THE FOLLOWING ARE COURT TRANSCRIPTS WHERE JUSTICE ANDRE GUAY AND CAS LAWYER JEAN JACQUE PAQUETTE BLOCK A MOTION BY THE FATHER TO EXAMINE CAS SOCIAL WORKER DONALD KINSLEY WHO WAS THE INCOMPETENT SOCIAL WORKER WHO LEAVES CHILDREN IN ABUSIVE HOMES.
|
TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2005 |
MR. PAQUETTE: The argument of that motion is scheduled for the fourteenth, the Society intends on” addressing…
THE COURT: The society is going to…
MR. PAQUETTE: …the matter.
THE COURT: …the society will oppose a cross-examination of Donald Kinsley..
MR. PAQUETTE: That’s….
THE COURT: …by the father of Miss, Miss Poulin-Mikic?
MR. PAQUETTE: Perhaps not. Perhaps it will simply be looking at establishing clear terms and who is going to examine whom…
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. PAQUETTE: …and for, for how long. In other words there are a number of matters on the table. He’s, he’s applied to, to examine the mother as well.
THE COURT: Yes. And Mr. Kingsley.
MR. PAQUETTE: And Mr. Kingsley. The – – We know that according to the rules a party has a right of examination prior to trial
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PAQUETTE: …of one person.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PAQUETTE: Unless of course at perhaps at a trial management … COURT: Okay.
MR. PAQUETTE: …there’s, there, the…
THE COURT: I think one would probably do
it. . .
MR. PAQUETTE: …the other….
THE COURT: …if, as long as Miss, Miss
Poulin-Mikic informs herself of, of
whatever…
MR. PAQUETTE: Sure.
THE COURT: …considerations Mr. Kingsley
would have, would have arrived at, and that
would be deduced from any affidavit material
he’s filed. But also from checking with him
or speaking to him and ascertaining…
MR. PAQUETTE: Sure.
THE COURT: …what his view is.
MR. PAQUETTE: Yes. And, and so.the society
is, is looking into that, and….
THE COURT: Because normally when it’s an
institutional client you take a
representative…
MR. PAQUETTE: You have the one person.
THE COURT: …who informs himself or herself
of the, of why the organization is doing or
taking the position it is. MR. PAQUETTE: Right.
THE COURT: You don’t have to examine every person that’s dealt with the file. MR. PAQUETTE: Exactly. And the society would of course want to examine the father and…
THE COURT: Okay. And that stands to reason. MR. PAQUETTE: …and we would, we would see what, what that’s about. And so we are
looking at that very situation right now. I – – And as I say the, there are a number of matters that are before the court on the fourteenth. As is usual we will try to resolve as many of them prior to that time as is possible. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PAQUETTE: And….
THE COURT: Would it not make sense, and it
might, it might eliminate some of these
matters if examinations took place. It
doesn’ t seem. . .
MR. PAQUETTE: Yes.
THE COURT: …extraordinary. It’s not often asked for but it’s available to parties. –They just simply don’t go there until trial basically.
MR. PAQUETTE: Right.
THE COURT: But if parties wish to do that it ‘seems, as long as it’s done appropriately that there would(sic) be a, a big problem. And it might just speed—up the whole, make
sure that on the fourteenth things get done …
MR. PAQUETTE: Right.
THE COURT: …with some finality. Otherwise it could go on and on.
MR. PAQUETTE: And, and that’s exactly what
the society is looking at, at this point, so that we could get the examinations for discoveries. The terms would be clear.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PAQUETTE: We could, we could, we could
see who is examining whom…
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PAQUETTE: …and at what time so that so
that we can….
THE COURT: What I, what I would do though if
I made the order is put a time limit on it.
I don’t think, you.know, these exams can go
on for ages depending on how ingenious the
examiner is, but I think in, in running any
civil process there has to be some type of
—–reasonable limits, and I would think those
exams should take probably a maximum of three hours, maybe four hours, with two hours being allowed to each party. Believe me that’s, it would make a lot of sense in, in the circumstance and would give the parties
JST
parameters so if they want to ask, go down,
. you know, you know meaningless roads of
inquiry that’s the time, but you have to set
a time so that you know, you get to the
business at hand. But that would make sense
I think. —
MR. PAQUETTE: Well it, it may. And I, I
suppose part, there are two issues. One Mr.
Brouillette is not here today…
THE COURT: No.
One Response to “TRANSCRIPT”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 7th, 2017 at 19:54
Lawyers are more than willing to defend child molesters and incompetant self serving social workers…They set their morals aside..(if they have any) to line their own pockets!! The legal proffession and the CAS’s credibility is the lowest ever. How far will Society allow the morals and ethics in our Justice System to plumet? Action is needed now!!
If these people are accepting of public money on pay day … They should be held accountable to the people. Delay and avioding accountability is an outright abuse!