CAS Doctors with Adverse Case Law

                                  CAS ‘Approved’ Doctors for CFSA s 54 Assessments With Adverse Decisions:
(Court decisions critical of CAS Doctors is below this text)

The problem here is that CASs frequently pick and cultivate doctors with various deficits to skew assessments to suit their private interests even though they are a ‘publicly funded service provider’ under the CFSA.  This means the CAS and the Doctors selected, are violating in whole or part CFSA s 15(3)(d), s 37(3) and Ont. Reg. 25/07.  This includes denying services to families that must be offered under s 37(3)(c), easily predetermining a Crown ward outcome that infringes on a court's jurisdiction.

Since children have a Statutory Interest in CFSA s 15(3)(d) and s 37(3) using doctors with adverse decisions and deficits violates these Statutory Interests, yet courts with willful blindness allow this conduct!  So far.

The point is, how can any court allow a doctor with an adverse decision to make assessments that can damage the statutory interest of a child?  A doctor with an adverse decision must have their expert witness status revoked.  Remember, 95 % of the assessments are never tested by a trier-of-fact and cross examined in a Trial!  Doctors and CASs know that and take advantage of that.  On the few occasions a doctor is effectively cross examined, disturbing failings are found.  How can that be justified?  How can any court subject children to such a contrived risk by the CAS and a Doctor? Private practice lawyers so far have refused to pursue this issue even when supplied these cases! (financial interest in repeat litigation)

Other tricks used by CASs include supplying a letter with their list of approved doctors where all* or most have undisclosed adverse decisions!  In other instances, CASs use doctors who have undeclared ‘conflict of interest’ , ie, 2 or 3 doctors are ‘tagteamed’ on the same cases without disclosing their relationships to the families or the courts, ie, 2 doctors married to each other and sharing the same office with the third doctor where 2 of these doctors have been criticized by the courts in earlier decision **  See the section listing these cases further below on this page.

Documented cases show that ‘sometimes’ CAS doctors avoid complete assessments that would require treatment for disabled children and parents (violates CFSA s 15(3)(c), s 15(3)(d) and s37(3)!)  Then CASs force children into Crown Wardship as ‘adoptable’ thus denying them a treatment order which is Child Abuse! (CFSA s 37(2)(h)***  This also violates Ont. Reg. 25/07 for any assessments after Jan 2008.

If your CAS wants you to use any of these doctors, download all the Case Law and summaries here and file a Motion and affidavit with all these materials to ask the court how can a CAS be allowed to use doctors with adverse decisions that easily endanger the Statutory Interests of children in CFSA s 15(3)(d) and s 37(3) while refusing to disclose previous adverse decisions to parents or the court?  All these doctors must have their expert witness status as applied to CFSA s 54 assessments revoked!  To do otherwise places the private interest of a Doctor and the CAS above the Statutory Interest of a child!  By using all these cases as examples you can show that the CAS use of inept Doctors is not uncommon and in some cases deliberate!! PS:  This list is by no means complete, it grows every day and we try to find all these cases buried among hundreds of thousands of other cases!  The truth is out there!

REMEMBER: Completely read and use these decisions for the concerns or critique expressed by the court of a Doctor's work, report, conduct at trial or other issues concerning a Doctor.  Some of these decisions still end with a Crown Ward outcome, don't be distracted by that. If anything this may point to how the 'balance of probabilities' is skewed against parents and children while allowing in part suspect assessments! Ontario CASs and courts have invested 100 years in a flawed system and will fight tooth and nail to protect it! (The Children's Aid Society Act was proclaimed in 1904!)

NOTE:  Even if any of the Doctors named here retires, resigns, has their license revoked or dies, the negative findings of a court related to a defective report or conduct of an assessment is useful when addressing defects in new reports by the same doctors or any other doctor.

'Death by a Thousand Cuts':  Some would argue that CAS and Dr 'mistakes', 'oversights', 'omissions', etc, are 'normal' and iinsignificant overall. We argue that these and many other acts always seem to be at the expense of parents and the cumulative burden of these acts easily throw the case the wrong way when the court's unyielding 'presumption' is added. A serious double standard exists where any mistake by a parent can be used to manufacture a Crown Ward order while the court ignores abuses by CASs that include refusing Statutory Care while in CAS custody. At risk is the Statutory Interests of the child and the jurisdiction of the court and a just outcome. The CAS, Doctors, workers and lawyers are full time 'service providers under the Act', so why are they allowed to slide to a standard of care below what is expected of parents? Parents are held to a high standard the CAS and courts refuse to to abide by themselves. 

CAS Threats: CAS workers often insist on "assessments" by CAS Doctors also known as "Parenting Assessments", "PCAs", "psychological assessments" or "mental health assessments", etc. If you hesitate or refuse, the CAS worker will typically threaten you and your children, "you'll never see them again". Hopefully by now you are secretly recording meetings and phone calls so you can capture a threat like this. Once a threat is made follow it up with a polite email recapping the request and "consequences" mentioned by the worker to create a paper trail that may be useful later on, always 'cc' the CAS lawyer so they have no plausible deniability. Originally, courts ordered assessments when a parent or child 'presented' with a disability and the court required more information to make a decision. However, for decades Ontario CASs have used assessments to manufacture 'expert evidence' that abuse qualified privilege and the presumption of the court.  When a CAS worker threatens you, it's because they need the assessment to cheat you and mislead the court. You should politely decline the assessment, see document links below. You should see your family doctor(s) for letter(s) summarizing your medical history and their opinion on your fitness, this becomes your expert evidence. Collect all other evidence you can to bolster your case. If you consent to a CAS PCA with a CAS Doctor and the report is negative, wrong, dishonest or incompetent, your consent to the assessment will be used against you by the CAS and the court! A CAS may make an 'Offer to Settle' asking you to submit to a PCA. Make a Counter Offer that the CAS should obtain the records with the consents you already signed that they likely have refused to actually use! Follow the rules for Offers in Family Law Rule 18(1) to (16). Once the CAS uses 'expert evidence' against you, a case is 90% lost, deprive them of this abusive tactic and request they "investigate and corroborate their claim with evidence as required in D.B. v CAS of Durham Region 1987 CarswellOnt 459". Don't wait for a CAS to prove you wrong, work hard to prove CAS claims as 'wrong', 'mistaken' or 'false' and that a child's best interests is with their biological parent, etc. Remember, the CAS still gets to abuse the presumption of the court where parents are considered guilty from the get-go, the presumption of innocence only occurs in the criminal courts. It's not what you want to hear, but it's true!

Types of Bias: There are several types of Bias to consider in a CAS case:  Courts can inflict "Reasonable Apprehension of Bias" or "Actual Bias", learn more about these so you can spot it as it occurs at a court appearance. CAS Doctors and CAS workers often engage in "Confirmation Bias" where they look for evidence that supports their claim while ignoring evidence that can show a parent to be innocent.  This is why CAS affidavits and CAS Doctor's reports are so one-sided. There is no excuse, CASs are full time 'sophisticated litigants' and are well aware of what the CFSA, Ont. Reg. 25/07 and Case Law requires.

  If you find a CAS Doctor here from your case with a marginal or negative court decision, it is not a "Slam Dunk" for you to dismiss the Doctor's report.  It requires detailed work by you or your lawyer to show that the decision(s) show the Doctor's work is likely substandard in your case or likely jeopardizes the child's Statutory Interests in CFSA s 15(3)(d) or s 37(3), etc.  If all or most of the CAS 'approved' Doctors supplied to you are also here, then there is a possible Bad Faith conduct issue where a CAS stacks the deck against you, fails to disclose material facts about the Doctors they use and seeks to mislead the court. Generally, if you can't afford to get your own assessment ('PCA') for $10K to $15K, then you will not be able to counter the affects of a CAS paid assessment.  Read the Guides below before agreeing to a CAS controlled PCA:
(Be sure to read rest of the Guides on the Publications Page)  

Grounds to Decline a CAS Parenting Assessment                       PCA or not to PCA

No 'BS' Guide to Parenting Assessments                                    A Practical Guide to MMPI-2 Testing

Summary of Bad CAS Doctor Case Law                                      CFSA s 54 Assessment CONSENT Forms + Instructions 

All doctors in Ontario hate having court decisions posted where people can actually get them and use them. Such is the great egos of some doctors they actually believe that posting decisions here is 'libel'. Ordinary Canadians have decisions posted from various courts too. That's called 'accountability'. 

In the public Interest, Interests of Justice, the Statutory Interests of children, the names of the following doctors and the case law with adverse opinions of their conduct is listed here! Comments in various Guides on any specific CAS Doctor is covered by 'fair commentary' and 'public interest' provisions in Case Law.  If you are a CAS Doctor and don’t like it, please see the Legal Page for all the grounds that show you have no basis to complain!  

                                                                                                          Would you like to do our website Survey ?    Start Survey 

Litigation threats to silence this site and the case law published here will get you the negative publicity above and the end of the Billion Dollar gravy train of public money and child abuse inflicted by CASs, lawyers and doctors.  The legal terms and conditions on the Legal Page, openly stated, provide that any claim made would be without merit.
>> email your threats to: 

CAS Doctors with adverse decisions – short list:   ((1) added 2014)  ((2) added 2015)

Dr  Perlman           Dr  Amitay                Dr  Henderson              Dr  Kerry               ‘Dr’ Carter                 Dr Simmons (1)
Dr Tadross             Dr  Benoit                 Dr Seim                       
Dr  Vallance           Dr Pearl                    Dr Albin (2)
Dr  Amin                Dr Kushnir               
Dr Fitzgerald                 Dr Joyce (1)           Dr Wehrspann (1)     Dr Wittenberg (2) 

CAS Doctors with NO adverse decisions – NOT recommended:  
(added Dec  2014)

Dr  Li                     Dr  Sutton                 Dr  McLean                   Dr  Cook                Dr Berry                 Dr  McDermott
Dr Komer              Dr Kalia                    Dr Montayne

Quebec Doctors performing CAS assessments in Ontario NOT Recommended:  (added Dec 2014)

Dr  Worenklein      Dr Gijseghem         
Dr Pelletier

'CAAP' Team Doctors - McMaster Children's Hospital NOT recommended:  (added Mar 2015)        

Dr  Niec                 Dr Williams

The potential issues with these doctors are several: Doctors that are unwilling to be hired independently by parents and only work for various CASs across Ontario easily lack independence due to significant financial benefit compared to private practice with private referrals and an inability to bill OHIP for services. Income from CAS assessments represents the only steady business available. It's very possible for some doctors to have no negative court decisions since they easily mislead the courts and family lawyers who lack the training to spot assessment deficits and have no awareness of Case Law on assessment defects that could used to dismiss assessments in whole or part. Declining an assessment by a CAS 'approved' doctor deprives the CAS of 'expert evidence' that can cause great harm. Be sure to read the Guide 'Grounds to Decline a Parenting Assessment' from the list above.

In the case of Dr Thomas Li, there is a licence restriction on his Registration information: " August 27, 2002 - That your practice in clinical psychology is not to include services to children or adolescents. " (screen grab taken Mar 4 2015) as found on There is no record of a CAS disclosing these material facts to a court or to parents in a case. Parents who attended assessments by Dr Li recall how he started the sessions: "I work for the CAS, I'm not here to help you." (Wow!) This 'expert witness' is not impartial as required and expected by the courts. Instead he is an advocate and ally of the CAS willing to conduct an assessment that will help the CAS mislead the courts often obtaining Crown Ward orders by civil Fraud to obtain up to 18 years of additional funding by financial Fraud in each case.

In the case of Dr Monik Kalia, there is a licence restriction on her Registration information: " January 15 2009 - That your practice in clinical psychology is not to include services to children or adolescents. " (screen grab taken April 12 2015) as found on (download to view highlighted section near bottom) There is no record of a CAS disclosing these material facts to a court or to parents in a case. There are records that the Dr wrote reports on children for the CAS. The CAS has an obligation to Disclose to the court and to parents in a case, yet they don't - ever, so far. is always willing to investigate, corroborate and post adverse decisions for these or any other doctors used in CFSA s 54 assessments. Contact Us and give us a CAS Doctor's name! 
In addition to the reasons stated above, using doctors with adverse decisions and various deficits also violates the following case law:

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.(A.)                  download .pdf   
2003 CanLII 57523 (ON CJ)
> See para 60:

This decision says a CAS must be fair and balanced in it's dealings with respondents and Professionals.  But how can that be when doctors with adverse decisions are used against the child’s Statutory Interests?  How can any assessment  be impartial or
truly independent when the Doctors work together and are unlikely to contradict each other? 

'CAAP' Team Assessments - McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario:
'CAAP' is 'Child Advocacy and Assessment Program' run at the hospital with significant staffing and performs a lot of work for Ontario CASs. Based on CAAP reports obtained, they have a think 'dirty mentality' like the infamous Dr Charles Smith. The CAAP team often reaches conclusions that are 'outside it's qualification to make'. Recent reports are signed off by Dr Anne Niec, MD, Pediatrician and Director of the program, a Psychologist, often Dr Simon Williams, a pediatric nurse, a child life specialist, a clinical specialist and a pediatrician. In the reports reviewed, the CAAP team made serious mental health diagnosis that only a suitably qualified Psychiatrist is allowed to make. There are decisions that noticed that a CAAP Psychiatrist was involved in an assessment but did not sign the report creating a possible triable issue.  CAAP reports are typically abused by the CAS to mislead a court. Often, a CAAP report is not 'evidence based' and falls far short of all known medical standards: CAAP staff quote CAS affidavit claims as fact, fail or refuse to obtain medical records, make nonspecific statements of children's past or current health or treatments, make statements that conflict with legitimate OHIP medical records, use hearsay claims of parties favored by the CAS, perform substandard tests to arrive at a predetermined outcome, fail to disclose all notes and materials as part of the CAS file disclosure to parents. Overall, a CAAP referral should be avoided at all costs.

Contrary to popular belief, Psychologists cannot bill OHIP for services for individuals or CAS, they are paid directly by a client, currently, CASs represent a steady flow of business that often cannot be obtained any other way. Keep this in mind when a CAS Doctor proudly states they perform 50 to 200 assessments a year!

UPDATE: July 2014: It has been found that CASs manipulate Doctors and hide information to ensure an unfair outcome. Doctors are often unaware of many court outcomes or even negative comments by the court since CASs are not forthright with Doctors. They need them to operate in a blissful state of ignorance. If you pass information to the CAS and ask that it been given to the Doctor, it will not occur unless the materials can be used in a negative way. 
>>> In an effort to produce some 'behavior modification' in these Doctors, we have sent them letters and our brochure bringing negative court decisions to their attention so they will revise their practices to meet the CFSA, Ont. Reg 25/07, the Statutory Interests of children, to be fair to parents, provide treatment recommendations as needed and respect the jurisdiction of the courts rather then protect their financial / collegial relationship with CASs.

UPDATE: Nov 2014:
Out of Province Licensed Doctors used by CAS in Ontario: During our search of court decisions we found Doctors used in assessments that are not registered with the College of Psychologists of Ontario. Ottawa families have supplied names of Quebec doctors used by Ottawa CAS in their Ontario cases. CPO confirms this is not illegal, but it adds an extra layer of unaccountability when Quebec Doctors for the CAS know that any complaints for assessment deficits will face the extra barrier of attempting to file in french under Quebec rules. Names of the Doctors will be posted soon.

CAS DOCTORS WITH ADVERSE DECISIONS, COURT COMMENTS, ETC :                                 (case law courtesy of

Dr Olga Henderson:
Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. M.(F.)       download .pdf  
2003 CanLII 57574
> See para 83, 84, 85, 86, 88 and 146:
Dr Henderson at a trial was asked why she refused to include notes from over 200 good visitations in her assessment, the judge determined her assessment had to be done again by another doctor! No real professional would do what Dr Henderson did and then actually admit it in a trial, (as though it's OK). On the balance of probabilities, she can jeopardize other assessments.

>> Letter to Dr Henderson, July 24 2014:      download .pdf   

Dr Nitza Perlman:
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto  v.  R.(A.)     download .pdf    
2003 CanLII 57523
> See para 57, 58, 59, 60, 63

Part of her report was disregarded due to risk of bias:   This decision shows that Dr Nitza Perlman allows herself to be manipulated and is willing to work as a CAS employee and is unable to work as an unbiased expert witness. Also see *** below.

>> Letter to Dr Nitza Perlman, July 30 2014:  download .pdf   .....Second letter, Oct 17 2014:  download .pdf

Health Professionals Appeal and Review Board                                                      (Thanks to MS & PH for extensive files)

2011canlii3865                                               download .pdf                       
> See para 11, 29, 32, 43
In Para 11 is a partial list of serious deficits by Dr Nitza Perlman.  In para 29 the board knows it's wrong to use marked-up MMPI-2 test books but claims since the father (was smart enough to realize serious errors) and forfeited the assessment, it's OK for Dr Perlman to botch an MMPI-2 test!  It's clear the College of Psychologists and HPARB are unable to serve the public interest.  Para 32 discusses the father's (reasonable) claim that if he can conduct a MMPI-2 test correctly and obtain treatment for a Mother the Doctor refuses to treat, then the Doctor's license must be revoked.  The HPARB disagrees and ignores the Statutory Interests of a child, thus helping York Region CAS abuse a child.  Para 43 vaguely discusses how the College advised Dr Perlman with a 'caution' - not to revise and back date reports.  Be sure to read the whole decision for your own benefit.

Dr Perlman is identified in this Canlii file when the parents provided Dr Perlman's matching Answer to the College of Psychologists and related files to Canadacourtwatch.ORG.

There are numerous ways to assess and treat a disabled mother and child. Dr Nitza Perlman did everything she could to avoid treatment thus helping York Region CAS abuse a child by denying Statutory requirements in CFSA s 15(3)(d) and s 37(3).

The mistake these parents made is not knowing how 'Willfully Blind' Medical Colleges and the HPARB is. This means you have to prove the obvious!!  You need to have an expert witness of your own.  You have to disclose all the evidence you have and built a very carefully structured case or the Doctor, the College and the HPARB will deny the decision you seek.   For example, in Dr Perlman's Answer, she stated she routinely conducts MMPI-2 with just 400 of  567 questions.  This violates the CS Validation Scale limit of 30 unanswered / unscored questions and the list goes on!  The College and HPARB know this and ignored this incompetent act. CASs make sure the courts never know any of the short-cuts and 'clinical departures' CAS doctors use to mishandle assessments, harm children and parents and mislead courts!!

This decision is disappointing, but it provides useful insight into the self serving practices of Medical Colleges and the HPARB. For use in a CAS case before a court, para 43 is interesting since a court expects parties to properly amend reports and affidavits as per Family Law Rule 11 (1) to Rule 11(4).  For a Doctor and the CAS to refuse to abide by FLR Rule 11 is indefensible.

DR NITZA PERLMAN'S DISINGENUOUS ANSWER TO COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS:    download .pdf   .....then follow along below!!
(The following has family names, etc, redacted per CFSA s 45(8), highlight and talking points numbered, no words added or changed)

A)  Dr Perlman used a falsified legal name for a child even when told otherwise during assessment (recorded) and fails to proof read her own work giving a mother a birth date after a child!!  This is misleading since the CAS wanted to hide the fact they falsified a child's name for a year and a half to mislead the courts and break the namesake bond between mother and child, violating the Vital Statistics Act. 

B) Butcher CAS Lawyer Amelia M James /(aka 'Daurio') wanted a 'replacement' report that does not acknowledge Justice Perkin's Order, thus she and Dr Perlman violated FLR Rule 11 for amendments even when told in writing not to in Oct 2008. Thus Dr Perlman changes her report and backdates it by 8 months!  What kind of Doctor would do this? She could be worse then Dr Charles Smith (Goudge Inquiry).
Source: Amelia M James correspondence from the College of Psychologists' Record Of Investigation (ROI) disclosure.

C) What Dr Perlman refused to address here was the fact that she allowed a foster mother and a 1 year old infant with an attachment to her to attend the actual assessment together with a biological mother who only had 1 hour a week visitation. Thus the child preferred the foster mother and avoided her birth mother.  The assessment environment was not neutral and prevented observation of attachment or attachment disorders of a disabled child and a disabled mother, thus denying diagnosis and treatment for both. The Doctor's report discusses the presence of the foster mother in the assessment showing she lacks the insight or deductive reasoning to know that she sabotaged the treatment needs of the child.

D)  The CAS even obtained an OHIP card for a child using a false legal name for the child !

D1)  The statement that hearsay materials supplied by the CAS do not interfere with an assessment is a Lie!    Dr Perlman was noted for being easily lead in a court decision way back in 2003  (2003CanLii57523 above) part of her report had to be disregarded by the court.  She has not improved since then.
E)  Dr Perlman by Willful Blindness ignores factual information about paranoid behavior of the untreated mother in order to prevent treatment by under-assessment that would also deprive a child.  All told, Dr Perlman 'missed' a speech disability, paranoid schizophrenia and refused to assess this together with intellectual delay and the risks for a child as required by Ont. Reg. 25/07.  She fails or refuses to conduct a DSM - IV assessment.   The recordings show that Dr Perlman got frustrated with the mother when she could not get the answers she wanted and may not have the skills to conduct affective interviews of a disabled person.

F) Dr Perlman claims MMPI-2 tests with just 400 questions are 'adequate' but ignores the MMPI-2  SC Validity Scale that states not more then 30 questions can go unanswered.  Expert opinion from University of Minnesota (where MMPI-2 comes from) does not agree with her practices.

G)  Another deception by Dr Perlman, the recordings show that she was told about the marked up MMPI-2 Question Book!  Her reply?  "Try to ignore it and keep going."  When asked to erase the marked up book, Dr Perlman became annoyed and erased the markups in a huff.         
>> In the Decision by the College of Psychologists, they continue to help Dr Perlman violate the Statutory Interests of children in CFSA s 37(3) and s 15(3)(d) and mislead the courts with substandard reports with 'clinical departures' and short cuts that infringe on a court's right to know the true facts.

>> The kicker? It took a 'layperson' to conduct two MMPI-2 tests, one on himself as a control and another on the mother showing a dozen T-Scores over 100 and then arranged in-patient treatment at Toronto's CAMH in just 2 months while Dr Perlman and the CAS deny a child treatment for inherited multiple disabilities since Sept 2008.

Dr Oren Amitay:
   (5 decisions) @
View a sample page of an assessment by Dr Amitay and the claims he makes under 'assessor qualifications', ie: he has been treating patients since 1998, (10 years before he was licensed as a Psychologist in 2008!) He was also teaching university level courses before his PhD in 2006. We asked by email for him to corroborate this, he declined.  See the Page here. He also has a website where he states he is a "media go-to guy".  Most other doctors seem more modest and keep a low profile while quietly conducting assessments and protecting their 'collegial relationship' with the CAS and substantial public funding.   We're not saying Dr Amitay is 'Bad', he's just not recommended.  See the cases below and decide for yourself.

>> Letter to Oren Amitay, July 30 2014:  download .pdf  

Catholic Children's Aid of Toronto v M.M.                                     download .pdf  
2012 ONCJ 440
> See para 144 -145,  - PCAs
   para 165,   - defect allegations
   para 182 - 185,  - court concerns
   para 218,  - incomplete attachment assessment

CAS v.  G.                                                                                    download .pdf 
2014 ONSC 775
> See para 163,   - '300 assessments' comment
   para 152 - 175,  - PCAs 

CAS v. T.B.,                                                                                 download .pdf   
2010 ONSC 6301
> See para 7 to 15 to 25:
At Summary Judgment it was noticed by the court that this doctor changed his position in his report without explanation necessitating a Trial, (see para 15). We note this as a 'red flag'. Remember, Trials are a big deal, long, expensive and taxing on parents to endure with no easy victories. The 'process' of a case and the conduct of an assessment is just as important as the 'result'. Unwitting or deliberate slights-of-hand can affect an assessment and deprive a court the full understanding of events or evidence in a case.  Always read the whole decision and frame your argument at a Hearing or cross-examination of a doctor at a Trial in the most informed way possible! 
Read the subsequent decision on CAS v T.B. below, before using the citation above:

CAS v T.B.                                                              download .pdf  
2011 ONSC 3905
> See para 198 - 236                      

See CAS v TB & JG                                                   download .pdf
2010 onsc7047
> See para 21                   
In this decision a court noted Dr Amitay does 50 to 60 assessments a year since 2008.  With this many assessments at what point does an 'independent expert witness' become a de facto employee of the CAS and dependent on that very significant income? 

UPDATE!: Dr Amitay threatened to sue us for 'Libel' in Feb 2013! 

>  Check out Dr Amitay's email:   email .pdf     
    In Dr Amitay's complaint/threat he does not fully deal with the decision above, instead refers to another decision instead!
>  Check out our reply:                email .pdf      
    In our answer we offer a structured analysis of the complaint.  Conclusion: No grounds for Libel.

UPDATE !! - May 2014: Dr Amitay is still mad that we continue to search and post Case Law involving Doctors claiming that it amounts to Libel to do so! Of course Case Law on Libel does not agree with such a meritless claim. The poor language, insults and name calling in his emails are not fit to post.  We post our reply email May 19 2014 here:    email .pdf 

Dr Amin:
         (5 decisions)     (5th decision added Dec 6/ 14)
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H.(L.D.),                                              download .pdf    
2010 ONCJ 25 (canlii)
> See para 17 to 21:
Dr. Amin’s assessment report purported to diagnose a mother with a number of personality disorders and mental health problems, without the necessary supporting data.
THREE other independent Doctors critiqued Dr. Amin’s report calling into serious question the methodology and testing protocols utilized by Dr. Amin, concluding that Dr. Amin’s labeling of a mother as, inter alia, “paranoid” and “delusional”, was incorrect and unfounded.
The first Doctor, Dr DM*, went so far as to call Dr. Amin “incompetent” at page 10 of his new report.
A second Doctor, Dr S.* did not find the mother to be suffering from any of the personality disorders or mental illnesses identified by Dr. Amin.
A third Doctor, Dr B,* critiqued the assessments of Dr. Amin severely criticizes the methodology and analysis employed by Dr. Amin in his assessment of the mother’s mental health.    (* see actual decision for these names)

L.H. v. Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto,                                                      download .pdf    
2011 ONCA 385
> See para 9, 13, 31, 35
This appeal decision discusses in para 9 a professional complaint against Dr Amin cautioning him on making conclusions on insufficient evidence and not identifying the sources he relies on.  Another Doctor severely criticized Dr Amin’s methods and conclusion in the CAS protection matter. In para 13 the Appeal court notes Justice Brownstone’s decision that Dr Amin’s conclusions were wrong.   In para 31 and 35 the Appeal court noted that the original trial judge found Dr Amin’s report was baseless!

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of The Niagara Region  v   F.G.,  C.S.                   download .pdf     
2004 Canlii 2644  (ON SC)
> See para 25 to 34
This case shows that Dr Amin provides testimony in a trial that is so far off that when the court observed the conduct of a father, ''FG', on the stand and in court overall he was more credible then the doctor!  The court is critical of Dr Amin's evidence in paras 27, 30 and 33 (!)  The conduct of the Dr Amin's assessment has all the look of smearing a parent expecting a slam dunk at Summary Judgment with no triable issues. Instead, there IS a trial and Dr Amin is committed to misleading the court and being found out in the process!!  (note the other 2 cases) 

Children's Aid Society of Peel Region  v  S.(M.)                                                          download .pdf               
2006  ONJC  523
> See para 14 to 15
This case shows that Dr Amin's methods seem to fall short in thoroughness, etc, considering that a child's Statutory Interests are at stake. Another Doctor provides a critique of his work that is consistent with the other Cases posted here. The court agrees that his work is less then desirable. Ultimately a Crown Ward order is made. The point here is, in marginal cases, it is more important then ever to get it right.  If a parent is below par, what about the inherited deficits of a child? CAS doctors often provide assessments that crucify a parent 'just enough' for a Crown Ward order but are silent on the inherited deficits of children, thus CAS's across Ontario and Canada have a free hand in abusing children by denying treatment -  how barbaric is that?

Children's Aid Society of Peel Region  v  B.(C.M.)                                                       download .pdf               
2005  ONJC  237
> See para 20 to 27  plus decision headnotes
Court observes Dr Amin misapprehends basic facts in case, may affect conclusions.

>> Letter to Dr Amin, July 30 2014:  download .pdf  

Dr Joyce:    (1 decision)@
Children's Aid Society of Owen Sound and Grey County  v.  T. (T.)                download .pdf 
2004 ONCJ 420
> See para 81, 84 - 84
In para 81 the court comments that Dr Joyce does 200 assessments a year! If you do the math, it's 48 net work weeks a year = 240 days divide by 200 = 1.2 days per assessment including the report! The only way, we think, to crank out that many assessments is to pre-write assessments by type: ('Bi-polar', 'Psychotic', 'Borderline Personality Disorder', 'Schizophrenic', etc) and then using 'search and replace' in a typical word processor program to insert names into the pre-written text. Then just tack in some extra text for 'this an' that' and you're done. A parent that may be a victim of such a report won't be able to get a court to dismiss it without getting a $10,000 report of their own. In para 84 & 85 the court discusses how various parts of her report are exactly the same, word for word with a report of another doctor.

>> Letter to Dr Joyce, July 30 2014:  download .pdf 

Dr Seim
:    (3 decisions)
Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. W.(E.) et al.                                                            download .pdf  
2001 CanLII 37515 (ON CJ)
> See para 37

Dr Seim was noted in the decision above for using hearsay in a report.  The purpose of a report is to make direct observations and then make an Assessment. When Ph.D's make mistakes like this, you have to wonder what other things they do that is not noticed or apparent to a court!!! 

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. B.(C.)                                                                      download .pdf     
2002 CanLII 49683 (ON CJ)
> See para 21 - 23

In this decision, even the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was concerned that Dr Seim was making an assessment that was outside his qualifications to make.  The Court was also concerned that Dr Seim was making an assessment without an assurance that the Doctor was even going to see the people he was assessing.  As a result a Motion sought by the CAS was dismissed. 

A.I. v. Ontario (Director, Child and Family Services Act)                                                  download .pdf    
2005 CanLII 63753 (ON SC)
> See para 161

Dr Seim was noted in the decision above for a purely* one-sided report. (There is a requirement for assessments to be impartial that is clearly not being met here!!!!) 
 (* the word ‘purely’ is from the last sentence of para 161 of the decision above)

" Dr " Greg Carter
    (3 decisions)

Durham Children’s Aid Society v. TP and CL                                                                  download .pdf    
2009 CanLII 80102 (ON SC)
> See para 6 - 7

Durham Children’s Aid Society v. R.R, D.C., P.M., E.R., D.R., A.R. & E.R                           download .pdf     
2005 CanLII 2747 (ON SC)
> See para 14, 15, 16

Durham Children’s Aid Society v. V. B. C. and W. C.                                                      download .pdf     
2004 CanLII 50056 (ON SC)
> See para 21, 37

Greg Carter is a Psychological Associate, not a ‘Doctor’ but testified at trails where a court thought he was a ‘Doctor’:
The paragraph numbers above in each decision is where a judge referred to GREG CARTER as a ‘Doctor’. Various comments in the decisions show that he was a witness and testified under oath.  There are at least THREE court decisions where a Judge believed he was a ‘DOCTOR’ instead of a ‘psychological associate’ only, who must be supervised by a Doctor!  It appears he worked without supervision.

Hearings and Findings on College of Psychologists of Ontario for 'Dr' Gregory Carter:     Hearing      Finding 

(Gregory Carter resigns and agrees never to register in any jurisdiction in a professional capacity)

Dr Tadross:       (2 decisions)
Children’s Aid Society of the Regional municipality of Waterloo v B.A.                                 download .pdf      
2004 CanLII 12742 (ON S.C.)
> See para 49
" Dr. Tadross investigation was flawed and incomplete. He overstepped his mandate to perform a psychiatric assessment of the mother in a child custody dispute when he interviewed the children. The father, who had joint custody, was neither interviewed nor consulted during the assessment process.  Dr. Tadross took the Appellant’s statements to him as factually accurate and based his report on that sinking factual foundation without considering her extensive history of psychological problems or the findings of her doctor and the others she saw in relation to those problems. "

Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo Region v. A.(B.),                                                          download .pdf     
2005 ONCJ 220
> See para 60, 63
The court commented in para 60 that Dr Tadross employed basic psychological tests that involved approximately 15 minutes! (just 15 minutes? how much less time can a doctor or the CAS slap off an assessment?)  In para 63 the court noted that Doctor Tadross conceded that he has never prepared a custody and access assessment in any other proceeding and did not really understand that process ! (using inexperienced doctors usually favors the CAS's interests!)

Dr Diane Benoit:
   (3 decisions)    (3rd decision added Apr 2015)
Children’s Aid Society of Halton Region v. N.(R.R.)                                                           download .pdf     
2008 ONCJ 95 (CanLII)
> See para 21 to 60 to 147

In the lengthy decision above, Dr Benoit was noted for relying on ‘evidence’ (hearsay) not before or available to the court so they could test the reliability of the material used, see para 21, 22, 23, 81.   She is noted for a lack of impartiality in para 30.  Her strong opinions were noted for clouding the (already suspect) Judgment of the CAS in para 38.

Children’s Aid Society for Owen Sound and the County of Grey v.                                     download .pdf       
J.T., C.C., L.T. and S.B.,        
2003 CanLII 52432 (ON CJ)
> See para 168, 169

In the decision above, Dr Benoit was noted (again) for relying on ‘evidence’ (hearsay) not before the court so they could test the reliability of the material used, see para 168 and Pg 40 Lines 20 to 40.  Also Dr Benoit made an assessment without interviewing one of the parties! The CAS files her report but then does not call her as a witness at a trial ! The court states her assessment is of little use to the court.  In para 169, the court refers to Dr Benoit’s “assessment” in quotes marks (" ") showing the court was very critical.

Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand-Norfolk  v  H.V. and K.V.,      (added Apr 2015)            download .pdf                

2001 CanLII 32829 (ON SC)
> See para 61 to 72, 81, 83 to 84
In this decision we see the following:
In para 61 it’s clear the Dr did not interview all parties.
In para 62 the Dr gave extremely negative testimony at a trial, the court comments her testimony is 
within a context that was amazingly incomplete”.
In para 63 the CAS and the Dr conduct a secret additional assessment violating an order of the court without involvement of any other parties.

In para 64, the court said: “I reject Dr. Benoit’s opinion as meeting the test of expert evidence……….”
In para 81 the court states:  “…… I conclude that either Dr. Benoit is wrong, or she has exaggerated J.L.M.’s needs. Either of these two results could be because she did not do a useful, professional, objective, comprehensive assessment that looked at all of the resources available to parent these children.”
In para 82 the court concludes the Dr did not investigate the child’s attachments to specific persons in the case.
In para 83 the court writes: “
Dr. Benoit may well have erred because she sees herself, and the children’s aid society sees her as the children’s aid society’s agent. She acknowledged payment or receipt of substantial fees from the children’s aid society. She acknowledged that she has only testified on behalf of children’s aid societies and she does it frequently……….”
In para 84 the court writes: “
It is clear that Dr. Benoit was not an objective expert witness who conducted a professional and reliable assessment……..”

Dr Vallance:
   (1 decision)

E.L. v. Catholic Children’s Aid (Toronto)                                                                      download .pdf     
2010 ONSC 2426 (CanLII)
> See para 36, 47

In para 36 of the case above it was noted by a court how limited her assessment was, she did not interview family members, just children, before reaching a conclusion.  In para 47 Dr Vallance was noted for showing up for a trial to be a witness but did not bring her clinical notes.

>> Letter to Dr Vallance, July 30 2014:   download .pdf

Dr Kerry:
    (1 decision)

Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. D.M.C. and J.C.,                                                       download .pdf     
1997 CanLII 9575 (ON CJ)
> See para 16 - 17         

Dr Kerry relies on CAS supplied materials and produced a report but never verified any of the claims used and even missed a disability of a child, speech delay! When a doctor makes basic mistakes like this, what other professional deficits does he have that simply were not at play on this occasion?

Dr Pearl
:    (2 decisions)
Children and Family Services For York Region  v.  H.C., C.S. and R.C.                              download .pdf    
2008 CanLII 64678 (ON SC)
> See para 21, subpara 6, item iv (Pg 10)
Dr Pearl’s report was considered confusing by the court!  The question is, how bad does a Doctor have to do their work that a court finds their work confusing?  This case is about how a CAS goes after deaf parents! The CAS was so aggressive they insisted on going to Appeal to force kids into Crown Wardship, but finally lost!  Yet throughout the decision the court knew the CAS failed (or refused) to provide proper care and services for those same handicapped children and their parents that violates CFSA s 15(3)(c) and CFSA s 15(3)(d).    It is not uncommon for the CAS to ‘tagteam’ doctors against parents and children disabled or not.  In this case the CAS used Dr Henderson as well as Dr Pearl.

Children and Family Services For York Region  v.  A.P.B.V. & D.D.                        
        download .pdf     
2004 CanLII 6322 (ON SC)
> See para 17 to 22
This decision shows that the CAS often use doctors to ‘tagteam’  against families!  In this decision it is clear that Dr Pearl is strongly influenced by Dr Olga Henderson, trouble is, that there is a negative decision related to Dr Henderson for her assessment practices! Dr Pearl is effectively a clone of Dr Henderson through her supervision and shared deficits.

>> Letter to Dr Pearl, July 30 2014:  download .pdf 

Dr Fitzgerald
:       (1 decision)
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto  v.  L.(V.J.)                                                                    download .pdf  
2005 ONCJ 223
> See para 50 to 58
Dr Fitzgerald is noted for several serious issues:  In para 50 the court notes that he has worked for the CAS since 1991 and never does assessments directly for families, (his sole income is dependent on CAS work).  The Doctor has only 1 published work, could not remember the title and later, it turns out it had nothing to do with the issues before the court.
In Para 51 the court agrees with opposing lawyers that a report by the doctor has serious shortcomings.  (This from a doctor? It’s clear CASs can use doctors to violate the statutory interests of children!)
In Para 52 the court finds that the doctor spent far less time with the children for assessment then he himself recommends in his own report. Paras 53 to 58 is more of the same. CASs often ‘tagteam’ doctors against parents and children so it is no surprise that the doctor in para 59 to 61 is none other then Dr Perlman.
UPDATE: Parents report that the doctor has a highly placed spouse at London CAS.

Dr Kushnir
:         (1 decision) 
E.L.  v.  Catholic Children’s Aid (Toronto)                                                                    download .pdf      
2010 ONSC 2426
> See para 3a  &  36
Dr Kushnir is noted for arriving at conclusions with CAS materials only and:  (para 36)
“They did not consult with collateral sources, and did not speak to the grandparents. The trial judge therefore found there were some issues around the weight to be given to these reports and their evidence”

>> Letter to Dr Kushnir, July 30 2014:  download .pdf  

Dr Wehrspann:         (2 decisions) 
1987 D.B.  v.  Children’s Aid Society of Durham Region                                              download .pdf     
(also known as 1987 CarswellOnt 459)
> See paras 40 - 45
In para 40, 41 and 42 the court notes that the Dr makes a conclusions of abuse while ignoring the hostile inputs of an ex-spouse and relying on the heavily biased input of a CAS worker, then this flawed report is passed to another Dr who fails to make independent findings of his own. 

R. v. P.G.,                                                                                                                     download .pdf
2009 ONCA 32 (appeal)
> See para 5 to 10, 13, 15 to 18, 22, 24 to 29, 33,
This is a criminal appeal that has ties to a related CAS case:
The issues with Dr Wehrspann are so numerous, they are recounted in our detailed Forum post, see the link below. In summary they amount to the following:
- rendering an opinion relying mostly on the CAS file.
- making a conclusion of reliability of out-of-court statements of persons who were not witnesses and expressing that opinion
  forcefully in front of a Jury.
- failing to view a Police video interview of a child with claims of abuse.
- unable (or inability) to engage a child in a clinical interview, but drawing a conclusion anyway.
- failing (or refusing) to interview all parties including parents before issuing a report.  
- advancing his 'factual premise' as 'established fact' in court.
- performs badly during cross examination that he is tripped up by the accused unrepresented parent.

> Read the detailed Forum post here.    (forum link under repair)

Dr Simmons:         (1 decision) 
1987 D.B.  v.  Children’s Aid Society of Durham                                                           download .pdf
(also known as 1987 CarswellOnt 459)
> See para 40 to 45, 72
The main issue with Dr Simmons is that he relied on Dr Wehrspann's report and did not make any observations of his own before producing a report. (This download file has a revised file name specific for this doctor and para references)

> Read the detailed Forum post here.   (forum link under repair)

Dr Jack Albin:  (3 decisions)     Our Letter to Dr Albin.     - Cases added Jan 2015
K.M.W. v. D.D.W.                                                                                                         download .pdf
1993 CanLII 7942 (ON CJ)
> See para 18 - 23

Family and Children's Services of Guelph and wellington County v. H.B.                    download .pdf
2001 CanLII 37707 (ON CJ)
> See para 4, 8, 38 to 70, 165 - 171

Fasan v. Fasan                                                                                                           no postable file yet
1991 CarswellOnt 256
> See para 16 - 18

While these are not all CAS cases, Dr Albin has done assessments for CASs, possibly with similar defects.  Issues in the first case include a 6 hour 'blitzkrieg' assessment of a child under 5 yrs of age. Using leading questions, using anatomically correct dolls too early in the assessment. In the second case, Dr Albin demonstrates on the stand how he advocates the position of a CAS/FACS in a case, inappropriate for an 'impartial expert witness'. What he did and said on the stand is only the tip of the iceberg when you consider the day to day mindset when employed and paid by a powerful CAS agency. In the third case, the court notes he draws conclusions of 'psychological test of admitted limited value and which were administered in a short period of time'.  Excerpts of this case are quoted in para 19 of the K.M.W decision. Read the court's many concerns that you can apply to other CAS Drs reports or conduct.

See the College of Psychologists of Ontario website screen shots of discipline (taken Jan /15) of Dr Jack Albin:

CPO main screen          CPO details screen 1              CPO details screen 2               CPO complaint decision in pdf

See Dr Albin's ads on Canada411 / Yellow pages:       Screen Pic 1        Screen Pic 2     Screen Pic 3

Dr Jean Wittenberg:  (1 decision)       Our letter to Dr Wittenberg.    - added March 2015  Thanks to 'AXS'

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto  v.  M.M.                        download .pdf
2012 ONCJ 330
> See para 4, 5, 7, 12, 22 to 38

Dr Wittenberg is a Toronto Psychiatrist who is referred to as the "go to guy" for the CAS according to some family lawyers, meaning  he can slam-dunk cases for the CAS. In the decision above a CAS introduced him as an expert witness giving parents only 6 days notice in a case instead of the required 30 days! In para 12 and 23 the court realizes the Dr never met the children or the parents! In para 24 the parents never had a chance to participate in the evidence the Dr planned to give in court. In para 26 and 27 the court comments how the Dr's 32 page CV/Resume never mentioned anything about his qualifications as an expert on drug addictions. Worst of all, in para 28 the Dr makes sure the court knows he has done 'many' assessments for the CAS.  The issue here is that he acts as an advocate for the CAS and not as an impartial expert witness. He lacks the judgment to realize it's inappropriate to testify against people he has never met or assessed! He does not know, understand or respect appropriate boundaries in clinical assessments or courts and is willing to spout the CAS line under oath.  This was only found by affective cross-examination in a Voir Dire hearing!

Dr Toni Mantini-Atkinson
(license revoked) 
This doctor performed non-CAS assessments in child custody disputes in a Markham Ontario office until a complaint was filed with the College of Psychologists of Ontario. The decision was rendered July 10 2014. Her license was revoked and she agrees to resign.  She also has a previous complaint below.  There is no evidence yet that she performed work for the CAS, although this is the kind of doctor the CAS prefers.  The CPO decision and other materials are posted here to give you some insight into what happened and how the CPO decides a case.  Take note of the logic used in the decision.   (Credit to 'Rhonda' for this one.)

CPO Decision          Previous complaint                     Dr's claim on her insurance company


'Tag teaming' occurs when doctors who share a personal or business interest perform assessments on the same cases where the court or the parents where not informed in advance that a special interest existed. The goal of assessments by different doctors is to obtain 'independent' reports that are objective and impartial and in line with the court's right to know the facts and the applicable legislation, ie, the CFSA s 54, s 15(3)(d), s 37(3) and Ont. Reg. 25/07. Tag Teaming doctors is designed to infringe on the court's jurisdiction to know all the facts.

An 'object lesson' is found in the 'slightly' less significant 'collegial relationship' of Dr Wehrspann and Dr Simmons resulting in two reports, one a copy of the other where no independent observations or tests where done. Both assessments were criticized by the courts, but nothing was done to prevent such reports again. In the Tag Teams below, 2 doctors are married to each other and 2 doctors share the same offices, which is considerably more significant then the 'collegial relationship' example above.

TAG TEAM # 1:  Dr Amin and Dr Joyce - married to each other !

Children's Aid Society of Peel v. W. (M.J.)                                                  download .pdf 
1995 CanLII 593 (ON CA)
> See Dr Joyce Pg 6, 7, 29, Dr Amin Pg 11

Children’s Aid Society of Peel Region v. V.(M.)                                           download .pdf 
1998 CanLII 14189 (ON CJ)
> See para 2, 5, 11, 13

Children’s Aid Society of Peel Region v. M.(S.)                                           download .pdf  
2001 CanLII 28534 (ON CJ)
> See para 23

Children’s Aid Society of  Owen sound and County of Grey  v.  T.T.              download .pdf 
2005 CanLII 24909 (ON SC)
> See para 9, 19, 24, 29

Children’s Aid Society of Owen Sound and Grey County v. T. (T.),                download .pdf 
2004 ONCJ 420
> See para 48 to 108

TAG TEAM # 2:  Dr Amitay and Dr Joyce - share same offices.

C.A.S. of Niagara  v. C.,                                                                          download  .pdf   
2013 ONSC 1503
> See para  37 - 40


In 2015 we plan mail outs to CAS Doctors who do not have negative court decisions, either not found yet or none genuinely on the record. The purpose is to engage a certain amount of 'behavior modification'. Most CAS doctors are unaware that if a negative decision about their work is made, it will be publicly posted and it will be found and posted where parents can easily find and use it - on this website.  It's possible that some doctors are 'so good' at advancing a CAS interest that they outsmart family lawyers, other doctors and the courts, these are the most dangerous to the public interest and a child's Statutory Interests.  Of all CAS cases only 5% or so go from Summary Judgment to a Trial, of that only a small fraction are for 'triable issues' relating to a s 54 assessment by a CAS doctor. As a result the CAS and their doctors know the chance of being caught and criticized by the court for assessment defects is incredibly small. Making things worse, when a court does discover serious errors placing assessment in doubt, those courts fail to protect other courts from CASs inflicting the same doctor and defects in newer cases. The cycle of deception is allowed to continue.  Click on a name and see the letter we sent them, the idea is to remove 'plausible deniability' if they help CASs mislead courts and obtain Crown Ward orders by Fraud!!  Most CAS Doctors actually think no one will ever find out what they did, our purpose is to send a 'wake up' call, we're watching!

Dr  Li                    Dr  Sutton              Dr  McLean             Dr  Cook                Dr Berry                 Dr  McDermott
Dr  Worenklein     Dr Gijseghem       
Dr Yeh                    Dr  Fidler               Dr Streiner             Jan Schloss RSW  @@

Dr Marshall           Dr Sas                  Dr Kalia                   Dr Montayne                 

'CAAP' Team Doctors - McMaster Children's Hospital:   Dr  Niec                Dr Williams

GOUDGE INQUIRY 2008  (Dishonest / Incompetent  Expert Witnesses - Dr Charles Smith)

The CAS grooms bad doctors to provide Parenting Capacity Assessments that mislead the courts, abuse children and parents. Dr Charles Smith is not the only rotten doctor that had free run of the courts!   All the CAS doctors can mislead the courts at will knowing they are unlikely to be caught and where the courts refuse to make a decision with teeth to prevent abuse - so far.

The following materials are from the Goudge Inquiry and can be useful as 'Judicial Notice':

The Changing Role of the Expert Witness
                            download .pdf   
By Justice Ian Binnie
(almost immediately in his paper he mentions the need for the court
to be the
‘gate keeper’ against flawed expert evidence!)

Goudge Inquiry Press Release Oct 1 2008                           download .pdf  

Goudge Inquiry Volume 1 Executive Summary                   download .pdf

RNAO Submissions on Bill 115, Apr 2009                             download .pdf  


* York Region CAS letter, Oct 2007, 3 'approved' Drs ALL with adverse decisions, signed by CAS Lawyer Amelia M James,
(aka: Amelia M 'Daurio').  

** Dr Amin, Dr Joyce, Dr Amitay are all in the same office, 2 married to each other and 1 with adverse decisions.  (2011 files reviewed in Jan 2012)   Frequently used by JF&CS, CAS of Toronto, etc.  

@  Decisions posted are cautionary note, they do not reach the level of 'bad' yet. Google the Doctors for other comments and ratings on the internet.

@@ Jan Schloss is not a doctor but writes various reports that trigger assessments by many of the CAS Doctors listed here resulting in Crown Ward orders against parents, of which many on the facts, could be innocent. 

***  Dr Nitza Perlman: Her report March 9 2008 was also revised and backdated in Oct 2008 (violating FLR Rule 11, amendments), avoided complete assessment of a disabled mother, denying treatment to mother and child. This knowingly false report was used by York Region CAS 
on Nov 20 2008 to deny a treatment order while York Region CAS withheld newer evidence of a child's disability, relying on 2 false affidavits, Nov 3 2008 and a false Plan of Care, Nov 3 2008 before Madam Justice S. M. Rogers in Newmarket court. 

In Dr Nitza Perlman's  materials to the HPARB, she admitted to using a MMPI-2 test book that had answers already marked in,  allowing only 400 MMPI-2 questions to be answered (violating MMPI-2 CS validity limit of 30) on one respondent. She admitted she never finishes a MMPI-2 tests on subjects, a practice not supported by CFSA s 54 or the courts!!  She admitted to revising and back dating a report, claiming she 'did no know' the purpose of the report (even though she was provided a copy of a Court Order).  Claimed she did not have to fully assess a disabled person.  She 'missed' a pre-existing schizophrenic condition, evidence of it in an affidavit, missed a hereditary speech disability, insisted on Rorschach Inkblot Tests on a person only capable of concrete thought, failed to perform a DSM-IV assessment or any other test as an alternative, failed to provide treatment recommendations for a mother and child, violated CFSA s 15(3)(c), s 15(3)(d), s 37(2)(h),  s 37(3), Ont. Reg. 25/07.  Falsified the legal identity of a child to match false CAS affidavits even when told not to as recorded on 2nd party audio recordings. The recording also shows that when Dr Perlman could not get the responses she wanted from a disabled person, she became frustrated and does not have the clinical 'chops' or competence to use alternate methods to complete an assessment, ie, DSM-IV (at the time, now DSM-5) or MMPI-2, etc. 
It took a layperson to perform a double blind MMPI-2 test and found many T-scores over 100,  L Scale validity of 2 and obtained treatment and corroboration in less then 2  months at CAMH, Toronto, Ontario! The CAS and the Doctor avoided treatment for a disabled mother and child for over 18 months and used a false claim of 'adoptability' to avoid treatment of a disabled child for years via a Crown Ward Order obtained by Fraud.  How much worse can a CAS 'approved' Doctor be?

Website Builder