Jan 27 Letter

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

1/24

V l a r , 1 9 . 0 1 4 1 0 . 1 5 R M L ondon SCJ Family Cour t N o . 2 2 7 4 P . 2 / 2 5

With the he l p of Hashemranua ry 27, 2014

To the honorable board of directors of the C I 1 a t l i s m LKen tChildren 's Aid Society,We, the uz1ciersi gn e d , a re serv ing as corninu ir.ity organizers inthe L ev Tahor c o m m u n i t y .W e feel it is in o ur du ty to express th e seii.l3 m ents of th e fa m i Iresin o ur c o m m u n i t y with rega r ds to the agertcy's o ngoin g in v o lv e m e n t

with them since their a rr iva l to -C lia tharx }Keni . iri. Novemb e r 2 71W e w ill try to, exp ress their sentixnents r e X a txng to the follo w ing

p o i n t

.Tlie positfon o f the e I a tiirg th e IYiteiveii.tibn o f th e D Y PQitYehe lael, w eeii Gigtiist 7, 201'4 amd Novexoba 17, 2013 .p irstly, it i s i mp or t a n t tc nOte, that thenYll of Quebec had neverkind froin. a;child of the r e c e iv e dcomplain t of child abuse of any

conunttnity, no r have they . ever r.eceived such o m p l a i n t froma n y o n e who claimed to observe such in a f a m i ly of the c o m m utiity.o r in the c o m m u n i ty in g e n e ra l .$ T h e o n l y b asis for th e ittter ventioil of the . DYl' in the cozz ' rM ^^ r i i ty

- Was due to the fact tha t the c1lildren of the comrnunity werereported to not having an edugatron equivalent to the Quebe c

- - tJ uc .tioi roYam ^ i -- Queb ec law dictates that childrn failing to study th e c u r r ic u lu mprovided by the Ministry or e quivalent thereof, are considerede n d a n g e r ed a nd negle c ted. This statute provicles.enoUgh d ourids

Page of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

2/24

Mar 19. 2014 10:15AM London SCJ Family Court V0.2274 P. 3/25

f o r the Q u e be c Yo u th Pro te c tion Agency to gain full mandate ov e rthe children azad their future.

The issue .of the eduatzo n system of the c o m m u n i t y w a saddressed by the Ministry of Ed u c at io n o f Q u ebec s in ce D ecember2 0 1 1 , and w 'a . s being negotiated with the c o m m u n i t y e ver since.

Much before , the DYP files were opened, the c o m m u n i t ycontemplated .sett l ing the e d u c a ti o n d i l em m a by simply leav in gthe province, as the Mennonite comm.nity has done earlier in2 Q 0 7 . l i l The community has actively pursu ed this option. sinceApril 2013, by hiring a real estate agent to look for a suita.blealternative for the coinnrunzty in Ontario, and follow ing byvisiting several prope rties in Ontario for cor is idera t . iez i . T he rea lestate. agent also placed several classi fieds in popu lar Ontar ionewsp.apers' r ' The educati.ort' issue has ronrpted the. DYP to r a i d thecoiirmunity. The initia l ' ra i d t d o k p l a c e o n .A u g u s t 7 , 2 0 1 3 , o ne dayafter the childrn o f the'coxnrii:i ir2ity we re repor ted to the DYP fo rnorit - c o zn p ly iz?g w ith the loa l a n d p r . o v inial education guidelinsand regula t io n s Because .the cornmunity a'liread y expe c ted the in tervention of theDYP- reg a rd i ng t he schooling issue; and b ec a use the coz`nm.u ni tycbn+cerned that the ntervertt ion. . of the f]W w ill put a n end to theirongoing, nego.tiations with the Education M i n i st ry and the locals choo]. board and. ul t ixxuatelytheir religious beliefs, . the corzumunity hesitated whether tocooperate w ith. the DYP on the in i t i a l ra id, and proposed in s tea d

force the o m m u n i t y to act a g a inst

tti ieave Q ue-bec -iri -ca se -tha - t - - Q z z e b e c - c i o - e s not _intend to respecttheir freedom of religion.* The DP directors, however, m 3,slead the tainilies and thecfirectors of the, and blatantly denied the fact that the ra id a n d therequ est of 'opening investigation fil es a.re solely related to t h eeducation issue for the very same p u r p o s e o f hich the

Page 2 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

3/24

U ar 19. 2014 10; 150 London SCJ Faml y Court \0. 2274 P 4/ 25

b1

conurtunity was afraid of, namely to force the c o m m u n i t y to actagainst their religious beliefs, under threat of being caught u p

ore with the DYP. Instead, the DYP directors c.use thecnmmunity to b elie v e tha t they w ill consider the education issueas a mino r o n e a n d that the D Y P directors w ill in fact contribute.tothe negotiations o f the community with the sc ho o l board inexchange for their coop r a t i . o r with theDYP.wi

b During the raid, The DYP - w orkers col lected informat ion andcopies of d o c u m e n ts o f all children, even those und er schOol-age:A s well they intervene in fatnilies with no any hz l c r e n . atc o m p u l s o r y school age. The children were takn fo r rnedical.airddental examxn.atxo n .s, and their bodies were careful ly exam ined. B ythat, the DYP directo r s azad their worke rs passed the l imits ofin tervention allowed by the Zaw under their origirial mandatefari:ritexventi o n. .; The expanding . o f . in texvntiOin fo r rssues no t ze la ted to sck ogl ing .is a serious violatin of section.8 in the OANADrAN CHAIZTERCF IttGHTsAND . FI Z EEDOM that= states: Ever jone has the right to be e curedagainst atnrs a son abl sear'ch or se izure. By singlr"ngout a a i l group.with a specific path O f a reiigio ri andtarget them by unre izs.onable :search or sezzure they further,viola te d ' se C t io n 15 ( 1> the OANA D T A N ' C H A RTER oP RIGHT3 AN DFREEDOM that..states: { E ooy in.diti.dual is eqxcal . before and txndrthelaw and has, the.rightto the equal protection and equal benefittof the law without clisorimxnation and, in particurar, withoutdiscrimination h o se a on .racej nationat or ethnic origln, .coIour,relOon, sex,. ag,e or Mental or pysxcal dsabxIxtj.. Obvrously thef ax r i li es a n d children ,ot L ev Tahor were clearly d is c rim iilate dbecause of their religi o n .

* The permissio n . o f the families fo r ente ring the homes andc o n d u c t in g the unreasonabXe searches can .not be on the defenseside for the D Y p, since th ey steadfastly refused to mention the true

Page 3 o 25

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

4/24

q ar, 19. 014 10:16RM London CCJ Fami ly Court No. 2274 P. 5/25

concerns tha t p r o m p t e d the investigation." Th e n a tu r e of theinvestigations and the methods used by the DYP wo rk ers, also

ped the families to believe that there was indeed a rep or t ofalleged child abuse (while, in fact, no g en uin e r e po r t ever existedto prompt such investigations).

I t is i m po r t a n t to note, that on the day - long raid, t h e D Y P f o u n dhappy and healthy chiZdre n .,loving parents who took go od care of, the childr en, peaceful and stable families, excellent - riutxxtin, clea npacious apartments, well-mannered boys and girls, anda bove all - a. gentle and honest c o r . t . lm unity that will go beyond thecall of d u t y t ensure the quali ty o f life for the children, D u r i n g this raid, the loving parents , co n :fident o f t h e Ieve1 o f careand intention given to the children, have bew i id e red . ly ques tiohedthe DYP workefs on their findings. The D Y P w o z k e r s w e r e unableto .:put a finge:r, on a n y 'specifr c co n cern, besides a sniall; a l m o st

'invisib Ie leak in th e hallway it on of thehtirries, and a.ntissi n gsteain ov er: in another home (please note that this , mid tdaC plain,the $um zs,.ex, when steam s are nc^tused) .

The ques t ion: begs for itself: wliy, if sa, the investigations of theDY I' ,cpti t i n ue1 over a span of m ore . fhan, three . rnQn t1W Thisque$tion is so m e w h a t rhetorical. , The so1e reason for the DYPnves tigations to go on for such. a lengthy period o f t.trne (overthxee months), was not rnoe thari a strategy of the ` L 7 Y P - to ga iz xm o r e ' legi t im.acy to their inervezt t ion in the cammu n i ty, byseeking other . "eoncerns" besides education. v i : The . DYP srvorkerswere triotivated to continue with inves tig a tions to drum upa d d z t i o n a l a l f egati Q ns of o ther for1ns Q f Chi1d,. , n eglect " by eacri .azid.evezy f a z t z l y t o s u pport the legitimacy of the T ? Y P interventi . n i nthe cornxnuni ty -pe rt a in ing d i rect ly to edu cat ion . lo ,

r The DYP 'drreGtox$ acknowledged that they w er e aware of Ultra-Orthodox opinion on the education system and the religiousbeliefs preventing the c o m m u n i t y ^ f ro x n c o r n p ly i n g w ith the vir tua l

Page 4 of 6

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

5/24

M a r 19. 014 10:16AM London SCJ Familv Court No 2274 P. 6/25

wording of the regulations. (Based on a pending court decision thatwould affect Jewish Ultra-Orthodox communities in Quebec, the DYPdectared tha t thy.und ers tand tha t Ul t ra -or thod ox ta rn. i r i ,es such as those inthe Lev Tahor community cannot ful ly conrr .ply with the Qrxebec schoolcurricutlunZx ) . H o w e v e r , th e 1 D Y P d i r e c to r s d e m a n d e d a r e visio n tothe current curr iculum , to includ e a higher standard for language,a r t s a n d z n a t h r n a t i c a l st u d i e s . Th ey r e qu i r e d a d e t a i le d "a c d . o nplan" that wo uld be reviewed by their superiors .x i, The cominunity explicitly stated to the DYP directors theirdecision tha t theY are ready, wiI l ing and able to leave Quebec i fthe education issue is the real cause for concem, x (The DYP directorslater denied in court their acknowledgement of this decision;x u howevert ranscxibed recordings o f the .m eet ings wi th the DY P di rectors which wereprovdded to the court by the communiry, pzoved that htey were, in fact,aware of . the cammunity's decisron.xiv) .Another m isleadin g by the DY ' , whi le the di rectora te level of theD Y P . h a d e xpr e sse d u i r d e r s ta n d r'ng of the impcissibiZ.ty f LevTahor families complying with ' the virtue ia hgu:ge of theschooling reguiat ions; their w orkers how ever expressed exp lic it lyfor- i .ndividu al garerlts 'tha.t they see 'no reason' .why the children ofLev , Tahor not ultimately attending public sch'ool andcom .plet3n g t .hrr reYigious s tudies in S und ay 'synagogue classes .This expi essiot< o f the 1DY p wo rkers for the individu al parents wasesse,ntial in aining the .nr .anda te to %ring .u p the school ing . issuebefore the YaUth cou r t c ircum venting al l the negotia t ing betweenth directors of the DYP and the directors of the commtx.ndty. ToconcIu.d e this issue; the d.xrectors of DYP intenton aIly

c o m m u n i t y i n o r d e r t o c a u gh t th e m i n t o c o u r t p r o c e ed i n gs r a t he rthan giving therm a clear choice to implement their right ofmobi l i ty granted . by section 6 of the CANADIAN CHAR TER OP RTGHTSAND FREEDOM.

deceived the

Page 5 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

6/24

Var 19. 014 10: 17RM London SCJ Faml v Court Nn.2274 P. 9/ 25

On num erous occasions, the DYP directors ref ,ea, tedZy denied tothe community the fact of the ducati.on issue as being on the topof the list and act u ally the only legal basis of the fi7es."' O n eachmeeting wi t h the directors of the c o m m u n i t y they came up withdifferent soyc a lled "ne w cOncerns", none of them relevant for D Y Pinterven t z on , aZ Ways hint ing th a t the education issue is o n thebottcirri o f the. list,

e The :DYP have deceived t he c o m m u n i ty by reassuring thern thatleaving Quebec is not necess a ry to res.olve their issue ithdticat iQn, - wftile the DYP continued their intervention in thecommunity with the a g e n d a f drum up allegations a ga in st eachevery fam ily .xvi

' Ev rde,n.ce o n the bias of . D Y p to intervene anyway in the L ev Talio 'rrei'gious lifestyle, was the second r a id o f A u g u s t 1 4 , 2 0 1 $ in which.the ditector- o f the :DP in person - appzehended the five youngchi ldren o f [See m ore below under the sub#tle

1 . the- faosit ion - of - the farnilies relating - :the. pex secu t i .on .aga:ins-t Theunreasonable search and .invstigation of the D1'l', . w ith: them.issxon , to :cr eate aXlega.t ions, was on tfie- expeise . of th e childrexta n d . the. families. Their Iives becam e str essfu l and chaotic. Thefa m i - l i e s ' w ere repeatedly subjected to unex pec ted visits; childrenwere the 'objts o f n.um.erous body hecks mul t iple t i r i ies -on

separate visits,.not to spe a c , a b o ut i r re levant q uest on ing.xv F o r th e d u r a t i o n of the, investigation t h e f amilies lived in . a hosti leenviron m ent : F o r m ore than three months, their qual i ty o f life, aswell as _their _assets,, sehedu les, priv acy, a n d _ _ _ h o m e . s , . we re . a t themercy (merciless) o f th e DYP 's w is hes a n d co m m s .n d s .xvll i Ih ConclusronOf the Quebec D Y P " fz n d i n g s" ,(a) The .c p znnruXzity w a s u r t d e r the scrutiny and discerni n g o yes ofth,e.Quebec Yti u t lz Protection for over i three-rnonths;

Pagecif4

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

7/24

V l a r . 1 9 . 0 1 4 1 0 ;1 7 A M . London SCJ F amily Cour t N o , 2 2 7 4 P. 8 /25 6(b ) The investigatzonS were intensive, included private interviewswith parents and kids, repeated body checks, medicalexaminations and frequent unannounced visits to each family;(c ) The investigation proved there was no abuse of any kind, nodrugs, nb . alcohol, no s.nioking, no violence; no neglect, nobullying, Qr any other .formS of misconduct in the homes of thesefamil ies.

Finally, Th DYP notifid the families of anc. onNovember 14, 2013 they Will be ralled to court for the purpose toenable the DYP keep their .files open for :further vzsits; the groundfor this request explained to these families, as well in the courtpapers filed affer their relocation from Quebec, was solely theissue of . education,xix

The deception of the DYP rga.rding the education resultedin thecommunity ..hastenittg their d:ecision, . and actually leaves thepr o vin ce o f Qu eb ec o n iVevem b er 1 7 , 2 0 1 3;xx

Thevosition .nf tli . families relating . the *actrons-of the DYP'aft4r . thereIocst ion o the cbinmunity on November 11 2 013 The . f r i . i . l i e s o f the c o n i in x in i ty be l ie v e that the DYP was wrongfulwith 'opening court cases against the. fam ilXe s so ll base d o n Q u e be c e d txc at io n . . law s af ter the ir ac tu al).atid -r e lo ca t io n ta O n ta r io o r No r r ez .n .b x 1 $; 2 0 1 3 . The families Of the comrlUnity believe that the later request.of.the

DYP ' tb return the children to Quebec was purely a political, andarguably act of reveritg, to preserv their d igrt i ty . Qta..ebec's cburt order to retsxrn children. Quebec a.tid

consequently place t.hem : in fbster care was triggered by the falseand misleading allegations of the DYP. Ev e n i f tho s .e Al le gat ro n s we re v al id , the y sho u ld n o t c o n c e rn c hi ldweIfare agencies that comply with Ontario law. Investigative

P a g e 7 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

8/24

Vlar 19. 2014 10.160 London SGJ Fam'ilv Court No, 2274 P. 7/25 ^ ^/J

fairness should be consider ed a n d prevail in Ontario our newhozne,

The position of the families r el,at ing the involvement of the CAS ofC h a t h am , -Kent fro m Novernber 2013 to January 27, 2014* The families o f the , c o z x u n u n r t y h a v e continuously expressed th eir

eagerness to pro v e their innocence by petsonally invi t ing t h e C A Sand any g o v e r n m e n t official to their h o m e s upon their arrival toOntario . The familxes, . as well the comuntxrdty organizers, had s h o w n fullc o o pe r a t io n d u r i n g the .ollowing visits and investigations of theC A S .

a T he c o m m u n i t y organizers did v o lu n ta r i ly provided the CASevery chan ge of address and all othr znfornration requested bythe C A S about fam.il ies O f the community.

The , childr.en of ^{ -' r i ,.. had ex pre s s ed 6 the C A S their cope and will to sit pea.ce.fully withthir parents z .n . .Ontar io , . and a sked . the CAS to help and supporttheir w ill and :. the children's best interest in case it comes to .anOntar io cbu.rt 's deciszon,

In response, .the C AS has ders,,nstrated their unwillingrtess tojudge and act a ccording to the best interest of ehz7dren and theirparents. C AS has lacked cultdraY and . other seirsi ti vity; aridexpressed indifference for the te a ring apart of inno cent families .

. This was o bv io u s to all the fam il ies o f . the c o m m u n i t y for thereasons that include the following:a . Famil ies thoroughly invest iga ted by C A S a n d found to hav eno concearns whatsoever ( _ were"later selected and targete d . by C A S . to be to r n a pa r t by havingall the c h il d r e n r e m o v e d rm :their parents and transported to. a r io the r p ro v in c e 83 0 ' iC i lo me te rs aw ay w ith no considerati o n .heir own rislC assessments;

Page 8 o f 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

9/24

M a r , 1 9 . 0 1 4 1 0 .1 7 A V I London SCJ Fami1y Court Na.2274 P . 1 0 1 2 5

and Youth investigation directives hardly matters. In this case, theCA5 has shown a seeming blind hate towards the entireconrmunzty:a. , By considering the mark as "unexplained injury", despite the

unanimous testimonies of numerous other comzxiunitmembers, all of which fully matched with the version of boththe rrrnether and the father;

b. By 'rejecting the comments and testimonies o f otherresponsxble community members, all of which the mother andfather are well known to them as excellent pa.r.ents that takingwell care of theix , children, and quite the opposite of such thatwill.lzarrri any human being on the.earth;

c, By refusing to conduct a . cleaning test to dzstinguish between ainlc s ta in and a brrxise;d, By refusing the opinieri of. the police investigator that no

abuse can be.suspicions.in htis .case;e. B y refus i i lg dze opi .nxor t of the emergency xooin . doctor that noabuse or negX ect can be re la ted to th is m ark;f. By jrefusi.ng to plae. the children with a family relative or any: fami lp in_ the Lev T ahor communi ty;g. .By prosecuting an innocent mom with aIlegatzoris not.retated

to'her perso.nall.y, only o n her associaiion with the Lev Tahorcom ^-,^uni ly;h, By prosecuting the entire community.. with decisions of other

eurts, aIthough these jizdapplying only to particulax families (

t ts an d d e c zsio n s, we re ele arZ y),

and absolutery not to the ent#e cQmrnunity or any otherfa m i l y i n t h e cc i m m u n i t y ;i. By fabricating an. extreme and broad libe1; that physicaldiscipl ine is "acceptable" in the cornm ur txty ,

Iza l ight of the case, the feeling of each and everyfamily of the coz,nm.unity is that their "case" is already . waiting;

Page 10 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

10/24

Mar,19. 0 1 4 1 0 :1 $ A M London SCJ Fam ily C ourt N o , 2 2 7 4 P . 1/25?

Additionally, the famil ies have proof that the C A S iscorresponding and collaborating with political enemy's which arewell khovtrn to have clear motives to destroy the community forinnocence, such as the Israeli authorities and/or theirrepresenta t ives i .n . C anad a . Until recently, the community has taken measures to de.fend theCAS and maintain their drgnity. in the Media even after theyreceived repeating shocks and. bitternss from the unacceptablebehavior of the CAS towards them.

The posi t r"on of t h e fa .m il s r elating the perseat . i. t ipn a gaxrast The families of the cdmrnunit-y are eonvinced that the painful

appxehenson of the five -cl-tildren of , by DenisBaxdby, I 7 i r e ct o r O f D Y l '; o n A u g u s t 1 4 ; 2 0 1 3 , ha d n o I e g ii im a y b yany legal point. of view. Ta .make a lng , sto.ry . sh. o r t , we wi l l OrilyMention : a few-highlight 's:

a. The divorce and custody case of vs.w a s b efO r e . th S u p er io r C o U r t c i f C a n a d a .b, The r7YP 'already knew abott the case fbx more than a yearwhile prohably did niot f ind, any just ifxcat ion for inte .rver . t t ion.c, The DYP hurried to intervene in thethe superior curt had commenced case afterproceedings. Thei ri tercrent.ori of DYP was. never related to the best interest of

the children; rather it was initiated in order to crci.irnvnt thesuperior court that is under the Canadian . federal jurisdiction-Whicll grants the const tu tional r ight of free.ort i of _r 'el igion. .The DYP were determined to bring the . cise before the-.provincial youth court where the religious educatfotr of LevTahor can .be questioned since they.have different a pproach. o n . f r e e d o r n of religion.

Page 12 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

11/24

viar.19. 0 1 4 1 0 :1 8 A M London SCi Fam ily Cour t No.2274 P. 1 2 / 2 5

d . The DYP c le ar ly m is l e ad by filling c o u r tdoC uz nent s requesting prrnissionfQr supervised v isits for thefather, while the children shou ld stay with their znorn; n d anda ddi t i onal ly , M adam S u z a n n e Tye, a social wo rk er for th eD;YP; c orifi rm ed to the m o th e r that she evs. ldates as am o t h er who is taking well care of her childien,x x i i and thenupon : he a rrival 'of to the courthouse in ainte-Jerome, the director o f the D Y P M r. - Denis Baraby in person,a ccompanied by police ofifcers, broke into the h o m e o fin Sain.te-Agathe, and apprehended the chxldre n . /.e . The explana t ion given by Denis B ar aby for th e apprehensio.nw ithout . a w a r r a n t when the parents are in front o f a jud ge,wa s . s t range for itself: the "order". fo r apprehension was

, directed by children's lawyer. ( Please note that the children'sIra W y i = he'rer . xxiet or any of her children ) .f. The court for provisionallymeastires was postp4ned just after

the DY,P . fZ n x sh.ed with the ir b rie fir g/ n d th a n the coixrtfzxii:shed for :tlte. day and supposedly there was no court

dates ava i lable in t h e next 2 months '(twice the m a x imu.m t imealI o ^ v ed for provisional . ,measuies), . whi le - n o t giving themothe r nor.hei lawyer even an o p p o r tu n i ty to 'express. a. single$ntence in her defen se a b o u t th e pr o vis ia n a .1 1 y .m ea s u r es ,

g, After 60 days,. the DYP performed an eva lua ti o n aboUt thec a se which was only denouncing the beli;e fs of . Lev Tahoritvhile not coricentering in the best interst of the . children.They did not stop short f r o m d e n o u n c ing the approach of LevT ahor regarding the state of Isreal; R eg a r ding mod est clothingand even r e ga r d i n g prayer times.h. The evaluat ion o f the social w o r k e r -wa smanipulated in a roused way. She found it .necessary tomention a cas e of the Gxand. R abbi in NY back in 1992 notrelated to the custody case but contxibuting to ill u stxate the

Page 3 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

12/24

Vlar. 19. 014 10:18AM London SCJ Family Court No, 2274 P. 13/25

- old controversial histor y o f Lev Ta h o r . O n the other hand, shedid not fell it necessary :to mention even o n e w o r d about avisit in w hich the father of the kids ' )tried toabduct th e m and ending u p in the fathers detenti.on ndcriminal charges. W h y was this fact ignored in the Suzanne 'sevalu.ation? Because the father w as the source of n u m e r o u sblood l ibel style allegations a gai n s t Le v Tahor and the story.w ill cau se the court to reco nsider all the allegations based onhis words.

i. In that.opportunity of the e v a l u a t io n hearing, t a n d h e rl a w y e r where a ga i n deprived from the right o f def enSe wi th the excuse that the schedule of the court ju st finished for theday. a t the m o m e n t th e DY P . f in ishe d to ad d ress the court.+ The'DYP did n o t a l lo w kosher food from Lev Tahor to be bro ughtto the .childten, even that the. oldest daughter f

xepeatedly requ;stedsxt*^. W h e n the ' oldest d a u gh t e r o f . ,started to limit her . food

..inenu and requested hte lCO sher food froxxt . Il e r rnc ther , the DYP.cho:se to -th reate.n the.' mcither to order the girl to n ot obey herreligio n . in$tead of . aimply allowing the : food sent by the mother toher child. The DP did not t ake any action when the oldest dau ghter .ofrepor ted to t h e m that she is being kicked by familym em b ers of'the fQster , fam ly vvhich is hos t i le to Lev T ahor .

Finally, after the Lev Ta hor comm unity moved from Q txebec . toC7ntarlo, the DYP worker, . tocommit herseIf n ot to mve with her fa m i ly a n d instead to goaway from the. Lev T a hor commu ni ty . When she protested o ver 1the DYP i nv ol v i ng i n . he r priva te ecisions, the DYP wo rker

decided on their o w n hands to deprive her frOrxiaccess rights and to an even tele p hone converss,ti"on to thechildren.

P age 14 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

13/24

Mar,19. 2014 10;19AM London SCJ Family Court Uo.2274 P. 14/25

Th e D Y P a l so pr o v i d e d fa l se i n fo r m a t io n a b o u t tothe C AS of C hatha.rn .-ICo nt which led to the CAS orderingnot to be unsupervised with any child .. 6 . The fam il ies of the com tnuni ty expla ined to the C AS the i llogic oftheir ord er and defied their order at the strongest term pQ ssible. . The CA S threatened to o pen f i les against each fam ily that wil l no tbe com m zt ted not to le t t .nsupexvised with children. T hi s t hrea t wa s seen by a l l wo m en i n t he com m un i t y a s a no t herinjustice from the DYP and the CAS against any innocenti nd i v i dua l l oya l t o L ev T a ho r a nd cont r i but es t o t he decis ion t o

stop the coziness with the CAS workers .on luszon A:ftex roughly two' months of full cooperation with CAS ofCh.atham-K"ent, . The families lost their trustin the . CAS Wciikexs;they d eeply bel iev that fur ther cooperat ion w ith CAS wou ld on lyempowered them to abuse ther power and exert unjustifiableControl bver the com inunrty . i t has becom e extreranely difficul t to

t rust tha t C AS , can bepa#tners W ith us in h best fnterest of ou rchildren.i ' The fam i l ies a re convinced tha t fur ther investiga t ions by the C AS-wil l on ly p xov destruct ive to the inno cent fam ii les; and wil l on lycatxse eimotior

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

14/24

V l a r . 1 9 . 0 1 4 1 0 :1 9 A M London SCJ Fam i ly Court \ o , 2 2 7 4 P . 1 5 /2 5 q

not to to lerate child abuse or neglect W ithin the com m un ity; theywo uld be the first to bring child abu sers to justice.The community repeats once again i ts clear s tatement, as follows;

someone abu ses child, it is a crime aga inst humanity andagainst th e 7'orah, If so.meone forcesIf

a person into m arriage, itis a lso a cr im e against humanity and against the Torah, If w e

ow someone xke his in our community, w e w ilI be the firstto hold him responsible for his ac tio ns, ot er inedia pu bricalions

(wwzv.tevtahor.ca and

R egarding the future The families of the Lev Tahor community are seekxtg measures torespectfu l ly withdraw the in tervention a nd in volvem ent bf C AS intheir private peaceful lives, T he f a m Xi e s pr e f e r t o - a vo i d a nY . c onf Xi c t with the CAS . of

t Ch at h ai n - T Ce nt a nd i t wo r k e t s :T h e f a mi l i e s a r e r e qu e s t i n g , t h e C A S , a s f o l l o w s ;a . T o d r o p a nd c l o s e all t h e c o mp l a i n t s , a Zl e ga t i O; n s ; c h a r g e s , c o u r tcases and ' any kirtd of legal . preceding's against th' fam il ies unless there a tereports o f risk;b. To close. permanently all the files related to the fa. inilies of the

L ev Ta ho 7r c o xn na un i t y , a n d t e r r n . i n at e t h e i r vrsifs a n dinvestigations u nless there are repo rts of risk;c . To t e r i z - i n a t e im m e d i a t el y t h e u n fa i r pe r se c u t io n a ga i n s t M r s .unless -there are reports lsk, Tn.t-urn, the community for its part, will agree as folYows:a . Im m ediate ly termin ate a l l the com plain ts fi led against the .C ASof Chatham =Kent and/or i ts workers;

Page 16 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

15/24

M a r,1 9 . 2 0 1 4 1 0 : 1 9 A M L o n d o n S C J Family Cour t N o . 2 2 7 4 P . 1 6 / 2 5

b. Not to file in the future any complaint or lawsuit against theCAS of . Chatham-Kent and/of its workers regarding theirinvolvement between November 1 8 , 2 0 1 3 and January 2 7 , 2 0 1 4 ;c. Not to request the GAS fo recover the cost of thecou rt cases;'and

d. Not to publish the recordings/photos and written detailedreports of the CAS v isits at the hornes of the famil ies;

e. To continue and maintain the respect of the CAS in publicrelations and not expose or publish negative statements orremarks in the media against the CAS of Chatham-Kent and/ori t S workers.

Sincerely yours,

^i?tr.y er Rooppr Uriel G o Idtraln Nadman Helbrans

CCifilmOnity orpinizerommupity orgehizer Comfnutfity brganizer

Page 7 o 2 6

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

16/24

Mar. 19, 014 10:19AM London SCJ Family Court No,2274 P. 17/25

Endnotes

' One of the sources testimony byQuebec hearing on November 27, 2013:

social worker for the DYP, in a

SU ZA NN E T YE : [.r_] O n August 6 or about that time, 'all the children werereporte or non trttending school, and this allowed us to start knocking on doors.bANlL vILCFNE UVF : August 6,2013?SUZANNE T Y E ; Yes, W e were several interveners and we wer,t to the coinmunit,and we mode sure that al t of the children were rep orted, and that allowed us tosee e verYorle, irThe "CZuebe Youth Protection Act" (Division ("Security and development of a

child Paragraph 3$) reads as follows:tor the purposes of this Act, the security or development.of dhifd is rio'hsi'dered

to be in anger tf the chir'd s aba ndoned, neglected In this Act .. (b)'neglect refers to ..,(iri) .:. or foiling to take the necessar'y steps to prov ide the

child with schdoiing; . . .-1n:P,aragraph 38.1 the Aet reads as follow.s

^ ^ "rhe se^curity or developrtient of a chitd may be considred to.;b' in tldng^t^rwhere.,,'(b) he is of shootage anddoes not attends.chodl, or is fre,qventlyabsent wT thotrt reasori;.."

The sholing of the childre p provided in the cornrnutiits education frarnewrkwas excellent, b ,ut it was unable to gain the legal definition of "schQoling" according tothe Quebec Edu c ation Act, sectioh 15(4),

This act is rriore elaboratly explained in the Ministry of Educatin's policy Qrihomeschool f ng:

Parents who hom e school their children are resporrsible for ensring thatthey receive instruct ion and benef it from an educat ional experir ce equivrifent towhat Is provided at schol, according to an evaluation made by or for the scHoboard:

Page 18 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

17/24

Vlar 19. 014 10:20RM London SCJ Family Court Vo.2274 P. 18/25

i5-

Equivalent may be interpreted to mean that the instruction andeducational experience must give the child sufficient knowledge and cor 'npetenciesso that the child may enter or reenter the public or private school system .

To this end, p prrtts must ensure that their child achieves the learningobjctives set. out in the programs in effect in Quebe c schools, Qr develops thecompetencies speified by the Quebec E ducation Program (QEP ).Due to the religious observance of Ultra-Orthodoxy and subsequentfy these

faritilies, certain secular subjects such as evolution and sexuality studis are not aIlaWed.Therefore, the children of the community were legally considered "neglected" and in"clanget" for the mere fact of not studying the Quebec curriculum. The DYP noviw-has

. legal,groLinds to intervene on behalf of the''wellbeing" and "safety" of the ch'ildten.F i ractica.11y speaking, accbrding to Quebec Iaw the DYP now has the fli niardte

over th children. f the parents fa ) Co orilp y with the.Queb,ec edUcatlon ct as thsefamlles have_dp,ne,, "safety. masures" to avoid further neglect' may incl.ud.5eizfrigchildren and placing. them in foster care. In Quebec, plaGirig hilcl t 'e n .h foster. cir forsuch reasons w4uld ensure the children would not be "neglected".

The only reason .that . seizer of children for mere the schooling iss.ue is. stillconsldered uncommon in Quebec, is due to the fact that parents will rather give up forall e.duc.atio requirements in ordr to av,Qid the DYP intervene in their private life.However, this was nQt likely to be the case by the farnilies of the Lev `fatior.totnMunitywhere the schooling Issue is onof the most important parts of their religion.

n An article at the Toronto Star, Sep 29, 407, Repotred:ROXTON FALLS , Q u e. [ . . . ] The soft-spoken Merrnonite deacon's small

cvrrtmuniy is locked' in a year-old fight with Quebec's educdtion ministry overtheir desire to teach their chfldren according to their faith. More than 3 0 of hegroup's women a nd school-aged children hav e gone into self-Irirpbsed exile inAlexcrndrid, Ont., fust over the Quebec-O ntario border, to ensure therm do so.

The Quebec government mandates that they follow the fow, which includesteaching the official curriculum with governrrrent-certified teachers.

Page 19 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

18/24

Mar, 19. 2014 10:20AM London SCJ Family Court \Jo.2274 P. 19/25 ^But the M ennonite interpretation of the B ible clashes w ith what they see as

Quebec's increasingly secular curriculum and with parents ' dem and that thosewho teach-their children pass up u n iversity edutation.dnd provincial certification.

W e feel that (higher education) becomes a God. 'tf you s pire to fame andfortune an everything else that goes with it, that's against Christian faith. Sothen they ask us to hav e certified teachers that .., come out of university and thatIn itself , that's not what ou r faith teaches , h e says .

That's not the role model we w ant for our' chlldren, Th dt's the line we're atwith the governm ent right now. That's the line that's dr'awh, rr14

F aced with a local news report on the illegal Mennonite schol, Quebec'sinister wa rned last Noverrrber that the cort7Munity must follow the

.urriculum and hire a certified teacher or face b eing shut dawrr.l.oeals feared that child protecth workers w o uld irttervene ta brak up the

fpmilres p nd'there were concerns the warning to the Mennoriites was a prelude to.acrackddwn on illegql faith-based schools in the province.

. 1 '" One of the sources: Affidavit of a.F+enri Primeauilicehsed real estate agent inQuebec.

Y One of the sources: testimony by Suzanne 1'ye, a socia . I w or k er For t he DYP , in a,Quebec hearing . on November 27, 2013.

" One o the sources: recordings,of tf iscssiotis . btween the directors o the DYPincluding Denis Barby,,and the community, during the rpid of August 7, 2013.

V One of the sources: recordings of discussions between the directors of the DYPincluding Denis Baraby, and the community, during the raid August 7, 2013.

it ' ll While the original goal of the DYP was not to seize the children and rather theypreferred to change the religious lifestyle o r the c4rirmunity trough the intervention ofthe Quebec Youth court . in the education- (source: testimony by , .uzanne Te, a socialworker for the DYP, in a Quebec hearing- on November 27, 2013) it was One of theirtactics to maintain the possibility of seizing the children as an option in order that the

Page 20 o f 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

19/24

Mar. 19. 2014 10:20AM London SCJ Family Court No, 2274 P . 2 0 / 2^r

parents and the community should not resist the intervention (one o f the sources:recp rdings of meeting between Denis garab,y, director of DYP, and directors of thec o m m u n i t y , in c l u d i n g t he G r a n d R a b b i o f L e v T a h c + r , o n A u g u s t 1 4 , 2 0 1 3 ) .

Obviously, if the DYP seized any children solely because of not being educatedaccording to the. Quebec curriculum, the.DYP would be extremely criticized for notconsidering the best interests of the child and for : destroying families for a relativelyminor concern that could be rectified in another province. To avoid the negativepublicity, there must be more grounds for.khe seizure of the child.

As was testified by Suzanne Tye, a social worker for the DYP, in a' Quebec hearingon November 27, 2013, the social workers were ordered and motivated to search forother.f.orrris of physical and/or emrxtionil neglect' from each family, which would srveas the basis and the legitimate reasonirtg behind a seizure of the children, while all alongthe education issue is the only basis of legal mandate for tntervntion.

in her. wording:W efl.i'he nn-attendonee at school was the sub'-tpxt that we used for the

entire grop of children, but the fpr'ther we advdnced in our elev ations, there wereother sub-text that were irdded specifically.

W e started with one fdmr'l and thencontext that we m e t the

;.. family bY farraily, and it wad in thisfamilles."

b ` One of the source5: testimony by Suzanne Tye, a social worker for the pYP, in aQuebec hearing on November. 27, 2013.

% The Jewish Ultra-orthodox communities in Quebec are facing pressure to complywith Qubec`s secular education curriculum, since 2006.

The largest Ultra-Orthodox cornmunity in Quebc is the 5atrriar community, withroughly 350 families.

After four years of negotiatior,s with the Satmar Yeshiva, the Education Ministrywent to court seeking a permanent injuntion to close the Yeshiva and a temporary one

Page 21 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

20/24

Mar . 19. 2014 10: 21AM L o n d o n SCJ F a mi l y Co u r t No. 2274 P . 21/ 25

to do so immediately. The Satmar Yeshiva Battled in Court to stay open, claiming thattheir freedom of religion will be violated, since their religion is forbidding them fromteaching their children parts of the secular curriculum, namely, the subjectsof e volution and parts of social studies.

For the temporary injunction, the Education Ministry has lost the case in the firstround in the superior court of justice on September 7, 2011. (in the court decision, thecourt explairled in detail the approach of experts why an enforcement of the educationact on IJJtra-Orthodox Jews constitutes a breach in the constitutional right for freedomof rellgion). In regards to the permanent closure, the court has been scheduled forNovember 2014.

Although the court proceedings are against Satmar l the verdict will affect al theUltra-Drthodox communities snaring the sanre valups, since the argument of the SatmarYeshiva by virtue of the freedomof religion applies on the same way t o a l l bthr JewishUltra-OrthodoSC communities as well. Nowever if Satnrar W l l lose their csp, Lev Tahorwcruld still thelr; chance, takirig into account their stricter and rnor con'siStehtapproach of practicing original Judaism.

Ane of t he sources: recordings of meetings between the directors of the bYp,including Denis Baraby, and the community.

4 1 1 Saurce: recordings of numerous meetings btw,een the directors Of the DYP,dir'ectoi's.nluding Denis BarabyandAlinne Baeume, and the l

' Affidavit of Alinne Baeume, Directorof the DYP of SainrevAgathe-des-Monts.'6 ' Affidavit of Mayer Rosner.' Source: recordings of numerous meetings betwe'en the directors of the DYP

including Denis Baraby and Alinne Baeume, and the community.ource: recordings of numerous meetings between the directors of the DYP,

including Denis . Baraby and Alinne Baeume, and the community."' The DYP has sy.stemized the investigation in a way that disturbed famiy life and

caused disturbance to the peaceful and quiet lifestyle they enjoyed prior to their arrival.The families were now forced to being accustomed to a new schedule and living

Page 7 2 o f 7 6

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

21/24

Mar 19. 014 10:21AU1 London SCJ Family Court No.2274 P 22/2571

standards. Alternating patterns of abuse by []YP was standard. Weekly. home visits and asubsequent invitation"to the office the day after for day-long questioning was the nowthe.norm. This pattern rotated among the families, there was always the anxious feelingthat "you are next", The way the DYP "manhandled" the families were despicable andhea rtless.

The day-long questioning at the DYP office also included intensive questioningregarding the general way of life of the community and their religious customs. Prayerschedules, La,ws, of "jViddah" and "Kashruth" were among the topics addressed by theDYP for each family individually. These were the topics that took up precious family timeand caused children to be absent from school.

Parents were also repeatedly investigated and interviewed fegarding everyposslble aspect on their private lives, topics that had no relati o n td the ccincern o rwellbeing of the children. Ridiculous as it'may sound, parents were questioned on theirintimate marital , relationships, woman were queried on the frequency of their visits to. -

Ethe ritual bath "Mikvah'", financial information, bank statements, and ImrnigrationdocorDents, were also demanded by social workers. .The social workers have alsodemanded and cirdered parents to sign release forms of their own rnedicah rcords,'besides for the children's.

trrelevant information regarding family history from years gone by were also ofspecial importance to social workers, A 46 year old father was also questioned as to whoeducated. him on intimate marital relations. Mundane questions, such as whether thehusband gives the wife a bank card or cash for shopping, or a 17 year old spouse beingasked whether her husband is a good person and being pressed to mention at least On ebad thing about him.

The DYP also showed utter disregard for family and religious values. Their privateinterviews with children should have been limited to matters that are of concern.Ltnforiunately, they abused their power by asking the children rhetorical questions, suchas asking teenage boys whether they agree to chose a girlfriend by their own and viceversa. These questions were asked long 'after the initial visits, the social workers wereve0 much aware that the children are Ultra-Orthodox, and gender segregation is an

Page 23 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

22/24

Mar , 19, 2014 10: 210 L o n do n SCJ F a mi l y Co ur t No. 2274 P . 23 / 25

integral patr of the religion. The children reported to have ben quite perplexed andintimidated by these questions_

Families with many children were . tasked with the impossible. The socialworkers explicitly noted that at all times, the homes are expected to be tidy in the samemanner as a home without any children, or face the possibility of maintaining such ah o m e e m p t y o f c h il d r e n .

According to our humble opinion, complete home . tnakeovers and cosn-itictoUChu{is are decided privately by families, not welfare agencies. In a meeting with thecommunity a week after the first raid On August 14, 2413, the DYP reported their"horrible" findings and demands;

Homes required renovations, and children were found to have cavities in theirteeth.

Needless to say, all children were treted.regufariy by local dentists. To satisfy theDYP, the community created an initiatve to be cavity free although the dentistsrecommended waiting-out the treatment over a longer period of time in cases wherecavitieswere more frequenC.

Yhe.homes were relatively in good condition. Thy pdsed no danger no.f did theydisturb the quality of life. If they indeed`posed a danger ., the DYP would not think twicebefore pouncing on their prey,.. underage children. Nonethefess, the .p YP felif it wastheir duty to addrss those "concerns". They set a date for the community to come.upwith a proposal,and "action plan" to rectify the situation in .zhe near future, The deadlinefor subrnitting the proposal and action plan was three weeks later on September 3,2013. This date corresponds to the Jewish New Year holidays, a month long celebrationwhich is costly, and involves many hours of advance preparation such as building a"Sukkah", cooking and baking among other activities. This time"of year keeps manyOrthodox families busy all day, and part of the night with prep w o r k .

Hoping the DYP would be satisfied and ultimately leave them alone, the familiesdecided to go beyond their line of duty to meet and beat the emarids of the DYP.Disregarding the hectic holiday season, and the flurry of preparation it involves, the

Page 24 of 26

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

23/24

Mar. 19. 014 10:21AM London SCJ Family Court No.2274 P. 24/25

/61

families have feverishly painted and plastered their homes. A rigorous makeover wasevident in all the homes. Replacements were favored over minor repairs. On the datethe deadline for the proposal was set, the community was proud to present a report onthe concerns that were already addressed and entirely resolved. There were hardly any

, concerns left to present a proposal and action plan_ The amount of work completed insuch a short timeframe is mind boggling. Definitely good for a r+esume...

Btween allegations, it seemed that the DYP was.working very hard to drum upmore accusations . and allegations, invading body checks were a common practice.Naping to find bruises and other rharks of injury, they sttled on disproportionatefy,addressing,concerns of toenail fungus_

Although this accusation was senseless, because the families never avoided orneglected medical care; children with toenail fungus were always well treated at theiocl Sainte-Agathe clinic, some families chose to take, treatmerit t the next level by: . -traveling to Montreal and having their kids treated by specialisr$ in the field. Thefamilies did not require nor did they solicit advice or opirlion frcim social workers , otl thisissue. Neverthdless, beca u se this issue was addressed by the DYP, the ,families wentbeyond their call . of duty to satisfy the agency by organizing a costly venture and hiredDr.:Rachei Rubinstein, one qf the most respcted and well-knOWn dermatologi$ts fromM q nt r el . She spent a fu l l day i n S a i 7 t e-Agat he-des-Bdl . onts and examined the children ofthe cornmunity_

Dr. Rubirnstein's conclusion is ve ry clear explained in her letter from January 5 ,2014:

1 founa the children to be clean, w ell-cared for and b ,ehdving appropriately,I was impressed by the warm th of the comrirunity and concern of the p are r ts orthe well-being of their children...

These are typical clinical problems I rdutinely encounter in mydermatologic practice; these are relatively benign conditions, many of whichspontaneously resolv.e in early adulthood. It is important that I emph,asire,unequivocally, that these problem s do not reflect parental neglect or cibuse. As

Page 2 5 o f 6

8/12/2019 Jan 27 Letter

24/24

Ular, 19. 014 10:22AM London SCJ Family Court Vo.2274 P. 25/25 0 O 2 2

such, there is absolutely no Indlcation for intervention by child welfareauthorities regarding this minor skin conditlons, (See attachment...).4 ` Ail the other "issues", as melatonium or fungus, were irrelevant and have no any

validity in youth court. The DYP mentioned this "issues" for the sole purpose to enabie them toclaim that "It is not just about education"...

Source: motion of the DYP to the provincial court on August 9, 2013.^Source: recording of conversation between Suzanne Tye, a soial worker for

k) ^ DYP, nd Mrs. on August 7 2013.

Page 26 of 26