The following material concerning Chris Carter contains a police report early in his encounter with family law and child protection, and the decision in his action against caseworker Bill Shin for making a video recording in the Kitchener courthouse.

---

• Involved Vehicles:
• Involved Officers:

  Investigator; Reporting officer / OZIMKO, M. / #WA1090 / ON/PRIDE / Officer / DlV2PLT3 / #WA625 BEST, T.

• Involved Property:
• Modus Operandi:
• Reports:

  General Report

  Occurrence:

  WAO6091983 Domestic Other [9999.309] @2006/07/20 17:39 (235 BISHOP ST S, # 25, CAMBRIDGE, ON) (D/RTF FEMALE SPOKEN TO. CHILDREN INTERVIEVVED. F&CS TO BE NOTIFIED.)

  Task:

  T060163984 [Init rpt - <<Overdue>> Sup chk] Due: 2006/08/03 21:48 CAD INTERFACE ->#WA1090 OZIMKO, M. WA06091983 WA06091983 Domestic Other [9999.309] @2006/07/20 17:39 (93 QUEEN ST W, CAMBRIDGE, (Area: W2, Duty locn: 254, Beat: 205)(btwn GUELPH ST))(D/R

  Author:

  #WA1090 OZIMKO, M. Report time: 2006/07/20 17:39

  Entered by:

  #WA POLLEY, W. Entered time: 2006/09/26 12:56

  Remarks:

  NARRATIVE OF CST. M. OZIMKO

  Narrative:

  The complainant, Christopher CARTER, and Nobuyo GOTO-CARTER, had been married f!X approximately nine years and have three child rep; Liam CARTER (age 3), Connor CARTER (age 7) and Mei CARTER (age 9). Over a year ago Christopher and Nobuyo separated. Currently Liam, Connor and Mei reside with Christopher while Nobuyo has the children everyday between 6:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m..

  On July 14th, 2006, Mei, Connor and Liam were visiting Nobuyo at her residence located at 235 Bishop Street South, Apartment 25, City of Cambridge. Around lunchtime, Nobuyo spanked Liam on the back of his head several times as a form of a disciplinary action. This was witnessed by Connor and heard by MeL The children told Christopher of the incident who phoned Family and Children's Services.

  On July 15th, 2006, Family and Children's Services spoke with Liam, Connor and Mel. Christopher was not satisfied with the results of the Family and Children's Services investigation as he believed that the Family and Children's Services made no reference to the July 14th incident when interviewing the children. Family and Children's Services continued their investigation over the next several days and spoke to the children on July 19th and 20th.

  On July 20th, 2006, Christopher spoke to Family and Children's Services again and was questioned about the reason for not contacting the police. At 5:39 p.m., Christopher made a report to police.

  At 7:36 p.m., Cst. OZIMKO attended 93 Queen Street West, lower Unit. City of Cambridge, and spoke to Christopher and t.he children. Christopher indicated that Nobuyo forced Mei to write a letter with allegations that he used excessive physical force when disciplining her and that Nobuyo had made comments to him in the past about leaving the country with Mel Without Christopher's agreement. .

  Mel, Connor and Liam confirmed that Nobuyo spanked Liam on the head.

  Cst. OZIMKO then spoke to Nobuyo, addressed Christopher's concerns and explained that excessive use of force when disciplining children may pose a serious concern for their safety and lead to a criminal investigation. Nobuyo indicated that she would control herself in the future.

  Family and Children's Services were notified of the incident.

  On July 21st, 2006, at approximately 1:25 p.m., Cst. OZIMKO spoke to the Family and Children's Services worker, Paulette KANE, who advised that Family and Children's Services had been involved with the family for some time and that Mei, Connor and Liam were apprehended th"t morning because the Family and Children's Services had concerns for the wellbeing and the safety of the children. KANE also advised that she would be contacting the Domestic Violence Unit 1:0 regard to the situation.

Printed by: WA date. 2006/09/27 10:46 Computer: QA29 Page 3 of 3

---

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

BY FIRST CLASS MAIL

September 9, 2010

Mr. Chris Carter
4 Bradbury Crescent
Cambridge, Ontario
N1R 6Z3

Dear Mr. Carter:

Re: Your Complaint - William Shin, RSW, File No, C-2009:046

A panel of the Complaints Committee has reached a decision concerning your complaint against William Shin, RSW. A copy ofthe decision and the reasons for the decision is enclosed.

Confidentiality

Please note that information relating to, or obtained through, the complaints process in this matter, including the enclosed Decision, is confidential to the College's complaints process. The Decision and information contained in the Decision should not be disclosed or used for any other purpose.

Thank you for your cooperation with the complaints process. We appreciate your concern and thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the College.

Yours truly,

Glenda McDonald, M.S.W., RSW
Registrar

Encl.

---

July 27,2010

File No.: C-2009:046

PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Norman MacLeod, Public Member - Chair
Lisa Barazzutti, Public Member
Jack Donegani, RSSW, Elected Council Member
Sue-Ellen Merritt, RSSW, Non-Council Member
Henk Van Dooren, RSW, Elected Council Member

DECISION AND REASONS

This is the decision of the Complaints Committee (the "Committee") of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service W orkers (the "College") concerning the complaint of Chris Carter (the "Complainant") about the conduct or actions of William Shin, RSW (the "Member").

Background

The Complainant and his family are involved with the Family and Children's Services of the Region of Waterloo (the "CAS").

The Member is a CAS Child Protection Supervisor. He supervised the child protection matter concerning the Complainant and his family.

The Complainant arises from the Member's September 2, 2009 conduct or actions at the Cambridge Courthouse.

The Complaint

The Complainant alleges that the Member:

• "Engaged in an illegal activity" when he videotaped the Complainant in the courthouse, contrary to the Courts of Justice Act; and in order to "threaten and intimidate [the Complainant and others] from conferring together re: (among other issues) CAS ... violently child and family abusive and illegal dirty strategies and tactics ... ";
• Knew he was engaging in this "illegal activity" because he chose a physical location in the courthouse ("just inside one of the doorway-rooms ... reserved for duty counsel to confer with litigants"), "so as to conceal his actions from the floor's security cameras"; and
• Initially denied making the videotape when he spoke with a police office at the courthouse.

The Member's Representations and Explanations

The Member's response to the complaint is that he:

• Believed it was lawful to make the videotape in the courthouse, as opposed to in a courtroom;
• Made the videotape in response to the Complainant's conduct in the courthouse. He describes this conduct as: "expounding loudly, disruptively, publicly and not in a confidential or private manner", the content of which was "untrue and abusive of the [CAS] and its staff." The Member says he intention was to document the nature and inappropriateness of both what the Complainant was saying and how he was saying it "in case it became necessary for appropriate decision making in further protection of social workers and their child client", and also because the Complainant's interactions with him have been "characterized by his profane and threatening abuse of [the Member] in the past"
• Did not try to conceal himself
• Now knows it is improper to videotape in the courthouse and will not repeat the conduct;

In considering this complaint, the Committee was assisted by the following provisions:

Ontario Regulation 384/00 (Professional Misconduct)

2.

The following are acts of professional misconduct for the purposes of clause 26(2) (c) of the Act:

...

29. Contravening a federal, provincial or territorial law or a municipal by­ law if,

1. the purpose of the law or by-law is to protect public health, or
2. the contravention is relevant to the member's suitability to practice.

Standards of Practice (Second Edition)

Principle I - Relationship with Clients

Interpretation 1.7

College members employed by organizations maintain an awareness and consideration of the purpose, mandate and function of those organizations and how these impact on and limit professional relationships with clients.

Principle II - Competence and Integrity

Interpretation 2.2 Integrity

College members are in a position of power and responsibility to all clients. This necessitates that care be taken to ensure that these clients are protected from the abuse of such power during and after the provision of professional servIces ...

Interpretation 2.2.3

College members do not use information obtained in the course of a professional relationship, and do not use their professional position of authority, to coerce, improperly influence, harass, abuse or exploit a client, former client, student, trainee, employee, colleague or research subject.

Interpretation 2.2.8

In the practice of social work or social service work, College members avoid conduct which could reasonably be perceived as reflecting negatively on the profession of social work or social service work.

Decision

It is the Committee's decision that there is no basis for a decision to take no further action in response to this complaint.

There is no information, other than as contained in the allegations themselves, upon which the Discipline Committee, in the event of a referral, could find that the Member knowingly breached the Courts of Justice Act, concealed himself from security cameras, videotaped with the intention ofthreatening and/or intimidating the Complainant or others, or initially denied making the videotape.

The Member acknowledges that he videotaped the Complainant in the courthouse, contrary to the Courts of Justice Act. The purpose of this law is not to protect public health, and the Member's contravention of it is not of such magnitude or seriousness that it might be found by the Discipline Committee, on referral, to be relevant to the Member's suitability to practice.

The Member states in his correspondence to the College that he did so under the misapprehension that while such activity was prohibited in courtrooms, it was permitted in the courthouse. He states he will not repeat this conduct.

It appears to the Committee, therefore, that there is no practical or other purpose which might underlie a decision to take any further action in response to this complaint. The Member's conduct of concern to the Complainant appears to have been corrected. The Committee has no reason to believe that the Member will repeat the conduct of concern to the Complainant.

/signed/ Norman MacLeod, Chair September 3, 2010

---

July 27,2010

File No. C-2010:009

PANEL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Norman MacLeod, Public Member - Chair
Lisa Barazzutti, Public Member
Jack Donegani, RSSW, Elected Council Member
Sue-Ellen Merritt, RSSW, Non-Council Member
Henk Van Dooren, RSW, Elected Council Member

This is the decision of the Complaints Committee (the "Committee") ofthe Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (the "College") concerning the second complaint of Chris Carter (the "Complainant"), about the conduct or actions of William Shin, RSW (the "Member").

Background

The Complainant and his family are involved with the Family and Children's Services of the Region of Waterloo (the "CAS").

The Member is a CAS Child Protection Supervisor. He supervised the child protection matter concerning the Complainant and his family.

The first complaint filed with the College on October 26,2009, concerns the Member's conduct which is alleged to have occurred at the Cambridge Courthouse on September 2, 2009 ..

The Complaint

The Complainant's second complaint concerning the Member, which is the subject of this Decision, was filed with the College on February 5, 2010, by facsimile. It states that the Complainant wishes to submit "six specific additional complaints" about the Member

To the extent that the allegations in the Complainant's l0-page facsimile concern the Member, as opposed to, for example the CAS, they are as follows:

1. That the Member "knowingly made numerous false statements in the numerous official affidavits which he has submitted" in the Court proceedings involving the Complainant's family, although the CAS and the Member are "in possession of CAS ... investigation-produced information which refuted and proved false the lies with [the Member] successfully established as factual accuracies in the court proceedings. "

   The Complainant writes that he is "able to and will provide specifics but ... requests that the [College] order full and blanket disclosure to any and all CAS .. .internal notes so that [the Complainant] may be able to present to the [College] evidence in the handwriting of the CAS ... workers, including [the Member], themselves.

2. "During [the Member's] professional involvement with [the Complainant's] family, [the Member] knowingly refused to follow the "Child Welfare Transformation" policies established ... by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services

   (MCYS) ... Specifically and especially he - the CAS ... the CAS's Judge Hardman refused to follow these legislated policies by never proposing of suggesting or ever making us aware of the:

   1. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
   2. Differential Response Model (DRM)
3. "[The Member] knowingly refused to use and follow and refused to instruct his subordinate [P. A-G] to use and follow the guidelines-direction-policies as established by the MCYS' s "Ontario Child Protection Standards" and "it is also possible that [the Member] in fact specifically instructed [P. A-G] to not follow the 'Standards' ."

   In regard to this allegation, the Complainant writes,

   Most egregiously [the Member] refused to use and follow the "Standards" relating to the CAS imposition of children-parents Supervised Access Visits ... and the section relating to "Family Strength and Needs Assessment."\

   Despite being in possession of quantities of documentation and other forms of proof which asserted and established the unassailable love, health and happiness of the daddy-children relationship [the Complainant and his children] shared, [the Member] has never written one positive comment about [the Complainant's relationship with his children] in any of the many (l0?) affidavits he has registered in these proceedings.

   From July 26, 2006: (our 1st [Supervised Access Visit] watched by none other than [PK] ... [the Complainant still remembers] the 1st words out of his second oldest child's mouth when he walked through the [Supervised Access Visit] room door, in a state of extreme upset he blurted out: "Daddy why wouldn't they let us see you?")

   He was referring to the Friday July 12/06-Wednesday July 26/06 time period when the CAS ... attack team of [K-B-P] had so violently ripped us apart and kept us apart.

   The children and [the Complainant] went on to do [Supervised Access Visits] for over one year with the last one occurring in September 2007.

   [The Member] was at his manipulative and exploitative best during this time, constantly hovering around our [Supervised Access Visit] room and often waiting to-positioning himself so that he could be there at the end of the [Supervised Access Visit] to smile grin at us and mock our powerlessness.

   The CAS ... and [the Member] have numerous and varied dirty tactics re: [Supervised Access Visits and in our case our [Supervised Access Visits] were constantly moved around to various locations (with most of the [Supervised Access Visits] occurring at the CAS ... Cambridge Ont. Hespler Rd. office) throughout Cambridge with [the Member] constantly changing the times and days of the [Supervised Access Visits] as well.

   [The Member] also abruptly and with no justifiable reason ... (obviously his reason was to manipulate and provoke us in order to elicit angry responses from us ... this type of manipulation is one of the CAS's ... bread and butter technique (sic) and is a direct result of having [R], a former Parole­ Corrections officer in his English Homeland, as an executive director) ... cancelled our [Supervised Access Visits] on numerous occasions.

   ...

   Put plainly, [the Member] used, to the severe detriment of [the Complainant's] children and ... family, the [Supervised Access Visit] process as a manipulative and exploitative weapon against my children and [him] to gain litigation advantage in the Court proceedings ....

4. The Member "knowingly refused to use and complete and refused to instruct his subordinate [P. A-G] to use and complete the required paperwork as established by the MCYS's "Ontario Child Protection Tools Manual. It is also possible that [the Member] in fact specifically instructed [P. A-G] to not follow the "Tools Manual."
5. The Member "knowingly disregarded the guideline-policies in regards to requesting a CAS imposed Court ordered Parenting Capacity Assessment (PCA). Specifically, in the Spring of 2007 when [the Member] and the CAS ... officially requested that the Court order a PCA be conducted in our case ... , [the Member] and the CAS disregarded the guideline-policies as established by:
   1. the Ontario Regulation 25/07 (this regulation is ... an amendment to the Child and Family Services Act ... in an effort to correct the "unintended consequences" [destroyed families and lives] of the "Court ordered assessments" being utilized so vigorously by the CASs province wide since the unmonitored infusion of vast taxpayer supplied funds .... and ...
   2. ... the related Court document official Motion form "CFSA s.54 Endorsement Sheet" which is to be registered into the proceedings (but wasn't by [the Member and/or CAS ... "legal" counsel .... "
6. [The Member] "knowing and surreptitiously (=never having reported-disclosed the false statements he made to Glumac to the Court and/or to any other involved third party) made false statements against [ the Complainant] to the CAS ... often used PCA assessor from Guelph Ontario the psychiatrist George Glumac."

The Complainant writes,

These statements were of a highly prejudicial nature and contributed to [him] being precluded from being treated, fairly, impartially and/or objectively by Glumac during the assessment.

The Member went so far as to consciously and deliberately misrepresent to Glumac information contained in 20 year old ... Police Reports ....

(reports made by two women, a former girlfriend and a friend of that girlfriends' ... but which were deemed so discredible (sic) ... that [the Complainant] was never contacted or questioned about these reports-alleged incidences at that time and/or any time .. .in fact [the Complainant] didn't even know about the reports-that the reports existed until the CAS ... made such an issue of them in Court) concerning [the Complainant] to which he had access via a CAS ... request Court ordered disclosure to them ....

In a letter to the Complainant dated March 19, 2010, and sent to him again on April 5, 2010, the College informed the Complainant that although the contents of his facsimile appeared to meet some of the formal requirements for complaints required by Article 24 of College By-laws No.1, its content did not appear to meet all of the requirements. The Complainant was asked to provide further specified information and clarification to assist the Committee, on or before May 4,2010.

The College's correspondence also advised the Complainant that if he does not provide the requested information, the Committee may not be able to proceed to dispose of his complaint.

As at the date of this Decision, the College has not received any further information or clarification from the Complainant.

Decision

Section 24 of the Social Work and Social Service Work Act (the "Act") governs the consideration, investigation and disposition of complaints by the Committee. Under subsections 24(1) of the Act, the Committee must "consider and investigate written complaints regarding the conduct or actions of members of the College." Accordingly, the Committee's obligation to consider and investigate a complaint hinges upon: 1) there being a complaint; 2) the complaint being in writing; and, 3) the complaint pertaining to the conduct or actions of a College member.

In addition, pursuant to section 24(3) of the Act, the Committee must not take any of the dispositive actions set out in section 24(5) of the Act, unless a complaint in the form prescribed by Article 24 of College By-law No.1 has been filed with the College Registrar. Article 24 of By-law No.1 requires, among other things, that a complaint contain a statement regarding the conduct or actions of the member, with sufficient details to identify the Complainant's concerns.

In the present case, notwithstanding repeated communications with the Complainant specifically requesting that further information be provided to the Committee, the Committee is not in receipt of a sufficient written complaint to allow it to proceed with an investigation of the complaint.

It is the Committee's decision that it cannot proceed to consider and investigate the complaint, because the complaint does not contain the information needed to allow an investigation or to identify the conduct or events in question. Even if the Committee could proceed to consider and investigate the complaint, it could not dispose of the complaint. This is because the Complainant's correspondence does not contain sufficient information concerning the complaint to allow the Committee to know what it is to consider and investigate and to allow the Member to know what allegation he faces. In other words, the complaint, as filed with the College, cannot be said to pertain to the conduct or actions of the Member and does not meet the formal requirement of the College's by-law, that the complaint must contain a statement regarding the conduct or actions ofthe member, with sufficient details to identify the Complainant's concerns.

/signed/ Norman MacLeod, Chair, September 3, 2010