007 through January 15, 2009
• Progress Notes and Progress Reports for the child P dated January 24, 2008 through January 15, 2009 and December 6, 2011 through May 18, 2012. The final Note indicates “significant improvements for P”, and thus, the file was closed
• Respite Request Forms
• Funding Agreement between Keystone and the Respondent dated March 6, 2008
• Minutes from Case Conferences held between the Respondent and various service providers on June 27, 2008, August 13, 2008 and November 12, 2008
• CPRI Paediatric Review Report for the child N dated August 21, 2008
• Two items of correspondence from N’s teachers dated October 2008 which deal with potentially concerning behaviours of N regarding private body parts
• Service Termination Sheet dated February 10, 2009
• Psychological Report for the child P authored by Dr. Rosanne Field and dated July 4, 2011
• Ambulatory Care Reports for the child P authored by Dr. Cato and dated November 7, 2011 and January 23, 2012
• School Age Counselling Team Clinic Referral Questionnaire completed by the Applicant on November 10, 2011
• Non-Residential Assessment Report dated December 2011
• Child and Adolescent Assessment Scale Reports for the child P dated December 6, 2011, May 28, 2012 and October 24, 2012
• Tele-psychiatry Consultation Report for the child P authored by Dr. Benoit and dated January 24, 2012
• Service Completion Sheet and Non-Residential Service Completion Report for the child P dated June 2012
• Various referral forms and general miscellaneous correspondence between, for example, the Applicant and Keystone about minor matters such as scheduling.

Bluewater District School Board Documents

[11] These records were delivered to the Court but not in a sealed envelope. I have reviewed all of the documents.

[12] The first group of documents are the student records for the child N from 2006 to the present, including:

• A few Speech and Language Services Progress Notes from 2006 and 2007
• Psychometric Testing report of JoAnne Clark dated January 3, 2006
• Reports of Dr. Katarina Rovis dated July 20, 2006 and August 21, 2008
• Grey Bruce Health Services Paediatric Rehabilitation summary report dated August 18, 2006
• CPRI report dated April 5, 2007
• Behavioural and Play Therapy Reports from Margaret Ellis dated June 28, 2006 and April 13, 2007
• Letter from the Applicant to the Mildmay School dated November 2, 2007 directing that the Respondent shall have no contact with the children P and N
• Correspondence dated March 19, 2008 to the Applicant from Bruce County CAS regarding its investigations of the complaints made in October, November and December 2007 – “not verified” or “inconclusive” were the conclusions reached
• CPRI report dated May 6, 2009
• CPRI Psychiatric report dated July 3, 2009
• Identification, Placement and Review Committee Statements
• Individual Education Plans, Elementary Provincial Report Cards and Provincial Report Cards
• Psychological Assessment Report dated January 18, 2012
• CPRI Psychiatric Assessment Report dated December 21, 2012 which does make several diagnoses
• Student Diagnostic Profiles
• Suspension Notice dated December 5, 2012
• Violent Incident Reporting form dated December 6, 2012
• Various consent forms, referral forms, medication forms, Public Health vaccination forms and “Closing the Gap” Rehabilitation reports.

[13] The second group of documents are the student records for the child P from Kindergarten to the present, including:

• Elementary Provincial Report Cards and Provincial Report Cards
• Parent/Guardian Comment forms regarding Kindergarten.

[14] The third group of documents are the student records for the child A which are simply a few legal documents such as the Endorsement of Thompson J. dated June 26, 2009.

London Health Sciences Centre Documents

[15] These records were delivered to the Court but not in a sealed envelope. I have reviewed all of the documents.

[16] The documents include:

• Jennifer Ashleigh Children’s Charity Request for Assistance forms regarding the child S
• Clinical Progress Records for the child S dated between January 2009 and July 2010
• Authorization and Direction forms signed by the Respondent on February 6, 2012
• Black and white photographs of (whom I assume to be) children of the parties
• Dozens of e-mail correspondence between the Applicant and Barbara Dagelman; between the Respondent and Ms. Dagelman; and between Victoria L. and Ms. Dagelman dated between April 2009 and February 2012.

The Next Step

[17] Counsel shall be contacted by the Trial Coordinator to arrange a further Court attendance before me to deal with the next stage of the procedure: whether some or all of the third party records ought to be disclosed to Mr. L. Two hours will be set aside for that Court appearance.

[18] In preparing for that next Court attendance, I ask that the parties and counsel be cognizant of the following.

[19] First, family law litigation shall not be tried by instalment. It is time for the Motions to end. This matter should proceed to Trial as soon as possible.

[20] Second, any evidence adduced at Trial must meet the basic requirements for the admissibility of evidence in any Court proceeding: it must be material; it must be relevant; and its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect.

[21] Third, an unspeakable tragedy has befallen this family. Children are our most precious resource. No amount of success by one party at the expense of the other will heal the wounds. The focus must be on the best interests of the children who are left to navigate their way through a path that must now appear so much more daunting.

Conlan J.

Released: March 22, 2013

COURT FILE NO.: 4204/08 (Walkerton)
DATE: 20130322

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

A.L.A.-L.

Plaintiff

-and-

M.K.L.

Respondent

JUDICIAL SUMMARY OF THE

THIRD PARTY RECORDS

Conlan J.

Released: March 22, 2013