Hittrich Law

BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS

August 14, 2015

Jack J. Hittrich
Erin Haupt
Christopher Heslinga
Anupum K. Grewal

File No: P4 - 3630

Child Protection Practice & Policy Review

PO Box 5262
Victoria, B.C.
Dear Mr. Plecas :
Re:

J.P & as litigation Guardian for BT.G., K.G., BN.G., and P.G. v. HMTQ
and Review commissioned by MCFD

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 12, 2015, received by my office yesterday, the
day after you announced that you had contacted the family. This is the first contact that
my office has had from either the Provincial Government or you in the wake of Mr.
Justice Walkers second major judgment in this matter rendered on July 14, 2015, aside
from legal counsel indicating that the Director was appealing all of the judgment.
While my clients and my office are passionately committed to improving child protection
practice, particularly in the area of child sexual abuse, I am hereby respectfully
requesting that you, the Minister of Children and Family Development, and the
Provincial Government consider how the public can have any confidence in your alleged
independent review given that
a) You are now a designated Director under the Child, Family and Community
Service Act (CFCSA) and therefore the Defendant in the very case you are to
review;
b) The first objective of your review is to determine whether in this case, the
Director (that is social workers, legal counsel) acted appropriately, which is the
very issue Mr. Justice Walker already ruled on after 2 very lengthy trials, lasting a
total of 239 days;
c) You are not operating under any due process no subpoena power, no cross
examination, no right of reply, etc;
d) You are reviewing the very same faulty records (false Affidavits, misleading
report to Court, incomplete intakes, etc) that led to your experts deeply flawed
report; and
Suite 307- 5577 153A Street, Surrey, BC V3S 5K7
Phone: (604) 575-2274 Fax: (604) 575-2357
Email: jhittrich@hittrichlaw.com jacksla@hittrichlaw.com

e) You, as a designated Director, are appealing every part of Mr. Justice Walkers
decision and your report is to be delivered before the factum in the Court of
Appeal is even due.
By any common sense standard, your review of the JP case is fundamentally flawed
and appears to be a collateral attack on the judiciary and appears that the intent is to
interfere with the trial process. It seeks to address the very questions upon which there
have already been findings of fact. We are governed by the rule of law. A defendant
who has been chastised by the Courts who then tries to review its very own conduct on
his or her own to see if he or she did anything wrong, surely cannot have any credibility
in a fair and democratic society.
Mr. Justice Walkers latest decision makes it clear that the Director never really
accepted the findings of fact in the first trial about the father sexually abusing his
children. The Director chose not to follow a Supreme Court Order which was put in
place to protect 4 vulnerable children, specifically from sexual abuse, and led to the
sexual abuse of the youngest child while in your care (since you are now one with the
Defendants) and yet you are now looking into whether your actions were consistent
with legislation, policies and standards during the [Ministrys] contact with the family
during 2009 to 2010?
Ministry Information System (MIS) records are tainted and no one should have access
to them. They must be corrected through an appropriate process through the Privacy
Commissioner.
After the decision was delivered, no attempt was made to seek input from JP or her
counsel about this review.
JP and her children have filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner about you
looking at her and her childrens private records including a sealed court file. You have
since been designated as a full Director under the Act. This very act in response to JP
and her childrens complaint raises fundamental concerns about your role.
One of your staff, Mr. Berland, even had involvement with this file while acting as a
Deputy Representative of Children and Youth during the very period you are to
examine, arguably breaching s. 23 of the Representative of Children and Youth Act.
While your report would not be formally before the Court of Appeal, it would
undoubtedly receive significant media attention well before any arguments are even
considered. Court of Appeal judges cannot live in a vacuum. It would undermine the
integrity of the legal process.
My client doesnt want a political process where the minister appoints people to
rummage through her files. William Strickland did not even bother to record JPs calls
the day the children were disclosing the sexual abuse in December of 2009, or contact
the family doctor that reported the abuse, instead they flagged her as the problem. JP
understandably could not feel comfortable or supportive of this process.

Suite 307- 5577 153A Street, Surrey, BC V3S 5K7

Phone: (604) 575-2274 Fax: (604) 575-2357
Email: jhittrich@hittrichlaw.com jacksla@hittrichlaw.com

In view of the foregoing, we ask that you step down and that you, the Minister of MCFD
and the Premier issue a public apology to my client and her children for breaching their
privacy and this attempt to circumvent the Court process.
If you wish to save a childs life or ensure that this does not happen again, funds for
counselling of her choice would be a start. She should not be expected to use the very
system that is attacking her.
Most importantly you could stand with JP in her herculean effort to protect her children
where the Ministry failed and continues to fail her and her children.
Yours truly,
HITTRICH LAW
Per:
Jack Hittrich
Copies to:
Premier of British Columbia
Minister of Children and Family Development
Official Opposition
Representative of Children and Youth
Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner
Karen Horsman, Q.C., counsel for the Defendants and Appellants
Client

Suite 307- 5577 153A Street, Surrey, BC V3S 5K7

Phone: (604) 575-2274 Fax: (604) 575-2357
Email: jhittrich@hittrichlaw.com jacksla@hittrichlaw.com