here. - Koskie Minsky LLP

ONTARIO 

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE 

Court File No. CV-09-376927CPOO 

B E T W E E N : 

MARILYN DOLMAGE AS LITIGATION GUARDIAN OF MARIE SLARK and JIM 

DOLMAGE AS LITIGATION GUARDIAN OF PATRICIA SETH 

Plaintiffs 

- and - 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO 

Defendant 

Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

(returnable February 8, 2013) 

THE PLAINTIFFS will make a motion to the Honourable Master Glustein on February 8, 

2013, at 10:00 a.m. or as soon after that time as the motion can be heard, at 393 University 

Avenue, Toronto, Ontario. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF HEARING: the motion is to be heard orally. 

THE MOTION IS FOR: 

a) an order that the Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario 

(“HMQ”) answer the questions improperly refused during the examination for 

discovery of Mr. Brian Low (“Low”), HMQ’s representative, as listed in the 

chart attached as Schedule “A”hereto, within 30 days; 

b) an order that the HMQ provide full and complete answers to the undertakings 

made during the examination of Low, as listed in the chart attached as 

Schedule “B”hereto, within 30 days; 

c) an order that Low re-attend at an examination for discovery to answer 

questions arising from the further answers provided in (a) and (b) above within 

90 days;

- 2 - 

d) an order for the production of the individual resident files of Lorne Joseph 

Gugins, Charles Fannon and John McIndless within 14 days; 

e) an order for the production of the individual resident files of John Hyato and 

John Fox within 14 days; 

f) an order requiring the defendant to produce, in Summation format, all 

documents located by virtue of its targeted searches completed to date of the 

“1000 series Individual Employee files”to the plaintiffs within 7 days; 

g) an order that HMQ deliver all documents noted in their answers to 

undertakings and listed in Schedule “C” hereto, to the plaintiffs, in 

Summation format, within 7 days; 

h) an order that HMQ deliver all documents erroneously produced in McKillop v 

HMQ (Court File No. CV-10-41191) and Bechard v HMQ (Court File No. CV- 

10-117343-00CP) and not already produced in this action, to the plaintiffs, in 


i) an order that HMQ deliver all relevant photographs recently located and not 

already produced in this action, to the plaintiffs, in Summation format, within 7 

days; 

j) an order requiring HMQ to deliver any further documents relevant to this 

action not specifically addressed in this order or in the current timetable, in 


k) an order that Low re-attend at an examination to answer questions arising from 

the production of any new documents produced by order of this court within 90 

days; 

l) an order striking the defendant’s statement of defence should it fail to comply 

with any of the orders above;

- 3 - 

m) the costs of this motion on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed and payable 

forthwith by HMQ to the plaintiffs; and 

n) such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may deem just. 

THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE: 

Undertakings and Refusals 

a) On February 21, 22, 24 and 25, 2012 and April 23, 24, and 25, 2012, Low 

attended to be examined for discovery as the representative of HMQ; 

b) During the course of his examination for discovery, a number of proper and 

relevant questions were asked and were refused or taken under advisement, as 

enumerated in Schedule “A”; 

c) In answers to undertakings dated September 4, 2012, HMQ failed to answer 

any of these questions; 

d) During the course of Low’s examination for discovery, a number of 

undertakings were provided by HMQ, certain answers to which are deficient, 

as enumerated in Schedule “B”; 

e) The plaintiffs are entitled to the requested answers and documentation and to 

ask Low questions arising from them as the information sought by the 

plaintiffs in the questions enumerated in Schedule “A” are relevant to the 

matters at issue in this action; 

Production of Documents 

f) Notice of this action was provided to HMQ in October 2008 pursuant to the 

Proceedings Against the Crown Act. The Statement of Claim in this action 

was issued April 21, 2009. The Honourable Justice Cullity certified this action 

as a class proceeding on July 30, 2010. Leave to appeal the certification 

decision was denied November 8, 2010;

- 4 - 

g) HMQ was previously ordered to produce all relevant documents in this action 

by June 13, 2011; 

h) After failing to do so, HMQ obtained an order extending that time to 

November 30, 2011; 

i) HMQ produced over 50,000 documents from July 2011 to December 2011; 

j) On September 4, 2012, 9 months after the deadline to produce relevant 

documents in this action, HMQ advised that it located further relevant 

documents; 

k) On October 4, 2012 HMQ delivered an additional 1600 documents and 

identified a number of categories of documents that HMQ still needed to 

review and produce; 

l) In addition, as part of its answers to undertakings, the HMQ identified certain 

documents, which were not produced on October 4, 2012 and have yet to be 

produced to the plaintiffs, a list of which is attached as Schedule “C”; 

m) On October 10, 2012 a timetable was set by Justice Archibald, which included, 

among other things, a timetable for the delivery of certain of the documents 

noted by the HMQ on October 4, 2012; 

n) On November 14, 2012 the HMQ, for the first time, advised: 

i) that documents relevant to this action were erroneously produced in 

McKillop v HMQ (Court File No. CV-10-41191) and Bechard v HMQ 

(Court File No. CV-10-117343-00CP) and needed to be produced in 

this action; and 

ii) 

that additional relevant photographs had been located and not yet 

produced;

- 5 - 

o) On July 8, 2012 Justice Horkins ordered HMQ to produce the individual 

resident files of over 70 class members. On June 1, 2012 the plaintiffs sought 

production of the individual resident files of an additional 200 class members 

which HMQ agreed to produce by October 15, 2012; 

p) HMQ has failed to produce the individual resident files of the class members 

John Hyato and John Fox; 

q) In addition, HMQ has refused to produce the individual resident files of three 

class members, Lorne Joseph Gugins, Charles Fannon and John McIndless, 

despite repeated requests stating that, by virtue of the settlement of those 

individuals’claims against HMQ those individuals are not class members and 

their files are not relevant to this action; 

r) Despite any settlement reached with the HMQ, Lorne Joseph Gugins, Charles 

Fannon and John McIndless are class members and their evidence of their 

experiences at HRC is relevant to this action. HMQ has provided no 

documentation suggesting that Lorne Joseph Gugins, Charles Fannon and John 

McIndless are contractually bound not to provide evidence of their 

experiences; 

s) HMQ has repeatedly violated court orders and their own agreements with 

respect to the production of documents; 

t) HMQ has repeatedly erred in producing and not-producing relevant 

documents; 

u) HMQ has failed to properly search its records in a timely fashion to produce all 

relevant documents in a reasonable time prior to trial; 

v) A timetable has been established and the trial in this action is scheduled to 

commence on the long trial list in Toronto in September 30, 2013; 

w) The plaintiffs are entitled to receive all relevant documents, in Summation 

format, in this action to permit them to review those documents and re-

- 6 - 

examine Low on such documents, if necessary, with sufficient time to prepare 

for trial; 

x) Rules 30, 31.06, 34.15 and 37 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. Reg. 

194, as amended; 

y) the Class Proceeding Act, 1992; and 

z) such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable 

Court permit. 

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the 

motion: 

a) the Affidavit of Jody Brown sworn November 23, 2012; 

b) the Affidavit of Claudia Doncaster sworn November 23, 2012; 

c) the pleadings and proceedings in this action; 

d) Transcripts from the examination for discovery of Low held on February 21, 

22, 24 and 25, 2012 and April 23, 24, and 25, 2012 (see accompanying Book 

of Transcripts); and 

e) such further and other material as counsel may advise and this Honourable 

Court permit.

- 7 - 

November 23, 2012 

KOSKIE MINSKY LLP 

900-20 Queen Street West 

Toronto, ON M5H 3R3 

Kirk M. Baert LSUC#:30942O 

Tel: (416) 595-2117 

Fax: (416) 204-2889 

Celeste Poltak LSUC#:46207A 

Tel: (416) 595-2701 

Fax: (416) 204-2909 

Lawyers for the Plaintiffs 

TO: 

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO 

Crown Law Office, Civil Law 

720 Bay Street, 8th Floor 

Toronto, ON M5G 2K1 

Robert Ratcliffe 

Tel: 416-326-4128 

Fax: 416-326-4181 

Lynne McArdle 

Tel.: 416-325-8435 

Sonal Gandhi 

Tel: 416 326-4146 

Lawyers for the Defendants

MARILYN DOLMAGE, et al. 

Plaintiffs 

and 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF 

THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO 

Defendant 

Court File No. CV-09-367927CP00 

ONTARIO 

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE 

Proceeding commenced at Toronto 

Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

PLAINTIFFS PHASE I DISCOVERY MOTION 

(RETURNABLE FEBRUARY 8, 2013) 

KOSKIE MINSKY LLP 

900-20 Queen Street West 

Toronto, ON M5H 3R3 

Kirk M. Baert LSUC#:30942O 

Tel: (416) 595-2117 

Fax: (416) 204-2889 

Celeste Poltak LSUC# 46207A 

Tel: (416) 595-2701 

Fax: (416) 204-2090 

Lawyers for the Plaintiffs

Schedule “A” 

REFUSALS 

Question 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Specific question Relevance Disposition by the 

Court 

Duty of Care –Resident Abuse 

1 2574 871 - 

872 

To advise whether it is the Crown's position that it owed a duty 

of care to the resident class over the full time frame to ensure 

that residents were not physically abused by staff or other 

residents. 

2 2575 872 To advise if the defendant owed a duty of care over the full 

time frame to ensure that residents were not sexually abused 

by staff or other residents. 

3 2580 874 To advise if it is the defendant's position that it owed a duty of 

care to the class over the full time frame to ensure that reports 

of any alleged criminal activity on the premises were reported 

to the Ontario Provincial Police. 

2 2581 874 To advise if the Crown owed a duty of care over the full time 

frame to ensure that standards of conduct for employees were 

implemented to ensure employees would not endanger 

residents. 

To ascertain the 

defendant’s position 

regarding the content of its 

duty of care. 




duty of care. 




duty of care. 




duty of care with respect 

to ensuring that employees 

would not endanger 

residents.

4 2584 875 To advise if the defendant owed a duty of care over the full 

time frame to ensure that complaints of physical or sexual 

abuse were pursued and investigated. 

5 2591 877 To advise if it's the defendant's position that it owed a duty of 

care to the resident class between 1976 and 2009 to provide for 

an ombudsman function to carry out independent reviews of 

abuse allegations. 

Resident Abuse Policies and Procedures 

6 1252 456 To provide a copy of the grievance referenced in paragraph 1 

of Document CR006547 (marked as Exhibit “H”). 

7 1531 528 - 

529 

8 1801 633 - 

634 

To identify the documents upon which the defendant relies to 

support the portion of its Statement of Defence (marked as 

Exhibit “B”) that asserts that during the class period, the 

institution had appropriate policies and procedures in place 

during the whole time-frame with respect to staff policies 

respecting resident abuse. 

With respect to para. 25 of the Statement of Defence (marked 

as Exhibit “B”) regarding mistreatment or abuse, to advise as 

to what facts and documents the defendant relies on to 

establish that it met the appropriate standard of care or 

fiduciary duty that would have been applicable during the class 

period in regard to the general method or system that was used 

by the defendant to (a) substantiate allegations of abuse, if the 

defendant did, and (b) taking the appropriate steps, including 

dismissal and reporting to authorities. 




duty of care. 




duty of care. 

To determine whether 

allegations of abuse were 

dealt with appropriately by 

the defendant. 

To determine the basis on 

which the defendant 

substantiates its claim that 

it met the standard of care 

with respect to staff 

policies respecting resident 

abuse. 





with respect of dealing 

with allegations of abuse.

9 1834 650 With respect to para. 69 of the Statement of Defence (marked 

as Exhibit “B”) regarding whether the Crown had knowledge 

or information of the allegations of abuse, mistreatment or 

neglect, to advise if the incidents that were in fact reported to 

HRC, were responded to adequately. 

3 2572 870 With respect to the last sentence of para. 71 of the Statement 

of Defence (marked as Exhibit “B”), to provide a list of all of 

the material facts the defendant relies on to support the 

assertion that all safeguards were in place. 

Employees Investigated for Abuse 

4 1336 478 - 

479 

To advise whether Mr. Low recalls someone named 

Thompson, who was dismissed, and then re-hired after a 

grievance. 

5 2449 839 Regarding CR030006 (marked as Exhibit “I”), to advise as to 

what occurred with Mr. Thompson’s employment with 

Huronia in terms of when it ended and under what 

circumstances. 

6 2458 842 Regarding CR197190 (marked as Exhibit “J”), to advise as to 

what happened to Mr. Scarlett’s employment with Huronia in 

terms of when it ended and under what circumstances. 







substantiates its claim in 

its statement of defence 

that it met the standard of 

care with respect to 

safeguards at HRC. 












the defendant.

7 2480 847 Regarding CR051586 (marked as Exhibit “K”), to advise as 

to what happened to Mr. Casey's employment with Huronia in 


8 2509 853 Regarding CR094478 (marked as Exhibit “L”), to advise as to 

what happened to Mr. Chew's employment with Huronia in 


9 2601 880 Regarding CR092370 (marked as Exhibit “M”), to advise as 

to what happened to Mr. Wood's employment with Huronia in 


10 2707 907 Regarding CR097722 (marked as Exhibit “N”) to advise as to 

what occurred to this particular employee’s employment with 



11 2795 928 Regarding CR070538 (marked as Exhibit “O”), to advise as 

to what occurred with Milo Billyard’s employment with 



12 2852 940 Regarding CR104946 (marked as Exhibit “P”), to advise as to 

what occurred to Mr. Hopkin's employment with Huronia in 


13 2863 942 - 

943 

Regarding CR109422 (marked as Exhibit “Q”), to advise as 

to what occurred to Mr. Thonfeld's employment with Huronia 

in terms of when it ended and under what circumstances. 




























the defendant.

14 2895 950 Regarding CR109385 (marked as Exhibit “R”), to advise as to 

what occurred to Mr. Szukalaski's employment with Huronia 


15 2908 953 - 

954 

16 2909 - 

2911 

954 - 

955 

To advise as to what occurred, other than with respect to the 

letter at CR089304 (marked as Exhibit “S”), to Patrick Kirk's 

employment at Huronia. (i.e. when it ceased and under what 

circumstances) 

Regarding CR089304 (marked as Exhibit “S”), to advise as to 

what if anything, Huronia or the Ministry did to advise other 

staff that the allegations which were being investigated were 

not appropriate conduct for staff members. 

17 2943 963 Regarding CR089400 (marked as Exhibit “T”), to advise as to 

what occurred to Mr. Rick Lekic’s employment with Huronia 


18 2951 964 Regarding CR105881 (marked as Exhibit “U”), to advise as to 

what occurred to Fritz Demunnik's employment with Huronia 


19 2953 965 Regarding CR105881 (marked as Exhibit “U”), to advise as to 

what occurred to Ron Martin’s employment with Huronia, in 


20 2977 970 Regarding CR109484 (marked as Exhibit “V”), if Kathy 

White was not terminated or let go as a result of this 

investigation, to advise when her employment ended, and 

under what circumstances. 




























the defendant.

Behaviour Modification Policies and Procedures 

21 1292 466 To advise as to what action was taken to ensure that staff 

members followed the instructions set out in the last paragraph 

of CR041589 (Memorandum dated May 18, 1978) (marked as 

Exhibit “W”) regarding a further review of the existing 

interim Behaviour Modification Guidelines. 

22 1329 477 To advise whether approval was generally sought when using 

mechanical restraints, as set out on page 2 of CR125314 

(marked as Exhibit “X”). 

23 1341 479 To identify all the versions of the restraint policies that are 

similar to document CR125314 (marked as Exhibit “X”) that 

have been in effect after April 30, 1982 until 2009. 

24 1354 484 To advise whether the policy CR129427 (marked as Exhibit 

“Y”) was ever revised and updated after 1983. 

25 1359 486 To advise whether document CR155044 (marked as Exhibit 

“Z”) is a different policy from document CR129427 (marked 

as Exhibit “Y”), and if so, to produce copies of all the revised 

versions of document CR155044 from December 1983 to 

2009. 

To determine what action 

was taken at a systemic 

level to ensure compliance 

with directives respecting 

behaviour modification. 

To determine whether the 

defendant was in breach of 

its duty to residents with 

respect to compliance with 

restraint policies. 





restraint policies. 





behaviour modification 

policies. 






policies.

26 1414 500 To identify the doc ID for the June 1978 policy that was 

replaced by CR160791 (marked as Exhibit “AA”) as 

identified in paragraph 1 of that document. 

27 1451 508 To identify versions of the policy found at document 

CR160791 (marked as Exhibit “AA”) after 1987 to 2009. 

28 1486, 

1488 

515 - 

516 

To locate and identify document D-2000 "Behaviour, Crisis 

Management, Restraint Usage" dated October 1, 1996 as 

referenced on page 11 of document CR059566 (marked as 

Exhibit “BB”), and advise whether it is the first iteration of 

this policy. If it was not the first iteration of the policy, to 

identify the policies that preceded it and produce copies, and to 

locate and identify the revised or updated versions of 

document D-2000 dated December 1, 1997. 

Duty of Care –Staffing Levels, Training, Qualifications and Supervision 

29 1614 - 

1615 

570 - 

573 

To provide the material facts that the defendant relies on in 

support of paras. 7 and 8 of the Statement of Defence (marked 

Exhibit “B”) to substantiate that grouping individuals with 

mental illness and social problems together with individuals 

who had developmental disabilities was commensurate with 

the standard of care of the day. 






policies. 






policies. 






policies. 





with respect to grouping 

residents together.

30 2578 873 To advise if it's the defendant's position that it did not owe a 

duty of care to the class for the full time frame, to ensure that 

prevailing standards regarding staff to patient ratios were 

adhered to. 

31 2585 875 To advise if the defendant owed a duty of care to the residents 

between 1945 and 2009 to ensure that the employees were 

qualified and subjected to appropriate criminal and other 

background checks. 

32 2593 878 To advise as to what the defendant's position is on whether it 

owed a duty of care to the residents between 1976 and 2009, to 

increase the level of evening supervision over residents 

generally. 


owed a duty of care to the residents between 1976 and 2009, to 

provide employees with training courses to ensure their proper 

understanding of residents' rights, discipline and policies. 


owed a duty of care to the residents between 1976 and 2009 to 

designate certain units as "psychiatric" for residents with 

serious behavioural problems. 


owed a duty of care to the class between 1976 and 2009 to 

ensure that staff-to-resident ratios were raised to the 1971 

AAMD Standards. 


defendant’s position with 

respect to the contents of 

its duty of care respecting 

staff to patient ratios. 




duty of care respecting the 

hiring of employees. 





supervision of residents. 




duty of care with respect 

to training employees. 





the care of residents. 





staff to patient ratios.

Staff training and Qualifications, Policies and Procedures 

36 1792 629 - 

630 

To advise as to what specific material facts and documents the 

defendant relies on in support of para. 24 of the Statement of 

Defence (marked as Exhibit “B”) for the entire class period. 

In particular, to advise of any facts or documents the defendant 

relies on that deal with when there was a material change in 

the method that the defendant used to adequately and 

appropriately train and supervise employees of Her Majesty 

who worked at HRC. 

Defendant’s Compliance with Standard of Care 

37 1803 - 

1806 

635 - 

638 

To advise as to what facts or documents the defendant relies 

on in support of the plea set out in the Statement of Defence 

(marked as Exhibit “B”) regarding whether the acts of Ontario 

were, in the entire class period, consistent with the approach of 

other provinces of Canada with respect to the standard of care. 

In addition, to advise as to what efforts Ontario might have 

made during that time period to determine whether other 

provinces were doing more or less than what the Ontario 

facilities were doing. In particular, to determine if HRC was 

consistent or better than what other provinces were doing. 





with respect to training 

and supervision of 

employees. 





with respect to the 

operation of HRC.

38 1823 643 - 

644 

39 1827 647 - 

648 

40 2560 - 

2562 

865 - 

866 

To advise if there is anything beyond that which has already 

been discussed or set out in the Statement of Defence (marked 

as Exhibit “B”) that is relied on in support of para. 57 in terms 

of how the defendant carried out the functions referred to in 

this paragraph. 

To advise as to what facts the defendant relies on in support of 

the pleas in paras. 57 - 65 of the Statement of Defence (marked 

as Exhibit “B”), and to advise as to how the defendant intends 

to prove those facts. 

Regarding para. 62 of the Statement of Defence (marked as 

Exhibit “B”), to advise as to the material facts relied on to say 

that the defendant's conduct from 1945 to 2009 met the 

standard of care, and to advise as to what the defendant's 

position of what that standard of care was during the class 

period. 


there is anything beyond 

that which has already 

been revealed to the 

plaintiffs on which the 

defendant substantiates its 

claim that the defendant’s 

funding, operation 

management, 

administration and control 

of HRC was to the benefit 

of the residents of HRC. 






care. 






care. 

Duty of Care –Fiduciary Duty 

41 1833 649 To advise as to whether the defendant concedes that if the 

events described in para. 67 of the Statement of Defence 

(marked as Exhibit “B”) occurred, whether this would 

constitute either a breach of the duty of care or a breach of the 

fiduciary duty or both. 




its duty of care.

42 2571 869 - 

870 

With respect to the last sentence of para. 63 of the Statement 

of Defence (marked as Exhibit “B”), to advise of the 

defendant's legal position as to why such a fiduciary duty did 

not exist, or whether it was or was not owed at different times. 



respect to whether it owed 

a fiduciary duty to the 

plaintiffs. 

Duty of Care - Generally 

43 2586 875 - 

876 

44 2576 872 - 

873 

45 2589 - 

2590 

With respect to duties that the defendant potentially owed 

between 1971 and 2009, to advise as to the defendant's 

position on whether or not it owed a duty of care between 1971 

and 2009 to ensure that the American Association on Mental 

Deficiency Standards were adhered to. 

To advise whether it is the Crown's position that there is no 

common law duty of care owed in the circumstances. 

876 To advise if the defendant owed a statutory duty of care to the 

resident class between 1974 and 2009 to satisfy the following 

minimum statutory requirements for the facility: staff 

supervision, nutrition, sleeping arrangements, protocol for 

physical restraints, and the hiring of only qualified employees. 

46 2597 879 To advise whether the defendant owed a duty of care during 

1976 to 2009 to begin to immediately phase down the resident 

population. 




its duty of care to the 

plaintiffs respecting the 

AAMD standards. 



respect to the existence of 

a duty of care owed to the 

plaintiffs. 





plaintiffs. 





plaintiffs.

47 1832 649 To advise as to whether the defendant concedes that if the 

events described in para. 66 of the Statement of Defence 

(marked as Exhibit “B”) occurred, whether this would 

constitute either a breach of the duty of care or a breach of the 

fiduciary duty or both. 

48 2583 875 To advise if the defendant owed a duty of care to the class over 

the full time frame to ensure that residents were clothed and 

sanitary. 

49 646 - 647 233 - 

235 

To advise if it is Mr. Low's knowledge and understanding that 

no one was ever kept at Huronia against their will. 





the care and supervision of 

residents. 





the care of residents. 


defendant was in 

compliance with 

appropriate discharge 

policies.

Funding Decisions 

50 1852 658 - 

659 

With respect to para. 61 of the Statement of Defence (marked 

as Exhibit “B”), to produce all documentation which would 

establish that the decisions referred to in this paragraph were 

made at the highest levels of government, including any 

cabinet minutes or documents that would be in existence for 

the relevant time period. The plaintiff takes the position that to 

the extent that any cabinet privilege would apply to those 

minutes or documents, either the privilege no longer attaches 

because of (a) the passage of time under the applicable statute, 

or (b) the defendant has waived the privilege by pleading this 

defence and putting the Crown's state of mind in issue with 

respect to those at the highest levels of government, which the 

plaintiff presumes would include the premier and members of 

the executive council. The undertaking includes production of 

all cabinet documents from any time after 1945 up until 2009 

which in any way relate to decisions about the funding of HRC 

as outlined in para. 61. 

To determine the basis for 

the assertion that 

inadequacies at Huronia 

were the result of funding 

decisions made the 

government. 

Duty of Care - Residential Facilities 

51 2577 873 To advise if it's the Crown's position that the defendant owed a 

duty of care over the full time frame to ensure that the resident 

population did not exceed the approved bed capacity. 

52 2579 873 - 

874 

To advise if it's the Crown's position that it owed a duty of care 

to the class over the full time frame to ensure that the physical 

facility didn't present fire hazards to the residents. 





population levels. 





to fire hazards.

53 2582 874 To advise if the defendant owed a duty of care to the class over 

the full time frame to ensure that the physical facility was 

sanitary. 

Duty of Care - Medical Treatment 


owed a duty of care to the residents between 1976 and 2009 to 

appoint a third party outside the Ministry to conduct an 

independent review of medications dispensed to residents. 

55 3385 1098 Regarding CR035920 (marked as Exhibit “CC”), to make 

enquiries and provide a copy of the policy from Mental 

Retardation Services branch regarding the recommendation for 

sterilizations or abortion as referred to in paragraph 2. 

56 3386 1098 Advise whether there were any other policies other than 

CR035920 (marked as Exhibit “CC”) at the Ministry of Health 

or Ministry of Community and Social Services with respect to 

sterilization of residents. 





sanitation of the facility. 




its duty of care to ensure 

appropriate medical care. 






sterilization of residents. 






sterilization of residents.

Staffing Levels 

57 3273 1065 

- 

1066 

With respect to staffing from 1945 to 2009, to advise as to how 

many direct care staff and professional staff there were from 

1945 until 2009, using a consistent date (preferably one that 

matches the ones used for the resident population undertaking). 

Within those numbers, to identify direct vs. non-direct staff and 

professional staff over that time period. 


defendant’s staffing 

levels throughout the 

class period.

Schedule “B” 

DEFICIENT UNDERTAKINGS 

Question 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Specific undertaking Crown’s Response Deficiency Disposition by 

the Court 

Defendant’s Compliance with Standard of Care 

1 1178 426 Advise as to which of the 

specific recommendations 

set out in the Willard 

report (marked as Exhibit 

“DD”) were not complied 

with by the Crown. 

Willard was appointed pursuant to section 

6 of the Ministry of Community and Social 

Services Act. Section 6 authorizes the 

appointment but does not oblige the 

Minister in any way as it relates to the 

recommendations or report that may issue 

as a result. However, all 69 

recommendations from the Willard report 

were considered and responded to. The 

intent of each recommendation was 

considered as specific decisions were 

made. The recommendations were just 

that, recommendations for consideration, 

not directives that were required to be 

followed exactly. 

This answer is not 

responsive to the 

undertaking. The 

answer should set 

out how each 

recommendation 

was specifically 

complied with, or 

not. Documents 

CR146351 

CR192119 not 

produced. 

See documents CR006627, CR007077, 

CR007100 (which will be provided under 

separate cover), CR007105, CR030990, 

CR032764, CR034753 (which will be 

provided under separate cover), 


separate cover), CR034770, CR044136, 

CR051312, CR051313, CR051584, 

CR051585, CR052584, CR071336,

CR084103, CR084134, CR084135, 

CR136817, CR137767, CR137750, 

CR142345, CR142351, CR142452, 


separate cover), CR142474 (which will be 

provided under separate cover), 

CR142483, CR142525, CR142556 (which 

will be provided under separate cover), 

CR144102, CR144103, CR146336, 

CR146351, CR146448, CR146865, 

CR186192, CR187266, CR192119

2 1180 426 - 

427 

Advise as to which of the 

specific recommendations 

as set out in the Welch 


“EE”) and Williston 


“FF”) were not complied 

with. 

The Welch paper, “Community Living for 

the Mentally Retarded in Ontario –a New 

Policy Focus”was a public consultation 

paper that introduced the government’s 

new policy focus for the delivery of 

services based on the concept of 

community living and sought public input. 

The paper focused on community service 

development and addresses the policy 

shift from a facility-based service model 

to one based in the community. While 

there were no recommendations directed 

toward any specific facility, there was a 

response to the recommendations 

proposed in the paper. 

This answer is not 


undertaking. This 

answer is not 


undertaking. The 

answer should set 

out how each 

recommendation 

was specifically 

complied with, or 

not. 

All of the recommendations from the 

Williston report were considered and 

responded to. The intent of each 

recommendation was considered as 

specific decisions were made. The 

recommendations were just that, 

recommendations for consideration, not 

directives that were required to be 

followed exactly.

3 3350 - 

3353 

1087 

- 

1089 

Regarding CR032989 

(marked Exhibit “GG”) 

to advise as to what was 

done in response to the 

following 

recommendations set out 

in the report. 

Particularly to advise what 

ultimately occurred and 

when. If nothing was 

done, to advise why not. 

See attached Schedule “E”. 

Page 5, Bullet 3: “that the Ministry of 

Community and Social Services evaluate 

present pharmacological practices, 

particularly the use of psychotropic 

medications, and examine the potential of 

new techniques in promoting effective 

pharmacotherapy 

Response: In the following months and 

years the pharmacological practices at 

HRC were evaluated and new policies and 

procedures relating to pharmacotherapy 

were established. 

In the fall of 1980, the Ministry engaged 

Dr. C.W. Gowdey, Professor of 

Pharmacology at the University of 

Western Ontario to prepare a study of 

Drug Therapy and dispensing practices at 

HRC and Mr. R. Builder, a Consultant in 

Pharmacy to do a complete review of 

pharmacy related procedures at HRC and 

other facilities (CR078448). The Gowdey 

report and its recommendations were later 

forwarded to P.A.C. and the Health 

Services Advisory Committee with a view 

to ultimately developing a set of 

recommendations for general distribution 

(CR043076)... 

Not responsive. 

Were 

“recommendation 

s for general 

distribution” 

ultimately 

developed and 

implemented? 

Document 

CR043076 not 

provided.

4 3369 1094 Regarding CR001673 

(marked Exhibit “HH”), 

to advise as to what was 

done, if anything, in 

response to the 

recommendation referred 

to on page 8 re: 

mandatory reporting in 

facilities and government. 

Duty of Care –Resident Abuse 

5 1841 653 Advise what facts and 

legal position will be 

relied upon for paragraph 

70 of the Statement of 

Defence (marked as 

Exhibit “B”). 

As noted in CR001667 and CR001670, 

MCSS already had in place mandatory 

reporting by staff in Developmental 

Services programs in both facilities and 

the community. There were clear 

standard, brief plain language protocols 

and procedures to deal with abuse and 

neglect in facilities (CR049133 and 

CR049145) and standards for reporting in 

the community as well (CR049218 and 

CR109221). The interministerial 

committee ensured information was 

shared across Ministries and each 

Ministry then developed, revised or 

confirmed their own reporting procedures. 

As admitted by plaintiff’s counsel at 

qq.1838-1840, the plaintiffs have chosen 

to frame their claim as one based on 

systemic negligence claim, not individual 

acts of abuse. As such, they have not put 

the Crown's vicarious liability in relation 

to each alleged discrete incident of abuse 

into issue. As the plaintiffs have limited 

their claim to systemic negligence, the 

inquiry into alleged Crown liability is also 

so limited. 

Not responsive. 

Answer states 

what was in 

place, not what 

was done, if 

anything, in 

response to this 

recommendation. 

Document 

CR109221 not 

provided. 

Unresponsive. No 

facts have been 

provided to 

support paragraph 

70 of the 

Statement of 

Defence.

6 1845 654 Advise if there are any 

reports, articles or studies 

referred to in the 

Amended Statement of 

Claim (marked as Exhibit 

“A”) that the Crown did 

not become aware of at 

the time of their 

publications. 

By virtue of the fact that the Williston, 

Welch and Willard reports were Crown 

commissioned reports, the Crown would 

have been aware of their publication. 

In para. 18 of the claim, there is a 

reference to an inspection by Dr. 

Hamilton in 1956. Dr. Hamilton was the 

superintendent of the then Ontario 

Hospital School at that time. An 

inspection report was prepared by Dr. 

Sneddon (CR006485) and provided to Dr. 

Hamilton, although it does not seem that 

this report was published. 

We were unable to locate any documents 

that show whether the Crown was aware 

of the Pierre Berton article entitled 

"What's Wrong at Orillia - Out of Sight, 

Out of Mind" at the time of publication. 

However, the Crown was aware of an 

interview with a woman who claimed to 

be have been brutalized in Ontario 

institutions, Jacqueline Lucic, on the 

Pierre Berton Show in 1966. 

Without more specificity, the Crown 

cannot answer whether it was aware of the 

media publications described in para. 29 

of the statement of claim at the time of 

their publication. 

Unresponsive. 

What specificity 

is required?

Resident Abuse Policies and Procedures 

7 1295 468 Advise whether a past 

administrator with whom 

HMQ has contact recalls 

who would have received 

document CR041589 

(marked as Exhibit “W”). 

We have not received a specific answer to 

this from our initial inquiries. However, it 

should be noted that the memo sent by Dr. 

R.A. Farmer was very broadly distributed 

and all staff were advised that this form of 

action will not be condoned. Mr. Don 

Cornish, Administrator at the time, stated 

in his press release on May 26th, 1978, 

that the standards for individual programs 

and care do not permit staff taking it upon 

themselves to administer discipline of this 

nature and that all staff have been directed 

not to use such an action again. The 

reported incident and press release 

received significant media coverage in the 

Orillia area where staff resided. 

Defendant needs 

to follow-up. 

8 2042 715 To advise when washing 

floors with a toothbrush in 

pyjamas would be 

considered inappropriate 

treatment. 

- No answer 

provided.

5 2323 798 Advise as to the outcome 

of the McIndless action 

referred to in CR199055 

(marked as Exhibit “II”). 

6 2355 - 

2356 

807 Regarding CR198580 

(marked as Exhibit “JJ”) 

to advise if there was 

anything that arose and 

was dealt with on a 

system-wide basis. 

The claim was settled. Pursuant to the 

terms of the Final Release, the settlement 

is confidential. Subsequently, the action 

was dismissed for delay by the registrar 

pursuant to rule 48.14 for failure to bring 

the action to a conclusion or set it down 

for trial within the time prescribed by 

Rule. 48.14 or such other time as was 

prescribed by order and has not cured the 

default. Order Dismissing Action for 

Delay dated October 16, 2008 under Court 

File No. CV-06-309976-0000 

(CR204453) will be provided under 

separate cover. 

As a result of these allegations of abuse 

made by former residents related to 

incidents that occurred in excess of 10 

years prior, it was determined that these 

allegations should be reported to police in 

the same manner that allegations received 

in the present would be. 

Unresponsive 

answer. Who is 

the settlement 

confidential 

between? 

Unresponsive. 

Was there any 

system-wide 

response?

11 2669 899 Regarding CR014216 

(marked as Exhibit 

“LL”), to advise as to 

what was done by Huronia 

or the Ministry in 

response to these 

allegations to advise all 

staff that this type of 

conduct was not 

appropriate. 

The GSB decision (CR204470 to be 

provided under separate cover) reflects 

that Mr. McGowan was dismissed on 

August 1, 1985 and reinstated by the GSB 

on February 24, 1987. Mr. McGowan 

was offered a position by letter 

(CR204484 to be provided under sepe 

cover) as a telephone operator effective 

November 18, 1987, being paid as an 

RC2. Mr. McGowan resigned from HRC, 

Feb 20, 1989. Minutes of settlement dated 

March 3, 1989 are found in CR204485 (to 

be provided under separate cover). 

Duty of Care –Staffing Levels, Training, Qualifications and Supervision 

12 1429 503 - 

504 

Advise when the 

Behavioural Standards 

Review Committee was 

created. 

A Behaviour Standards Review 

Committee was directed to be established 

in facilities in 1971/72. This committee 

reported to the Professional Advisory 

Committee within the facility. The 

Behaviour Standards Review Committee’s 

mandate was to monitor occurrences, 

identify problems and make 

recommendations. In 1977 the 

Administrator of HRC sent a memo to 

Georgian College asking for someone to 

sit as a member of the Behaviour 

Standards Review Committee which had 

been established earlier CR178462. 

Answer not 

responsive to 

question. 

Documents 

CR204470, 

CR204484, and 

CR204485 not 

provided. 

Not responsive – 

when was this 

Committee 

established? 

Document 

CR178462 not 

produced.

13 3122 1020 Regarding CR044315 

(marked Exhibit “MM”) 

(page 1, item 3.), to advise 

how long the 

"Independent Functioning 

Index" was used at 

Huronia. 

Employees Investigated for Abuse 

14 2882 947 Regarding CR137686 


“KK”) to advise, what, if 

anything, happened in 

terms of discipline or 

corrective action to the 

employees who were 

identified in the 

investigation report with 

respect to the 

misappropriation of 

personal needs 

allowances. 

Residents Workers 

15 1952 - 

1954 

694 To advise whether 

residents were receiving 

less than minimum wage 

for work in the kitchen up 

until 2009. 

The IFI was developed in 1974/75 and 

formally adopted by HRC in 1976. It was 

used in to the 1990’s. 

“In to the 1990’s” 

is not sufficiently 

specific. 

- No answer 

provided. 

There are a number of documents that 

relate to residents working in the kitchen 

and documents related to incentive pay. 

After a thorough search we are unable to 

come up with a document that describes 

exactly what a resident would receive as a 

stipend or incentive pay. The focus was 

on skill building, promoting self worth 

and increasing self confidence. 

Unresponsive, 

should also 

include document 

reference.

16 2008 706 To make inquiries to see if 

a policy can be located 

with respect to how a 

stipend would be 

calculated for the 

vocational training 

programs. 

The “stipend”referred to by Mr. Low was 

used as program incentives for 

residents. These payments were made to 

residents involved in vocational services 

and other work activities. Rates were set 

by the Vocational Services Committee. It 

should be noted that in April 1989, 

Personal Needs Allowance (PNA) was 

introduced to residents of Schedule I 

facilities. This allowance was provided 

according to criteria established under the 

legislation; there were strict limits to a 

resident’s income and assets in order to 

maintain the allowance. There are 

documents which reflect the approach to 

and context for program incentive 

payments to residents. See CR063818 

(which will be provided under separate 

cover), CR031236, CR063902, 

CR153181. 

Unresponsive. 

Advise if a policy 

has been located.

Class Membership Information 

7 1241 454 Provide a final list of the 

class members who were 

in attendance at Huronia 

between 1945 and 2009 

with their final position 

with respect to the full 

class member list. 

A final list was provided to counsel for 

the plaintiffs on June 22, 2012. It is 

HMQ’s position that any individual 

identified on the list as an “out-patient” 

(i.e., identified in yellow highlighting) 

was not a resident of the facility and 

should not be considered to be part of the 

“resident class”. Similarly, any individual 

identified on the list as being deceased 

prior to April 21, 2007 is not a member of 

the “resident class”. 

We have identified one individual who 

was inadvertently omitted from the June 

22, 2012 resident list. The following 

entries for Joseph Marcel Richard ROY 

should be added: 

Surname: Roy 

Given: Joseph Marcel Richard 

DOB: 1/11/1933 

Status: 

Date of Death : 

First Adm Date: 

First Disc. Date: 

2nd Adm Date: 

2nd Disc. Date: 

3rd Adm Date: 

3rd Disc. Date: 

4th, 5th, 6th, 7-18th Adm. Dates: 

# of Admin: 1 

Final ADM Date: 7/16/1945 

Defendant shall 

produce an 

updated list.

Final Disc Date: 12/7/1947 

Discharged to: Disch from Probation 

Last Known Address: 

City: 

Postal Code: 

We have identified an Excel created error 

in a few entries on the June 22, 2012 list. 

It automatically converted a few dates of 

birth to the 2000s from the 1900s entries 

made. We recommend that you note to 

substitute the prefix “19”for any 2000 

DOB dates that are encountered. The 

ones we have identified are: 

MOUN 

TNEY 

Paul 

Frederic 

k 

Chas 

Joseph 

10/06/1905 

MORRI 

04/11/1928 

S 

SAUVE Rita 03/08/1929

8 3271 1064 To identify the sex of the 

population, the age ranges 

of the population, and the 

level of the disability 

classification for that 

population from 1945 to 

2009, using a consistent 

date (ie. daily average or 

measured at the same date 

each year). 

Duty of Care –Fiduciary Duty 

9 1794, 

1795 

631 - 

632 

Advise if the facts will be 

identical for the defence 

of the breach of fiduciary 

duty claim and the 

negligence claim and if 

there are any additional 

facts that will be used for 

either claim, identify 

them. 

Rosenfeld states that he can provide 

documents they have identified, but we 

would need to confirm the numbers 

The facts will not be identical in the two 

defences given that there are different 

elements comprising these two causes of 

action. At this stage, it is difficult to 

determine what specific facts the Crown 

will rely upon as the plaintiffs have the 

onus of proof and much will depend on 

which facts the plaintiffs rely on for each 

cause of action. 

Answer is not 

responsive. 

“Rosenfeld”did 

not advise of such 

in transcripts. 

Unresponsive. 

Operation of HRC 

10 3188 1039 Regarding CR001898 

(marked Exhibit “NN”) 

(para. 1) to provide a copy 

of the "Provincial 

Auditor's 1990 Report on 

Schedule 1 Facilities". 

- No answer 

provided.

11 3387 1099 To provide the contact 

information of all the 

administrators of Huronia 

Regional Centre from 

1945 to 2009, including 

the years that they were in 

that position and to advise 

as to whether they are 

deceased or not. 

See Schedule “G” 

“Unknown” 

whether many 

individuals alive 

or deceased. 

Further inquiries 

are necessary. 

12 3388 1099 

- 

1100 

To provide the last known 

contact information of the 

individuals who the 

administrators directly 

reported to from 1945 to 

2009, To also include the 

number of years in their 

position, and information 

as to whether they are 

deceased or not. 

See Schedule “G” 

“Unknown” 

whether many 

individuals alive 

or deceased. 

Further inquiries 

are necessary. 

Documents Not Produced 

13 736 258 Provide a list of 

documents that evidence 

the reason why the 

educational programs at 

Huronia were terminated, 

including all documents 

that would have reached 

the Deputy Minister with 

respect to that decision. 

CR081028, CR090897 

Documents 

CR081028, 

CR090897 not 

produced.

14 1270 460 - 

461 

Advise whether there was 

a Policy Guideline for the 

Management of Disturbed 

Behaviour at Huronia 

prior to 1975. 

Policy Guidelines regarding the 

Management of Disturbed Behaviours 

have been present at Huronia in various 

forms since the early years of its 

existence. The records that were located 

are attached in Schedule “A”. 

Schedule “A”: 

Policy referred to 

in CR065390 not 

provided. 

Policy guidelines 

referred to in 

CR177335 not 

provided. 

CR065390 1969 Staff on Emotionally 

Disturbed Unit- (establishes unit, so 

policy must have been in place) 

CR177335 1972 Mental Health Estimates 

Book- 1972- Contents. This document 

indicates that the staff at the Branch were 

involved in the preparation of the policy 

guidelines for the management of 

disturbed behaviour. 

15 1358 485 - 

486 

Advise what the 

difference is between 

CR155044 (marked as 

Exhibit “Z”) and 

CR129427 (marked as 

Exhibit “Y”). 

CR129427 is incorporated into 

CR155044. However, CR155044 also 

incorporates AR-1514 (Accident and 

Injury Report) and A-1405 (Restraints). 

A-1405 not 

located and 

should be 

produced. 

16 1990 702 Advise how it was 

determined how much 

money from revenue 

generated programs would 

be used for supplemental 

Ultimately the disposition and reporting of 

revenue is under the purview of the 

Ministry of Finance and the Treasurer of 

Ontario. However, the Ministry of 

Community and Social Services will 

Document 

CR0080473 not 

produced.

items versus how much 

would be sent to the 

province. 

develop guidelines and provide direction 

to facilities on the parameters within 

which they must operate and report. 

Within those parameters, the facility will 

establish its operational and reporting 

procedures related to revenues. 

17 2005 705 Advise if there was a 

policy about the 

percentage of money 

generated from revenue 

generating programs was 

required to go back to 

supplementing the 

programming versus the 

Treasurer. 

Documents that reflect this relationship 

include the Ministry Manual of 

Institutional Administration Applicable to 

Schedule I Facilities for the Mentally 

Retarded (CR148458) that provides 

instruction on use of revenue and use of 

surplus funds authorizing immunity of 

revenues attraction by consolidated 

revenue of the Treasurer of Ontario. 

CR063033 is a Ministry questionnaire 

completed by facilities and in this case by 

HRC outlining sources and uses of 

revenue. CR0080473 is a report of 

Facility Administrators addressing the use 

and reporting of surplus funds from 

workshops and canteen. 

Any cash surplus from the workshop 

revenue not earmarked for special 

purposes in excess of one month’s 

operating expense was turned over to the 

Provincial Treasurer (CR080473). 

“Special purposes”include day-to-day 

needs, amenities benefiting the residents 

and materials required for the workshop 

Document 

CR080473 not 

produced.

etc. The allocation of the surplus was 

governed by directive and was overseen 

by the HRC Finance Committee. 

18 2057 719 - 

720 

Determine whether there 

is a record for the 

accounts of Mr. Becigneul 

and produce them. 

No records of payments to Mr. Becigneul 

for work at various locations within the 

facility as part of his vocational program 

have been found. In a letter to Ms. Oates 

dated April 4, 2005 there is a notation of 

Mr. Becigneul receiving a training 

allowance for participation in a variety of 

activities within the Case Management 

Objectives including, among others, 

attending Skills Development Program 

and assisting staff with chores around 

apartment. See CR132985. The same 

activities were noted in 2006. See 

CR132977. In 2007, the same activities 

were identified and “pay”is reflected as 

something he looks forward to in order to 

make purchases at the canteen. 

Documents 

CR132985, 

CR132977, 

CR133017 not 

produced. 

Training allowances may vary depending 

on performance and compliance to set 

expectations. Incentive payments were 

usually provided for residents working in 

the laundry. To not receive payment 

would reflect exceptional circumstances. 

See also CR133017.

19 2084 727 Inquire whether the 

Muskoka Nursing Home 

was one of the employers 

that had residents from 

Huronia working at it. 

20 2185 754 In document CR052585, 

determine who is 

involved, what the 

allegations were and 

whether there was an 

investigation report 

prepared. 

There is a record of one patient, Paul 

Nichol, living and working at Muskoka 

Nursing Home in 1968 while on a leave of 

absence immediately prior to discharge 

from the facility. See CR135374 and 

CR135373, the latter of which will be 

provided under separate cover. This 

employment continued following 

discharge from the facility. There is no 

record found of Muskoka Nursing Home 

being a regular employer of residents of 

HRC. 

HRC did provide respite and assessment 

services for Muskoka Nursing Home 

patients on occasion (see CR067683, 

CR067684). 

The employee involved is Jack White. 

CR05819 is the investigation report. Mr. 

White alleged to have exhibited 

inappropriate behaviour towards a client 

Document 

CR135373 not 

produced. 

Document 

CR05819 not 

produced.

21 2330 800 Regarding CR198356, if 

there is no confidentiality 

provision, to provide a 

copy of the settlement 

agreement regarding the 

litigation. If there is a 

confidential provision, to 

advise of same. 

22 2829 935 Regarding CR002825 


“OO”), to make enquiries 

and locate a final police 

report, in terms of what 

charges were being laid 

and why, with respect to 

the individuals listed on 

page 3 of the document. 

23 2552 862 Regarding CR127725, to 

advise as to what occurred 

after this report re: 

training of individuals 

who were dealing with the 

blind and deaf residents at 

Huronia. 

A Full and Final Release executed on 

January 11, 1999 (CR204466) will be 

provided under separate cover. - The 

settlement agreement is not confidential. 

The Police Report for this investigation 

will be provided under separate cover. It 

describes the investigation, the findings 

and charges laid. CR107728 is an Orillia 

Police media release that further identifies 

the individuals and charges. 

In response to this report, employees 

working with blind and deaf residents 

received additional training in sign 

language, symbol and sensory programs 

for blind and deaf. See CR077502 p. 31. 

In the following years the sign language 

and symbol course was revised to include 

rationale and training methods to be used. 

See CR063236. Additionally, in 1986 a 

new building for multi sensory residents 

(blind/deaf) was opened. See CR138469. 

Employees in this area received training 

in sign language, symbol utilization, 

sensory stimulation and mobility and 

tracking. 

Document 

CR204466 not 

provided. 

Police report 

noted in first 

sentence not 

provided. 

Document 

CR138469 not 

provided.

24 3030 - 

3031 

982 - 

983 

To provide all of the 

annual serious occurrence 

summaries from Huronia 

starting from when 

Huronia started 

calculating them or 

compiling them until 

2009. To also provide 

the doc id's for any 

summaries already 

produced. 

25 3063 1003 Regarding CR079284, 3rd 

paragraph, to advise as to 

what the standards are 

based on and how they 

were determined. 

The Serious Occurrence Summaries began 

in 1992. In addition to those identified by 

Mr. Rosenfeld (CR020966, CR020924, 

CR176709, HRCE030243, 

HRCE002188), the following summaries 

have been located: 

1992 –HRCE036833 & CR020869 - 

1995 - CR049180; 

1996 - CR049188; 

1997 - CR049155; 

1999 - CR049105; 

2000 - CR049084; 

2001 - CR049077; 

2003 - CR049066; 

2006 - CR049046 

The Codes of Standards refer to the nine 

areas identified in question 3061. In 1971 

the Hospital Management Services 

Branch of the Mental Health Division, 

Ministry of Health, developed and 

implemented the codes of standards with 

the approval of the Mental Health 

Division. The codes of standards were 

based on existing staff levels, well 

established in other ministry of Health 

facilities, and adopted by qualified 

consultants with many years of field 

experienced who were identified with the 

Hospital Management Services Branch, 

Ministry of Health. These were then 

transferred and adapted to use in Schedule 

I facilities for the Mentally Retarded. The 

staffing standards appear to be initially 

Documents 

CR020869 and 

CR049180 not 

provided. 

Document 

CR079288 not 

provided.

44 3314 1018 Regarding CR083963 

(page 5) to advise if there 

was any submission to the 

Social Development 

Policy Committee relating 

to the recommendation as 

referenced, and if located, 

to produce a copy. 

based on existing standards recognized in 

the General Hospital field in Canada. A 

code of standards was described as being 

a guideline only and should be flexible 

enough to allow for variations. - 

Documents that reflect the process and 

review to adapt the codes for use within 

the mental retardation facilities include 

CR079288, CR079315 (Farms and 

Gardens), CR079273 (to be provided 

under separate cover) and CR079333 

(Housekeeping). 

CR044190 is a memo from Dr. Farmer, to 

Mr. Allen Gordon, ADM MCSS, 

requesting a review of a Cabinet 

Submission within the Ministry and 

“hopefully”to other levels of government 

including Policy Field, Cabinet and 

Management Board. The Cabinet 

Submission is CR122584. There is no 

record of this Submission being approved 

by Management Board. CR044198 is a 

report from a discussion at the Social 

Policy Field that recommends that 

Schedule 1 and 2 facilities be insulated 

from further complement reductions under 

the constraint program. It further notes 

that Management Board Secretariat 

acknowledges the lack of adequate staff in 

some institutional facilities and supports, 

within government capacity, some 

enrichment of the quality of services for 

the mentally retarded. Further it 

Document 

CR044198 not 

provided.

ecommends that MCSS should 

concentrate on maximizing the 

effectiveness of resources already 

allocated to the MR program. And, that 

the re-allocation of resources within the 

program should be considered to meet 

special needs. Finally it observes that the 

high levels of expectation regarding 

services for the mentally retarded cannot 

realistically be met. - There is no record 

located of a Management Board minute 

related to this Submission. - A 1983 

document CR148303 includes a reference 

to staffing standards (p. 6) and to the 1976 

document where it is mentioned the 

document was approved by the Social 

Policy Field but had not been approved by 

Management Board of Cabinet because of 

its cost implications.

here. - Koskie Minsky LLP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?