Friday, February 27, 2009
Education Department Releases New Policies Today
We have been advised that the Department of Education will be releasing its new policies regarding transportation of children to extra-curricular events, ownership of vehicles, maintenance of vehicles etc. this morning at 10 am.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Meeting with Conservative Caucus to discuss Coroners Act and Education policies, guidelines on Tuesday February 25
On Tuesday afternoon, February 25, Ana and I met with members of the Conservative Caucus and made a presentation outlining our concerns about the Coroners Act. We also spoke at length with caucus about changes we are asking to be made to the Department of Education's policies, guidelines, rules and regulations regarding transportation of children to extra-curricular activities.
The "Van Angels" law we are asking for is not impossible. We know that if the government has the political will to make changes to the Coroners Act and to the Education Act that it can happen.
We are asking for the Conservatives and the Liberals to work together to make positive change that will result in improved safety for the children of New Brunswick who participate in extra-curricular sports.
As of this date, we still have not heard from the Liberals about our request to make a presentation to the Caucus. More on this later.
Meantime, we're planning to contact the Ombudsman, Bernard Richard and the Union leadership that is responsible for bus drivers.
The "Van Angels" law we are asking for is not impossible. We know that if the government has the political will to make changes to the Coroners Act and to the Education Act that it can happen.
We are asking for the Conservatives and the Liberals to work together to make positive change that will result in improved safety for the children of New Brunswick who participate in extra-curricular sports.
As of this date, we still have not heard from the Liberals about our request to make a presentation to the Caucus. More on this later.
Meantime, we're planning to contact the Ombudsman, Bernard Richard and the Union leadership that is responsible for bus drivers.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Driver Brice Noel interview with Rogers Cable February 25
Brice Noel is the driver of the 24 passenger bus who was travelling with the Jacquet River Junior High School basketball team on February 15 when the wheel flew off the bus and landed in a ditch. Of interest to anyone who is concerned about safety of children is that the bus was inspected three days earlier at a garage in Belledune.
Brice is being interviewed by Rogers Cable and will tell his story.
The episode will air on Rogers Cable starting Wednesday February 25, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. and 6:pm and again at 10:30. It will be repeated again on Thursday and Friday
at the same times.
COMMENT Dated February 22, 2009
Hello ladies,
I want to thank you for keeping the spotlight on the safety of our school children. I was born in Bathurst, now live near Saint John, and have a son in grade 1, and a daughter who will start kindergarten next year.
I want to offer my support and any practical help I can offer.
I was shocked when I heard about the bus from Jacquet River last week, my first thought, like so many other NB'ers, was of your sons, and how it could be possible that another tragedy came so close to happening again. Obviously, there has not been enough done to protect the safety of our children.
Most of all, I wanted to say, my thoughts are with you, so very sorry for your loss, and your crusade is so very important.
Sincerely,
Coroners Inquest Called for May 4 - 15: Had to find out from the media
I received a phone call this morning from a journalist with the Telegraph Journal telling me that the Coroners Office has announced the Inquest into our sons' deaths will be held on May 4 - 15.While we are glad that a date has finally been announced, we wonder why the Coroner couldn't call the parents first before making the date public to the media. We had to find out this information from the media. Why?
I spoke with Greg Forestell last week, asking him exactly that question: "When will the Coroners Inquest take place?" and all he could say to me was that it would be in May. He seems like a nice man, why wouldn't he phone us? Was he told not to? Is this the way things are done over at the Department of Public Safety?
It wouldn't have taken too much effort for someone in the Department of Public Safety to pick up the phone and call all the parents to tell us the date had finally been decided upon. It would be better to hear that information from him than from the media.
I hope this isn't the way they intend to conduct themselves during the Inquest. They should be revealing important information about the Inquest into our sons' death to the interested parties - like the parents - first before telling the media.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Still Waiting for Copy of RCMP Report Since November 13
On November 13, 2008, after the November RCMP Report came out, I called Constable Yves Allan, the lead investigator who was investigating the tragedy of January 12, 2008. I asked Const. Allain for the RCMP Report that had just been released.
He told me that it would take some time and that I would have to go through my lawyer to recieve the report.
On November 18, I called a second time to ask for the July RCMP Reconstruction Report and the RCMP investigation file. I got the same answer, essentially that "it takes time" and "we didn't forget about you."
As it so happens, six months earlier, in July 2008, after the RCMP Reconstruction Report was released, we had asked if we could go the the RCMP station in Bathurst to read the reports because they told us that we could go anytime to read it.
At the time we were very upset because we had just found out that the Van in which our sons were riding that night belonged to a non-profit company Bathurst Van Inc.. We had no idea until the July RCMP Reconstruction Report was released that the company was run by a board consisting of the Principal Colleen Ramsay, two vice principals and a teacher. It was a complete shock to us, because for the previous six months since the accident, we had met with the Principal numerous times in our homes and all that time she, and nobody else, ever said anything to us about them owning the van. We felt deceived.
So when the RCMP Report came out in November, we were ready to read the Reconstruction Report from July as well. I asked if I could go to their office and read it. Const. Yves Allain said that I couldn't do that. This, in spite of the fact that in July, when the RCMP Reconstruction Report was released, we were invited to go back anytime to read it.
We can't help but think that the RCMP says one thing to the public in front of the media, and as soon as the media is gone, it says another thing to the parents who are trying to access these Reports, we parents who are in mourning and who have no experience whatsoever in this kind of situation. We find it difficult to confront those in authority but we are forced to do it because they refuse to give us the information we are rightfully asking for.
I was disappointed and angry with the mixed messages from the RCMP. After Const. Allain said he would do it as soon as possible when they have the time and couldn't give me a date for the November or July reports. I called my lawyer to send a letter to the RCMP asking for a copy of both reports. The letter went out on December 5th, 2008 that was followed up by a phone call from my lawyer. When we didn't hear anything I called Cons. Yves Allain again on January 17, 2009 and left a messsage and again the same response that copies have to be made and it takes time. Again I say, When will I get it. Another letter dated January 22, 2009 was sent to the RCMP by my lawyer asking again for both Reports.
On Monday, January 17, I had called Gregg Forestell, the Acting Chief Coroner, and he told me that both he had the prosecutor had the Reports "to educate themselves" on the tragedy. So I knew that the RCMP had photocopied the Reports and made them accessible to the Coroner and the Crown Prosecutor.
I called Const. Yves Allain on February 17 and left a message he was not in his office. On Sunday, February 22, I received a phone call from Cont. Yves Allain at my home. I told him that I still didn't receive the two reports. The Greg Forestel and the Prosceutor has it but we still dont have it to prepare myself for our son inquest and Why?
This is all we want too - a photocopy of the same report so that we can be prepared at the inquest of our sons Javier and Daniel with all the information before us. We are the mothers and should be able to have this information like the Coroner and the Crown Prosecutor without having to beg for it. This is critical information which is important to us and it's not too much to ask. We have the right just like any other authority to have the reports.
I asked Const. Allain how long it would be before I could get the report. He couldn't give me a date.
We don't want to have the report one week before the Inquest. We are entitled to have it now. Just like the Coroner and the Crown Prosecutor, we need these reports to prepare ourselves and we have been asking politely since November but keep getting put off by the RCMP.
On Sunday, Const. Allain asked me to "be patient". He said it "takes time".
We do not accept that it takes nearly four months to get a photocopy of the RCMP reports into the deaths of our sons.
He told me that it would take some time and that I would have to go through my lawyer to recieve the report.
On November 18, I called a second time to ask for the July RCMP Reconstruction Report and the RCMP investigation file. I got the same answer, essentially that "it takes time" and "we didn't forget about you."
As it so happens, six months earlier, in July 2008, after the RCMP Reconstruction Report was released, we had asked if we could go the the RCMP station in Bathurst to read the reports because they told us that we could go anytime to read it.
At the time we were very upset because we had just found out that the Van in which our sons were riding that night belonged to a non-profit company Bathurst Van Inc.. We had no idea until the July RCMP Reconstruction Report was released that the company was run by a board consisting of the Principal Colleen Ramsay, two vice principals and a teacher. It was a complete shock to us, because for the previous six months since the accident, we had met with the Principal numerous times in our homes and all that time she, and nobody else, ever said anything to us about them owning the van. We felt deceived.
So when the RCMP Report came out in November, we were ready to read the Reconstruction Report from July as well. I asked if I could go to their office and read it. Const. Yves Allain said that I couldn't do that. This, in spite of the fact that in July, when the RCMP Reconstruction Report was released, we were invited to go back anytime to read it.
We can't help but think that the RCMP says one thing to the public in front of the media, and as soon as the media is gone, it says another thing to the parents who are trying to access these Reports, we parents who are in mourning and who have no experience whatsoever in this kind of situation. We find it difficult to confront those in authority but we are forced to do it because they refuse to give us the information we are rightfully asking for.
I was disappointed and angry with the mixed messages from the RCMP. After Const. Allain said he would do it as soon as possible when they have the time and couldn't give me a date for the November or July reports. I called my lawyer to send a letter to the RCMP asking for a copy of both reports. The letter went out on December 5th, 2008 that was followed up by a phone call from my lawyer. When we didn't hear anything I called Cons. Yves Allain again on January 17, 2009 and left a messsage and again the same response that copies have to be made and it takes time. Again I say, When will I get it. Another letter dated January 22, 2009 was sent to the RCMP by my lawyer asking again for both Reports.
On Monday, January 17, I had called Gregg Forestell, the Acting Chief Coroner, and he told me that both he had the prosecutor had the Reports "to educate themselves" on the tragedy. So I knew that the RCMP had photocopied the Reports and made them accessible to the Coroner and the Crown Prosecutor.
I called Const. Yves Allain on February 17 and left a message he was not in his office. On Sunday, February 22, I received a phone call from Cont. Yves Allain at my home. I told him that I still didn't receive the two reports. The Greg Forestel and the Prosceutor has it but we still dont have it to prepare myself for our son inquest and Why?
This is all we want too - a photocopy of the same report so that we can be prepared at the inquest of our sons Javier and Daniel with all the information before us. We are the mothers and should be able to have this information like the Coroner and the Crown Prosecutor without having to beg for it. This is critical information which is important to us and it's not too much to ask. We have the right just like any other authority to have the reports.
I asked Const. Allain how long it would be before I could get the report. He couldn't give me a date.
We don't want to have the report one week before the Inquest. We are entitled to have it now. Just like the Coroner and the Crown Prosecutor, we need these reports to prepare ourselves and we have been asking politely since November but keep getting put off by the RCMP.
On Sunday, Const. Allain asked me to "be patient". He said it "takes time".
We do not accept that it takes nearly four months to get a photocopy of the RCMP reports into the deaths of our sons.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Letter to Tim Rattenbury of Law Reform Branch earns response from Attorney General
Four days after we wrote to the Minister of Public Safety, John Foran on February 5, [click here to read letter to Hon. Mr. Foran] who still hasn't written back to us by the way, we wrote a letter to Tim Rattenbury, a solicitor with the Law Reform Branch of the Attorney General's Office asking for a meeting to discuss reform of the Coroners Act.
We sent a copy of the letter to every MLA, including the Premier and all the Ministers, Hon. T.J. Burke, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Minister of Education, Kelly Lamrock and of course, the Minister of Public Safety, John Foran.
Here is our letter to Tim Rattenbury and below is the response from Hon. T.J. Burke. We can't help but feel that nobody is taking us seriously, when our concerns keep getting passed around from one Department to the other, meanwhile, a busload of children from Jacquet River nearly gets killed [click here to read our blog about this story] and nobody seems to care about how a wheel could possibly fall off a vehicle that had passed the so called "strict" new guidelines of the Department of Education.LETTER TO TIM RATTENBURY
Ana Acevedo and Isabelle Hains
February 9, 2009
Tim Rattenbury, Solicitor
Law Reform / Office of the Attorney General
Centennial Building
P. O. Box 6000
Fredericton, NB
E3B 5H1
Dear Mr. Rattenbury
We are Ana Acevedo and Isabelle Hains, the mothers of Javier Acevedo and Daniel Hains, two members of the Bathurst High School Phantoms basketball team who were killed along with six others in a tragic passenger van crash on January 12, 2008.
We are writing to request a meeting with you at the Law Reform Branch in Fredericton where we can discuss our concerns about reform of the New Brunswick Coroners Act.
We believe that at 110 years old, the NB Coroners Act is antiquated and fails to meet the needs of New Brunswickers who have the terrible misfortune to partake in a Coroners Inquest.
Our greatest concern is that the NB Coroners Act is only one of three in Canada that does not allow interested parties and witnesses to have legal representation at Inquests. We are one of those "interested parties" and we want to have legal representation at the Inquest into the deaths of our sons. We want our lawyer to cross-examine witnesses on our behalf and we believe that witnesses as well should have representation. We are also very worried that since Jurors' recommendations are not binding, there is no follow up to make sure that real change comes out of an Inquest.
We view the absence of legal representation as critical to the Inquest process. We are just ordinary people, two mothers who 13 months ago would never have dreamed that we'd be asking you to help us reform the NB Coroners Act. We are not trained lawyers who understand the Coroners Inquest process. We have been told that the Crown Prosecutor and Coroner will assist us at the Inquest by asking witnesses our questions, but we know that in instances where the Crown Prosecutor is unsure about a question, the Coroner has the final say. While the Chief Coroner of New Brunswick may be well intentioned, he is not a trained professional and that is another reason why we need a new Act. Most Canadian jurisdictions have a trained Coroner with expertise in medicine or pathology and unfortunately, New Brunswick is not one of them.
In that regard, we fully support the Canadian Bar Association - New Brunswick Branch in its call for a complete overhaul of the Act.
As you know, in 2003 the CBA-NB presented a report on the Coroners Act in which it called for a wholesale housecleaning of the Act. You can view the report on line on our website at http://www.vanangels.ca/documents/2003-cba-nb-report.PDF
We quote from the Report:
"Tragically, the legislation and procedures in New Brunswick under which an inquest is held are totally inadequate in the context of appropriate investigatory evidence and scientific opinion. They are also inadequate with respect to the manner in which the evidence is presented. The chief participants lack the necessary training, education and experience to appropriately appreciate the unique circumstances in context of forensic scientific knowledge, whether it be in the field of engineering, materials investigation and/or medical science, to name but a few of the matters which are regularly canvassed in other jurisdictions.
Parties who may be subject to this investigation have no standing to participate in the process or the ability to protect their civil rights and reputation.
Extensive law reform has occurred in almost every other Canadian Province and Territory as well as almost every American State."
We have spoken to other people in New Brunswick who have recently gone through Coroners Inquests as "interested parties" and we know that they were not happy with the outcome. We believe that our sons Inquest will put an international spotlight on the shortcomings of NB's Coroners Act and the Inquest process. We are asking you therefore, to meet with us at your earliest convenience in Fredericton so that we may discuss our concerns before the Inquest is called.
Yours most sincerely,
Ana Acevedo and Isabelle Hains
cc.
Premier Shawn Graham and Members of the Executive Council
All MLAs
Greg Forestell, Acting Chief Coroner
Guilman Roy, Coroner for Bathurst
Yvon Godin, MP Acadie-Bathurst
RESPONSE FROM HON. TJ BURKE
From: Guislain, Jane (JUS) [mailto:Jane.Guislain@gnb.ca] On Behalf Of Burke, T.J. (Hon.) (JUS)Sent: February-17-09 3:46 PM
To: info@vanangels.ca
Cc: aihans@nbnet.nb.ca
Subject: FW: Attached letter to Tim Rattenbury Law Reform Branch
Dear Mrs. Acevedo and Mrs. Hains,
This is to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence received by email on February 9, 2009, with attached copy of a letter to Tim Rattenbury of the Law Reform Branch. As the Law Reform Branch falls under the Office of the Attorney General, for which I am responsible, I will respond on behalf of both Mr. Rattenbury and myself.
First, let me say that I am very sorry for the loss that you both have experienced. I understand that you have been through, and continue to face, a very difficult situation.
You have contacted Mr. Rattenbury to request that he meet to discuss your concerns about reform of the Coroner’s Act. I would note that the public policy responsibility for the Coroner’s Act rests with the Department of Public Safety. Decisions regarding amendments to the Act therefore fall beyond the law reform mandate of the Office of the Attorney General. For this reason, I am forwarding your correspondence and a copy of my reply to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, the Honourable John W. Foran, who will be in a position to provide a response to the issues you have raised in your correspondence.
Yours truly,
Hon. Thomas J. Burke, Q.C.
Minister of Justice and Consumer Affairs and Attorney General
Congratulations to the BHS Phantoms
The BHS Phantoms won the AA Provincial Championship in Fredericton on Saturday and we extend a warm congratulations to them for making it to the very top!We know our boys were with you all the way and are cheering for your victory.
Here's a YOUTUBE video that was taken during the final minutes of the game.
Friday, February 20, 2009
N.B. superintendent wants answers on why wheel fell off team bus - So do We!!
We'd also like to see the so-called "strict" new policies and guidelines for school transportation, but for some reason, the Department of Education can't seem to find the time to photocopy the paperwork, stick it in an envelope, put a stamp on the cover and send the letter to us by mail. Maybe it's because the new policies / guidelines aren't worth the paper they're written on!! We believe the "new" policies and guidelines just the same old policies and guidelines with a fresh coat of paint to make it look like things have changed when it comes to transporting children. Excuse us for being cynical Minister Lamrock, but the day last week when the wheel fell off that bus full of young basketball players from Jacquet River, we lost our faith in your so called new "strict" guidelines and policies.
Come on Mr. Lamrock, you have to do better than that.It's been more than five weeks since Kelly Lamrock appeared on CBC TV on Friday, January 9, 2009 saying the new guidelines would be released the next week. It's February 20 and we're still waiting....
Meantime, a whole busload of young basketball players from Jacquet River nearly gets killed and the District 15 Superintendent John McLaughlin says he "wants answers". Well so do WE!!!
Answer this:
Exactly how DOES a wheel fall off a vehicle that has just been inspected according to the super strict new policies of the Department of Education?
Just how strict the policies are can be left up to one's imagination, obviously, not too strict if a wheel can fall off a bus less than three days after its inspected. What really gets our goat is that we've been asking for the new policies or guidelines (or whatever they're calling them this week, rules, regulations, they seem to have a different name for everything related to this issue) for more than a month and we still haven't seen them, but Mr. McLaughlin apparently has.
The policies can't be worth very much if less than a month after their introduction, a whole busload of kids going to a basketball game nearly gets killed.
This is just another good reason why we absolutely NEED a "LAW" - what we call a Van Angels Law covering the transportation of children to and from extra-curricular events. Not a policy, not a guideline, not a rule nor a regulation. A LAW!!
You decide for yourself whether New Brunswick's Department of Education has become a laughing stock of the country for the way its handled this file.
Ana and Isabelle
____
A New Brunswick school district superintendent is investigating how a wheel flew off a bus carrying Jacquet River School's Grade 8 basketball team.
Check out the CBC Story on line.
17/02/2009 3:48:22 PM
CBC News
The team was returning from a provincial tournament in Hartland on the weekend when a wheel fell off the 24-passenger bus and rolled into the ditch near Woodstock.
No one was hurt in the incident but John McLaughlin, superintendent of District 15, said he wants to know how the accident happened. Any findings could lead to more changes to its student travel policy, he said.
"We do have a new policy in place and some very strict guidelines on what we need to follow and we'll need to look at should any of that be changed in light of this situation."
So far, mechanics have not figured out how the wheel became loose and fell off.
The Department of Public Safety, which oversees commerical vehicle inspection and safety, made the decision to investigate the incident on Tuesday. The provincial government took control of the bus from the station where it was being repaired in Woodstock.
The bus is owned by the Village of Belledune and is used by different groups, including the school.
Belledune Mayor Nick Duivenvoorden said the bus went through a full 21-point inspection in November and it had its wheels torqued recently.
He said he's baffled how the accident happened.
"If I had any inclination that the vehicle wasn't safe, I would do whatever I had to do to make sure it wouldn't go on the road," he said.
The province's travel policy was put in place in September after a highway accident near Bathurst in January 2008 that killed seven high school basketball players and their coach's wife.
Jacquet River is about 40 kilometres from Bathurst and both schools fall in McLaughlin's district.
Parents and students on the bus said on Monday that they saw the wheel roll past the bus on the road and eventually stop in a nearby snowbank. When they got off the bus, they said even though no one was hurt in the incident, it brought flashbacks of the Bathurst crash.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
I Was Scared To Death - Children Parents on Bus Say They Thought of Boys In Red
Wheel comes off bus taking kids home from basketball game -
Players, coaches say incident prompted memories of 2008 Bathurst tragedy
Click here to read story on CBC.ca
Click here to read story on Canadian Press "Close-call for N.B. basketball team prompts memories of recent tragedy"
Click here to read story in the Globe and Mail "Close call reminds team of N.B. highway tragedy"
Click here to read story on CanadaEast "Close-call for N.B. basketball team prompts memories of recent tragedy"
Click here to read story in Fredericton Daily Gleaner "Minibus has major problems Close call | Tire rolls off minibus carrying team from northern N.B."
Players and coaches from the Jacquet River Tigers basketball team were shaken up after a scary incident with their bus on the weekend that caused many to think of the Bathurst van tragedy from just over a year ago.
The northern New Brunswick school's Grade 8 basketball team was on its way home in a bus from a tournament in Hartland on Sunday when one of the wheels flew off. Although no one was injured, some say things could have been much worse for the 14 Grade 8 basketball players and four parents on the bus.
Glenda Gagne, a coach, said the vehicle began to sway and suddenly she saw a wheel fly across the road and into a snowy ditch.
"I didn't know what happened. I didn't know if we got hit or what happened. I knew it was our tire because we were the only ones on the road," she said.
Though the bus managed to avoid an accident, many on the bus were shaken up.
"I was scared to death because this could have been another Boys in Red," said Emily Legace, another coach, referring to the Bathurst tragedy. "Our kids [are] on this bus and people are going to have to wake up and realize that these are our children."
Bathurst flashbackShe said the incident prompted memories of the Jan. 12, 2008, highway accident that killed seven members of the Bathurst High School basketball team and their coach's wife last year.
That accident devastated the northern city and will soon be the subject of a coroner's inquest this spring and has already led the provincial government to overhaul the policies that govern the way sports teams are transported from schools to games.
The Bathurst tragedy involved a 15-passenger van, but this latest incident involved a 24-passenger bus that is owned by the Village of Belledune. It is a community bus, used by sports teams, seniors and other groups.
Brice Noel, who was driving the bus back from the basketball tournament, said he could feel the vehicle begin to vibrate.
"And I started to slow down and the next thing I noticed the wheel [passes] us on the road," Noel said, adding he will no longer drive the vehicle.
Other parents and students on the bus also said they saw the wheel go flying into a snow bank, while others showed off photos they took at the scene of how one of the other original four rear tires was completely flat.
Bus checked in November
Belledune Mayor Nick Duivenvoorden said the bus was inspected and had its bolts torqued just before it left Jacquet River for the tournament. The bus also went through a 21-point inspection in November.
Now it's in a garage in Woodstock, where mechanics are trying to figure out what happened.
The garage's owner said he sees wheels come off vehicles all the time, usually because the nuts holding the wheel in place weren't tightened or the wheel is beaten up.
He said that didn't happen in this case so he can't say for sure what caused the wheel to fly off.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Tragedy Averted: Wheel Falls off Recently Inspected Vehicle Transporting Jacquet River Basketball Team From Tournament in Hartland on Sunday
On Monday morning, February 16, I received a phone call from a woman named Margerie Noel. She is the mother of Brice Noel, a basketball coach from Jacquet River, New Brunswick.
What Margerie had to tell me sent shivers up my spine and brought back terrible memories of last year's tragedy in which our sons Javier and Daniel were killed. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
She told me there was almost another accident with a boys basketball team from Jacquet River that was participating in a weekend touranment in Hartland. Her son Brice is the coach. He called her from Woodstock to say that the village "bus" (not sure if it's a yellow bus, one of those 15 passenger vans or a multifunctional vehicle but I will find out more later) they were travelling in with the Jacquet River Basketball team had lost a wheel while on the way back home. What is shocking is that this vehicle had just passed inspection last week.
Apparently, last week Mr. Noel refused to drive the vehicle to the tournament without an inspection done. The garage inspected the vehicle and said it was in good condition to travel.
Mr. Noel left Friday morning to go to Fredericton and the team stayed there overnight. Then on Saturday morning they traveled to Hartland. They took a Hotel in Woodstock Saturday night and when they left Sunday morning, he started having trouble with the vehicle. He was heading for the highway and the vehicle was shimmering. He didn’t feel comfortable driving it any further so he decided the turn around and go back to Woodstock.
On the way back the wheel fell off and rolled down the road with the children in the bus. When Mr. Noel got out the other tire was flat. People on the road picked up the children to bring them back to Woodstock.
This is another tragedy that could have happened with another Basketball team. After what happened to our sons 13 months ago, I am so upset to hear what could have happened to someone else. Has anyone in the Department of Education not learned a thing from the deaths of seven basketball players and the coach's wife last January in Bathurst?
This is another good reason why we need an updated Coroners Act so that the Jury hearing our sons' Inquest can make binding recommendation to the Department of Education. We want a Van Angels law - not guidelines, not rules, not policies, not regulations that are not worth the paper they are written on. We want a law for the school to follow for extracurricular activities.
I remember last year I called Brice Noel because I heard a story that he had stopped in the Miramichi with a basketball team, refusing to drive any further in bad weather. I thought it was the same night of the tragedy of January 12, 2008 and I wanted to speak to him. When I talked to him on the phone he said that actually, the incident occurred the year before, in 2007. He was in the Miramichi, it was storming and he called the RCMP to see what the highway was like from Miramichi to Jacquet river. He was told not to travel. What struck me is he took the time to call to see what the road conditions were. He made the phone call to protect the children. He took a motel in the Miramichi and kept the basketball team safe.
Again, yesterday he made the right choice to turn back to Woodstock for the safety of the Basketball team. I remember telling him, "I wish you were my sons' coach that night. He would still be here today."
I cried so much talking to him last year. This coach thinks safety first for his Basketball team and this is the second time he saved the lives of the children on his team.
What Margerie had to tell me sent shivers up my spine and brought back terrible memories of last year's tragedy in which our sons Javier and Daniel were killed. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
She told me there was almost another accident with a boys basketball team from Jacquet River that was participating in a weekend touranment in Hartland. Her son Brice is the coach. He called her from Woodstock to say that the village "bus" (not sure if it's a yellow bus, one of those 15 passenger vans or a multifunctional vehicle but I will find out more later) they were travelling in with the Jacquet River Basketball team had lost a wheel while on the way back home. What is shocking is that this vehicle had just passed inspection last week.
Apparently, last week Mr. Noel refused to drive the vehicle to the tournament without an inspection done. The garage inspected the vehicle and said it was in good condition to travel.
Mr. Noel left Friday morning to go to Fredericton and the team stayed there overnight. Then on Saturday morning they traveled to Hartland. They took a Hotel in Woodstock Saturday night and when they left Sunday morning, he started having trouble with the vehicle. He was heading for the highway and the vehicle was shimmering. He didn’t feel comfortable driving it any further so he decided the turn around and go back to Woodstock.
On the way back the wheel fell off and rolled down the road with the children in the bus. When Mr. Noel got out the other tire was flat. People on the road picked up the children to bring them back to Woodstock.
This is another tragedy that could have happened with another Basketball team. After what happened to our sons 13 months ago, I am so upset to hear what could have happened to someone else. Has anyone in the Department of Education not learned a thing from the deaths of seven basketball players and the coach's wife last January in Bathurst?
This is another good reason why we need an updated Coroners Act so that the Jury hearing our sons' Inquest can make binding recommendation to the Department of Education. We want a Van Angels law - not guidelines, not rules, not policies, not regulations that are not worth the paper they are written on. We want a law for the school to follow for extracurricular activities.
I remember last year I called Brice Noel because I heard a story that he had stopped in the Miramichi with a basketball team, refusing to drive any further in bad weather. I thought it was the same night of the tragedy of January 12, 2008 and I wanted to speak to him. When I talked to him on the phone he said that actually, the incident occurred the year before, in 2007. He was in the Miramichi, it was storming and he called the RCMP to see what the highway was like from Miramichi to Jacquet river. He was told not to travel. What struck me is he took the time to call to see what the road conditions were. He made the phone call to protect the children. He took a motel in the Miramichi and kept the basketball team safe.
Again, yesterday he made the right choice to turn back to Woodstock for the safety of the Basketball team. I remember telling him, "I wish you were my sons' coach that night. He would still be here today."
I cried so much talking to him last year. This coach thinks safety first for his Basketball team and this is the second time he saved the lives of the children on his team.
Friday, February 13, 2009
"An Experience I'll Never Forget" Debbie Harquail Speaks Out on Her Sister Leona's Coroners Inquest
"Just because we're not a doctor or a lawyer or a politician we are still educated people and we do have common sense and are capable of making a sane decision of knowing when someone needs help...So hopefully they will listen to people and maybe this will save lives."
Debbie Harquail, in an interview with CBC during her sister's Inquest in April 2008. [Click here to read more about Leona Harquail's Inquest]
Debbie Harquail wrote us this letter of support and explained what happened at her sister Leona Harquail's Inquest last April. Debbie could not afford a lawyer and had no representation. She felt her questions about what happened the night her sister died were not answered and the jury's recommendations to prevent a similar death from occuring have not been implemented. This is precisely what we are afraid is going to happen at our sons' Inquest - Ana and Isabelle
___
I am Leona Harquail's sister Debbie and I stand with you 100% in your battle.
I am so sorry for the loss of your children because of inadequite political leaders with human capacity to do unto others as they would have others do unto them. It is all so simple, really if we adhere to basic laws of self respect and respect for others there would be no need for parents to fight Government in regard to safety for our loved ones.
The Coroner's Act must be ammended to allow the Family to get all their answers met. The Coroner's Inquest in April 2008 for Leona Harquail took me two years of lobbying the Chief Coroner Dianne Kelly and Minister Foran to get.
The Public Inquest was one I will never forget. The experience left me feeling like, first the Public Servants that our tax dollars pay for such as police, doctors, emergency departments, detox and ambulance services failed Leona Harquail by choices made when they had absolute power to make better decisions that could have saved her life, and then the Public Inquest that I fought so hard to get was used by the Presiding Chief Coroner, and the two Crown Prosecutors to rub it into my face by leading the witnesses in the testimonies and by influencing how the Jury should make their decisons. I had no lawyer. Could not even afford one actually.
But still try as they might to cover up the facts that proved neglegice the Jury was wize enough to see much through it and came up with nine reccommendations, none of which have been put into effect yet that will directly benefit, aboriginal woman who are homeless and suffering from mental illness and addictions.
My sister Leona never had a chance to participate is school sport and to be part of our NB Education System's extracurricular activites. When I look at the photgraphs of your sons and the young men who died in this dreadful van accident, I think just look at how self assured and happy they looked, solid and capable and ready to go, so full of life and vitality! I think such activities are vital to physical wellness and to the development of mental wellness. But if the Education System does not take measures of prevention to treat our children, all children with dignity and respect then how can they say they truly care about our children? If school can be cancelled because of bad weather, why can't sport be cancelled? It is as much a safety issue that left me upset many times when my son went to hockey games when weather was dreadful and school had been cancelled! It is beyond me how anyone can think that sport is more important than education!
A game should not have to be forfeit because of bad weather either! All it takes is a decision, a choice that cost too many lives too soon!
I pray that GOD will sustain you through this battle to make a wrong, right! My heart is with you and so is my spirit of Motherhood. A Mother will go through fire for her children, I support you to help you save the lives of all our children and grandchildren.
In closing...a wize man once said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ...Amen
PS
if you go to this link pasted below it will take you to the homepage of NB Wellness, Culture and Sport...just some food for thought...
http://www.gnb.ca/0131/index-e.asp
Debbie Harquail, in an interview with CBC during her sister's Inquest in April 2008. [Click here to read more about Leona Harquail's Inquest]
Debbie Harquail wrote us this letter of support and explained what happened at her sister Leona Harquail's Inquest last April. Debbie could not afford a lawyer and had no representation. She felt her questions about what happened the night her sister died were not answered and the jury's recommendations to prevent a similar death from occuring have not been implemented. This is precisely what we are afraid is going to happen at our sons' Inquest - Ana and Isabelle
___
I am Leona Harquail's sister Debbie and I stand with you 100% in your battle.
I am so sorry for the loss of your children because of inadequite political leaders with human capacity to do unto others as they would have others do unto them. It is all so simple, really if we adhere to basic laws of self respect and respect for others there would be no need for parents to fight Government in regard to safety for our loved ones.
The Coroner's Act must be ammended to allow the Family to get all their answers met. The Coroner's Inquest in April 2008 for Leona Harquail took me two years of lobbying the Chief Coroner Dianne Kelly and Minister Foran to get.
The Public Inquest was one I will never forget. The experience left me feeling like, first the Public Servants that our tax dollars pay for such as police, doctors, emergency departments, detox and ambulance services failed Leona Harquail by choices made when they had absolute power to make better decisions that could have saved her life, and then the Public Inquest that I fought so hard to get was used by the Presiding Chief Coroner, and the two Crown Prosecutors to rub it into my face by leading the witnesses in the testimonies and by influencing how the Jury should make their decisons. I had no lawyer. Could not even afford one actually.
But still try as they might to cover up the facts that proved neglegice the Jury was wize enough to see much through it and came up with nine reccommendations, none of which have been put into effect yet that will directly benefit, aboriginal woman who are homeless and suffering from mental illness and addictions.
My sister Leona never had a chance to participate is school sport and to be part of our NB Education System's extracurricular activites. When I look at the photgraphs of your sons and the young men who died in this dreadful van accident, I think just look at how self assured and happy they looked, solid and capable and ready to go, so full of life and vitality! I think such activities are vital to physical wellness and to the development of mental wellness. But if the Education System does not take measures of prevention to treat our children, all children with dignity and respect then how can they say they truly care about our children? If school can be cancelled because of bad weather, why can't sport be cancelled? It is as much a safety issue that left me upset many times when my son went to hockey games when weather was dreadful and school had been cancelled! It is beyond me how anyone can think that sport is more important than education!
A game should not have to be forfeit because of bad weather either! All it takes is a decision, a choice that cost too many lives too soon!
I pray that GOD will sustain you through this battle to make a wrong, right! My heart is with you and so is my spirit of Motherhood. A Mother will go through fire for her children, I support you to help you save the lives of all our children and grandchildren.
In closing...a wize man once said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ...Amen
PS
if you go to this link pasted below it will take you to the homepage of NB Wellness, Culture and Sport...just some food for thought...
http://www.gnb.ca/0131/index-e.asp
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Worst Coroners Act in Canada: Our Letter to Tim Rattenbury of the Law Reform Branch, Office of Attorney General
After we made public our February 5 letter to the the Minister of Public Safety, Hon. John Foran [Click here to read letter in Word format], he was contacted by several journalists and was reported as saying that "there is nothing wrong with the Coroners Act" and that he has no intention of reforming the Act. Well, that's not what a lot of other people have been saying, including the Canadian Bar Association- New Brunswick Branch [Click here to read the text of their report "Bringing Death Investigations in New Brunswick into the 21st Century"].
Added to the list of dissatisifed New Brunswickers is the family of Kevin Geldart - whose death by taser was the subject of a Coroners Inquest in Moncton and the family of Leona Harquail, whose death while in the custody of the health care system also became the subject of a Coroners Inquest.
Now we too are facing an Inquest into the deaths of our sons last year in a horrible tragedy and the Minister continues to repeat the mantra that everything is all right.
IT'S NOT ALL RIGHT MR. FORAN
Well it's not all right, and we refuse to accept that our sons Inquest is going to take place under the worst Coroners Act in the country.
All we are asking for is two things:
a) …create standing for victims and other interested parties at Inquests
b) initiate a comprehensive review of the Coroners Act with a view to modernizing it as almost all other Provinces have already done.
Just because John Foran thinks there's nothing wrong with the Act doesn't mean we have to stop at the Department of Public Safety. We know that law reform is a different branch of government, so we have written to Tim Rattenbury, Solicitor with the Law Reform Branch of the Attorney General (Hon. T.J. Burke, Minister of Justice and Attorney General), asking for a meeting to discuss oUr concerns about reform OF the Coroners Act.
We have also been in contact with several Liberal and Conservative Party members who are sympathetic to our cause. We will be meeting with some of them in Fredericton in the very near future to discuss reform of the Coroners Act before our sons Inquest begins in April or May.
We know that when politicians have the political will to do something, they can move fast. Our sons' Inquest will be a test of the Liberal's resolve to change the Coroners Act. When the Inquest does happen, it will attract attention from around the country and the world. NB's Act, already considered one of the worst in the country, will become a lightning rod for criticism from people who have already been through the process and are not happy with the outcome.
If we do not see a commitment to reforming the Coroners Act they can rest assured that we will do everything we can to make the rest of the country, and the rest of the world know that we have the worst Coroners Act in Canada, North America and probably, the Western World. Every other province in Canada except the Yukon and Newfoundland, has a modern Coroners Act. Even the United States and Britain have modern Coroners Acts. But not New Brunswick. [Read the Canadian Bar Association - NB Branch Report "Bringing Death Investigations in New Brunswick into the 21st Century" for a detailed review of the NB situation].
WE STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Meantime, the Minister of Public Safety keeps saying "There's nothing wrong with the Act". Sorry, but we aren't singing from the same song book any more.
We are not satisfied with the Minister's well rehearsed response that "everything is OK" and we'll do everything we can to let people know that the NB Coroners Act is going to let our sons down if an Inquest takes place without the changes we are asking for. We're not asking for much. All we want is two things:
a) …create standing for victims and other interested parties at Inquests
b) initiate a comprehensive review of the Coroners Act with a view to modernizing it as almost all other Provinces have already done.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Bringing Death Investigations in New Brunswick into the 21st Century
Some people have been asking us for a digital version of the Canadian Bar Association - NB Branch Report "Bringing Death Investigations in New Brunswick into the 21st Century". So we typed up the 12 page report and have made it available on our website. The attachments which were part of the report, however, are only available in PDF format so if you want to see them you have to download the entire report and print it up because these include newspaper clippings etc.
A Review and Recommendations for Necessary Changes in the Coroner’s System
[Click here to download document in PDF format].
Canadian Bar Association, New Brunswick Branch
February 2003
INDEX
Bringing Death Investigations in New Brunswick into the 21st Century
A Review and Recommendations for Necessary Changes in the Coroner’s
System.
Appendix A – Provincial Legislative Comparison [Available in PDF format]
Appendix B – New Brunswick Legislative History [Available in PDF format]
Appendix C - Chief Coroner’s Meeting Minutes and Discussion Proposals,
October 11, 1995 [Available in PDF format]
Appendix D - Inquest Frequency, 1993-2003 [Available in PDF format]
----
Bringing Death Investigations in New Brunswick into the 21st Century
The explanation for and the prevention of untimely and unexplained human death remains a principle concern of society, particularly in the western world.
Governments have put in place extensive legislation and regulatory mechanisms to correct circumstances which may have led to preventable death. Governments continue to mandate newly evolving safety standards to protect its citizens. Recent tragedies such as the loss of life in avalanches in British Columbia, as well as the loss of the seven Astronauts returning from space on the Columbia become the immediate subject of Extensive investigations in an attempt to identify the causes to recommend Methodologies to prevent similar disasters.
The respect for human life in the western world is obvious. Government’s recognition of its citizens concerns about avoidable death is obvious.
The number of government departments in New Brunswick that are mandated to safeguard the interest of its citizens are numerous ranging from child protections, adult protection, workplace health and safety, the Fire Marshall, the Department of Transportation ( Highway Safety), Automobile Safety Inspection and Disease Prevention to name but a few. The Provincial Government has a Ministry of Public Safety.
Similarly, The Government of Canada on those matters within its jurisdiction also has departments mandated to protect the safety of its citizens, whether it be in the air or at sea.
Given this justified pre-occupation for the safety of its citizens and the prevention of death, it is incongruous and impossible to understand that the primary oversight for the investigation of the unexplained deaths in the Province of New Brunswick operates under legislation, regulations and standards that have been largely unchanged for over 100 years. Forensic investigations and forensic science in the 21st Century has become more advanced in the last 50 years than was the case when the English Coroner system was developed 1,000 yars ago. Yet, the New Brunswick Coroner’s office is regulated by Legislation reflective of the 19th Century.
Dr. John Butt of Vancouver, Canada’s pre-eminent internationally recognized medical examiner, has described the New Brunswick Coroner’s System as needing a wholesale housecleaning (New Brunswick Telegraph Journal, February 1, 2003).
Dr. Butt was the Chief Medical Examiner of the 1998 Swiss Air Disaster in Nova Scotia.
He is the former President of the US National Association of Medical Examiners. He is Internationally recognized in the field of death investigation. He has been the prime Instigator with respect to extensive law reform in the field of death investigation in both Alberta and Nova Scotia. Those systems have now bee modeled across Canada and the United States.
New Brunswick’s Chief Coroner has ordered 12 inquests in the past 30 months; twelve More than had been held n the previous five years.
Tragically, the legislation and procedures in New Brunswick under which an inquest is held are totally inadequate in the context of appropriate investigatory evidence and scientific opinion. They are also inadequate with respect to the manner in which the evidence is presented. The chief participants lack the necessary training, education and experience to appropriately appreciate the unique circumstances in context of forensic scientific knowledge, whether it be in the field of engineering, materials investigation and/or medical science, to name but a few of the matters which are regularly canvassed in other jurisdictions.
Parties who may be subject to this investigation have no standing to participate in the process or the ability to protect their civil rights and reputation.
Extensive law reform has occurred in almost every other Canadian Province and Territory as well as almost every American State.
The citizens of New Brunswick continue to be dependent on a Coroner’s Office and legislation which cannot meet its 21st Century mandate.
The citizens of the New Brunswick continue to be misled by reliance on a system which Cannot meet modern day requirements.
The Coroner’s system that is presently constituted in this Province lacks the ability to respond to the modern day requirements of death investigation, to provide answers and to provide recommendations that will be respected and implemented in order to protect the safety of its citizens.
History and Background
The coroner’s system lies somewhere between the fields of law and medicine. In fact, it is a shadowy area only vaguely understood by either profession.
The Canadian coroner’s system can clearly trace its history back to the English coroners’ system which developed about 1,000 years ago. The Office of the Coroner is one of the oldest institutions know to our legal system and is said to rank in antiquity only behind the Monarch and the Sheriff.
The first record of coroners is in the reign of King Alfred in the 11th century when Alfred put a judge to death for sentencing another person to death upon the coroner’s record without allowing the defendant the opportunity of defending himself. Apparently, the defendant was taken and tortured until he confessed a mortal sin and this he did to avoid further torture. The judge sentenced him to death on his confession made to the coroner without trying the truth of the allegations as to the torture and the other facts. It is interesting to note that , in addition to the judge, the coroner was also executed.
The duties of the early coroner were extensive. They included holding inquests upon dead bodies, dealing with felons who had sought the sanctuary of the church, hearing appeals and confessions of felons, dealing with outlaws, arresting witnesses, suspects and others and appraising and safeguarding any lands and goods which might later be forfeited to the Crown. The coroner at that time had to be a knight or a considerable landowner.
As a practical matter, the only Crown pleas attended to by the coroner were homicide and suicide. When a dead body had been found, after a sudden or unnatural death, the first finder has to raise a “hue and cry”, and then the neighbors or the bailiff had to summon the coroner. Before setting out to view the body, the coroner was required to order the sheriff or hundred-bailiff to summon a jury for a given day. The early juries consisted of anywhere from 12 to 24 men. The jurors, as knowledgeable men of the neighborhood, were required to answer certain questions put to them by the coroner, to ascertain the circumstances and details of death. Both the coroner and the jurors viewed the body and looked for any signs of injury.
From the earliest of times, the coroner played a key role in the administration and enforcement of criminal law in England and, in fact, the Coroner’s Court acted as a criminal court, dealing with the most serious criminal matters know to the law.
In England in 1887, a law was enacted requiring an inquest to be conducted whenever the coroner had reasonable cause to suspect violence or unnatural death or when the cause of death was unknown. This had the effect of giving the coroner the widest authority to investigate cases and thus the coroners’ system developed as an investigative agency with broad powers concerned with a large portion of death, including many non-violent deaths.
In North America, colonists brought the English coroner’s system with them as early as the 1600s.
Today, every province and state in North America utilizes some form of a modified coroner’s system with the primary objective being to establish a cause of death and determine by what means a person came to his or her death. Virtually every province and state take a different approach and use a different system.
The Modern Coroner’s System in Canada
Canadian jurisdictions utilize a mixture of both coroners’ systems and medical examiners’ systems. Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon Territory all operate under a coroner system. Medical examiner systems operate in Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Unlike the coroner’s office, the office of the medical examiner conducts its own investigations.
Throughout the 1990s, many jurisdictions in Canada undertook to upgrade and reorganize their systems. In Quebec, for example, coroners’ inquests had historically been used to establish criminal liability and to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to lay charges. This is no longer the case and the Quebec system is now modeled in large part on Ontario’s Coroners Act. Newfoundland, Manitoba and Alberta adopted medical examiners’ systems. And Saskatchewan and Brish Columbia have coroners’ systems which are comprised of medical, legal and lay investigators.
Most notably for the purposes of the paper, one province which has not undertaken any substantive legislative reform is New Brunswick. The last substantial amendments to the New Brunswick Coroner Act were in 1966 and dealt mainly with the appointment of a Chief Coroner.
The Ontario Coroner’s System
The Coronner’s office in Ontario is a hybrid system which has developed from the British coroners’ system and the more modern North American medical examiners’ system which evolved in the 1800s. The preliminary investigation into the cause and circumstances of a death is carried out by an investigator who is also a licensed physician. Most Ontario coroners are general medical practitioners, but there are representatives from every medical specialty. They are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor and report to the regional coroner who reports to the Chief Coroner of Ontario.
The coroner’s office obtains investigative information from the relevant law enforcement officials. Where a public inquiry is deemed necessary, the investigating coroner will conduct such an inquiry in a judicial capacity wit a jury.
Unlike New Brunswick, where the powers and duties of a coroner stem from the common law, Ontario’s Coroners Act mandates the comprehensive duties, functions and responsibilities for its coroners.
Once a death is reported to the coroner’s office, an extensive investigation is undertaken.
As the various aspects of the initial investigation are completed, including the preliminary police investigation, the autopsy results, the toxicology and expert reports, the coroner correlates this information with the view to answering questions as to who the deceased was, how the deceased came to his death, when the deceased came to his death, where the deceased came to his death and by what means the decease came to his death.
If the coroner cannot answer the questions concerning any reportable death or where there is doubt, then the coroner will order that an inquest be held. Even in those cases where these answers are know, the coroner may order an inquest in order to clear the air when there is a great deal of gossip or misinformation in the community.
The number of inquests in Ontario has dropped markedly over the past three decades.
Although there are fewer in number, the current inquests tend to be much longer and more involved. In the past, inquests were routinely held into most fatal motor vehicle accidents. Such routine inquests have been stopped, other than those which are mandated by statute. Most inquests undertaken in Ontario today are done so because there is an obvious need for the public to understand the circumstances, and the recommendations
which arise therefrom will serve to protect the public in the future. Often they are undertaken to address a systemic problem, such as a series of reported deaths in the emergency room of a particular hospital.
Coroner’s Inquests in New Brunswick
Scope and Purpose
The Office of the Coroner in New Brunswick has failed to evolve to 21st Century standards in the investigation of a sudden and unexpected deaths.
It is interesting to note that New Brunswick’s Coroners Act is totally silent as to its purpose. It is, however, generally recognized that all coroners seek to answer five basic questions:
(1) who the deceased was?
(2) how,
(3) when,
(4) where and
(5) by what means he or she died?
There is no legislative authority in New Brunswick which confirms this. The common law and past practice support that role, but the authority and power of the coroner’s office are antiquated and have not kept up with modern forensic death investigations.
In addition to answering the five basic questions, a coroner’s inquest often acts as a public forum for the ascertainment of facts relating to death. It can be a means of formally focusing a community’s attention on and initiating community response to preventable deaths, and can also act as a means for satisfying the community that the circumstances surrounding the death of no one of its members will be overlooked, concealed or ignored.
Section 44 of the Coroners Act allows New Brunswick’s coroners to retain the “jurisdiction, powers and authority of coroners at common law”. However, New Brunswick courts have limited the scope of an inquiry, particularly with respect to the verdict handed down by a coroner’s jury. A coroner’s jury findings carry no legal weight and it is submitted that the public is being misled on the significance of jury findings and the disposition of its recommendations.
In Re Gregoire and the district Coroner for Capbellton, (1988) N.B.J. No 444 (TD), the Court addressed the issue of scope and purpose of a coroner’s inquest. Godin J. wrote:
“…That is the precise question in issue in the matter: what should the coroner be concerned with in determining whether to hold an inquest?
The Coroners Act is virtually silent on that question. In Fact the Act is its present form does not yield much Information as to why the Act even exists. Section 25(1) and s. 26 appear to make the only references to the objectives of the Act.
These sections are as follows:
25(1) The coroner or jury may make recommendations as to any action that should be taken to prevent further injury or death in circumstances similar to those involved in the death that was the subject of the inquest, and the coroner shall attach any such recommendations to the inquisition.
26. After viewing the body where a view is held and after hearing the evidence and the summing up of the coroner, the jury shall give their verdict and certify it by an inquisition under the hand and seal of the coroner and under the hands of the jury setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them, who the deceased was and how and when eh came to his death. Emphasis added)
…
In the absence of stutory criteria to guide coroners in deciding whether to hold an inquest coroners should determine whether an inquest is necessary or likely to accomplish the objectives set out in s. 25(1) and x. 26. On the basis of these sections I conclude that the coroner must make a determination to hold an inquest by ascertaining if an inquest is necessary to answer the following question:
1. Is the identity of the deceased know with certainly? (s.26)
2. How did the deceased come to his death? (s26)
3. Are the circumstances of the death likely to yield information as to any action that should be taken to prevent injury or death in similar circumstances. (s.25)
Even if the Act places no limitations on the scope of the inquiry, a coroner has no jurisdiction to go beyond those areas of inquiry identified in the act and the inquest must be conducted in compliance with our general laws. In that respect, two observations must be made.
First, a coroner’s inquest is not a trial. Trial by inquest or by inquisition is foreign to our system of law and quite incompatible with our civil rights.
Secondly, there are no parties at an inquest. No one has an opportunity to defend or a right o be heard. Great care must therefore be taken not to violate a fundamental rule of our system of law which is that no person should be condemned unheard.
That rule, sometimes referred to as the Audi alteram partem rule lies at the very foundations of our civil and criminal justice.
Standing for Interested Parties
It is of note that New Brunswick’s Coroners Act does not grant standing to interested parties or their counsel at inquest and does not allow interested parties to call, examine or cross-examine any witnesses.
This is in stark contract to virtually all of the rest of Canada (see Appendix “A”). All provinces which grant participation or standing by interested parties allow for the examination of witnesses. In addition, some provinces (Alberta, Ontario and Prince Edward Island) specifically allow interested parties or their counsel to present submissions and make arguments. In Quebec counsel is permitted to “make any representations to the coroner for the purposes of the inquest”.
In Ontario, section 41 of the Coroners Act states that a coroner shall designate a person as A person with standing if the coroner finds that the person is “substantially and directly Interested in the inquest”. Typically, wide latitude is granted by Ontario coroners in Determining those person who have substantial and direct interest in the inquest.
In New Brunswick, interested parties may retain counsel who are permitted to be present at an inquest. However, interested parties are required to submit all questions that they wish to ask a witness in writing to the crown prosecutor, who is the only person allowed to ask questions directly of a witness. If the crown prosecutor has reservations about the propriety or relevance of the questions submitted, then the decision on whether the question should be asked will be made by the presiding coroner.
At present, New Brunswick is just one of three jurisdictions in Canada that do not allow standing for interested parties. The result, particularly in cases involving health care and medical issues, where science and forensic expertise exceeds laymen’s understanding, is the potential for abuse, innuendo and badgering of witnesses. Often counsel for the coroner, crown prosecutors who traditionally argue criminal cases, are unfamiliar with the nuances of industrial, medical malpractice and traffic-related cases. Subsequently, it is an individual physician, or health care institution whose reputation comes under scrutiny (New Brunswick Telegraph Journal, February 1, 2003).
Legislative Reform
As stated previously, New Brunswick’s Coroners Act has not been witness to any substantive legislative reform since 1966 when the Office of the chief Coroner was created. Indeed, a thorough review of the legislation dating back to the turn of th last century shows that only minor amendments have been made and virtually all are procedural or administrative in nature (see Appendix “B”).
A number of meetings were held in the mid 1990s by the Chief coroner’s office in conjunction with other relevant health care agencies, including the college of Physicians and Surgeons and the New Brunswick Medical Society, to discuss the relationship between health care providers and the coroner’s office. At the time, a number of potential legislative reforms were discussed, including the need for medically trained individuals to conduct investigations into deaths which occur at health care facilities or to take it one step further and require that the current system be headed by physicians (see Appendix “C”. As well, much discussion surrounded the topic of exactly when hospitals are required to report deaths to the coroner’s office. The current legislative provision requires that “sudden and unexpected” deaths be reported, but does not go any further to explain what this entails. Though these meetings generated much discussion, no legislative reform resulted therefrom.
Between 1996 and 2000, relatively few inquest were held in New Brunswick (see Appendix “D”). However, since 2000, there have been 12 inquests either ordered or held.
The most recent New Brunswick inquest was held into the death of six year old Ashley Atkinson who died at the Saint John regional Hospital in February 2001. That case dealt with the “off label use” (a term not well understood by lay person) of the drug Propofol in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at the Regional Hospital.
The medical issues in the Atkinson case were complex, to say the least, and clearly demonstrate the benefit of the Ontario approach in utilizing physicians as coroners.
many of the inquests held in Ontario today concern the treatment provided in health care facilities. If such is to be the case here in New Brunswick, then medically trained individuals become all the more necessary.
New Brunswick’s Coroners Act is antiquated and reform is long overdue. It is submitted that a repeal of the coroners Act is in order and that a new investigation system be implemented which is more reflective of current needs. It is proposed that this system be modeled after Ontario’s coroner system.
Recommendations
That the New Brunswick coroners Act, RSNB 1973, c. C-23, immediately amended:
(a) to permit interested parties or their counsel to appear and to fully participate in an inquest including the right to examine and the right to call evidence, and to examine and cross-examine any witnesses and to make submissions to the inquest jury;
(b) that the results and recommendations of any investigation undertaken by the coroner’s office be made public including any recommendation made by the coroner’s office.
That an immediate review be undertaken by the Province of New Brunswick incorporating the law reform initiatives, conclusions and recommendations of the Provinces of Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Nova Scotia with the specific purpose of:
(a) repealing the Coroners act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c C-23;
(b) adopting new legislation incorporating the best aspects of the medical examiner’s systems and coroner’s systems in those four Provinces that would be compatible with New Brunswick;
(c) that the new legislation to permit interested parties or their counsel to appear and to fully participate in an inquest including the right to examine and the right to call evidence, and to examine and cross-examine any witnesses and to make submissions to the inquest jury;
(d) that the results and recommendations of any investigation undertaken by the coroner’s office be made public including any recommendations made by the coroner’s office;
(e) that the legislation specifically stipulate the powers, duties, functions and responsibilities of the coroner’s and/or medical examiners appointed pursuant to the legislations.
A Review and Recommendations for Necessary Changes in the Coroner’s System
[Click here to download document in PDF format].
Canadian Bar Association, New Brunswick Branch
February 2003
INDEX
Bringing Death Investigations in New Brunswick into the 21st Century
A Review and Recommendations for Necessary Changes in the Coroner’s
System.
Appendix A – Provincial Legislative Comparison [Available in PDF format]
Appendix B – New Brunswick Legislative History [Available in PDF format]
Appendix C - Chief Coroner’s Meeting Minutes and Discussion Proposals,
October 11, 1995 [Available in PDF format]
Appendix D - Inquest Frequency, 1993-2003 [Available in PDF format]
----
Bringing Death Investigations in New Brunswick into the 21st Century
The explanation for and the prevention of untimely and unexplained human death remains a principle concern of society, particularly in the western world.
Governments have put in place extensive legislation and regulatory mechanisms to correct circumstances which may have led to preventable death. Governments continue to mandate newly evolving safety standards to protect its citizens. Recent tragedies such as the loss of life in avalanches in British Columbia, as well as the loss of the seven Astronauts returning from space on the Columbia become the immediate subject of Extensive investigations in an attempt to identify the causes to recommend Methodologies to prevent similar disasters.
The respect for human life in the western world is obvious. Government’s recognition of its citizens concerns about avoidable death is obvious.
The number of government departments in New Brunswick that are mandated to safeguard the interest of its citizens are numerous ranging from child protections, adult protection, workplace health and safety, the Fire Marshall, the Department of Transportation ( Highway Safety), Automobile Safety Inspection and Disease Prevention to name but a few. The Provincial Government has a Ministry of Public Safety.
Similarly, The Government of Canada on those matters within its jurisdiction also has departments mandated to protect the safety of its citizens, whether it be in the air or at sea.
Given this justified pre-occupation for the safety of its citizens and the prevention of death, it is incongruous and impossible to understand that the primary oversight for the investigation of the unexplained deaths in the Province of New Brunswick operates under legislation, regulations and standards that have been largely unchanged for over 100 years. Forensic investigations and forensic science in the 21st Century has become more advanced in the last 50 years than was the case when the English Coroner system was developed 1,000 yars ago. Yet, the New Brunswick Coroner’s office is regulated by Legislation reflective of the 19th Century.
Dr. John Butt of Vancouver, Canada’s pre-eminent internationally recognized medical examiner, has described the New Brunswick Coroner’s System as needing a wholesale housecleaning (New Brunswick Telegraph Journal, February 1, 2003).
Dr. Butt was the Chief Medical Examiner of the 1998 Swiss Air Disaster in Nova Scotia.
He is the former President of the US National Association of Medical Examiners. He is Internationally recognized in the field of death investigation. He has been the prime Instigator with respect to extensive law reform in the field of death investigation in both Alberta and Nova Scotia. Those systems have now bee modeled across Canada and the United States.
New Brunswick’s Chief Coroner has ordered 12 inquests in the past 30 months; twelve More than had been held n the previous five years.
Tragically, the legislation and procedures in New Brunswick under which an inquest is held are totally inadequate in the context of appropriate investigatory evidence and scientific opinion. They are also inadequate with respect to the manner in which the evidence is presented. The chief participants lack the necessary training, education and experience to appropriately appreciate the unique circumstances in context of forensic scientific knowledge, whether it be in the field of engineering, materials investigation and/or medical science, to name but a few of the matters which are regularly canvassed in other jurisdictions.
Parties who may be subject to this investigation have no standing to participate in the process or the ability to protect their civil rights and reputation.
Extensive law reform has occurred in almost every other Canadian Province and Territory as well as almost every American State.
The citizens of New Brunswick continue to be dependent on a Coroner’s Office and legislation which cannot meet its 21st Century mandate.
The citizens of the New Brunswick continue to be misled by reliance on a system which Cannot meet modern day requirements.
The Coroner’s system that is presently constituted in this Province lacks the ability to respond to the modern day requirements of death investigation, to provide answers and to provide recommendations that will be respected and implemented in order to protect the safety of its citizens.
History and Background
The coroner’s system lies somewhere between the fields of law and medicine. In fact, it is a shadowy area only vaguely understood by either profession.
The Canadian coroner’s system can clearly trace its history back to the English coroners’ system which developed about 1,000 years ago. The Office of the Coroner is one of the oldest institutions know to our legal system and is said to rank in antiquity only behind the Monarch and the Sheriff.
The first record of coroners is in the reign of King Alfred in the 11th century when Alfred put a judge to death for sentencing another person to death upon the coroner’s record without allowing the defendant the opportunity of defending himself. Apparently, the defendant was taken and tortured until he confessed a mortal sin and this he did to avoid further torture. The judge sentenced him to death on his confession made to the coroner without trying the truth of the allegations as to the torture and the other facts. It is interesting to note that , in addition to the judge, the coroner was also executed.
The duties of the early coroner were extensive. They included holding inquests upon dead bodies, dealing with felons who had sought the sanctuary of the church, hearing appeals and confessions of felons, dealing with outlaws, arresting witnesses, suspects and others and appraising and safeguarding any lands and goods which might later be forfeited to the Crown. The coroner at that time had to be a knight or a considerable landowner.
As a practical matter, the only Crown pleas attended to by the coroner were homicide and suicide. When a dead body had been found, after a sudden or unnatural death, the first finder has to raise a “hue and cry”, and then the neighbors or the bailiff had to summon the coroner. Before setting out to view the body, the coroner was required to order the sheriff or hundred-bailiff to summon a jury for a given day. The early juries consisted of anywhere from 12 to 24 men. The jurors, as knowledgeable men of the neighborhood, were required to answer certain questions put to them by the coroner, to ascertain the circumstances and details of death. Both the coroner and the jurors viewed the body and looked for any signs of injury.
From the earliest of times, the coroner played a key role in the administration and enforcement of criminal law in England and, in fact, the Coroner’s Court acted as a criminal court, dealing with the most serious criminal matters know to the law.
In England in 1887, a law was enacted requiring an inquest to be conducted whenever the coroner had reasonable cause to suspect violence or unnatural death or when the cause of death was unknown. This had the effect of giving the coroner the widest authority to investigate cases and thus the coroners’ system developed as an investigative agency with broad powers concerned with a large portion of death, including many non-violent deaths.
In North America, colonists brought the English coroner’s system with them as early as the 1600s.
Today, every province and state in North America utilizes some form of a modified coroner’s system with the primary objective being to establish a cause of death and determine by what means a person came to his or her death. Virtually every province and state take a different approach and use a different system.
The Modern Coroner’s System in Canada
Canadian jurisdictions utilize a mixture of both coroners’ systems and medical examiners’ systems. Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon Territory all operate under a coroner system. Medical examiner systems operate in Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Unlike the coroner’s office, the office of the medical examiner conducts its own investigations.
Throughout the 1990s, many jurisdictions in Canada undertook to upgrade and reorganize their systems. In Quebec, for example, coroners’ inquests had historically been used to establish criminal liability and to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to lay charges. This is no longer the case and the Quebec system is now modeled in large part on Ontario’s Coroners Act. Newfoundland, Manitoba and Alberta adopted medical examiners’ systems. And Saskatchewan and Brish Columbia have coroners’ systems which are comprised of medical, legal and lay investigators.
Most notably for the purposes of the paper, one province which has not undertaken any substantive legislative reform is New Brunswick. The last substantial amendments to the New Brunswick Coroner Act were in 1966 and dealt mainly with the appointment of a Chief Coroner.
The Ontario Coroner’s System
The Coronner’s office in Ontario is a hybrid system which has developed from the British coroners’ system and the more modern North American medical examiners’ system which evolved in the 1800s. The preliminary investigation into the cause and circumstances of a death is carried out by an investigator who is also a licensed physician. Most Ontario coroners are general medical practitioners, but there are representatives from every medical specialty. They are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor and report to the regional coroner who reports to the Chief Coroner of Ontario.
The coroner’s office obtains investigative information from the relevant law enforcement officials. Where a public inquiry is deemed necessary, the investigating coroner will conduct such an inquiry in a judicial capacity wit a jury.
Unlike New Brunswick, where the powers and duties of a coroner stem from the common law, Ontario’s Coroners Act mandates the comprehensive duties, functions and responsibilities for its coroners.
Once a death is reported to the coroner’s office, an extensive investigation is undertaken.
As the various aspects of the initial investigation are completed, including the preliminary police investigation, the autopsy results, the toxicology and expert reports, the coroner correlates this information with the view to answering questions as to who the deceased was, how the deceased came to his death, when the deceased came to his death, where the deceased came to his death and by what means the decease came to his death.
If the coroner cannot answer the questions concerning any reportable death or where there is doubt, then the coroner will order that an inquest be held. Even in those cases where these answers are know, the coroner may order an inquest in order to clear the air when there is a great deal of gossip or misinformation in the community.
The number of inquests in Ontario has dropped markedly over the past three decades.
Although there are fewer in number, the current inquests tend to be much longer and more involved. In the past, inquests were routinely held into most fatal motor vehicle accidents. Such routine inquests have been stopped, other than those which are mandated by statute. Most inquests undertaken in Ontario today are done so because there is an obvious need for the public to understand the circumstances, and the recommendations
which arise therefrom will serve to protect the public in the future. Often they are undertaken to address a systemic problem, such as a series of reported deaths in the emergency room of a particular hospital.
Coroner’s Inquests in New Brunswick
Scope and Purpose
The Office of the Coroner in New Brunswick has failed to evolve to 21st Century standards in the investigation of a sudden and unexpected deaths.
It is interesting to note that New Brunswick’s Coroners Act is totally silent as to its purpose. It is, however, generally recognized that all coroners seek to answer five basic questions:
(1) who the deceased was?
(2) how,
(3) when,
(4) where and
(5) by what means he or she died?
There is no legislative authority in New Brunswick which confirms this. The common law and past practice support that role, but the authority and power of the coroner’s office are antiquated and have not kept up with modern forensic death investigations.
In addition to answering the five basic questions, a coroner’s inquest often acts as a public forum for the ascertainment of facts relating to death. It can be a means of formally focusing a community’s attention on and initiating community response to preventable deaths, and can also act as a means for satisfying the community that the circumstances surrounding the death of no one of its members will be overlooked, concealed or ignored.
Section 44 of the Coroners Act allows New Brunswick’s coroners to retain the “jurisdiction, powers and authority of coroners at common law”. However, New Brunswick courts have limited the scope of an inquiry, particularly with respect to the verdict handed down by a coroner’s jury. A coroner’s jury findings carry no legal weight and it is submitted that the public is being misled on the significance of jury findings and the disposition of its recommendations.
In Re Gregoire and the district Coroner for Capbellton, (1988) N.B.J. No 444 (TD), the Court addressed the issue of scope and purpose of a coroner’s inquest. Godin J. wrote:
“…That is the precise question in issue in the matter: what should the coroner be concerned with in determining whether to hold an inquest?
The Coroners Act is virtually silent on that question. In Fact the Act is its present form does not yield much Information as to why the Act even exists. Section 25(1) and s. 26 appear to make the only references to the objectives of the Act.
These sections are as follows:
25(1) The coroner or jury may make recommendations as to any action that should be taken to prevent further injury or death in circumstances similar to those involved in the death that was the subject of the inquest, and the coroner shall attach any such recommendations to the inquisition.
26. After viewing the body where a view is held and after hearing the evidence and the summing up of the coroner, the jury shall give their verdict and certify it by an inquisition under the hand and seal of the coroner and under the hands of the jury setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them, who the deceased was and how and when eh came to his death. Emphasis added)
…
In the absence of stutory criteria to guide coroners in deciding whether to hold an inquest coroners should determine whether an inquest is necessary or likely to accomplish the objectives set out in s. 25(1) and x. 26. On the basis of these sections I conclude that the coroner must make a determination to hold an inquest by ascertaining if an inquest is necessary to answer the following question:
1. Is the identity of the deceased know with certainly? (s.26)
2. How did the deceased come to his death? (s26)
3. Are the circumstances of the death likely to yield information as to any action that should be taken to prevent injury or death in similar circumstances. (s.25)
Even if the Act places no limitations on the scope of the inquiry, a coroner has no jurisdiction to go beyond those areas of inquiry identified in the act and the inquest must be conducted in compliance with our general laws. In that respect, two observations must be made.
First, a coroner’s inquest is not a trial. Trial by inquest or by inquisition is foreign to our system of law and quite incompatible with our civil rights.
Secondly, there are no parties at an inquest. No one has an opportunity to defend or a right o be heard. Great care must therefore be taken not to violate a fundamental rule of our system of law which is that no person should be condemned unheard.
That rule, sometimes referred to as the Audi alteram partem rule lies at the very foundations of our civil and criminal justice.
Standing for Interested Parties
It is of note that New Brunswick’s Coroners Act does not grant standing to interested parties or their counsel at inquest and does not allow interested parties to call, examine or cross-examine any witnesses.
This is in stark contract to virtually all of the rest of Canada (see Appendix “A”). All provinces which grant participation or standing by interested parties allow for the examination of witnesses. In addition, some provinces (Alberta, Ontario and Prince Edward Island) specifically allow interested parties or their counsel to present submissions and make arguments. In Quebec counsel is permitted to “make any representations to the coroner for the purposes of the inquest”.
In Ontario, section 41 of the Coroners Act states that a coroner shall designate a person as A person with standing if the coroner finds that the person is “substantially and directly Interested in the inquest”. Typically, wide latitude is granted by Ontario coroners in Determining those person who have substantial and direct interest in the inquest.
In New Brunswick, interested parties may retain counsel who are permitted to be present at an inquest. However, interested parties are required to submit all questions that they wish to ask a witness in writing to the crown prosecutor, who is the only person allowed to ask questions directly of a witness. If the crown prosecutor has reservations about the propriety or relevance of the questions submitted, then the decision on whether the question should be asked will be made by the presiding coroner.
At present, New Brunswick is just one of three jurisdictions in Canada that do not allow standing for interested parties. The result, particularly in cases involving health care and medical issues, where science and forensic expertise exceeds laymen’s understanding, is the potential for abuse, innuendo and badgering of witnesses. Often counsel for the coroner, crown prosecutors who traditionally argue criminal cases, are unfamiliar with the nuances of industrial, medical malpractice and traffic-related cases. Subsequently, it is an individual physician, or health care institution whose reputation comes under scrutiny (New Brunswick Telegraph Journal, February 1, 2003).
Legislative Reform
As stated previously, New Brunswick’s Coroners Act has not been witness to any substantive legislative reform since 1966 when the Office of the chief Coroner was created. Indeed, a thorough review of the legislation dating back to the turn of th last century shows that only minor amendments have been made and virtually all are procedural or administrative in nature (see Appendix “B”).
A number of meetings were held in the mid 1990s by the Chief coroner’s office in conjunction with other relevant health care agencies, including the college of Physicians and Surgeons and the New Brunswick Medical Society, to discuss the relationship between health care providers and the coroner’s office. At the time, a number of potential legislative reforms were discussed, including the need for medically trained individuals to conduct investigations into deaths which occur at health care facilities or to take it one step further and require that the current system be headed by physicians (see Appendix “C”. As well, much discussion surrounded the topic of exactly when hospitals are required to report deaths to the coroner’s office. The current legislative provision requires that “sudden and unexpected” deaths be reported, but does not go any further to explain what this entails. Though these meetings generated much discussion, no legislative reform resulted therefrom.
Between 1996 and 2000, relatively few inquest were held in New Brunswick (see Appendix “D”). However, since 2000, there have been 12 inquests either ordered or held.
The most recent New Brunswick inquest was held into the death of six year old Ashley Atkinson who died at the Saint John regional Hospital in February 2001. That case dealt with the “off label use” (a term not well understood by lay person) of the drug Propofol in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at the Regional Hospital.
The medical issues in the Atkinson case were complex, to say the least, and clearly demonstrate the benefit of the Ontario approach in utilizing physicians as coroners.
many of the inquests held in Ontario today concern the treatment provided in health care facilities. If such is to be the case here in New Brunswick, then medically trained individuals become all the more necessary.
New Brunswick’s Coroners Act is antiquated and reform is long overdue. It is submitted that a repeal of the coroners Act is in order and that a new investigation system be implemented which is more reflective of current needs. It is proposed that this system be modeled after Ontario’s coroner system.
Recommendations
That the New Brunswick coroners Act, RSNB 1973, c. C-23, immediately amended:
(a) to permit interested parties or their counsel to appear and to fully participate in an inquest including the right to examine and the right to call evidence, and to examine and cross-examine any witnesses and to make submissions to the inquest jury;
(b) that the results and recommendations of any investigation undertaken by the coroner’s office be made public including any recommendation made by the coroner’s office.
That an immediate review be undertaken by the Province of New Brunswick incorporating the law reform initiatives, conclusions and recommendations of the Provinces of Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Nova Scotia with the specific purpose of:
(a) repealing the Coroners act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c C-23;
(b) adopting new legislation incorporating the best aspects of the medical examiner’s systems and coroner’s systems in those four Provinces that would be compatible with New Brunswick;
(c) that the new legislation to permit interested parties or their counsel to appear and to fully participate in an inquest including the right to examine and the right to call evidence, and to examine and cross-examine any witnesses and to make submissions to the inquest jury;
(d) that the results and recommendations of any investigation undertaken by the coroner’s office be made public including any recommendations made by the coroner’s office;
(e) that the legislation specifically stipulate the powers, duties, functions and responsibilities of the coroner’s and/or medical examiners appointed pursuant to the legislations.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
110 Year Old Coroners Act "A Barnacled Creature That Keeps Growing Barnacles"
On Thursday, February 5 we wrote a letter to the Minister of Public Safety, Hon. John Foran, asking him to please consider interim changes to the Coroners Act before the Inquest into the deaths of our sons begins in April or May. [Click here to read letter to Hon. John Foran, NB Minister of Public Safety, in Word format or read the post in our blog.]Specifically, what we are asking for is this:
a) …create standing for victims and other interested parties at Inquests
b) initiate a comprehensive review of the Coroners Act with a view to modernizing it as almost all other Provinces have already done.
Not A New Idea
What we are asking for is not new. In 2003, the Canadian Bar Association - New Brunswick Branch, submitted a review and recommendations called "Bringing Death Investigations in New Brunswick into the 21st Century". [Click here to download document in PDF format].
The 2003 review was highly critical of the NB Coroners Act, saying the citizens of this province continue to be "misled" by reliance on a system which cannot meet modern day requirements.
It called for a complete overhaul of the Act, saying it "lacks the ability to respond to the modern day requirements of death investigation, to provide answers and to provide recommendations that will be respected and implemented in order to protect the safety of its citizens."
The 2003 review was ignored by the then governing party of Bernard Lord. So in April 2008, when the government of Shawn Graham was considering changes to the Act in Bill 48, An Act to Amend the Coroners Act, David O'Brien of the CBA-NB Branch asked the government of Shawn Graham to consider implementing interim changes to the Act while it undergoes a complete overhaul. [Click here to read April 21, 2008 letter to John Foran from CBA-NB in PDF format].
Minister Says Nothing Wrong With Act: We Disagree
Apparently, the Minister of Public Safety, Hon. John Foran refused the CBA-NB's request to make interim changes to the Act, saying there was nothing wrong with the Coroners Act.
Sound familiar?
That's what they said about the passenger van our children were in that awful night last January when they were killed. There was nothing wrong with that van either and we all know what happened.
So on Saturday, February 7, we sent out a copy of Mr. Foran's letter to every MLA asking them for help in changing the Coroners Act. We have already received a few replies and will be following up with these MLAs.
Specifically, we are asking all MLAs to please consider our request to have interim changes to the Coroners' Act that will allow us to have standing at the Coroners Inquest which we expect will be held in April or May.
We want this Coroners Inquest to make a difference. We have spoken with a number of people who have gone through Inquests and they were not happy with the outcome. They felt that their lack of legal representation negatively affected the Inquest and that there was no follow up on the recommendations. This is precisely what the 2003 CBA-NB Review said was wrong with the Act.
It is now February 2009. Two governments have seen the CBA-NB report and nothing has changed with the Coroners Act. We will not be allowed to have legal representation at the Inquest unless we fight for it. We can never be sure that the Coroners Jury recommendations will ever be implemented unless the Act is changed.
We will not take no for an answer. The NB Coroners Act is essentially the same piece of legislation that it was 110 years ago. It is, as one legal expert said, "a barnacled creature that keeps growing barnacles." In honour of our sons' memory, we want changes to the Coroners Act that will improve the process for all New Brunswickers who have the terrible misfortune to have reason to attend a Coroners Inquest.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Letter to Minister of Public Safety, Hon. John Foran, February 5, 2009
[Click here to read letter to Hon. John Foran, NB Minister of Public Safety, in Word format].Isabelle Hains and Ana Acevedo
Bathurst, NB
February 5, 2009
Hon. Mr. John Foran
Minister of Public Safety
Argyle Place
364 Argyle Street
Fredericton, New Brunswick
E3B 1T9
Hon. Mr. John Foran:
We are the mothers of Daniel Hains and Javier Acevedo, two high school basketball players from Bathurst who were killed in a horrific tragedy along with six others last January 12, 2008. We are writing to explain our position on the New Brunswick Coroners Act and the upcoming Coroners Inquest, which we understand will take place in April or May 2009.
When we spoke to you by phone before the Inquest was called, we were optimistic that it would result in meaningful changes that would prevent tragedies like this from ever happening again. However, we have since learned that this is not the case.
We have been educating ourselves about the NB Coroners Act and have learned that the Canadian Bar Association-NB Branch, has been pleading for changes to the Act for more than five years. (See CBA-NB’s 2003 Report “Bringing Death Investigations into the 21st Century: A Review and Recommendations for Necessary Changes in the Coroners System” on our website at http://www.vanangels.ca/documents/2003-cba-nb-report.PDF ).
In fact, we know that David O’Brien of the CBA-NB Branch wrote to you personally on April 21, 2008, while Bill 48, An Act to Amend the Coroners Act, was being considered by the Legislature, and asked you to “create standing for victims and other interested parties at Inquests” and to “initiate a comprehensive review of the Coroners Act with a view to modernizing it as almost all other Provinces have already done.” (For full text of letter, go to http://www.vanangels.ca/documents/2008-04-21-cba-nb.PDF).
When we went public with our calls for a Coroners Inquest on December 12, 2008, the Telegraph Journal produced a series of articles and editorials about the Coroners Act and the Inquest process. One article, dated December 16, 2008, quoted Mr. O’Brien as saying that the association has repeatedly asked successive provincial governments to modernize the antiquated act governing death investigations, but to no avail. You have been quoted, as saying there was nothing wrong with the Act.
We strongly disagree.
The NB Coroners Act is 110 years old. When the Act was introduced in 1899, airplanes, fast cars, and modern forensic investigations were inventions of the future. Today, the NB Coroners Act is one of only three in Canada, which has not been brought into the 21st century. Of particular concern is the fact that we are not permitted standing which would allow our lawyers to cross-examine witnesses.
We want answers to our questions and recommendations from a fully informed jury, which has heard witness testimony under, cross-examination. But because this fatal crash occurred in New Brunswick, we, the grieving parents of two dead sons, do not have the right to have legal representation at the Inquest, to call witnesses, to ask questions of other witnesses or make submissions as is done in most other jurisdictions, including Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
Our position always was and remains that there are too many unanswered questions which need to be answered in an open and transparent forum. We agree with the CBA-NB 2003 report and its April 21, 2008 letter urging you to make changes to the Act.
Although we missed the opportunity afforded by Bill 48, we know that when a government has the political will to do something quickly, it can move fast to change legislation. Establishing an Interim Coroners Act based on the existing one in force in Nova Scotia would be an expedient and efficient solution in the short term.
Specifically, we urge you to implement the recommendations that were sent to you on April 21, 2008 by David O’Brien of the CBA-NB Branch:
a) …create standing for victims and other interested parties at Inquests
b) initiate a comprehensive review of the Coroners Act with a view to modernizing it as almost all other Provinces have already done.
In the memory of our sons so that their deaths may not be in vain, we implore you to update the Coroners Act before their Inquest takes place in the spring.
We hope to hear from you soon regarding this request to change the Coroners Act. We are willing to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this very important matter and can be reached by email at info@vanangels.ca
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
Yours sincerely,
Isabelle Hains and Ana Acevedo
info@vanangels.ca
cc. Premier Shawn Graham and Members of the Executive Council
All NB MLAs
Greg Forestell, Acting Chief Coroner, Department of Public Safety
Guilman Roy, Coroner, Bathurst
Yvon Godin, Member of Parliament, Acadie-Bathurst
Media
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
