It all gets so very convoluted

Share Button

If you have been checking New to the Site you will have noted that I added some information to the Father Carl Stone page.  The information came by way of an email contact and a few exchanges some time ago.  I had hoped for more information but I believe those who know more are not yet ready to talk. Perhaps in due course.

I decided therefore to carry on and post these additional glimpses into the life of Father Carl Stone.

And, something I had previously overlooked in a document – a “Carl Stone” is identified as one of the many persons seen around the home of probation officer Ken Seguin.

Is this Father Carl Stone?  I must check. It sounds like it, but no 100% sure on that.


Yesterday the Ontario Divisional Court granted the CAS a stay and will hear its arguments that Justice Glaude’s ruling that certain CAS documents can be made public violates the intent of the Section 75 (6) of the Child and Family Services Act. The hearings will apparently be conducted late January 2007.

Commission lead counsel Peter Engelmann seems to minimize the impact on inquiry proceedings of this latest foray to Divisional Court.  Not at all the response we saw from Justice Glaude on Friday past when the prospect of a judicial review was first raised.

We shall see.  It’s hard for we the public at this public inquiry to know or guess what the impact on proceedings and testimony might be or what is being hidden from view when we don’t have a clue what’s in those documents in the first place.  However, we do know that at the very least the hearings will demand the time and energy of the CAS legal team and, ditto the time and energy of parties which decide to argue pro or con the CAS stance.

However, that perhaps raises a thorny issue.  If a non-funded party wants to head off to Toronto to appeal or argue pro or con, fine.  Financing is a non-issue.

But what of the funded parties?

Appeals to Divisional Court are traditionally NOT covered by funding. Parties which are funded and want to appeal a decision are on their own.  However Justice Glaude broke tradition and set precedent when he granted Father Charles MacDonald funding to appeal a decision to Divisional Court. At the time Glaude said the precedent setting decision was not setting precedent.  He also granted a sort of shared funding for those funded parties which wanted to go to Toronto to argue against Father MacDonald.

What now?  Is getting funded to argue pro or con different than getting funded to appeal?

If no, will these documents be kept out of the public domain simply because the CAS can argue its case in Toronto unchallenged, and unchallenged only because funded parties with an interest in arguing against it lack the finances to do so?

Will Glaude grant funding anyway?

We’ll just have to wait and see where this one goes….

Oh my, it all gets so very convoluted 🙁

Enough for now,


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply