For years, a youth protection director has been acting as a foster family for a 5-year-old Aboriginal child for whom he is professionally responsible. An “irreconcilable conflict of interest situation,” ruled Judge Lucie Grondin, who is calling for the intervention of the national director of youth protection.
“The facts revealed by the evidence allow us to conclude that Mr. C, director of youth protection [pour la région A]finds himself at the centre of a conflict of interest in relation to the child entrusted to him,” wrote the magistrate in a judgment of almost 40 pages rendered on September 17 and published on Wednesday.
The child, who cannot be identified under the Youth Protection Act, was only “a few days old” when the director intervened in his life. In 2020, he was entrusted to Ms. D, Mr. C’s partner, who was then the assistant director of the Director of Youth Protection (DPJ) in the region where the child lived with his family.
The legal documents from the time, noted by Judge Grondin, state that “Ms. D cannot be accredited as a foster family” because of her spouse’s employment. The child nevertheless ended up in her care. “We do not know to this day where, when, how, by whom, on what legal basis or whether the D/C couple was really accredited as a foster family,” says Judge Grondin. The child has since been moved to the region where the foster parents live.
In 2023, Mr. C was appointed director of youth protection in region A. He is therefore the one who ultimately has authority over all files in this region. “Since the director is the one who is in charge of the child’s file and who also has custody of the child, it should be noted that the child’s parents, who are also a party to the file, may feel concerned about compliance with protocols and orders. With good reason,” the judge wrote.
Incompatible roles
“We cannot dissociate C from his role as director of youth protection, just as we cannot dissociate him from his status as a foster family; they are one and the same person,” the judge explained. However, in these two roles, the man faces “conflicting interests” and has access to confidential information that must not be shared between these two entities.
“What’s more, it is he who, as DPJ, recommends himself to act as a foster family and declares himself suitable to meet the interests of the child until he reaches the age of majority,” added the judge.
This situation also places the case workers in an untenable position since all employees who make decisions in the child’s file report to him, wrote Justice Grondin. In her judgment, she transcribed clinical notes illustrating the staff members’ discomfort with seeing their boss interfere in the file as a foster parent.
Ignored articles of law
Not only is there a conflict of interest, but it also contravenes the spirit of the Act, the judge believes. “A careful reading of the Youth Protection Act highlights certain sections whose application is not possible if the DPJ is also [la] foster family of a child for whom he has professional responsibility. This incompatibility is not insignificant since the legislator would not have wanted certain children to have fewer rights or to be less protected than others,” she writes.
She believes that the fact that the director was directly involved in the child’s life as a foster family “no longer allowed him to ensure that the rights of the child and those of his parents were met as required by the Act,” she wrote. She also believes that “several articles of the Act were ignored and not respected” in this case.
For all these reasons, she ordered that her judgment be notified to several ministers, including the Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette. And she transmitted the child’s situation to the national director of youth protection, Catherine Lemay, “so that she can take the necessary measures to entrust […] the functions and powers assigned to the director of youth protection A to another director of youth protection.
Lack of transparency
Furthermore, the judge severely criticised the work of the lawyers of the youth protection department in the case and declared them “unfit to act in the child’s situation” due to a second conflict of interest created by the dual role played by Mr C.
“The conflict of interest is flagrant,” the judge wrote. [Le cabinet] Cain Lamarre and his lawyers lacked transparency with the Court and the other parties and they did not prioritize the interests and rights of the child in this case. We would even go so far as to say that they have become, through their actions in recent months in particular, complicit in the decisions of the director and his principals.
However, any other lawyer would find himself in the same situation, the judge notes. “As the foster father is always [directeur]it appears that any law firm representing the DPJ would find itself continuing to also represent the foster family, which does not resolve the current problem. Thus, the only way to avoid the conflict of interest and to arrive at a point where a lawyer can represent only the interests of the DPJ is for the director not to be at the same time [la] foster family of the child in question.
As a result, she wrote, the only options in the case are for the director to resign or to give up his role as foster parent.
Joined by The Dutythe president of the Cain Lamarre firm, Mr.e Yvan Bujold said he “takes note” of the judgment and “will learn the necessary lessons in order to avoid any similar situation in the future.”
“We would like to reaffirm that our lawyers at Cain Lamarre have always acted in the interest and well-being of the child,” he added. “It is important to emphasize that this case is complex and cannot be interpreted solely through an isolated judgment on a specific legal situation.”