Bulletin: Motherisk: CBC News reports that the lead lawyer for the Motherisk Commission says that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia should proactively review child welfare cases that used discredited drug testing."...​"I do think that kids and families should be given a chance to see if continuing connection is possible and whether continuing connection should have been kept in place in the first place," Lorne Glass told CBC News."

 

STORY: "Motherisk Commission lawyer urges review in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia," by Bob Murphy," published by CBC News on  March 8, 2016.

SUB-HEADING: "Toronto lawyer Lorne Glass says there are many reasons why parents may not come forward to question tests."

PHOTO CAPTION: "The Motherisk Commission in Ontario is reviewing 25 years worth of child protection cases where hair tests results from a lab at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto were used." 

GIST:  "New Brunswick and Nova Scotia should proactively review child welfare cases that used discredited drug testing, according to the lead lawyer in Ontario's Motherisk Commission. ​"I do think that kids and families should be given a chance to see if continuing connection is possible and whether continuing connection should have been kept in place in the first place," Lorne Glass told CBC News. The commission will revisit 25 years worth of cases to make sure hair test results from the Motherisk lab at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto weren't given too much weight in court. As many as 2,300 people in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had samples tested at Motherisk between 1997 and 2015, a CBC News investigation has revealed. Hundreds of people had at least one positive test result indicating use of alcohol or drugs, findings the hospital now admits could be unreliable. While the Motherisk Commission reviews Ontario child protection cases dating back to 1990, that province has placed hundreds of adoptions on hold. But New Brunswick and Nova Scotia aren't doing a similar, sweeping review. Officials with both provinces say they will only review a closed case if a person or their lawyer makes a request.   Glass said he can think of many reasons why parents may not want to come forward. As many as 2,300 people from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had samples tested at the Motherisk lab in Toronto."

The entire story can be found at:

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/child-welfare-cases-review-1.3479534&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoTNzY2NTkzMjkyNzc2NjQ0MDQyMjIZYzY1M2Q0Mjc3ZjY5YjFhNjpjYTplbjpDQQ&usg=AFQjCNGVKXmkJ8U7gJSNWCJ2qG6PqHI9SA

PUBLISHER'S NOTE: 
 
Dear Reader.
    Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case. I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: 
 
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
 
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html

Harold Levy: Publisher;