A.F. v. Alberta, 2012 ABQB 486

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: A.F. v. Alberta, 2012 ABQB 486 Date: 20120727 Docket: 0703 12964 Registry: Edmonton Between: A.F., N.R. by her next friend, A.F., J.R. by her next friend A.F., and C.F.R. by his next friend A.F. Plaintiffs - and - Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Alberta and Child & Family Services, Region 7, K.M. T.M., R.M. and The Public Trustee of Alberta Defendants Restriction on Publication Identification Ban – See the Child Welfare Act ,

section 25 (as in force immediately before November 1, 2004). Except with the consent of the Court, no one may publish any report of a proceeding regarding a child under this Act that discloses the name or identifying information of the child or the child ’ s guardian. NOTE: This judgment is intended to comply with the restriction so that it may be published.

Restriction on Publication Identification Ban – See the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act ,

section 126.2. No one may publish the name or photograph of a child, or of the child ’ s parent or guardian, in a manner that reveals that the child is receiving, or has received, intervention services. NOTE: This judgment is intended to comply with the restriction so that it may be published. Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on August 1, 2012; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert A.

Graesser _______________________________________________________ Introduction [1] This application was argued with the applications in P.L. v. Alberta , 2012 ABQB 309 ( P.L. #1 ) (as modified by 2012 ABQB 383 ( P.L. #2 ) and ABQB 485 ( P.L. #3 ) and has many similarities to that case. Mr. Lee, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, seeks to amend the statement of claim, and the government, the Public Trustee and Region 7 (collectively the "government") seek to strike portions of the statement of claim and resist some of the proposed amendments. [2] The M. defendants took no

part in the application, and apparently have no objection to the proposed amendments as they relate to them. [3] Further submissions were received from Mr. Lee on April 26, 2012, and from the government on May 3, 2012. [4] I note that N.R. is now an adult, and the style of cause should be amended to remove reference to her next friend, as proposed by Mr. Lee. As well, Roy Nickerson Q.C. has been appointed to be litigation representative for J.R. and C.F.R., and those

changes should be made to the style of cause. Background [5] N.R., J.R. and C.F.R. are all children of A.F. They were apprehended by the Director of Child Welfare and placed in foster care with the Defendants K.M. and T.M. While in foster care, the children were sexually assaulted by the M.s ’ son R.M. R.M. was eventually convicted of criminal offences in relation to the children. [6] The action seeks damages against the M.s and the government on various theories of liability. The statement of claim was issued on October 10, 2007. It includes causes of action similar to those in L.C. v.

Alberta, 2012 ABQB 394 (relating to allegations that the Director failed to file care plans for the children as required) as well as those in the class proceeding in T.L. v. Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Director) , 2008 ABQB 114 , aff'd 2009 ABCA 182 relating to allegations that the Public Trustee failed to commence appropriate legal actions against the government and the M.s to protect the children ’ s legal rights. [7] For simplicity, I am attaching the proposed second amended statement of claim as Appendix A to this decision.

I have deleted the plaintiffs' names to comply with legislated obligations of confidentiality. [8] Having ruled on similar issues and arguments in the three P.L. decisions referred to above, I intend to be consistent with the decisions there as they relate to this decision. The statements of claim in the two actions are similar, the theories of liability are similar.

There is virtually identical wording in many paragraphs in the two statements of claim, as well as the proposed amendments. [9] The amendments sought are basically to distinguish this case (and the issue of vicarious liability by the government for the legal wrongs of foster parents in Alberta) from the Supreme Court decision in KLB v.

British Columbia , [2003] SCC 51, in which the Supreme Court concluded that the Province of British Columbia did not have vicarious liability for the misdeeds of the foster parents. [10] They also seek to particularize alleged breaches of Charter rights, to conform to the Court of Appeal's decision in S.(C.H.) v.

Alberta , 2010 ABCA 15 , amongst other things. [11] The government's application to strike relates generally to its position that allegations of systemic negligence are not proper and are bound to fail; that KLB applies and determines the vicarious liability claims against the government; and that much of the statement of claim is irrelevant, argument, prolix, vexatious and otherwise objectionable as a proper pleading. [12] I do not intend to revisit the decisions on these various issues in the three P.L. decisions referred to above.

I do not intend to resolve the conflict between lengthy pleadings which particularize in great detail aspects of the plaintiff ’ s claim versus brief pleadings which plead sufficient facts to support the cause of action, but leave particulars to be demanded by the defendant if so desired. [13] Mr. Lee justifies much of the detail in the statement of claim as being necessary to provide particulars to the defendants so they are not caught by surprise.

The government objects to the level of detail, recognizing that the scope of production and questioning may be governed by the pleadings. [14] In relation to disputes such as this, I agree with the approach taken by Slatter J. (as he then was) in G.(A.J.) v. Alberta , 2006 ABQB 446 . There, he was dealing with similar pleadings. At para. 18 he stated: The Statement of Claim is drafted in a repetitive and verbose manner...It is contrary to the spirit of Rule 104, that pleadings should be "concise," but it is not so objectionable that the Court should strike otherwise relevant provisions.

[15] Old Rule 104 has been replaced by Rule 13.6(1) which now requires that pleadings be "succinct." I see no difference between "concise" and "succinct." They are essentially synonyms for each other, so Slatter J.'s comments are equally applicable to pleadings under the new Rules of Court. [16] As such, while one might question the merits of lengthy pleadings as opposed to briefer ones, some of the debate relates to advocacy (on which there may be legitimate differences of opinion) and the ultimate division between pleadings which should be struck and pleadings which may be allowed to remain is not a bright line.

The decision is a judgment call, and a determination as to whether the particular provision is too objectionable to be allowed to remain. Application to Amend [17] The plaintiffs' proposed para. 8a is identical to proposed 9a in the proposed amendments to the statement of claim in P.L. [18] I concluded at para. 33 in P.L . #2 that notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in KLB , the issue of vicarious liability by the government for foster parents in Alberta is at least arguable, at least for the purposes of the pleadings.

That allows the plaintiffs here to amend their statement of claim to distinguish KLB , to attempt to prove that K.M. and T.M. were employees or near-employees of the government or that various non-delegable duties were breached by K.M. and T.M. for which the government is liable. [19] Accordingly: Para. 8 a(

y) is disallowed as being argument. Para. 8a(dd) is disallowed as being irrelevant. The first two sentences in para.8(

b) are disallowed; the last part of that paragraph may remain. The last three sentences in para. 8(

c) are argument and disallowed. Para. 8(

d) is irrelevant and disallowed. Para. 8(

e) is disallowed as argument. Paras. 8(f), (g), (h), (

i) and (

j) are disallowed as argument. Otherwise, the balance of the amendments to para. 8 are allowed. [20] There are a number of other proposed amendments. The addition of "and her children" in para. 27 is not objectionable and the amendment is allowed. The addition of "children" in paras. 50(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h) (i), (

j) and (k), 52, 53, 57(

a) and (

l) and in paras. (

e) and (

f) of the prayer for relief are not objectionable and the amendments are allowed.

The removal of reference to A.F. in para. 51 is appropriate and is allowed. The additions of 57(

m) and 58(

m) are not objectionable. Reference to International Conventions and the Alberta Bill of Rights in the context of their informing the standard of care is arguable. The same holds true to the amendments in paras. 73, 75 and 76. These amendments are allowed. [21] The proposed removal of paras. 69 and 70 and the removal of references to sections 2, 12 and 15 of the Charter in para. 71 are consistent with the Court of Appeal's decision in C.H.S. v.

Alberta (Director of Child Welfare) , 2010 ABCA 15 and are allowed. [22] I will deal with paras. 64-67 relating to Charter claims later in this decision in the context of the government's application to strike. Government ’ s application to strike [23] The government's arguments are separated into a number of categories under the banner "Causes of Action that have no prospect of success, should be struck": a. Systemic negligence is not a cause of action; b. Misfeasance claims are unclear and unfounded; c. Collateral attacks on court orders should be struck; d.

HMQ is not vicariously liable for the acts of foster parents and their children; e. HMQ does not owe A.F. a duty of care; f. S. 7 Charter claims must identify a principle of fundamental justice; g. Failure to protect legal interests claims should be stayed; and h. Alternative remedies may promote the foundational rules. a. Systemic negligence is not a cause of action [24] I have dealt with this in detail in P.L. #1 . Many of the allegations in the statement of claim here mirror the allegations in the statement of claim issued by P.L.

The allegations in paras. 10 to 14 and 57 in the plaintiffs' statement of claim are identical to paras. 13-17 and 63 of PL's statement of claim. I make the same ruling here as I did at paras. 52 to 56 of P.L. #1. [25] Paragraphs 15 and 16 are unobjectionable. Paragraphs 17 through 20 advance failure to file service plan claims similar to those being argued in L.C. v. Alberta (supra) which is a proposed class proceeding on behalf of children under temporary guardianship orders for whom no timely service plan was filed in accordance with the Director's legislated obligations.

I do not see these claims as advanced in the plaintiffs' statement of claim to be objectionable at this stage. [26] Paragraph 59 is identical to para. 66 in P.L. # 1 and suffers the same fate here. It is struck. b. Misfeasance claims are unclear and unfounded [27] Paragraphs 21 - 23 attack the legitimacy of provincial legislation. The paragraphs do not support any cause of action which might be advanced by the plaintiffs. While there is the tort of misfeasance of public office, the allegations as pled do not resemble that

tort. That tort is described in L.(A.) v. Ontario (Minister of Community & Social Services) , 2006 CarswellOnt 7393 (Ont. C.A.) and requires the pleading to contain a number of elements at paras. 36-37. Those elements are absent here. [28] The legislature is not in a fiduciary relationship with children under provincial care, and the Supreme Court has ruled in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2004 SCC 4 that "best interests of the child" are not a constitutionally protected principle of fundamental justice. [29] Those paragraphs are ordered struck, as are paragraphs 50(

j) and (k), 58 (

g) and (

h) and 67. Legislation cannot be collaterally attacked in this manner. c. Collateral attacks on court orders should be struck [30] G.(A.J.) v. Alberta , 2006 ABQB 446 , makes it clear at para. 22 (along with other authorities cited by the government) that court orders cannot be collaterally attacked. The guardianship orders in this case are not alleged to have been appealed, nor are there allegations that they were obtained by fraud. [31] As a result, paras. 14(

w) and 29 should be struck. I do not view para. 25 as an attack on any court order or what transpired in court. It suggests negligence on the part of the Director in its dealing with the children, and is not objectionable at this stage. d. HMQ is not vicariously liable for the acts of foster parents and their children [32] As a result of my conclusions in P.L. #2 , allegations relating to the government's vicarious liability for the acts of the M.s may remain in the statement of claim, and the plaintiffs' application to amend in this regard has already been dealt with earlier in these reasons.

Paras. 6, 38 and 46 may remain. e. HMQ does not owe A.F. a duty of care [33] S.(C.H.) v. Alberta (Director of Child Welfare) , 2010 ABCA 15 , makes it clear that the government did not owe the children ’ s mother, A.F., a duty of care in relation to the apprehension and placement process. As a result, reference to A.F. should be removed from paras. 27, 51 and 53. I note the proposed amended statement of claim makes those changes to paras. 51 and 53. Para. 32 does not relate to any valid cause of action and is ordered struck. I do not read para. 56 as relating to any claim by A.F.

Rather, it appears to relate to aspects of the children ’ s claims that their relationship with their mother was improperly affected. It may remain at this stage. f. S. 7 Charter claims must identify a principle of fundamental justice [34] Paras. 63-65 of the statement of claim mirror the pre-amendment pleadings in P.L.'s statement of claim. Her application for amendment to her statement of claim essentially replaced the existing allegations. Those were the allegations I dealt with in P.L. #1 , having particular regard to S.(C.H.) v.

Alberta , 2010 ABCA 15 . [35] I permitted a number of so-called principles of fundamental justice to be pled. That was, in my view, generous although I recognize that the law may well be developing in the area of what may be considered to be a principle of fundamental justice. Some leeway is appropriate in developing areas of the law, otherwise the law would never be permitted to develop. [36] The plaintiffs' statement of claim does not comply with S.(C.H.) .

It does not provide any particulars of breaches of principles of fundamental justice, and so far the plaintiffs have not sought to amend their statement of claim in the same fashion as was applied for in P.L. . Existing paras. 64 - 67 should be struck, with leave to the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim in accordance with my ruling in P.L. #1 and otherwise in a manner consistent with S.(C.H.). [37] The brief amendment sought to para. 66 does not satisfy the requirement of giving particulars of principles of fundamental

justice and how they were breached. g. Failure to protect legal interests claims should be stayed [38] T.L. v. Alberta (supra) has been certified as a class proceeding. I am not aware as to whether opt-out provisions have yet been made, but believe that they have not.

The effect of the certification is to effectively stay actions which fall within the class. [39] As I held in P.L. #1 (at paras. 150 and 151 ), opting out should be dealt with by the case management judge in T.L. [40] Having reviewed the chambers and Court of Appeal decisions in T.L. , it appears clear that the class proceeding is limited to claimants who allege that the government failed to protect their legal rights in relation to third parties at a time when such claimants were under government guardianship or protection, and not with respect to potential claims against the government itself or against government employees.

The class proceeding is intended to cover claimants who have been denied a remedy (or whose remedy has been prejudiced) against third parties such as foster parents, family members and caregivers whose wilful or negligent conduct has harmed the claimant. [41] Failure to sue or to protect legal rights in respect of potential claims against the government or government employees might logically arise when a claimant's ability to commence such an action is barred (or alleged to be barred) by the passage of limitation periods.

Where the claimant is still able to (and does) commence proceedings against the government or government employee, it is difficult to see how any loss has occurred. Loss or damage is generally an essential element of any claim (other than for declaratory relief) and in the absence of loss, theoretical claims should not proceed. [42] Striking applications do not, however, turn on the actual facts of the case. These applications turn on the pleadings. There are other remedies such as

summary dismissal or

summary trial which may be employed to deal with allegations in the pleadings which on their face support a cause of action, but for which there are no actual facts to support them. [43] Here, the Crown relies on affidavit evidence from one of the plaintiffs to argue that the plaintiffs have clearly made claims and have received compensation. That evidence is not admissible on this application. However, the failure to sue aspects in the statement of claim, in particular para. 43, all relate to the government's failure to pursue the M.s and compensation for victims of crime.

The statement of claim does not allege that the government should have commenced proceedings against itself or any of its employees. [44] As such, it appears that the failure to sue allegations relate to third party claims, and would be clearly covered by the T.L. class proceeding. The claims as set out in paras. 40-43 are stayed. Any application to lift the stay or opt out of that proceeding should be made to the case management judge in those proceedings. h.

Alternative remedies may promote the foundational rules [45] The new rules are aimed at addressing access to justice issues, including timely resolution and cost effective proceedings. A piecemeal approach to litigation rarely accomplishes either, but there are cases where trying preliminary points and staying other aspects of the case may be appropriate. For example, a successful

summary judgment application on one of many claims may effectively resolve the entire matter. A successful

summary dismissal application based on limitations may have the same effect. [46] I am not persuaded here that staying any aspects of the plaintiffs' claims (other than those which are subsumed within certified class proceedings) will be of overall benefit to the pace or cost of the litigation. The plaintiffs have many theories of liability on the part of the government, and it does not, at this stage of the proceedings, appear practical to stay some and allow others to proceed.

Heard on the 8 th day of March, 2012. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 26 th day of July, 2012. Robert A. Graesser J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Robert P. Lee for the Plaintiffs Kate M.C. Bridgett and Peter G. Barber for the Defendants Her Majesty the Queen and Child & Family Services, Region 7 Appendix A Action No. 0703 12964 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON BETWEEN: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX___________________________________, XXXXX XXXXXXby her litigation representative ROY NICKERSON, Q.C.,

and XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX by his litigation representative ROY NICKERSON, Q.C., Plaintiffs - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA and CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES, REGION 7, XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX and THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF ALBERTA Defendant 2 nd AMEDNDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM FACTS 1 . The Plaintiff, xxxxxxxxxxxxx, was born on April 12, 1959 and resides in Whitecourt, in the Province of Alberta. At all material times, xxxxxx xxxxxx was the biological mother and guardian of xxxxxx, xxxxx, and xxxxxxx pursuant to the Family Law Act, S.A. 2003, c.

F-4.5 and the Domestic Relations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. D-14 . 2 . The Plaintiff, xxxxxxxxxxx (herein referred to as "xxxxxx") was born on May 27, 1993 and resides in Whitecourt, Alberta. xxxxxx is the daughter of xxxxxx xxxxxx. 3 . The Plaintiff xxxxx xxxxx (herein referred to as "xxxxx") was born on July 19, 1995 and resides in Whitecourt, Alberta. xxxxx is the daughter of xxxxxx xxxxxx. 4 . The Plaintiff xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx (herein referred to as "xxxxxxx) was born on March 8, 1997 and resides in Sudbury, Ontario. xxxxxxx is the son of xxxxxx xxxxxx. 5 .

The Child & Family Services, Region 7 (hereinafter referred to as "Region 7") is a Regional Authority of Alberta Children's Services. The Plaintiffs fell under the regional authority of Region 7. 6 . HMTQ (hereinafter referred to as the "Crown") administered the Child Welfare Act, S.A. 1984, c. C-8.1 . and amendments thereto and predecessor legislation (the "Act"). The Crown is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the Director of Child Welfare and that authority's officials, employees, servants and agents.

The Crown is vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the Region 7, that authority's officials, employees, servants and agents, xxxx xxxxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxxxxx and xxxx xxxxxxxx. 7 . The Defendants xxxx xxxxxxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxxxx were the foster parents of the children. 8 . The Defendant xxxx xxxxxxxx was the son of xxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxxxx (hereinafter referred to as "xxxx"). 8a. The Defendants, xxxx xxxxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxxxxx and xxxx xxxxxxxx was a close relationship including, but not limited to the following characteristics:

a) equivalent to a employer/employee relationship,

b) equivalent to a partnership,

c) equivalent to a master/servant relationship,

d) the Crown having a great deal of control over the xxxxxxxxx,

e) the Crown exercising a great deal of supervision over the xxxxxxxxx,

f) the xxxxxxxxx having very little independence or decision making over any significant decisions over their foster children,

g) the xxxxxxxxx being dependent on the resources of the Crown,

h) the xxxxxxxxx using the resources, tools, training, manuals, equipment, drivers, foster support workers, and respite workers of the Crown,

i) the Crown introduced the risk of harm by the xxxxxxxxx to the foster children,

j) the public is told that foster parents are acting on behalf of the Crown as the delegated agents of the Crown,

k) the xxxxxxxxx were not operating for business on their own account,

l) the xxxxxxxxx were volunteers with the sole motivation of assisting the Crown to meet their statutory and moral duty to foster children,

m) the Crown had the power to influence the actions of the xxxxxxxxx and to prevent injuries to foster children committed by foster parents,

n) the Crown hired or provided the helpers for the xxxxxxxxx, such as foster support workers, drivers, counsellors, and respite workers.

o) the xxxxxxxxx did not have any managerial responsibilities,

p) the Crown determined who was permitted to interact with foster children,

q) the Crown created policies which give the Crown complete control over the organization and management of the xxxxxxxxs ’ household,

r) the Crown provided regular supervision and interference into the day to day operations of xxxxxxxxxxxs' foster home,

s) the xxxxxxxxs were not independent and the independence of foster parents from the Crown would substantially interfere with the overall standard of care provided to foster children and would increase the difficulty of managing foster parents,

t) the xxxxxxxxs were provided with a very limited scope of decision making authority over small decisions, just as an ordinary employee is able to exercise,

u) all significant decisions about the foster children were made by the Crown, not the xxxxxxxxx,

v) the Alberta public perceived the xxxxxxxxs as working for the Crown as the Crown's delegated agent,

w) the Alberta public perceived that the Crown and not the xxxxxxxxs, are ultimately responsible for the care and protection of the foster children,

x) the xxxxxxxxs had to carry out and fulfil the plan of care that was created by the Crown for for the foster children,

y) the relationship between the xxxxxxxxs and the foster children was expected to be typically a short one of months; whereas the relationship between the Crown and foster children is typically much longer,

z) the Crown had the right to tell the xxxxxxxxs what to do and the xxxxxxxxs had the duty to do what the Crown told them to do, aa) the Crown is in the position to reduce the risk of loss, bb) the Crown benefited from the activities of the xxxxxxxxs, cc) the Crown has control over the cost of the Child Welfare system, dd) the Crown has the complete control over the ability of foster children to recover compensation from the xxxxxxxxs through the requirement of comprehensive liability insurance for foster parents for the benefit of foster children, ee) the Crown controlled what and how the xxxxxxxxs performed their duties, ff) the xxxxxxxxs were prohibited by the Crown from fostering children for anyone other than the Crown, 8b.

The Crown created a foster care system whereby foster children lack any reasonable chance of financial recovery from harm committed by foster parents. Foster parents are allowed to foster children despite having inadequate resources or insurance to compensate a child for injuries suffered from the foster parents. Without vicarious liability being imposed on the Crown, foster children will never or rarely recover reasonable compensation for the actions of foster parents.

Without vicarious liability being imposed on the Crown, foster children lack a fair and effective system of obtaining recovery for the injuries caused by foster parents. 8c. Imposing vicarious liability on the Crown for the actions of foster parents will cause the Crown to improve their screening, training, and supervision of foster parents and to improve their organization, practices and policies. Imposing vicarious liability on the Crown for the actions of foster parents will reduce the incidence of injuries and death to foster children in the care of foster parents.

Imposing vicarious liability on the Crown will cause will deter the Crown from practices that put foster children at risk while in the homes of foster parents. Over the last 4 decades, the prevention of harm to children in care has not been an adequate motivation for the

Crown to improve the problems that have been identified on a constant basis in the Alberta Child Welfare system. The Crown is primarily concerned with money and not foster children's welfare. The only thing that will motivate the Crown to implement improvements in the foster care system is financial liability created through vicarious liability. 8d. Lawyers in Alberta are unwilling to sue the Crown for foster children injured in care. If vicarious liability were imposed on the Crown, more lawyers would be willing to sue the Crown for abused foster children. 8d.

The Crown would not utilize more residential care options as an alternative to foster parenting if vicarious liability was imposed on foster parents as the Crown is also vicariously laible for the staff of residential care providers. 8e. The Crown could reduce the risk of abuse to foster chidren by:

a) changing the current atmosphere, which is conducive to abusing foster children,

b) changing the attitude and infrastructure that perpetuates the idea that allegations of abuse by foster children are false accusations,

c) creating an atmosphere that potential foster child abusers will be caught and punished for abusing foster children,

d) creating an atmosphere that is child focused and not cost and convenience focused,

e) creating clarity of appropriate and inappropriate behavior that could result in non-offending foster parents disclosing earlier,

f) creating better relationships with foster children and to have better communication with foster children that could help with detection of abuse,

g) educating and street proofing foster children better,

h) creating an expectation that 100% compliance by foster parents and child welfare workers is required. 8f. The smooth operation of the foster care system requires that foster children know that the Crown is responsible for the care of foster children and that foster parents do not have the power to make managerial decisions for foster children. 8g. To meet the goals of consistency and a reasonable standard of care, foster parents must not operate independently. 8h. Providing the day to day care and nurturing of a child is the main and most important function of the Child Welfare system.

The role of foster parents is integral to the Child Welfare system. 8i. The Child Welfare system is a not a for-profit enterprise run by the Crown; however, the Crown can save money and receive an unjust enrichment by offering care to foster children that is below a reasonable standard. 8j. The Crown's Child Welfare system receives a financial unjust enrichment, when the services offered to foster children is so defective that it results in the death of a foster child or results in the foster child being transferred from the budget of Child Welfare to the

budget of the Criminal Justice system. Therefore, there is an inherent financial unjust enrichment to the Crown to provide less than reasonable services to foster children. 9 . The Defendant, the Public Trustee of Alberta is a corporation sole under the name Public Trustee (hereinafter referred to as "the Trustee"). 10 . The overarching purpose of the Act is to protect children such as xxxxxx, xxxxx and xxxxxxx (collectively referred to as "the children"), ensure that they receive such protective services as are needed in their best interests, and to preserve their family unit wherever possible. 11 .

To the knowledge of the Plaintiffs, the legislative history of the Act and amendments to its provisions were directed at addressing serious problems in the Child Welfare system that had been previously identified by reviews of the Alberta Child Welfare system, including, but not limited to, provincial Boards of Review, Ombudsman's reviews, and Fatality Inquiries. 12 .

To remedy the Crown's persistent failure to provide to children in the Crown's care adequate care and services geared to facilitating wherever possible the return of those children to their parents or guardians and the maintenance of their family unit, the Act required that the Crown prepare, file, review, communicate, implement and follow a plan for the care of the child, including a description of the services to be provided (hereinafter referred to as a "service plan"). 13 .

From 1950 substantial systemic problems of the Child Welfare system in Alberta were identified in provincial Boards of Review, Ombudsman's reviews, Fatality Inquiries, Children's Advocate's reviews and annual reports, special case reviews, performance management reviews, court decisions, law suits, Child Welfare proceedings, annual reports and other public and internal reviews of the Child Welfare system. 14 . The systemic problems that were identified and existed in the Alberta Child Welfare system and in Region 7 included:

a) The Crown and Region 7 failed to employ enough staff to perform the agency's work,

b) The employees of the Crown and Region 7 were not sufficiently qualified, trained and supervised,

c) The employees of the Crown and Region 7 were not provided with the resources necessary to do their jobs.

d) The Crown and Region 7 did not a strong and stable leadership in place to support the staff by setting official policy, monitoring the services delivered by the frontline staff, and maximizing the effectiveness of available resources,

e) children falling through the cracks of the Child Welfare system without adequate service planning, also described as "drift in care",

f) inadequate investigation of children's and families needs,

g) inadequate preparation and development of service plans,

h) inadequate practices to ensure that service plans were prepared and filed on time,

i) inadequate implementation of service plans,

j) inadequate recruitment practices and standards for workers,

k) inadequate training, management and supervision or workers,

l) inadequate quality of services by workers, including inadequate abilities of workers to work co-operatively with families,

m) inadequate quality control and performance management practices,

n) inadequate staffing levels,

o) unreasonably high case loads,

p) high turnover rates and inadequate retention rates of employee resulting in inadequately experienced workers,

q) inadequate placement resources,

r) inadequate service resources,

s) inadequate accountability practices, including the failure to hold workers who violate their duties to clients accountable and failing to lay criminal or provincial charges against workers when they violate the law.

t) inadequate monitoring of children in care,

u) failing to provide children in care with adequate medical and mental health services,

v) inadequate stability for children in care, including multiple moves;

w) failing to provide Courts with appropriate information under s. 2 of CYFEA regarding the "Matters to be considered" and in particular, information regarding ss. 2(b)(g)(i)(l)(

m) of CYFEA, and

x) a bunker mentality that discourages criticism and encourages putting the interests of the Crown ahead of the interests of children and families, (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "systemic problems"). 15 . At all material times, the Crown and Region 7 were aware of the Systemic problems. 16 . The systemic problems in the Crown and Region 7 directly caused or indirectly contributed to the claims by the Plaintiffs.

17 . On March 4, 2002, the Court of Appeal declared that if a service plan was not filed within 30 days of obtaining a TGO, that the TGO would become void. After this decision, the Crown and Region 7 became aware that there was substantial non-compliance with the Crown and Region 7' requirements regarding preparing, filing, communicating and implementing service plans.

Despite the substantial non-compliance with the requirements regarding preparing, filing, communicating and implementing service plans, the Crown and Region 7 did not take any or adequate steps to ensure the compliance with the requirements regarding preparing, filing, communicating and implementing service plans. 18 . The Crown and Region 7 were also aware that a substantial number of Court Orders had been obtained illegally without the requirements regarding preparing, filing, communicating and implementing service plans being complied with.

Despite the substantial non-compliance with the requirements for obtaining a Permanent Guardianship Order, the Crown and Region 7 took no or inadequate steps to fix the systemic problems. 19 . The Crown and Region 7 became aware that the Government Defendant was in substantial non-compliance with the requirements of the legislation and that failure to comply with the legislation would result in loss of jurisdiction over children and unlawful custody over those children in violation of their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 20 .

Despite becoming aware of substantial violations of the legislation, having unlawful custody over children and violating children's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Crown and Region 7 took no or inadequate steps to hold those responsible or accountable for violating the Act, nor did they provide them with any or adequate training or education to remedy the problem of non-compliance. 21 .

Rather than remedying the problems regarding service plans and PGOs, HMTQ proclaimed the Child Welfare Amendment Act, S.A. 2002 c 10 s. 2 (the 2002 Amending Act) on May 14, 2002 which legitimized all previous Court Orders that were void as a result of the failure by the Crown to file service plans as required. This legislative remedy was not made in the best interests of the Plaintiffs and was made in bad faith. 22 .

The actions by the Crown by legitimizing all previously void Orders by legislative amendment and the inaction of the Crown by failing to hold those who breached the statutory requirements regarding preparing, filing, communicating and implementing service plans accountable created or contributed to an employment environment in which the failure to comply with policies or legislation was tolerated and/or accepted. This employment environment was conducive to sloppy and substandard work performance.

This directly or indirectly caused or contributed to the conduct of the Crown and Region 7 toward the Plaintiffs. 23 . The Crown passed the Child Youth and Family Enhancement Act. It removed the requirement to file service plans in Court for children who were subjected to a TGO after November 1, 2004. The Crown removed the requirement to file service plans as the Crown realized that the Crown and Region 7 did not have the skill and ability to comply with deadlines in the legislation.

The removal of the requirement to file service plans was done in bad faith and was contrary to the best interests of the Plaintiffs. This legislative amendment caused or contributed to the Crown and Region 7 lack of care in complying with statutory requirements as it indicated that statutory non-compliance would be accepted. 24 . xxxxxx xxxxxx chose to give birth and raise her children for economic, political, religious, social, charitable and entertainment purposes for her and her family. She anticipated that she had the right to associate with her children subject only to reasonable limits. 25 .

Prior to and after apprehending the children, the Crown and Region 7 did not conduct adequate investigation into the children and xxxxxxxx xxxxxx family circumstances. As a result, the Crown and Region 7 took apprehension steps that were not appropriate in the circumstances. 26 . The Crown and Region 7 acted as the guardian of the children, without any lawful authority over the children. During that time period the Crown and Region 7 denied xxxxxx xxxxxx from exercising her parental and guardianship rights over the children.

During that time period, the Crown and Region 7 denied the children family rights to be with their family.

27 . The Crown and Region 7 failure to provide adequate or reasonable services to xxxxxx xxxxxx and her children causes the determination of the best interests of the children and the determination of whether the children could be returned to xxxxxx xxxxxx within a reasonable period of time to be difficult or delayed. 28 . The Crown and Region 7 failed to comply with their statutory requirements to properly take the children into care. As a result the Crown and Region 7 had the care and custody of the children without lawful authority. 29 .

The Crown and Region 7 misrepresented to the Child Welfare Court that they had the ability to keep the children safe. They took the children from a safe environment and forced them into a dangerous environment. 30 . The Crown and Region 7 apprehended the children. As a result of the systemic problems, the Crown and Region 7' workers did not know how to properly and, in relation to the Plaintiffs, did not properly

a) work co-operatively with parents who were having difficulty with providing care to their children;

b) investigate a parent's ability to care for their children;

c) provide services to assist a family to remain united;

d) prepare a service plan;

e) implement a service plan;

f) file a service plan;

g) apply for a Court Order;

h) manage deadlines; and

i) review a file for statutory compliance. 31 . xxxxxx xxxxxx's relationship with her children was subject to state inspection and review, which was a gross intrusion into the Plaintiffs private and intimate sphere. xxxxxx xxxxxx was stigmatised as an unfit mother because of the apprehension of her children. The children were stigmatised as coming from an allegedly difficult home or family environment. The children lost all privacy rights after being apprehended. 32 . The Crown and Region 7 disrupted the life of xxxxxx xxxxxx by their conduct.

The conduct caused or materially contributed to her physical and emotional health, which affected all aspects of her life. 33 . While the children were in the care and custody of the Crown and Region 7, they were placed into the care of foster parents, xxxx xxxxxxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxxxx against their will and against the will of xxxxxx xxxxxx.

34 . The Government failed to take appropriate steps prior to placing the children with the xxxxxxxxs and failed to adequately supervise or monitor the xxxxxxxx family. The Government were negligent in placing, supervising and monitoring the children in the xxxxxxxx home. 35 . While in the care and custody of the Crown and Region 7, the children were physically, sexually and emotionally abused.

In particular the children were sexually abused by xxxx xxxxxxxx, the son of xxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxxxx. 36 . xxxx xxxxxxxx was found guilty and sentenced for some of his crimes against the Plaintiffs. 37 . xxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxxxx failed to take appropriate steps prior to accepting the children and failed to adequately supervise and monitor the children and xxxx xxxxxxxx. xxxx and xxxxx xxxxxxxx were negligent in accepting, supervising and monitoring the children and in supervising and monitoring and training their son, xxxx. 38 .

The Crown and Region 7, xxxx xxxxxxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxxxx are vicariously liable for the actions of xxxx xxxxxxxx. 39 . The Crown and Region 7 have refused the requests of xxxxxx xxxxxx for her and her children's files, thereby fraudulently or equitably concealing particulars of her and her children's claims. 40 . The Crown, Region 7 and the Trustee knew that children who had been victims of crimes and torts had legal rights that needed to be protected. 41 .

The Crown and Region 7 knew that the children had been victims of crimes and torts, but failed to consider whether or not any actions should be taken on behalf of the children. And took no steps to protect the children's legal rights. In particular, the Crown and Region 7 failed to advise the Trustee and the children's guardian of the children's legal rights. 42 .

The Trustee failed to create a procedure to determine when its legal obligations of trusteeship were engaged for children in care and failed to become aware of the children's claims and failed to consider or take reasonable steps to protect the legal rights of the children. 43 . As a result the children have suffered a loss of interest on their Victims of Crime claims and have lost the opportunity to use the proceeds of compensation to heal their psychological injuries. The lapse of time has also made the prosecution of the case more difficult and has allowed the xxxxxxxxs to dissipate their assets.

THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS TRESPASS 44 . Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 45 . The Crown and Region 7 committed a trespass against the children by controlling all aspects of the children's lives, including where she could and could not go, without the children's and xxxxxx xxxxx's consent. The Crown and Region 7 prevented the children from seeing their friends or any person, unless that person was on a pre-approved list. 46 .

The children were assaulted by the Crown, Region 7, xxxx xxxxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxxxxx and xxxx xxxxxxxx, while they were in the care of the Crown and Region 7. In particular, the Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted by xxxx xxxxxxxx.

47 . All of the children suffered psychological and physical injuries as a result of the trespass by the Crown, Region 7, xxxx xxxxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxxxxx and xxxx xxxxxxxx. 48 . All of the children suffered a delay in the timely processing of their case and suffered harm as a result of that delay. NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 49 . Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 50 . The Crown and Region 7 owed a fiduciary duty to the children because: (

a) The children were in a relationship of dependency and trust relating to their custody and guardianship; (

b) the Crown and Region 7 had an obligation to act in the children's best interests and for their benefit; (

c) the children reasonably expected that the Crown and Region 7 would act in their best interests in administering their custody and guardianship; (

d) the children relied on the Crown and Region 7 to act in their best interests; (

e) the best interests and the maintenance of the children's family unit depended on the Defendant's proper administration of their custody and guardianship; (

f) the Crown and Region 7 controlled all aspects of the children's custody and guardianship and knew, therefore, that the Plaintiffs were relying upon it to properly administer their custody and guardianship; (

g) the Crown and Region 7 had a power of decision-making that directly impacted the extent and kind of services that the Plaintiffs received to enable them to be reunited together and to maintain their family unit; (

h) that power or discretion could be exercised unilaterally so as to negatively affect the children's interests; (

i) The children were peculiarly vulnerable to the prejudice and harm which might result depending upon the way the Defendant exercised its power of decision-making relating to custody and guardianship of the children and the provision to the Plaintiffs of resources and protective services; (

j) The Crown and Region 7' participation was essential to the legislative process and it played a major role in initiating legislation enacting, repealing or otherwise amending the legislation relating to the child welfare system which affected the children's legal interests without their consent; and (

k) HMTQ would injure the children if it initiated legislation whose purpose was to deprive them of rights and freedoms protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

51 . As the appointed guardian/custodian of the children, the Crown, Region 7, xxxx xxxxxxxx, and xxxxxx xxxxxxxx owed the children a duty of care: (

a) to exercise guardianship over the Plaintiffs competently and in accordance with the Act and its objectives; (

b) to provide quality care and planning for the children and to keep the Plaintiffs involved and informed of the care and planning; (

c) to develop and follow a service plan for the Plaintiffs that was in their best interests, addressed their need for stability and continuity of care and relationships, and was geared to reuniting the family in as short a duration as possible; (

d) to ensure that the Plaintiffs received the resources and the services they needed to meet the goals of their service plan; (

e) to provide ongoing supervision of the Plaintiffs including overall planning and coordination of regular personal contacts with her family, visitations, and the completion of reviews of their progress; and (

f) to return the children to the custody and care of xxxxxx xxxxxx in the absence of the Crown and Region 7' own guardianship authority over them. 52 . In addition, the Crown and Region 7 also owed the children a duty to establish a service plan that, inter alia: (

a) was developed in consultation with the Plaintiffs, their family and others who might have an interest in them; (

b) described in writing (

i) a service plan reflecting the overall objective of reuniting the children with her family whenever possible, and stating what steps were required to achieve stated goals and expectations; (ii) the continuing contacts and involvement of their child welfare worker during the TGO and any interventive strategies that will be utilized in working with the Plaintiffs towards reuniting them as a family; (iii) the services extended to the Plaintiffs in order to facilitate the service plan and any amendments to the plan and to ensure that the Plaintiffs have access to whatever information, resources or services are necessary to enable them to meet the goals of the service plan. (

c) was timely reviewed and evaluated on an ongoing basis to document the original service plan accomplishments or changes that have occurred and those things that remain to be accomplished to ensure the service plan goals were achieved in the time frame for achieving them. 53 . The Crown, Region 7, xxxx xxxxxxxx, and xxxxxx xxxxxxxx knew or ought to have known that a breach of these duties would cause damage to, or reasonably contemplated that carelessness on its part might cause damage to the children. 54 .

The Crown and Region 7 were required to meet a high standard of care because the decisions it made concerning children in need of protective services were to be made in the best interests of those children, the service plan it articulated was a fundamental part of

the Crown and Region 7' obligation and a failure to develop and follow a proper case plan could result in severe prejudice or harm to the child and to the family. 55 . The Crown and Region 7 failed to develop a service plan for the children that was in their best interests and addressed their need for stability and continuity of care and relationships. 56 . Thereafter, the Crown and Region 7 continued to assert custody and exercise guardianship over the children without legal authority to the exclusion of xxxxxxx xxxxxx and without the consent of the Plaintiffs. 57 . The Crown and Region 7 were negligent in that: (

a) The Crown and Region 7 knew or ought to have known that its failure to develop, follow, and review a service plan for the Plaintiffs, that ensured that the children's and xxxxxx xxxxxx received the resources and the services they needed to enable them to be restored to the custody of xxxxxx xxxxxx was contrary to the children's best interests and put the children at risk of becoming lost in the child welfare system and separated from their family; (

b) The Crown and Region 7 failed to establish, maintain or otherwise provide any adequate system to properly fulfill their mandate; (

c) The Crown and Region 7 failed to implement any or, any appropriate policies, procedures and audit processes to detect and correct errors in the Crown and Region 7' administration of custody and guardianship of children in care, including the children; (

d) The Crown and Region 7 failed to perform timely periodic reviews to ensure that the Department of child welfare was following appropriate operational, monitoring and auditing procedures; (

e) The Crown and Region 7 failed to properly train and supervise their employees, servants and agents; (

f) The Crown and Region 7 failed to carry out its duty to plan for and ensure that the Plaintiffs were provided access to the resources and the services they needed to fulfill the objectives of the Act and to administer the Act in a manner that was consistent with its objectives and in the best interests of children under their guardianship, including the children; (

g) The Crown and Region 7 failed to implement appropriate hiring practices and policies to ensure that workers had adequate education, skills, experience, time and resources to complete their statutory duties to the Plaintiffs; (

h) The Crown and Region 7 workers who worked with the Plaintiffs did not possess adequate education, skill, experience, time and resources to complete their statutory duties to the Plaintiffs; (

i) The Crown and Region 7 workers who worked with the Plaintiffs were expected to meet a maximum caseload standard of 101 hours per month. The Defendant's workers who worked with the Plaintiffs were forced to and did work more than the maximum 101 hours per month on a regular basis; (

j) The Crown and Region 7 workers who worked with the Plaintiffs had case loads that exceeded the maximum safe number of cases for a worker to have; (

k) The Crown and Region 7 were aware that excessive caseloads were causing problems and pressures which affected the workers ability to provide quality services to children in care and to meet children's and family's needs. The Crown and Region 7 failed to remedy

the caseload problems, which effected the Plaintiffs; and (

l) Such further or other particulars as the children may advise (

m) The Crown and Region 7 actions contravened the reasonable standard of care, which is partly determined by International Conventions and the Alberta Bill of Rights. 58 . The Crown and Region 7 breached their fiduciary duties to the children by: (

a) Failing to develop, file and follow a quality service plan for the Plaintiffs that was in their best interests, addressed their need for stability and continuity of care and relationships, and was geared to reuniting their with their family; (

b) Failing to ensure that the Plaintiffs received the resources and the services they needed to meet their best interests; (

c) Failing to provide ongoing supervision of the children including overall planning and coordination of regular personal contacts with the Plaintiffs, visitations, and the completion of reviews of their progress; (

d) Failing to exercise its power of decision-making properly or at all in exercising guardianship over the children in accordance with the Act and its objectives; (

e) Placing itself in a position where the Crown and Region 7's interests were in conflict with the Plaintiffs' interests; (

f) Subjecting the children to a state guardianship that was unauthorized; (

g) Securing the enactment of the 2002 Amending Act., (

h) Securing the enactment of CYFEA, which removed the Crown and Region 7 obligation to file service plans, thereby reducing the openness and accountability of Children's Services to the Plaintiffs; (

i) The Crown and Region 7 workers who worked with the Plaintiffs were expected to meet a maximum caseload standard of 101 hours per month. The Defendant's workers who worked with the Plaintiffs were forced to and did work more than the maximum 101 hours per month on a regular basis; (

j) The Crown and Region 7 workers who worked with the Plaintiffs had case loads that exceeded the maximum safe number of cases for a worker to have; (

k) The Crown and Region 7 were aware that excessive caseloads were causing problems and pressures which affected the workers ability to provide quality services to children in care and to meet children's and family's needs. The Crown and Region 7 failed to remedy the caseload problems, which effected the Plaintiffs; and (

l) Such further or other particulars as the children may advise. (

m) The Crown and Region 7 actions contravened the reasonable standard of care, which is partly determined by International

(

m) The Crown and Region 7 actions contravened the reasonable standard of care, which is partly determined by International Conventions and the Alberta Bill of Rights . 59 . The Crown and Region 7's longstanding and extensive non-compliance with the Act was grossly negligent in light of the legislative history and purpose of the Act. The Act was introduced to address specific concerns about the quality of care that Alberta's children in care were receiving from the Crown. Compliance with the Act was designed to protect vulnerable children in the care of the Crown.

In addition, the non-compliance of the Act was grossly negligent in light of the various judicial pronouncements made from time to time regarding the critical importance of complying with the legislation. 60 . If any of the actions, omissions or decisions made by the Crown and Region 7, referred to herein, were policy decisions, then they were not made in good faith. 61 .

The Trustee was the trustee of the estate of the children under the Act and owed a fiduciary duty to the children and failed to fulfill it's fiduciary duty to the children, by failing to take appropriate steps to protect the legal interests of the children. 62 . xxxx xxxxxxxx and xxxxxx xxxxxxxx breached their duties by

a) assaulting and emotionally abusing the children,

b) not providing the children with a safe environment,

c) not supervising and monitoring the people who had contact with the children,

d) failing to monitor, supervise and train xxxx xxxxxxxx. CHARTER OF RIGHTS CLAIMS 63 . Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 64 . The foregoing actions and inactions of the Crown and Region 7 amount to a pattern, practice and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs Constitutional rights. These rights include, but are not limited to: (

a) the right to protection from harm - physical, emotional, developmental or otherwise - while in Government custody; (

b) the right not to remain in Government custody unnecessarily; (

c) the right to treatment related to the cause of their confinement; (

d) the right to receive care, treatment and services consistent with competent professional judgment; (

e) the right to the development and implementation of individual service plans that contain specific mandated elements, including

documentation of the steps taken to achieve permanency; (

f) the right to live in placements that have the capacity to provide for the essential needs and services of children in their care; (

g) the right to an adequate case record review system; and (

h) the right to have permanency placement at the earliest possible time; (

i) the right to personal autonomy to live his or her own life and to make decision that are of fundamental personal importance; (

j) the right to nurture one's child, to care for its development and to make decisions for it in fundamental matters, including, but not limited to medical care and moral upbringing; (

k) the right to physical and psychological integrity, and (

l) the right to security of the person. 65 . ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________ 66 . The Crown and Region 7 violated the Plaintiffs rights under s. 7 of Life Liberty and security of the person by depriving xxxxxx xxxxxx of all guardianship and parental rights over the children, by depriving the children with all family and by controlling all aspects of their lives.

The Government Crown and Region 7 took complete control over who the children could associate with, where they would reside, who would educate and teach the children, what they would eat, how they would be socialized, what medical treatment they would receive and all other aspects of their life, liberty and security of her person. The Crown and Region 7 caused the Plaintiffs to be stigmatized, to lose their privacy and disrupted their family life, forced the children to live in a dangerous residence where they were physically and sexually abused.

As a result of the failure by the Crown and Region 7 to comply with their statutory duties to the Plaintiffs, the procedure taken by the Crown and Region 7 were not fair and did not comply with the principles of fundamental justice. In particular, the actions taken by the Crown and Region 7 violated the principles of fundamental justice because the actions were not subject to a reasonable process of judicial review. 67 .

The Crown and Region 7 violated the Plaintiffs' rights under s, 7 of life liberty and security of the person by proclaiming CYFEA which eliminated the requirement for service plans to be filed in Court. To that extent CYFEA is unconstitutional. 68 . The Crown and Region 7 violated the children's rights under s. 9 to be free from arbitrary detention.

The Crown and Region 7 detained and withheld the children from xxxxxx xxxxxx without the consent of the children and xxxxxx xxxxxx and without lawful authority. 69 . ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________ 70 . ______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________ ______________________ 71 . The infringements of the Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed by sections __ 7, and 9 __________ of the Charter were not reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 the Charter. ALBERTA BILL OF RIGHTS CLAIMS 72 . __________________________________________________________________ 73 . The children rely on ____________________________________ s. 1 (a), (

b) and (

e) of the Alberta Bill of Rights R.S.A. 1980, c. A-16 to determine the reasonable standard of care that was owed to them by the Crown . INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION CLAIMS 74 . ________________________________________________________________ 75 . The children rely on __________________________________________

Article 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 20, 25 and 26 of the United nations Universal Declaration of Human Right to determine the reasonable standard of care that was owed to them by the Crown. 76 . The children rely on __________________________________________

Article 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 37, and 39 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to determine the reasonable standard of care that was owed to them by the Crown. LIMITATION ISSUES 77 . Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 78 . In the event that the Defendants plead any limitations defences, the children are minors and rely on the Limitations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-12 . 79 .

In the event that the Crown and Region 7 plead any limitation defences, the Plaintiffs reply that the Crown and Region 7 concealed, fraudulently or otherwise the relevant facts underlying the claims in this Statement of Claim and put the Crown and Region 7 to the strict proof of proving that the material and relevant facts in this Statement of Claim were disclosed by the Crown and Region 7 to the Plaintiffs within the alleged limitation period.

The Crown and Region 7 refused to provide the Plaintiff with her entire file and have a policy to deny children and parents involved with child welfare to have reasonable access to their files. DAMAGES 80 . As a result of the aforesaid breaches of the Crown and Region 7' arising from the Crown and Region 7' administration of the Plaintiffs' custody and guardianship over the children, they were separated from their family unreasonably and without justification.

The Plaintiffs claim pecuniary and non-pecunairy damages as a result of their separation and claim further pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages because the absence of a proper service plan denied them the opportunity to work towards timely reunification.

81 . As a result of the actions by the Crown, Region 7, xxxx xxxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxxxxx and xxxx xxxxxxxx, the Plaintiffs all suffered: (

a) severe emotional and psychological distress; (

b) social, behavioral and relationship problems; (

c) physical and medical problems, (

d) embarrassment; (

e) loss of reputation, (

f) educational problems, and (

g) employment problems. 82 . As a result of the actions by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs have incurred or will incur: (

a) legal expenses; (

b) loss of employment income; (

b) medical and counseling costs; and (

c) such other costs and expenses that shall be particularized at trial 83 . As a result of the actions of the Crown, Region 7 and the Trustee, the plaintiffs have incurred legal expenses, lost interest, suffered a delay and have an increased difficulty to prove their claims. 84 .

The Crown and Region 7's conduct intentionally or recklessly disregarded and contravened international conventions, the Constitution, legislation and policy manuals designed to protect the Plaintiffs from injury, was in contumelious disregard of their personal rights, was reprehensible and outrageous, offended the sense of decency of right thinking persons sufficient to warrant the condemnation of this Court and renders the Crown and Region 7_ liable to pay aggravated, exemplary, punitive and / or symbolic damages. 85 .

It is proposed that the trial of the within matter be held at the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta as this is the forum conveniens WHEREFORE EACH OF THE PLAINTIFFS xxxxxx xxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxx by her next friend xxxxxx xxxxxx, xxxxx xxxxx by her next friend xxxxxx xxxxxx,

and xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx by his next friend xxxxxx xxxxxx from and against the Defendants, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA and CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES, REGION 7, xxxx xxxxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxxxxx, AND xxxx xxxxxxxx and THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF ALBERTA (

a) General Damages in the sum of $350,000.00; (

b) Aggravated, exemplary, punitive and / or symbolic damages in the sum of $100,000.00; (

c) Special damages of $200,000 (for each child); (

d) Special damages of $100,000 (for xxxxxx xxxxxx); (

e) A declaration that the Defendant violated the children's rights protected by sections __ 7, and 9 ________ of the Charter ; (

f) A declaration that the violation of the children's rights under sections __ 7, and 9 ________ of the Charter was not justified under

section 1 of the Charter; (

g) A remedy pursuant to s. 24 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ; (

h) A declaration that ss. 32 and 34 of CYFEA, removing the requirement for filing of service plans and review of service plans by the Court, are inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution and are, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect; (

i) Interest pursuant to the Judgment Interest Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-1 and amendments thereto and Regulations thereunder; (

j) Costs of these proceedings on a solicitor client basis; (

k) Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just. DATED at the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, this ___ day of October, 2007 AND DELIVERED by Robert P. Lee, Barrister and Solicitor, 7904 - 103 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, T6E 6C3, Solicitor for xxxxxx xxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxx by her next friend xxxxxx xxxxxx, xxxxx xxxxx by her next friend xxxxxx xxxxxx, and xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx by his next friend xxxxxx xxxxxx herein whose address for service is in care of the said Solicitor.

Pursuant to Rule 87 (c.1), it is the opinion of the Solicitors that the within action will not take more than 25 days to try. ISSUED out of the Clerk of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Edmonton, Alberta this _____________ day of October, 2007. __________________________________________ CLERK OF THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Reasons for Judgment of

The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert A. Graesser _______________________________________________________ The citation line has been changed to: A.F. v. Alberta , 2012 ABQB 486