PUBLISHER'S VIEW: (Editorial); It's hard to imagine that The Government of Ontario did not see the possibility of a conflict of interest when it appointed Justice Judith Beaman to head the Motherisk Commission. As Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Hutchinson puts it in the following story by Toronto Star reporter Jacques Gallant: "From a legal ethics perspective, Beaman’s appointment as head of the commission seems to have the appearance of a conflict, said Osgoode Hall law professor Allan Hutchinson, who is not involved with the commission or Motherisk. “Somebody will easily be able to paint her report — however unjustified — by saying: ‘Look, she used to work for (Sick Kids),’ ” he said." That "somebody" could be any of the hundreds of families horribly affected by the flawed results of the sub-standard hospital lab operated by the famed hospital, such as Christine Rupert. The Star: "Christine Rupert, whose two daughters were removed at birth and later adopted out, wants answers from the government about Beaman. Her daughters remained in foster care because, at least in part, of Motherisk hair tests that showed Rupert was a heavy cocaine user — a finding she has always fiercely denied and has gone to great lengths to disprove. “I simply want to be assured that Justice Beaman was not involved in any way whatsoever with the previous problems at the Hospital for Sick Children,” she told the Star, referring to the Smith scandal and the pathologist’s association with the SCAN team. Her lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick, raised Rupert’s concern in a Jan. 17 letter to (Attorney General) Meilleur, but has yet to hear back." (Yes, it would be nice for the government to reply). To make matters worse, Beaman will be proceeding secretly, behind closed doors, until she finally issues her report two years from now. There is not even a provision that she report to the public about the decisions she has made and her progress from time to time - which could easily be done without violating the confidentiality of those who don't want their personal information released. And if all this isn't enough, just think of the unfair treatment being meted out by the Ontario Government to people affected by Motherisk who reside outside of Ontario and are therefore precluded from having their cases considered by the Commission - regardless of who is heading it. Beaman's appointment - even though she used to work for SickKids at a time when its SCAN (Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Unit) was under attack - is a serious conflict of interest. It is a cloud which will hang over the Commission - unless she can somehow convince Christine Rupert and hundreds of other affected parents that she will fiercely and fairly look after their interests - and their interests alone.
Harold Levy. Publisher. The Charles Smith Blog.
STORY: "Head of Motherisk probe had ties to Sick Kids Province sees no conflict, but retired judge did work for hospital’s controversial abuse team," by reporter Jacques Gallant, published by the Toronto Star on February 12, 2016.
PHOTO CAPTION: "Justice Judith Beaman, who will lead the second Motherisk commission."
GIST: "Questions are being raised about the retired
judge chosen by the provincial government to head a two-year commission
reviewing child protection cases that used flawed hair-test results from
the Hospital for Sick Children’s Motherisk laboratory. Justice Judith Beaman has prior legal
connections to Sick Kids, the Star has learned. While working as a
lawyer in private practice in the late 1980s and early 1990s, she
advised the hospital’s Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect team. The SCAN team would later come under fire for its actions during that period, after a public inquiry looked into cases by disgraced pathologist Charles Smith, who worked closely with SCAN members and whose findings led in some instances to wrongful convictions. “The government has complete confidence that
Justice Beaman’s career and experience as a judge and a lawyer will not
place her in a conflict with respect to her responsibilities as
commissioner,” said Christine Burke, a spokeswoman for Ontario
Attorney-General Madeleine Meilleur. Burke confirmed that Beaman, considered a
family law expert, provided advice to the SCAN team “to support
preparations for court appearances,” adding that it was over 25 years
ago and has no connection with the matters being dealt with at the
Motherisk commission. The commission, which began its work last month, did not make Beaman available for an interview.........The issue of Beaman heading the commission has
led to concern from the Criminal Lawyers’ Association and has been
raised in a letter to Meilleur from a lawyer representing a woman
affected by Motherisk. “Fairness and impartiality are cornerstones of
our justice system. As a result, judges must be and appear to be
unbiased,” said criminal defence lawyer Daniel Brown, a Toronto director
of the CLA. “There is no concern about the integrity or
impartiality of Justice Beaman, but because this is a public review, our
organization is very concerned that her decision might appear to be
coloured by her prior associations with Sick Kids Hospital. Christine Rupert, whose two daughters were removed at birth and later adopted out, wants answers from the government about Beaman. Her daughters remained in foster care because,
at least in part, of Motherisk hair tests that showed Rupert was a
heavy cocaine user — a finding she has always fiercely denied and has
gone to great lengths to disprove. “I simply want to be assured that Justice
Beaman was not involved in any way whatsoever with the previous problems
at the Hospital for Sick Children,” she told the Star, referring to the
Smith scandal and the pathologist’s association with the SCAN team. Her lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick, raised Rupert’s concern in a Jan. 17 letter to Meilleur, but has yet to hear back. “I have a duty to my client to ask questions
on her behalf,” she told the Star. “I do look forward to hearing back
from the government so that I can reassure my client. This is very
important to her.”.........Beaman’s name came up in 2008 at the Goudge Inquiry, which was looking into errors made by Smith in child death cases. Dr. Katy Driver, a member of the SCAN team,
told inquiry counsel Linda Rothstein that “Judy Beeman” would come in
about once a month and “we would discuss some of the concerns that we
would have had over different cases, different court appearances of
anyone of us,” according to a transcript. Driver is out of the country and could not be reached for comment by the Star. Rothstein’s questions to Driver followed a
discussion at the inquiry about a meeting of the SCAN team in which they
shrugged off a 1991 ruling by a judge who had acquitted a babysitter of
killing a baby. The verdict came after a number of forensic experts
disputed the evidence put forward by Smith and the SCAN team.........From a legal ethics perspective, Beaman’s
appointment as head of the commission seems to have the appearance of a
conflict, said Osgoode Hall law professor Allan Hutchinson, who is not
involved with the commission or Motherisk. “Somebody will easily be able to paint her
report — however unjustified — by saying: ‘Look, she used to work for
(Sick Kids),’ ” he said."
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/02/12/head-of-motherisk-probe-had-ties-to-sick-kids.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
