Attn Marlene Zagdanski:

Before I proceed with my reply to Pierre Viger’s response to my complaint, I would like to state first and foremost, that I have met Pierre Viger in person while I was acting as a support person to a C.A.S. client during an unrelated complaint review meeting. During the meeting Pierre Viger was very professional with me, and I with him. We shook hands, greeted each other, and continued with our business. Pierre Viger was pleasant, polite, and professional in his dealings with me, and this is to be noted.

Secondly, I would like to present Section 68(1) of the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) which I will refer to quite often in this document. Section 68(1) of the CFSA states the following:

68 (1) A society shall establish a written review procedure, which shall be approved by a Director, for hearing and dealing with complaints by any person regarding services sought or received from the society, and shall make the review procedure available to any person on request.

Original Complaint: My complaint originally referred to the fact that Pierre Viger (R.S.W.) intentionally violated Section 68(1) of the CFSA by refusing numerous times, to make available on request, a copy of the Children’s Aid Society’s written Complaint Review Procedure. As this is the focus of my complaint, I am a little confused as to the reason Pierre Viger enclosed correspondence concerning an entirely unrelated case.

Pierre Viger mentioned in his response, that the reason they were not communicating with me via email was out of concern for a breach of confidentiality. Whereas I submit, that requesting a copy of their written complaint procedure does not place anyone in a position of violating confidentiality laws and / or requirements regardless of my history, but it does place him in a position of intentionally violating section 68(1) of the CFSA.

Reason For The Complaint To The College: The reason I requested the written complaint procedure from the Society, is because a client of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton informed me that the C.A.S. has refused to give that client a copy of the complaint procedure on their request. When I learned of this behavior from the C.A.S., I decided to request a copy of the written complaint procedure myself to see how this request is handled by the C.A.S. I would also like to have a copy of the written complaint procedure for further advocacy work that I will be conducting with the Children’s Aid Society in the future. I made that request through Pierre Viger, as he is the Director of Professional Standards and as such I expected that he would be familiar with the Society’s written complaint procedure, and would have a complete understanding of Section 68(1) of the CFSA which gives both clients of the Society and the general public a right to obtain a copy of it on request.

I therefore deem most of the documents submitted by Pierre Viger in his response to my complaint to be irrelevant and potentially confusing or distracting as to the exact nature of this complaint to the College, excepting of course his original written response to the College which I will endeavor to clarify as is permitted at this stage in the complaint process with the College.

Summary: I would like to remind you that my complaint is strictly confined to Pierre Viger’s refusal to comply with Section 68(1) of the CFSA. Please do not let the additional documents attached to Pierre Viger’s response distract you from the actual complaint… a common tactic used by the Society. I would also like to state that it is of vital importance that the actual written complaint procedure be made available to the clients via the web site AND at the front desk or waiting area of all C.A.S. agencies as clients are often intimidated and in a position of disempowerment with the agency, which is unfair to force them to have to talk directly to the agency they are complaining about in order to obtain the rules for making that complaint. This is a tactic of intimidation to reduce the number of complaints that are lodged against them. When the Council obtains a copy of the written complaint procedure, we will make it available through our web site so clients can download it easily without feeling fear, or intimidation. We will also assist them in making their complaints with their permission.

Thank you for your time and effort on this matter. I will now continue with clarifying the statements made by Pierre Viger as is permitted at this stage of the complaint process with the College simply for clarification purposes although mostly unrelated to this complaint.

Thank-you,
John Dunn
Pierre Viger (RSW) wrote:

1.       John Dunn is not, nor has been, a client of mine. He is not, nor has been, a client of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (Ottawa CAS) which employs me. As such, Mr. Dunn would not be entitled to a client complaint review under sec. 68 of the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) which is meant for a person who has “received or sought services from a society”. Of note, Children’s Aid Societies are not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Neither my organization, nor I have any statutory obligations or requirements with respect to Mr. Dunn as a client under the CFSA or as an applicant under FIPPA.

My reply:

It is true that I am not, nor have I ever been a client of Pierre Viger’s. It is also true, that I am not, or have I ever been, a client of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton which employs Pierre Viger. However, in answer to Pierre Viger’s inaccurate and misleading statement above, I HAVE received services from a Society, as I was a Crown Ward of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society, along with my brother Ronnie, for sixteen years. During that time, we were moved through thirteen different foster homes and approximately ten different schools. As for section 68(1) of the CFSA, it states the following:

68 (1) A society shall establish a written review procedure, which shall be approved by a Director, for hearing and dealing with complaints by any person regarding services sought or received from the society, and shall make the review procedure available to any person on request.

“Society” is defined in Section 3 (1) of the CFSA as follows:

“society” means an approved agency designated as a children’s aid society under subsection 15 (2) of Part I (Flexible Services); (“société”)

Section 68 (1) of the CFSA can be read on the internet at:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90c11_e.htm#68.(1)

Whereas the CFSA Section 68(1), states that “ANY PERSON” can file a complaint “regarding services sought or received from the Society” and that the Society “shall make the review procedure available to any person on request”, Pierre Viger’s response has unfortunately changed the wording of the Act to meet his own needs in defending himself from this complaint to the College, which I find to be unethical behavior for an RSW.

Pierre Viger continues to say that he has no “statutory obligations or requirements” under the CFSA to me, yet Pierre Viger, as Director of Professional Standards of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton, does in fact have a statutory obligation to provide me, or anyone else, a copy of the written complaint procedure on request, regardless of whether or not they are a client or former client of the agency, as is stated in the last sentence of section 68(1) of the CFSA (see above).

As the Director of Professional Standards of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton, I would expect that Pierre Viger would have a very clear understanding of section 68(1) of the CFSA. I have come to this conclusion due to the fact that complaints are common-place at the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton due to the very nature of the business conducted by the agency, and due to the fact that Pierre Viger is regularly a part of those complaint procedures / reviews. I have seen his name in other cases as well.

Pierre Viger’s statement concerning FIPPA is also completely irrelevant to this complaint. Please Disregard.

Pierre wrote:

2.       I am aware that Mr. Dunn presents himself as the Executive Director of “The Foster Care Council of Canada”. To my knowledge, this organization has no known or disclosed membership, board of directors or source of funding. It has no known affiliation with any Children’s Aid Society or legitimate foster care organization. Neither my organization nor I have any statutory obligations or requirements with respect to Mr. Dunn as the Executive Director of “The Foster Care Council of Canada”.

My reply:

It is true that I present myself as the Executive Director of “The Foster Care Council of Canada” as this is my position within the Council. As the Council is new, we have not posted all members of the board on our site, and as of yet, have not begun to advertise for membership. With regard to funding, true advocacy does not require funding. True advocacy, relies on people who genuinely empathize with children and families affected by foster care because they have had some experience with it themselves, just like the Youth In Care Network. Funding is secondary to our mission and our goals.

It is true that the Council is not affiliated with any Children’s Aid Society or foster care organization, legitimate or otherwise, as it is our intention to remain independent of these agencies because the people who come to work with us, are usually feeling intimidated and / or vulnerable to them; therefore any affiliation with them would put our desired relationship of openness and trust with these individuals at risk.

Once again, Pierre Viger has stated that neither he, nor his organization (The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton) have any statutory obligations or requirements with respect to myself as Executive Director of The Foster Care Council of Canada, which is a direct violation of the last sentence of section 68 (1) of the CFSA, which states:

 “and shall make the review procedure available to any person on request.”

Pierre wrote:

3.       I am aware that Mr. Dunn received from our Ministry Program Supervisor the information he required regarding the CFSA sec. 68 complaint procedure of the Ottawa CAS as it is made available in a pamphlet destined to clients. Furthermore this information is posted on the Ottawa CAS website and, as such, it is available to the general public. Mr. Dunn is aware of this web site as he requested, and was denied, to have a link between his website and our website. I would not have been able to provide Mr. Dunn, as a member of the general public, with any information that he did not already have through the above.

My reply:

As of this date, ( August 10, 2004 ) I have not received a copy of a complaint procedure from the Ottawa Region of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services’ Program Supervisor, nor from anyone at this Ministry or any other Ministry. I do recall making a request for a copy of a CAS complaint procedure from the Ottawa Regional Office of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, only to be told that I must ask for one from the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton. Pierre Viger then states that “this information is posted on the Ottawa CAS website and, as such, it is available to the general public.” This is not true. In fact, the information is not actually on the CAS web site, as of this date ( August 10, 2004 ) rather, there are only instructions on the site which tell the reader that they can request “information about” the complaint procedure when they are not satisfied with a service rather than actually providing a copy of the procedure to anyone through their web site as Pierre Viger has falsely stated is done.

Although they do say that you can make a request for the complaints procedure, unfortunately, it is evident, that either the CAS, its’ staff, its’ Directors / and or Pierre Viger, or all of the above, use their own discretion in determining whether to respect or to deny the right of individuals to obtain a written copy of the complaint procedure, as is mandated in the CFSA Section 68(1). This is the situation in my case, where Pierre Viger has repeatedly stated in his response to my complaint to the College that he will not, or can not give me a written complaint procedure for various reasons. (See images section of this reply)

Pierre Viger also states, that I am aware of the CAS web site, as I have requested, and been denied, permission to have a link added to their site, which would link back to my own web site. It is true that I do know of their web site, and that I did make this request to have my web site added to their sites’ section called “Self-Help Groups” located at

http://64.26.166.187/detail_page.cfm?ResourceGuideID=9&SiteLanguage=1

I have not yet received a reply regarding this matter.

I must also point out that Pierre Viger states that “it is available to the general public” regarding the complaint procedure. If this was the case, and with my advanced knowledge of their web site, why is Pierre Viger saying that they refuse to give me a copy of the complaint procedure simply because I am not a client of his, or the agency. This implies that I do not have access to the written complaint procedure, unless I am a client, and unless I get it through a formal request procedure. It shows that they have complete control over the dissemination and distribution of this document, and have made a conscious decision refuse to give me a copy of it based on their own criterion. (i.e. confidentiality issues, status as client, or former client)

Pierre wrote:

4.       In recent months, I am aware that Mr. Dunn has presented himself as either a client’s friend or a client’s support person in cases opened with the Ottawa CAS. I personally sat in on a meeting where Mr. Dunn was acting as a support person to a client who was undergoing a complaint review. The parameters of Mr. Dunn’s role as a support person within the context of the client complaint review process was fully explained to him in my presence by my colleague who was conducting the review.

My reply:

It is true that I have presented myself as either a friend or a support person in cases opened with the C.A.S. of Ottawa-Carleton. And it is true that I was a friend of a client in one case, and a support person to another client in another case.

I did meet Pierre Viger in one of those meetings where I was acting as a support person to a client of theirs. During that meeting, when the client mentioned the fact that the Society had not yet produced the access records which the client had to obtain a court order in order to obtain them from the Society, which is the clients basic right as a client of the Society to obtain. I started to ask Marion Roberts, Pierre Viger’s Colleague, in that meeting “Does she have a right to those reports.”

Marion Roberts, the Colleague Pierre Viger mentioned, interrupted me and instructed me that in order for me to speak as a support person, I must ask them (Pierre Viger and Marion Roberts) to leave first, then I must talk to the client alone, and then call them back into the room to let the client ask the question of them. I was never given or shown any policy which stated this, nor any written set of rules for support persons, so I was not acting arbitrarily. To avoid any unnecessary retaliation to the client for my questions, I said ‘ok” and stopped talking. I did however write my question to the client on a piece of paper asking this client to ask them.

In my position of working in the Council, I have heard complaints from clients who have mentioned CAS staff threatening them with supervised access visits and reduced visit times with their children as a result of them speaking out of turn or anything similar, so I did not want to endanger this clients visits with her child as a result of something as trivial as my speaking during a meeting.

Pierre wrote:

5.       In one specific case, Mr. Dunn has subjected staff members of the Ottawa C.A.S. to a barrage of e-mails which were copied, in many instances, to persons in a position of authority. These e-mails were usually posted by Mr. Dunn on his website. The issues of concern raised by Mr. Dunn in this case had been determined by a Court of law. They had also been reviewed through the Ottawa CAS’s complaint review, up to the Board’s level, as well as by the Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy. In his e-mails, Mr. Dunn went so far as to name clients, including a child in care. These practices have put the Ottawa CAS in a significant dilemma regarding cliet confidentiality and have led to reassess whether there was any merit in using the e-mail medium in communicating with Mr. Dunn. As a result of our experience with Mr. Dunn, it was determined that we would refrain from engaging him in any e-mail correspondence and would respond to regular mail as appropriate to the circumstances. I understand that this position is not inconsistent with the position taken by our Ministry in this case. IHave however been responding to his phone calls as appropriate.

My reply:

It is true that I sent many emails to relevant staff, Directors, Executive Directors, The Minister, Ministry Staff, Program Supervisors and Members of Parliament regarding this case, as I felt it absolutely imperative to communicate to all levels of authority the extent of the emotional abuse that this nine year old girl in their care was suffering (still is and will be) as a direct result of the C.A.S. of Ottawa-Carleton’s decision to block any further visits with her natural mother, Grandmother, Brother, her best friend and cousin whom she has known her whole life and has strong bonds with. Until this time, the Society had maintained visits between the family and the child because they knew it was beneficial to the young girl.

This decision is only being made based on an emotionally abusive legal duty to sever ties with the family to enable an adoption to take place. An adoption the mother supported as long as visits were maintained. The relationship is beneficial to the daughter according to the Access visit supervisor’s reports, her community members, even the foster parents who met with the CAS to support the birth mom’s visits, and they were subsequently punished by having the other foster children in their home removed as a result of them speaking out both in the mothers favour, and against the tactics used by the CAS in this case without any regard to the emotional ties these children had established in their community. Due to the mother’s appeal, the child in question was locked into the foster home so could not be removed as well.

Also the people I copied in my various e-mail’s have the ability to view these files as their position of authority entitles them to do. In my eyes there was no breach of confidentiality. The CFSA also only states that the identity must not be made public. I hold great confidence that the people I copied will not release this information to the public.

I did get one phone call from Pierre Viger with regard to this case and it is greatly appreciated that he took the time to discuss with me the issues related to this case.

Pierre wrote:

6.       I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Dunn on May 17^th in response to a voicemail message he had left with me about two particular issues. During this conversation, I had an opportunity to review with him how reports of child abuse are received and processed by a CAS and I referred him to the Ministry’s pamphlet REPORTING CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT. I particularly explained to him that a person making a report under CFSA Sec. 72(1) has a duty to provide the reasonable grounds on which a reported suspicion is based. He provided me with the information he had on a particular case and I advised him that it would be processed as appropriate. He asked how he could ascertain the status of the investigation. I informed him that CAS’s were not in a position to report back to the source of a protection concern without proper client consents. I acknowledged our conversation in a letter on the same day which was sent by ordinary mail to the mailing address of the Foster Care Council of Canada. (See enclosed). Further, I advised Mr. Dunn that the Society would not respond to e-mails in his case but that we would respond to letters sent to us by mail as appropriate. To the best of my recollection, during the course of this conversation, Mr. Dunn did not raise the issue of the complaint procedure for which he filed a complaint against me with the College three days later. I understand that the Mr. Dunn’s version of this conversation may differ from mine on some points.

My reply:

It is true that we had a telephone conversation which was in response to my voice mail I left to him. Pierre Viger did review with me how reports of child abuse are received and processed. And in that discussion he did state to me that when you are reporting child abuse against the agency itself, that report becomes an internal investigation called a complaint review. I was upset by this, as anyone would be, to find out that a report of child abuse against members of the agency are not taken through the normal intake process, rather they are dealt with as an internal complaint review. He did tell me that I required “reasonable grounds” to file a report of abuse, which I did give to him. Those reasonable grounds were that I had seen in an affidavit created by Stacey Segal, the girls’ social worker, that the girl was visibly upset when told she was not going to be able to see her mother anymore. The girl asked if she could still write letters to her mom, and visit with her Granny only to be ignored and denied. I also have, as my own reasonable grounds, my own experiences and the experiences of my brother with how it feels to be separated from those you love at the hands of the Children’s Aid Society. That pain has stayed with my brother and I today as adults, and has also caused my brother severe depression and alcoholism. Their decisions also contributed to the suicide of my birth mother, Mickey McLeod, who in her suicide note said she was sorry we were subjected to years of abuse while in foster care, and that she could do nothing to protect us. This is my own “reasonable grounds” to believe that this girl is suffering emotional harm due to the actions and decisions of the Ottawa CAS.

Pierre Viger also mentioned that there are no means for me to follow up on my report of child abuse to the agency, which was very disturbing, as I will be left wondering if the child is still being emotionally abused. Pierre Viger did mention to me that in this girl’s case, he would not be accepting emails from me, even when I told him I wanted to send a letter to the girl, via email, informing her of her rights in care. He said that in general they do accept email from people as a legitimate form of communication, but that in this little girl’s case, they were making an exception. Although he did say I would need client consents signed to release information about her to me, there is no way to contact this girl to ask for her permission to talk with her. Nor will they tell us the foster parents’ names so we can get permission from them.

He did however state that I could write a letter via normal post and that they would then consider whether or not to send it to the girl. I also did not mention this complaint to the College against him, as this complaint was not lodged until later, and was totally unrelated to that phone call and case either way.

Pierre wrote:

7         I understand that Mr. Dunn has not been satisfied with the Ottawa CAS’s responses to his various inquiries and that he was frustrated in his attempts to engage me or other staff members of the Ottawa CAS on his own terms. His determination in pursuing this course of action is however consistent with the stated position of the “Foster Care Council of Canada”;

“Where the Council determines that a child welfare agent is acting arbitrarily or abusively, the Council will endeavor to initiate positive, sweeping changes to the practices and attitudes of these professionals, at all levels within the field, from the front line workers, administrative executives by whatever means it can manage.” (See enclosed documentation p. 16)

My reply:

It is true that I am not satisfied with the Ottawa CAS’s response to my email inquiry, where I requested a copy of the written complaint procedure and was ignored and refused a copy, which again is in violation of Section 68(1) of the CFSA.

It is also true that my course of action is consistent with the stated position of The Foster Care Council of Canada which is to bring positive changes to the child welfare system for all children and families involved, and to ensure that rules are followed by the agencies, their staff and directors which are regulated by them.

Herein contains a list of SWSSW Code of Ethics infractions that Pierre Viger has violated in my opinion.

2)       A social worker or social service worker shall respect the intrinsic worth of the persons she or he serves in her or his professional relationships with them;

I feel that Pierre Viger has violated this section of the Code as denying me access to a copy of the written complaint procedure makes me feel as if he does not respect my intrinsic worth as a human being who is simply trying to help people who are experiencing difficulties in their lives.

3)       A social worker or social service worker shall carry out her or his professional duties and obligations with integrity and objectivity;

I do not believe that knowingly and willfully violating section 68(1) of the Child and Family Services Act is synonymous with carrying out her or his professional duties and obligations with integrity and objectivity.

8) A social worker or social service worker shall not provide social work or social service work services in a manner that discredits the profession of social work or social service work or diminishes the public’s trust in either profession.

Personally I have been extremely disappointed in Pierre Viger’s manner of service delivery to myself in this simple request, and can only wonder how he treats clients who are requesting much more serious services from him. I am led to believe by his actions, that this type of behavior is acceptable to the agency as a whole, since the complaint has also been sent to his superior Barbara Mackinnon, the Executive Director and a RSW I believe. To me, this looks very bad and is extremely discrediting to the profession of social work, which is unfortunate because I know there are lots of people in the service of Social Work who love their work, and do not wish to be tainted by such negative and abusive behaviors.

9)       A social worker or social service worker shall advocate for workplace conditions and policies that are consistent with this Code of Ethics and the Standards of Practice of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers;

I have not yet received any notice, or been made aware of any attempt on Pierre Viger’s behalf to advocate for conditions and policies that are consistent with the Colleges’ Code of Ethics and the Standards of Practice of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers with regard to this matter of the Society violating Section 68(1) of the CFSA in my case, or the case of other clients.

10)   A social worker or social service worker shall promote excellence in his or her respective profession;

11)   A social worker or social service worker shall advocate change in the best interest of the client, and for the overall benefit of society, the environment and the global community.

I personally do not believe that Pierre Viger’s behavior and treatment of me has the effect of promoting excellence in his profession, nor has he advocated in my opinion to make change in the best interest of the client, the overall benefit of society or the global community in perpetuating abusive and illegal activities.

Violations of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, Ontario Regulation 384/00, Professional Misconduct in my opinion.

2) Failing to meet the standards of the profession.

29) Contravening a federal, provincial or territorial law or a municipal by-law if,

i. the purpose of the law or by-law is to protect public health

36) Engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. O. Reg. 384/00, s. 2.

Violations of the Social Work And Social Service Work Act, 1998

23.6 (1) In the course of practising social work or social service work, a professional corporation shall not do, or fail to do, something that would constitute professional misconduct if a member did, or failed to do, it. 2001, c. 8, s. 235.

Prohibition, contraventions

(2) A professional corporation shall not contravene any provision of this Act, the regulations or the by-laws. 2001, c. 8, s. 235.

Same

(3) A professional corporation shall not contravene a term, condition or limitation imposed on its certificate of authorization. 2001, c. 8, s. 235.

Complaints Procedure page of the CAS Ottawa web site: which does not provide a copy of the written complaint review procedure for download.

Protecting Children and Youth PDF File on the Ottawa CAS web site with “Complaint Procedure” instructions. And again, no actual written complaint review process just instructions on how to obtain it (discretion is being used by Pierre Viger in deciding who to give the written complaint procedure to.)

( Located at: http://64.26.166.187/publications/35.pdf )

(Area of their web site I requested to have my Self-Help group added to and was ignored)

Original Complaint Submission sent to the College

First Receipt I got confirming he read my original email request:

Dated May 05 2004

Second Receipt I got confirming he read my email request with my acknowledgement and request for response which was again ignored.

Dated May 05th 2004

Third Receipt I got confirming he read my email request with my acknowledgement and request for response which was again ignored.

Dated May 06th 2004

Thank-you for taking the time to review this reply, and I am looking forward to hearing from you in the near future.

John Dunn