Motion Brief - Phoenix Sinclair Inquiry
Motion Brief - Phoenix Sinclair Inquiry
Motion Brief - Phoenix Sinclair Inquiry
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
- 17 -<br />
37. By tendering evidence of this nature, the Applicants attempt to introduce second<br />
hand information and opinions from unidentified sources whose expertise has not been<br />
established and who are not available for cross examination.<br />
Cross Examination of Shirley Cochrane, paras 15 to 21<br />
38. It is submitted that the hearsay evidence and opinion is not admissible and<br />
should carry no weight.<br />
V. Response to Particular Allegations in Applicant Affidavits<br />
A. Introduction<br />
39. This section of the brief addresses some of the factual claims underlying the<br />
Applicants’ arguments.<br />
B. The identities of social workers are generally known to the community<br />
and social workers do not generally conceal their identities or their<br />
occupations<br />
40. In paragraph 26 of her affidavit, Janet Kehler makes the statement that social<br />
workers make every attempt to keep the nature of their work private. The evidence has<br />
shown this statement to be incorrect.<br />
41. The Manitoba Institute of Registered Social Workers lists the name of every<br />
registered social worker in Manitoba on its public website.<br />
Affidavit of Allison Lamontagne, May 22, 2012, at Exhibit “B”