2013 NBCA 41, 2013 NBCA 41

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUR D’APPEL DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK 120-12-CA PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK (Respondent) APPELLANT PROVINCE DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK (Intimé

e) APPELANTE - and - - et - HUGUETTE COMEAU (Applicant) RESPONDENT HUGUETTE COMEAU (Requérante) INTIMÉE - and - - et - PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK (Respondent) APPELLANT PROVINCE DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK (Intimé

e) APPELANTE - and - - et - RONALD COMEAU (Applicant) RESPONDENT RONALD COMEAU (Requérant) INTIMÉ Province of New Brunswick v. Comeau, 2013 NBCA 41 Province du Nouveau-Brunswick c. Comeau, 2013 NBCA 41 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Deschênes The Honourable Justice Richard The Honourable Justice Bell CORAM : L’honorable juge Deschênes L’honorable juge Richard L’honorable juge Bell Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench: August 13, 2012 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine : Le 13 août 2012

History of case: Decision under appeal: Unreported Preliminary or incidental proceedings: [2012] N.B.J.

No. 360 (QL) Historique de la cause : Décision frappée d’appel : Inédite Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : [2012] A.N.-B. n o 360 (QL) Appeal heard: January 8, 2013 Appel entendu : Le 8 janvier 2013 Judgment rendered: July 4, 2013 Jugement rendu : Le 4 juillet 2013 Reasons for judgment by: The Honourable Justice Bell Motifs de jugement : L’honorable juge Bell Concurred in by: The Honourable Justice Deschênes The Honourable Justice Richard Souscrivent aux motifs : L’honorable juge Deschênes L’honorable juge Richard Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Pierre R. Ouellette For the respondents: Charles R.

LeBlanc, Q.C. Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelante : Pierre R. Ouellette Pour les intimés : Charles R. LeBlanc, c.r. THE COURT The appeal is allowed for the very limited purpose of varying the remedy ordered by the application judge to reflect the fact that the final decision need not be made by a multi-party committee. The respondents are entitled to one set of costs of $2,500. LA COUR L’appel est accueilli, mais à seule fin de modifier la réparation ordonnée par le juge saisi des requêtes pour refléter le fait que la décision définitive ne doit pas nécessairement être prise par un comité multipartite.

Les intimés ont droit à une masse de dépens de 2 500 $. English version of the judgment of the Court was delivered by BELL J.A. I. Introduction

[ 1 ] On December 19, 2008, Les Résidences communautaires Line Ferguson Inc. (“Les Résidences”), an adult residential facility licensed by the Minister of Social Development, terminated the employment of two long-term employees, Huguette Comeau and Ronald Comeau, who are not related. Several days prior, two simultaneous investigations carried out under the Family Services Act , S.N.B. 1980, c. F-2.2, concluded the Comeaus had endangered residents under their care. As a result, they could no longer be employed at Les Résidences, or any other facility licensed by the Minister.

These ministerial decisions were the subject of successful judicial review applications in the Court of Queen’s Bench, where the application judge held that the decision making process failed to respect the requirements of procedural fairness. [ 2 ] The grounds of appeal advanced by the Province raise concerns about the impact of the application judge’s decision on the Minister’s ability to craft her own procedures and to fulfil her mandate of protecting vulnerable members of society.

In these reasons, by which I would allow the appeal for the very limited purpose of varying the remedy ordered by the application judge, I conclude the protection of vulnerable members of our society must be accomplished while respecting the alleged perpetrators’ rights to be treated in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. II. Background A. Sequence of Events [ 3 ] On May 19, 2007, an employee of Les Résidences sent a letter to the Department of Social Development, in which she expressed concern about the Comeaus’ treatment of various residents.

At the Department’s request, a more detailed letter followed. On June 14, 2007, the complainant met with departmental staff in order to discuss the letters. [ 4 ] One week after the June 14 meeting, a group of eight departmental employees met and crafted an investigation plan. This plan set out five elements, one of which required the supervisor of the long-term care program report to the Regional Director. [ 5 ] On July 19, 2007, the Minister decided to conduct an official investigation pursuant to ss. 27 and 35 of the Family Services Act .

Les Résidences informed each of the Comeaus, in writing, that they were suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation. This appears to have been the first direct communication with the Comeaus regarding the investigation. [ 6 ] Between July and October of 2007, residents of Les Résidences underwent medical assessments, none of which disclosed evidence of physical abuse. The Minister completed the investigatory phase on August 27, 2008. As an aside, I would note that a parallel criminal investigation did not result in the laying of any federal or provincial charges against Mr.

Comeau, nor any convictions against Ms. Comeau. [ 7 ] Having completed the investigatory phase, the investigator met with her supervisor, on October 3, 2008, at which time they concluded the Comeaus had violated s. 37.1(1)(

e) of the Act . I note parenthetically that

section does not create an offence. The investigator then prepared an investigation report for presentation to the investigative committee. The investigative committee consisted of the investigator, her supervisor and an independent person who had played no role in the decision that the Comeaus had violated the Act . The investigative committee approved the investigator’s findings.

Following that approval, on December 16, 2008, the investigator sent letters to each of the Comeaus, with a report attached which indicated she was communicating “the decision of the Minister.” Two days later, having afforded the Comeaus no opportunity to respond to the report, a representative of the Minister sent separate but identical letters to the Director of Les Résidences, in which he advised that the following sanctions had been imposed in relation to each of the Comeaus: Ronald [et Huguette] Comeau ne seront autorisés à: - [E]xploiter ou travailler dans une garderie, un établissement résidentiel pour adultes, dans un arrangement d’hébergement en famille alternative, un centre de placements pour enfants (par exemple, un foyer d’accueil ou de groupe), dans un arrangement d’hébergement en famille alternative ou à ADAPF (Activité de développement pour adultes, programme et formation);

- [H]abiter dans une garderie, un établissement résidentiel pour adultes, dans un arrangement d’hébergement en famille alternative ou un centre de placements pour enfants exploités dans une résidence personnelle; - […] [D]evenir parent adoptif; - […] [F]ournir des services de soutien à domicile (accompagnement, aide domestique, etc.). [ 8 ] Upon receipt of those letters, Les Résidences dismissed Mr. and Ms. Comeau. B. Statutory Scheme and Departmental Policies [ 9 ] Once an allegation of abuse is made regarding a “community placement resource” as defined in the Act , both ss. 27(1) and 35(1) require the Minister to investigate: 27

(1) Where the Minister is advised that a community placement resource may be […] (

d) dangerous, destructive or damaging to a user of the community placement resource, the Minister shall evaluate the community placement resource and may make such investigation as he considers necessary […]. […] 35

(1) Where the Minister has reason to believe that a person is a neglected adult or an abused adult, he shall cause an investigation to be made and, if he considers it advisable, may request and authorize a medical practitioner to examine and report on the physical and mental condition of the person and the care and attention he is receiving. 27

(1) Lorsque le Ministre est avisé de la possibilité qu’un centre de placement communautaire […]

d) soit dangereux, destructif ou dommageable pour ses usagers, il effectue une évaluation du centre et peut faire les enquêtes qu’il juge nécessaires […]. […] 35

(1) Lorsque le Ministre a des raisons de croire qu’une personne est un adulte négligé ou maltraité, il doit faire mener une enquête et s’il le juge souhaitable, il peut ordonner et donner l’autorisation à un médecin d’examiner cette personne et de faire un rapport sur son état physique et mental et sur les soins et l’attention qu’elle reçoit. [ 10 ]

Section 37.1(1)(

e) of the Act describes when the security of a person may be in danger:

37.1

(1) For the purposes of subsection (2), the security of a person may be in danger when […] (

e) the person is physically or sexually abused, physically or emotionally neglected, sexually exploited, including sexual exploitation through pornography or in danger of such treatment ; [Emphasis added.] 37.1

(1) Aux fins du paragraphe (2), la sécurité d’une personne peut être en danger lorsque […]

e) la personne est physiquement ou sexuellement maltraitée, négligée physiquement ou affectivement, exploitée sexuellement, notamment son exploitation sexuelle sous forme de pornographie ou risque de subir un tel traitement ; [C’est moi qui souligne.] [ 11 ] The Minister has approved elaborate, overlapping policies dealing with the investigation of complaints under ss. 27 and 35, including “Adult Residential Facility Coordinators Standards” (Standards), “Adult Protection Services Practice Standards and Guidelines” (Guidelines) and “Adult Victims of Abuse Protocols” (Protocols).

Excerpts from the Standards are attached as Appendix “A”. The Standards apply to all adult residential facilities offering long term care services under the Act , and are intended to assist Social Development staff in the investigation of complaints. The Guidelines govern all situations of adult protection, and provide guidance to investigating social workers. The Protocols are endorsed by various government Departments and anticipate the participation of a broad range of employees. [ 12 ] Ever present throughout the scheme is the influence of the Regional Director.

Section 7.3(

a) of the Standards provides that the decision to undertake a formal investigation lies with the Regional Director or his or her designate.

Section 7.3.1(2) contemplates a “short briefing note” be sent to the Regional Director regarding the results of the initial investigation and, once a decision is made to undertake a formal investigation, s. 7.3.1(3) contemplates that the Regional Director may form part of the investigative team. Upon completion of the formal investigation, a report is to be sent to the Regional Director (s. 7.3.1(10) of the Standards).

In the event the Regional Director agrees with the recommendations of the investigative team, s. 7.3.1(11) requires the Program Manager send a letter to the operator which sets out the “findings and conclusions” of the investigation and requesting a written response within five working days. [ 13 ] The consequences of a finding of abuse are set out in a ministerial policy entitled Social Development Check & Criminal Record Check Policy & Procedure. That policy, when applied in conjunction with

section 19.1 of the Community Placement Residential Facilities Regulation , NB Reg. 83-77 (attached as Appendix “B”) imposes serious consequences upon anyone determined by the investigators to have violated the Act .

Section 1.2 of the policy stipulates they will not be authorized to:

f) operate or work in a day care facility, adult residential facility, child placement facility (for example, a foster home or group home), in an AFLA, or at Adult Development Activities, Program & Training (ADAPT);

g) live in a day care facility, an adult residential facility, an AFLA or a child placement facility operated out of a personal residence;

h) become an adoptive parent; or

i) provide home support services such as attendant care and homemaker.

f) exploiter ou travailler dans une garderie, un établissement résidentiel pour adultes, dans un arrangement d’hébergement en famille alternative, un centre de placement pour enfants (par exemple, un foyer d`accueil ou de groupe), dans un arrangement d’hébergement en famille alternative, ou à ADAPF (Activités de développement pour adultes, program[m]es et formation);

g) habiter dans une garderie, un établissement résidentiel pour adultes, dans un arrangement d’hébergement en famille alternative ou un centre de placement pour enfants exploité dans une résidence personnelle;

h) devenir parent adoptif;

i) fournir des services de soutien à domicile (accompagnement, aide domestique, etc.). To summarize, the Minister’s finding that Mr. and Ms. Comeau had endangered adults under their care through physical abuse, as described in s. 37.1(1)( e ), constitutes the decision, from which flowed an automatic revocation of the Comeaus’ ability to be employed by, or engaged in, a broad range of governmental programs and public and private sector employment. C. Judicial Review Application [ 14 ] Mr. and Ms.

Comeau each filed a Notice of Application in which they sought judicial review of the decision by the investigative committee.

They contended they were not treated in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard by an impartial decision maker. [ 15 ] The application judge concluded the Minister failed to treat the Comeaus in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness in two respects: (1) the participation of the investigator and her supervisor tainted the “decision making committee/comité de décideurs”; and (2) the Comeaus had neither received a copy of the investigation report nor had they been afforded the opportunity to make representations about it before a final decision was rendered.

He disposed of the application as follows: Les décisions et les ordonnances sont par conséquent soumises à la Cour [et] annulées. Je renvoi[e] l’affaire au Ministre afin qu’il puisse, sans délai, reconsidérer l’affaire par un comité de décideurs impartial et ce, après avoir donné une occasion raisonnable aux requérants de faire entendre leurs positions, de répliquer pleinement aux rapports d’enquête. Le nouveau comité de décideurs devra rendre une décision finale par rapport aux requérants sans délai. Enfin, les requérants ont chacun droit aux dépens que je fixe à 1500 $, incluant les déboursés. [par. 45]

III. Issues [ 16 ] The Province contends the application judge erred in ordering: i. The Minister could not form a decision making committee which included among its ranks two of the investigators [in this case, the investigator and her supervisor]; ii. The Minister reconsider the matter by having an impartial decision making committee make a final decision without delay; and iii.

The Comeaus be afforded the opportunity to review the investigative report and be heard by the decision making committee; The Minister further contends the application judge erred in failing to consider the confidentiality requirements of s. 11 of the Act and the confidential character of investigations undertaken pursuant to s. 27. IV. Analysis and Decision [ 17 ] By way of introduction, I would offer the following preliminary observations.

First, because there is no reference to a “decision making committee/comité de décideurs” in the procedures (Guidelines, Protocols and Standards) established by the Department, I will briefly touch upon the application judge’s conclusion that such a committee forms part of the formal process.

Second, although there appear to have been numerous inconsistencies between the Department’s investigation policies and their execution – particularly the need to identify a specific investigation team and to have two of its members present during each interview – the application judge held that the investigation phase met the required fairness duty. This holding has not been challenged.

Finally, since there was no challenge to the Minister’s delegation of her investigative and decision-making powers pursuant to ss. 27 and 35, I will accept, for purposes of this appeal, that such delegation was effected in accordance with s. 3(1)(

b) of the Act which permits the Minister to authorize, in writing, others to exercise any “[…] authority, power, duty or function […]” conferred upon her. A. Decision making committee [ 18 ] As noted above, the material on record makes no mention of a “decision making committee/comité de décideurs” as described by the application judge.

The appellant contends that, in ordering that the final decision be made by such a committee, the application judge infringed upon the Minister’s decision-making powers conferred by the Act . [ 19 ] In fact, the application judge was merely responding to the case as presented to him. Because the Minister took the position she could delegate to such a committee, the application judge cannot be faulted for endorsing such a procedure.

Although the application judge may have crafted the term “comité de décideurs” to describe the three-person committee and its apparent role in the process, he did not invent a bifurcated process where one did not previously exist. The investigation report clearly required further approval, presumably before an independent decision maker, prior to a final decision. [ 20 ] In law, the final decision need not be made by a multi-party committee.

Subject to requirements of impartiality as described below, the Minister may delegate her decision-making function to anyone she chooses, or, she may choose to personally exercise that role. The existing Standards, s. 7.3.1, clause 11, anticipate the investigative team’s recommendation be considered and approved or rejected by the Regional Director.

However, given that the supervisor of the long term care program reported to the Regional Director early on in relation to this matter (see para. 4), and, given the Regional Director’s roles as set out in paragraph 13 of these reasons, his or her role as a final decision maker is tainted. Thus, that person cannot fulfil the role contemplated for him or her in clause 11, s. 7.3.1 of the Standards.

[21] In their simplest form, the procedures adopted by the Minister contemplate an investigationduring which the Comeaus were to have had an opportunity to be heard. This procedure would have provided them with minimalsafeguards at the investigative stage. The investigators were then required to consider all material, including the Comeaus’ statements,and make a recommendation to a decision maker.

While the procedures contemplate that the decision maker should be the RegionalDirector, for the reasons already indicated, such a scenario is impossible because of the role played by him or her in the earlier phases ofthe investigation. B. Extent of the Procedural Fairness Duty [22] Since Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (SCC),[1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, [1999] S.C.J.

No. 39 (QL), courts have moved away from categorizing an administrative process as eitherinvestigative, quasi-judicial or judicial in order to determine the degree of procedural fairness to be afforded the subject of aninvestigation or enquiry. Baker established that the extent of procedural fairness varies from case to case and “its content is to bedecided in the specific context of each case” (para. 21). The court in Baker also set out five factors which have been recognized asrelevant in determining the degree of procedural fairness required in any particular circumstance.

These were identified by theapplication judge and recently canvassed in Ouellette v. Saint-André, an incorporated rural community, 2013 NBCA 21, [2013] N.B.J.No. 80 (QL), but bear repeating.

They are: i. the nature of the decision being made and the process followed; ii. the nature of the statutory scheme; iii. the importance of the decision to the individual or the individuals affected; iv. the legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision; and v. the choice of the procedure made by the agency itself when the statute leaves to the decision-maker the right to determine theprocedures it considers appropriate. [23] Following LaVigne J. in Brideau v.

New Brunswick (Minister of Family and CommunityServices), 2007 NBQB 69, 315 N.B.R. (2d) 135, the application judge concluded the Comeaus were entitled to a minimal degree ofprocedural fairness, primarily on the basis that there are no statutory limits upon the Minister’s choice of procedure. With respect, I amof the view that more than a minimal degree of procedural fairness is owed to the Comeaus. I reach this conclusion for the followingreasons. [24] First, s. 7.1 of the Standards requires the Comeaus be treated with natural justice. It provides asfollows:

7.1 Complaint Investigation […] The principle of natural justice must be applied to any situation involving complaint investigation. This involves: • Sharing the nature of the complaint • Providing the opportunity to obtain an explanation • Informing of the findings and conclusions of the investigation • Offering the possibility to provide comments [Emphasis added.] 7.1 Enquête faisant suite à une plainte […] Le principe de la justice naturelle doit être appliqué dans toute situation d’enquête sur une plainte.

Cela comprend ce qui suit : • Informer la personne visée de la nature de la plainte; • Lui offrir la possibilité de fournir une explication; • l’informer des résultats et des conclusions de l’enquête; • lui offrir la possibilité de donner son avis [C’est moi qui souligne.] The Minister adopts the mandatory “must” to set out her direction that the principles of natural justice will be applied in such circumstances. This is no doubt the result of the severe consequences which follow a finding that the subject of an investigation has violated the Act .

Furthermore, the use of the word “comprend” in the French text connotes that the principles of natural justice to be applied are not limited to those listed. In these circumstances, I would interpret “comprend” as one would interpret “includes” in a statutory instrument. The list of items to be considered in according natural justice to a party is not limited to those enumerated. This

interpretation is consistent with the use of the word “involves” in the English text. Depending upon the nature of the allegations and the potential consequences of the investigation being undertaken, the requirements of natural justice might vary. [ 25 ] Secondly, I would note the application judge recognized the Comeaus’ continued employment depended upon the results of the investigation. I would point out, however, that the consequences are not limited to employment related issues. According to the departmental policies, as reflected in the letters of December 18, 2008, neither Mr. nor Ms.

Comeau is allowed to operate or work in a daycare, residential facility for adults, an alternative family accommodation, or a placement center for children ( i.e. a foster home or a group home). The Comeaus are also prohibited from living in a daycare center, a residential facility for adults, in a homestay arrangement or alternative placement center for exploited children. As well, they are prohibited from becoming adoptive parents or providing home support to non-family members.

The consequences of a finding against the Comeaus are drafted so broadly that should either be in need of care at a nursing home or special care home licensed by the Province, they could be refused admission. Furthermore, if either married someone with children eligible for adoption, neither could commit to adopting those children and raising them as a family.

While the potential consequences have not been challenged on this appeal, they are appropriate factors to consider in assessing the degree of procedural fairness to be accorded in the circumstances. [ 26 ] I would add, based upon the Minister’s own policies, an investigative finding that one has violated the Act carries with it consequences equivalent to a judicial finding: see ss. 19.1(2) (

a) and (

c) of N.B. Reg. 83-77 . These potential consequences, over which the Comeaus appear to have no influence (minimum sanctions), militate in favour of a high standard of procedural fairness. [ 27 ] Finally, the wording of the policy that codifies these severe sanctions recognizes the need for procedural safeguards in the course of investigations.

Section 1.2(

c) of the policy reads as follows:

c) who has been found, as the result of adocumented investigation under subsection35(1) of the Act, to endanger the security of anadult in accordance with paragraph 37.1(1)(e)and who has been informed of the findings andconclusions of the investigation[.] [Emphasis is mine.] c) [Q]ui, par suite d`une enquête en bonneet due forme en vertu du paragraphe 35(1)de la Loi, a été réputée mettre en danger lasécurité d’un adulte, contrevenant ainsi al`alinéa 37.1(1)e), et qui a été informée desconstations et des conclusions del`enquêteur; [C’est moi qui souligne.] That provision not only requires the investigation be conducted “en bonne et due forme,” but also requires the targeted person beinformed of the findings and conclusions of the investigator.

The clause provides much more than a bare right to

summary conclusionsfollowing an investigative process in which the identity of witnesses and their statements are not disclosed. The words “en bonne et dueforme” must have meaning (see Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 5th ed. (Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis, 2008) atpp. 210-13).

In my opinion, they envisage an open and comprehensive investigation with a high degree of procedural fairness at thedecision-making stage. [28] As a result of my observations in paragraphs [23] to [28], I am of the view the Comeaus wereentitled to be accorded a high degree of procedural fairness at the decision-making stage. C. Application of the standards of procedural fairness in this case [29] As outlined in the Standards, the Minister contemplates the preparation of an investigationreport, with a recommendation, which is to be submitted to the Regional Director for approval or rejection.

Provided the RegionalDirector is not involved in the investigation, I can find no fault with that procedure. However, as I have indicated in paragraph [21], theRegional Director was involved in the investigative phase and is therefore tainted with bias. This prohibits him or her from fulfilling therole of final decision maker. [30] While there are certainly circumstances in which a lack of formal separation betweeninvestigators and decision-makers will be acceptable within a statutory scheme (see for example Brosseau v. Alberta SecuritiesCommission, (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 301, [1989] S.C.J.

No. 15 (QL)), this is not such a case. Here, the ministerialpolicies contemplate both the need to respect principles of natural justice and to have the investigators’ recommendation referred to theRegional Director for a final decision. That approach, the separation of the investigative process from the decision making process, isconsistent with my observation that a high degree of procedural fairness is required in the circumstances.

Given that the stakes for futureemployment and access to programs and services offered by the Minister are so high, the Comeaus are entitled to be provided with acopy of all the evidence and an opportunity to respond fully. That response would obviously be made to the ultimate decision maker, beit an unbiased Regional Director, an unbiased committee or individual appointed by the Minister or the Minister herself. D.

Confidentiality [31] As a final matter, the Minister contends the degree of procedural fairness ordered by theapplication judge would result in violations of the confidentiality provisions set out in ss. 11 and 27(3) of the Act. I disagree. There is noreason why the Comeaus cannot have access to the complete investigative report, including witness statements, with appropriateredactions, that preserve their right to procedural fairness and others’ rights to confidentiality.

To the extent the investigators have accessto police reports, that information, subject to rules regarding confidential sources, must also be made available to the Comeaus. Anydispute with respect to the extent of the redactions and their potential impact upon procedural fairness can be resolved through mutualdiscussion, appropriate administrative mechanisms and, if necessary, the courts. V. Conclusion [32] I agree with the application judge’s conclusion that the Comeaus were not treated in accordancewith natural justice because they were not afforded the right to be heard before an impartial decision-maker.

I also endorse theapplication judge’s expansive definition of the materials that must be made available to the Comeaus. Had the judge not ordered the

decision be made by a multi-party committee, I would dismiss the appeal. However, although the judge was responding to the case as presented to him, he erred in law in this respect. As a result, I would allow the Minister’s appeal, but for the very limited purpose of varying the remedy to reflect the fact that the final decision need not be made by a multi-party committee. The Minister is required to either appoint an impartial decision maker, or, provided she has maintained her neutrality, take on the task herself. The Comeaus are entitled to be properly heard by the final decision maker.

In these circumstances, given the appeal is allowed solely for this limited purpose, I would order the Minister to pay one set of costs in the amount of $2,500.00. _______________________________ B. Richard Bell, j.c.a. NOUS SOUSCRIVONS À L’AVIS. _________________________________ Alexandre Deschênes, j.c.a. _________________________________ J.C. Marc Richard, j.c.a. Appendix “A” Standards: Investigation Procedure 7.1 Complaint Investigation […] The principle of natural justice must be applied to any situation involving complaint investigation.

This involves: • Sharing the nature of the complaint • Providing the opportunity to obtain an explanation 7.1 Enquête faisant suite à une plainte […] Le principe de la justice naturelle doit être appliqué dans toute situation d’enquête sur une plainte. Cela comprend ce qui suit : • Informer la personne visée de la nature de la plainte; • Lui offrir la possibilité de fournir une explication; • l’informer des résultats et des conclusions de l’enquête;

• Informing of the findings and conclusions of the investigation • Offering the possibility to provide comments [Emphasis added.] […] 7.1.1 Abuse and/or Neglect Investigations All situations involving suspected physical abuse, sexual abuse, mental cruelty, neglect or any combination thereof are to be immediately referred to Adult Protection Services. The coordinator shall conduct the investigation in conjunction with the Adult Protection Worker in accordance with the Adult Protection Standards . Where the initial investigation reveals strong evidence of the abuse and/or neglect of a resident, the coordinator should launch a formal investigation in accordance with the guidelines contained in

section 7.3. [Emphasis added.] […] 7.3 Formal Investigations

Section 27 of the Family Services Act provides the authority to conduct an investigation of a facility. A formal investigation is appropriate where:

a) the initial investigation gave the coordinator reason to believe that a resident had been abused and/or neglected by the operator or staff; • lui offrir la possibilité de donner son avis [C’est moi qui souligne.] […] 7.1.1 Enquêtes sur les incidents de mauvais traitements et de négligence Toutes les situations comportant des mauvais traitements physique, des atteintes sexuelles, de la cruauté mentale, de la négligence, ou plusieurs de ces situations, doivent immédiatement être signalées aux Services de protections des adultes.

Le coordonnateur devra mener une enquête conjointement avec le travailleur social préposé à la protection des adultes, conformément aux normes de protection des adultes . Si l’enquête initiale fait état d’un fort élément de preuve voulant qu’un pensionnaire ait été victime de mauvais traitements ou de négligence, le coordonnateur doit amorcer une enquête officielle, conformément aux lignes directrices mentionnées au paragraphe 7.3. [C’est moi qui souligne.] […] 7.3 Enquêtes officielles L’

article 27 de la

Loi sur les services à la famille confère le pouvoir d’effectuer une enquête sur un établissement. Il convient de procéder à une enquête officielle si :

a) l’enquête préliminaire donne au coordonnateur des raisons de croire qu’un résident a été victime de mauvais traitements ou de négligence de la part du responsable de l’établissement ou d’un membre du personnel ; […] Une enquête officielle a pour objet de confirmer ou de nier les allégations de non- conformité aux normes et pratiques établies. La décision de mener une enquête officielle

[…] The purpose of a formal investigation is to confirm or negate the allegations of non- compliance with accepted standards and practices. The decision to undertake a formal investigation lies with the Regional Director or his/her designate. Every formal investigation is to be conducted in accordance with sections 27 through 29 of the Family Services Act .

The following steps are intended to help the coordinator proceed in an organized manner which respects the rights of the operator. [Emphasis is mine.] 7.3.1 Abuse/Neglect The following is only to be used in situations where the initial investigation produced strong evidence to suggest that a resident has been abused and/or neglected . 1. Secure the involvement of Adult Protection Services and where appropriate notify the police. 2.

Prepare a short briefing note for the Regional Director to fax to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Program Delivery with a copy to the Provincial Investigation Consultant prior to the commencement of the investigation. 3. Establish an investigation team incombe au directeur régional ou à son représentant . Chaque enquête officielle doit être menée selon les exigences des articles 27 à 29 de la

Loi sur les services à la famille . Les étapes qui suivent visent à aider le coordonnateur à procéder d’une manière organisée qui respecte les droits du responsable de l’établissement . [C’est moi qui souligne.] 7.3.1 Mauvais traitements ou négligence La procédure suivante doit seulement être appliquée dans les cas où une enquête initiale a produit un fort élément de preuve qu’un pensionnaire a été victime de mauvais traitements ou de négligence . 1. Assurer la participation des Services de protection des adultes et, au besoin, aviser la police. 2.

Préparer, à l’intention du directeur régional , une brêve note d’information (annexe B4) qui doit être télécopiée à la sous-ministre adjointe de la Prestation des programmes, avec copie conforme au conseiller provincial en matière d’enquête avant le début de l’enquête. 3. Mettre sur pied une équipe d’enquête compétente face au type de violation faisant l’objet de l’enquête. L’équipe pourrait comprendre, sans s’y limiter, les personnes suivantes : directeur régional , surveillant des coordonnateurs, coordonnateur d’établissements résidentiels pour adultes, infirmière de la santé publique,

appropriate to the type of breaches being investigated. Composition of the team could include representatives from the following list but is not restricted to: Regional Director Coordinator’s Supervisor ARF Coordinator Public Health Nurse Public Health Inspector Police Officer Extra Mural Personnel Case Managers Mental Health Personnel Fire Marshal Program Delivery Manager 4. Take into consideration whether the continued presence of the operator or staff in the facility poses a threat to the residents while the investigation is being carried out. 5.

Develop an investigation plan specifying the timeframes and the questions to be asked of persons to be interviewed; for example, staff, residents, ex-residents, relatives. The plan should also include a strategy to notify the operator, the residents and next of kin that an investigation is being conducted. [Emphasis added.] […] inspecteur de la santé publique, policier, personnel du programme Extra-mural, gestionnaire de cas, personnel de la Santé mentale, prévôt des incendies, gestionnaire de la prestation des programmes. 4.

Considérer si la présente continue du responsable ou du personnel dans l’établissement représente une menace pour les pensionnaires pendant la durée de l’enquête. 5. Établir un plan d’enquête précisant les délais d’exécution et les questions à poser aux personnes concernées, par exemple : membres du personnel, pensionnaires, anciens pensionnaires, parents. Le plan doit aussi prévoir une stratégie pour aviser le responsable, les pensionnaires et les plus proches parents de la tenue d’une enquête. [C’est moi qui souligne.] […] 11.

Si le directeur régional appuie les recommandations de l’équipe, le coordonnateur prépare une lettre (annexe B7) pour la signature du gestionnaire de programme. Si la lettre est approuvée, elle sera livrée au responsable par courrier recommandé ou en main propre et l’informera des constatations et des conclusions de l’enquête, en lui demandant une réponse écrite dans un délai de cinq jours ouvrables. La réponse du responsable sera prie en compte au moment de prendre la décision finale . […] 13. Après avoir pris en considération la

11. If the Regional Director supports the recommendation of the team, the Coordinator will prepare a letter (Appendix B7) for the Program Manager. If approved, the letter will be sent by registered mail or delivered in person, to the operator stating the findings and conclusions of the investigation and asking for a written response within five working days of this letter. The operator’s response will be recorded and taken into consideration when making the final decision . […] 13.

Once taking into consideration the operator’s response, if the final decision is to recommend corrective measures, the Program Manager will send a letter (Appendix B10) to the operator advising him/her: - which corrective measures must be implemented and the length of time to accomplish this; - that failure to take corrective action by the specified date will result in a recommendation for closure; (see

Section 8) - in addition to the letter, it is recommended to meet with the operator and discuss the content of the letter. réponse du responsable, si la décision finale consiste à recommander des mesures correctives, le gestionnaire de programme doit envoyer une lettre (annexe B 10) au responsable pour l’aviser de ce qui suit : - les mesures correctives à prendre et le délai accordé pour ce faire; - le défaut de prendre les mesures correctives avant la date spécifiée entraînera une recommandation visant la fermeture (voir

section 8); - en plus de la lettre, il est recommandé de rencontrer l’opérateur pour discuter du contenu de la lettre. Il faut aussi envoyer une lettre (annexe B11) aux pensionnaires et aux plus proches parents pour les aviser que le responsable adoptera des mesures correctives.

Appendix “B” Community Placement Residential Facilities Regulation , NB Reg 83-77 19.1

(1) An operator of a community placement residential facility shall ensure that a criminal record check and a check with the Department, as described in subsection (2), is conducted on each staff member or prospective staff member. 19.1

(2) A check with the Department shall be in respect of (

a) a court order based on a finding by the court that a person has endangered a child’s security or development as described in paragraphs 31(1)(

a) to (

g) of the Act or a person’s security as described in paragraphs 37.1(1)(

a) to (

g) of the Act, (

b) a finding by the Minister, as the result of an investigation by the Minister, that a person has endangered the security or development of a child as described in paragraphs 31(1)(

a) to (

g) of the Act, where the person has been informed of the finding of the Minister, and (

c) a finding by the Minister, as the result of an investigation by the Minister, that a person has endangered the security of another person as described in paragraphs 37.1(1)(

a) to (

g) of the Act, where the person has been informed of the finding of the Minister . 19.1

(3) An operator shall ensure that a check under subsection (1) is conducted before the person becomes a staff member. 19.1

(4) An operator shall ensure that a check under subsection (1) is conducted on every staff member not later than five years after any previous check, and that a check is conducted sooner if the operator reasonably believes one is required. 19.1

(1) Le responsable d’une installation de placement communautaire de type résidentiel doit s’assurer qu’une vérification de casier judiciaire et qu’une vérification auprès du ministère décrite au paragraphe (2) sont effectuées à l’égard de chaque membre ou de chaque membre éventuel du personnel. 19.1

(2) Toute vérification effectuée auprès du ministère porte :

a) sur une conclusion de la cour tirée dans une ordonnance indiquant que la personne a menacé la sécurité ou le développement d’un enfant tel qu’il est énoncé aux alinéas 31(1)

a) à

g) de la Loi ou la sécurité d’une personne tel qu’il est énoncé aux alinéas 37.1(1)

a) à

g) de la Loi;

b) sur une constatation à laquelle le Ministre a procédé par suite d’une enquête qu’il a menée indiquant que la personne a menacé la sécurité ou le développement d’un enfant tel qu’il est énoncé aux alinéas 31(1)

a) à

g) de la Loi, lorsqu’elle a été informée de cette constatation;

c) sur une constatation à laquelle le Ministre a procédé par suite d’une enquête qu’il a menée indiquant que la personne a menacé la sécurité d’une autre personne tel qu’il est énoncé aux alinéas 37.1(1)

a) à

g) de la Loi, lorsqu’elle a été informée de cette constatation. 19.1

(3) Le responsable s’assure que la vérification prévue au paragraphe (1) est effectuée avant que la personne qui n’est pas membre du personnel le devienne. 19.1

(4) Le responsable doit s’assurer que la vérification prévue au paragraphe (1) est effectuée à l’égard de chaque membre du personnel cinq ans au plus tard après toute vérification précédente et qu’une vérification est effectuée plus tôt si le responsable a des raisons de croire qu’une vérification est nécessaire.

19.1

(4.1) An operator shall ensure that a copy of the checks under subsections (1) and (4) are kept at each individual community placement residential facility. 19.1

(4.2) An operator may employ a person as a staff member if the person has been convicted of an offence under

section 253 of the Criminal Code (Canada) but that staff member shall not transport any resident in a motor vehicle while acting in the course of his or her employment for five years after the date of his or her conviction. 19.1

(5) An operator shall not employ a person as a staff member if the person has been convicted of an offence under any

section of the Criminal Code (Canada) listed in

Schedule A or has been identified by a check with the Department as falling within the scope of paragraphs 2(

a) to (c) . [Emphasis added.] 19.1

(4.1) Le responsable s’assure qu’est conservée au dossier de chaque installation de placement communautaire de type résidentiel copie des vérifications prévues aux paragraphes (1) et (4). 19.1

(4.2) Le responsable peut employer comme membre du personnel une personne qui a été déclarée coupable d’une infraction prévue à l’

article 253 du Code criminel (Canada), mais il est interdit à cette personne pendant cinq ans à partir de la date de sa déclaration de culpabilité de transporter un pensionnaire dans un véhicule à moteur quand elle exerce son emploi. 19.1

(5) Le responsable ne doit pas employer comme membre du personnel une personne qui a été déclarée coupable d’une infraction prévue par tout

article du Code criminel (Canada) dont la liste figure à l’Annexe A ou qui a été identifiée par une vérification auprès du ministère comme étant visée par les alinéas

(2) a) à c). [C’est moi qui souligne.]