"WORSE, ITS RECENT DECISION IN THE BRENDA WAUDBY CASE AGAIN DEMONSTRATES OFFICIOUS AND INFLEXIBLE CONDUCT. WAUDBY WAS WRONGLY CHARGED AND CONVICTED OF MURDERING HER 21-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER. THIS THANKS TO THE BUNGLING OF PATHOLOGIST DR. CHARLES SMITH. YET WAUDBY’S APPLICATION TO THE CICB FOR COMPENSATION FOR HER PAIN AND SUFFERING WAS DISMISSED. APPARENTLY SHE DID NOT MEET ITS CRITERIA FOR COMPENSATION. IF THAT’S THE CASE THEN THE CRITERIA MUST BE RE-EXAMINED."
ALAN SHANOFF: THE TORONTO SUN;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (From Goudge Inquiry report); Jenna was born in Peterborough, Ontario. She died on January 22, 1997, at the age of 21 months. On January 21, 1997, at approximately 5 p.m., Jenna’s mother, Brenda Waudby, left Jenna in the care of a babysitter, J.D., who was 14 years old at the time. That night, Jenna was taken to a local hospital, where she died. Dr. Smith performed the autopsy and concluded that Jenna had died of blunt abdominal trauma. On September 18, 1997, the police charged Ms. Waudby with second-degree murder. In October 1998, following a preliminary hearing, the court committed Ms. Waudby to stand trial on the charge. On June 15, 1999, after receiving the opinions of several experts suggesting that Jenna had suffered her fatal injuries at a time when Ms. Waudby did not have care of Jenna, the Crown withdrew the charge. Two years later, in July 2001, the police began a reinvestigation of Jenna’s death. Ultimately, in December 2006, J.D. pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He was sentenced as a youth to 22 months in custody, followed by 11 months of community supervision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin is living on borrowed time," Alan Shanoff's Toronto Sun April 24, 2010 column begins, under the heading, "Ontario's ombudsman deserves another term."
""His five-year year term expired March 31 and the Ontario government is searching for a new ombudsman while Marin serves out a six-month temporary extension," the column continues.
"While Marin has reapplied for a second five-year term, it seems Premier Dalton McGuinty would rather find a replacement. But why?
What more could one have asked of Marin? Think about all of the areas he has examined and improved.
Do you pay property taxes? Do you purchase lottery tickets? Are you a cancer patient? Have you been a victim of a crime? Are you the parent of a special needs child? Did you have a baby in the last five years?
If so, your life or your rights have likely been improved due to Marin’s efforts.
His team has investigated long-term care facilities, the Ministry of Health’s funding of various drugs, the Family Responsibility Office, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, Legal Aid Ontario, the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services relationship with Tarion Warranty Corp., and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation. That’s an impressive list of accomplishments.
The Ontario Ombudsman fulfils a vital role in society. The Ombudsman’s raison d’etre is the investigation of complaints against government.
Aside from investigating systemic problems within government agencies, the Ombudsman also handles in excess of 10,000 individual complaints and inquiries each year.
All this with a budget of about $10 million annually.
Aside from Marin’s five years of experience on the job, his background obviously can’t be considered any sort of a handicap.
He has served as an assistant Crown Attorney, Director of the province’s Special Investigations Unit and as the Canadian Forces Ombudsman.
So why the need to dump Marin?
I suspect it has much to do with the embarrassment Marin regularly causes the Ontario government when he issues reports using his typically blunt language.
Expanded mandate
It also likely has a lot to do with Marin’s insistence that the Ombudsman’s mandate should be expanded to cover what he calls the MUSH sector: Municipalities, Universities, School boards, Hospitals and long-term care facilities, as well as children’s aid societies and police.
In his last annual report Marin argued, “(t)hese are areas where thrift, sensible government and good judgment are acutely required, yet the government of Ontario declines our help, and it is costing all of us.” Now let’s get back to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
In 2008 the Ombudsman issued a scathing report on the CICB calling it a colossal failure and criticizing its “officious and inflexible” conduct. As Marin stated, “(i)nstead of giving steadfast and urgent assistance, it trades in technicality and embraces delay.”
Things have improved at the CICB but not nearly enough. It still takes over two years for the average claim to travel from application to decision and the CICB’s maximum lump sum payment of $25,000 hasn’t been increased since it was instituted in 1971.
Worse, its recent decision in the Brenda Waudby case again demonstrates officious and inflexible conduct.
Waudby was wrongly charged and convicted of murdering her 21-month-old daughter. This thanks to the bungling of pathologist Dr. Charles Smith. Yet Waudby’s application to the CICB for compensation for her pain and suffering was dismissed. Apparently she did not meet its criteria for compensation.
If that’s the case then the criteria must be re-examined.
As Marin’s report complained “instead of providing relief, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board too often adds insult to injury.”
I’m sure Waudby would agree with that conclusion."
Teh column can be found at:
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/alan_shanoff/2010/04/23/13700691.html
Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;
