text:
ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (MARCH 26 TO MARCH 29)
By John Polyzogopoulos on March 29, 2018
In Schnarr v. Blue Mountain Resorts Limited, the Court determined that occupiers of recreational properties, such as ski resorts, are entitled to include limitation of liability clauses in their contractual terms with visitors. Such clauses are expressly permitted by the Occupier's Liability Act. The Court further determined that these clauses are not prohibited by the Consumer Protection Act, even if such agreements are consumer agreements. The case was decided on the basis of principles of statutory interpretation applicable where two legislative provisions conflict with one another.
Other topics covered this week included a priority dispute between insurers in a SABs case, the tort of misfeasance in public office in the context of a challenge to a governmental policy decision (the partial privatization of Hydro One), solicitor negligence, discharges from bankruptcy, slip and fall, the duty of disclosure of litigation agreements in the nature of Mary Carter or Pierringer agreements, breach of fiduciary duty of a departing employee, offers to settle and administrative dismissals of appeals for delay.
Wishing everyone a happy Easter long weekend.
John Polyzogopoulos
jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com
Schnarr v. Blue Mountain Resorts Limited, 2018 ONCA 313
Keywords: Contracts, Limitation of Liability (Exclusion) Clauses, Enforceability, Torts, Negligence, Occupier's Liability, Consumer Protection, Consumer Agreements, Statutory Interpretation, Conflicting Statutes, Ejusdem Generis, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius, Exhaustiveness Doctrine, Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, Absurdity Doctrine, Occupiers' Liability Act, ss. 3 & 9, Consumer Protections Act, ss. 1, 7, 9 & 93
Cosolo v. Geo. A. Kelson Company Limited, 2018 ONCA 318
Keywords: Contracts, Employment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Confidence, Summary Judgment
Tondat v. Hudson's Bay Company, 2018 ONCA 302
Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Occupier's Liability, Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2, section 3(1)
Kuczera (Re), 2018 ONCA 322
Keywords: Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Conditional Discharges, Absolute Discharges, Consumer Proposals, Fresh Evidence, Expert Evidence, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, Re Moore, 2013 ONCA 769, 118 O.R. (3d) 161, R v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9, Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 124 O.R. (3d) 721, 2015 ONCA 206, R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759
Bone Safety Signs, LLC v. Work Zone Safety Products Inc., 2018 ONCA 301
Keywords: Contracts, Debtor-Creditor, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Costs, Offers to Settle, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 49, Foreign Currency Obligations, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 121
Hibbert v. McGoogan, 2018 ONCA 310
Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Solicitors, Summary Judgment, Standard of Proof, No Genuine Issue Requiring Trial
Brown v. Peel Mutual Insurance Company, 2018 ONCA 316
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Appeals, Administrative Dismissal for Delay, Extension of Time, Sickinger v. Sickinger, 2017 ONCA 760, Sault Dock Co. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1973] 2 O.R. 479 (C.A.).
Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Ontario, 2018 ONCA 309
Keywords: Torts, Misfeasance in Public Office, Civil Procedure, Striking Pleadings, No Reasonable Cause of Action, Justiciability, Exercise of Executive Authority, Matters of Core Policy, Immunity from Suit, Rules of Civil Procedure, R. 21
The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2018 ONCA 303
Keywords: Insurance Law, Statutory Accident Benefits, Insurers, Priority Dispute, Arbitrations, Questions of Law, Standard of Review, Reasonableness, Intact Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 ONCA 609, 131 O.R. (3d) 625, Belairdirect Insurance v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (Travelers), 2018 ONCA 101, Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17., Disputes Between Insurers, O. Reg. 283/95
Handley Estate v. DTE Industries Limited, 2018 ONCA 324
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Settlements, Duty to Disclose, Mary Carter Agreements, Pierringer Agreements, Remedies, Stay of Proceedings, Aecon Buildings v. Stephenson Engineering Limited, 2010 ONCA 898
North Bay (City) v. Vaughan, 2018 ONCA 319
Keywords: Provincial Offenses, Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s.131, Leave to Appeal
For Short Civil Decisions click here.
For Criminal Decisions click here.
For Ontario Review Board Decisions click here.
[Doherty, Brown and Nordheimer JJ.A.]
John A. Olah and Robert A. Betts, for the appellant, Blue Mountain Resorts Limited
Edward Chadderton, Patricia E. Graham, and Jeffrey Belesky, for the respondents/appellants by cross-appeal, Snow Valley Resorts (1987) Ltd. aka Ski Snow Valley (Barrie), Snow Valley Barrie, Snow Valley Ski Resort, Snow Valley, and 717350 Ontario Ltd. (collectively, "Snow Valley")
Paul J. Pape, Shantona Chaudhury, and Peter Cho, for the respondent, David Schnarr
Paul J. Pape, Shantona Chaudhury, Marc Lemieux, and Ryan Hurst, for the appellant/respondent by cross-appeal, Elizabeth Woodhouse
Peter Pliszka and Zohar Levy, for the interveners, Conservation Halton, Credit Valley Conservation, and Toronto Region Conservation
Robert Love, Edona Vila, and Samantha Bonanno, for the interveners, The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs and Ontario Cycling Association
Jim Tomlinson and Garett Harper, for the intervener, Canadian Defence Lawyers
Thomas Curry and Ahmad Mozaffari, for the intervener, Tourism Industry Association of Ontario
Judie Im and Baaba Forson, for the intervener, Minister of Government and Consumer Services
Derek Nicholson, for the intervener, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association
These two appeals were heard together as they raise common issues. In both cases, the plaintiffs were patrons of the defendant ski resorts who purchased ski tickets. In both cases, those patrons executed the ski resorts' waivers of liability as a condition of their tickets. And in both cases, the patrons were injured on the ski resorts' premises. The patrons sued.
On a r. 21 motion under the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 in the case of Mr. Schnarr, the parties agreed that there was a "consumer agreement" (as defined under s. 1 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A ("CPA")) between Mr. Schnarr and Blue Mountain Resorts Limited ("Blue Mountain"). On that basis, Tzimas J. held that Blue Mountain's waiver under s. 3(3) of the Occupiers' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 ("OLA") partially offended ss. 7(1) and 9(3) of the CPA. She held that Blue Mountain's waiver, insofar as it purported to waive liability in contract, was void and severed from the consumer agreement.
In a similar vein, in the case of Ms. Woodhouse on a r. 22 motion, McCarthy J. held that Snow Valley's waiver was void in respect of both tort and contract claims. However, he held that a court nevertheless had the equitable power to enforce a void waiver in a consumer agreement pursuant to s. 93(2) of the CPA. It is important to note that, aside from the agreed statement of facts submitted by the parties, none of the underlying facts have yet been proven in court.
Blue Mountain and Ms. Woodhouse appeal. Snow Valley cross-appeals. Foremost, these appeals raise the question of whether the CPA or the OLA governs the relationship between the parties. Specifically, the appeals present a case of first impression as to whether ss. 7 and 9 of the CPA vitiate or void an otherwise valid waiver of liability under s. 3 of the OLA, where the party seeking to rely on the waiver is both a "supplier" under the CPA and an "occupier" under the OLA.
(1) Does s. 9 of the CPA conflict with s. 3 of the OLA? If so, how should each statute be interpreted and what effect should be given to the impugned provisions?
(3) Does s. 93(2) of the CPA allow a court to hold a consumer bound to a voided waiver under s. 9(3) of the CPA?
Holding: Appeals and cross-appeal allowed.
Reasoning:
(1) Yes. In this case there is a clear and direct conflict between the OLA and the CPA – and it is an unavoidable one. The OLA permits an occupier to obtain a waiver of liability. The CPA precludes a supplier from obtaining a waiver of liability. In other words, what the OLA permits, the CPA prohibits.
The principles of statutory interpretation urge an approach that allows both statutes to maintain their maximum application and effectiveness. The principles affecting the analysis with respect to which statute should take precedence include:
(i) where a class of things is modified by general wording that expands the class, the general wording is usually restricted to things of the same type as the listed items (ejusdem generis);
(ii) when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned, others of the same class are excluded (expressio unius est exclusio alterius);
(iii) the exhaustiveness doctrine;
(iv) the provisions of a general statute must yield to those of a special one (generalia specialibus non derogant); and
(v) the absurdity doctrine.
Dealing with each principle in turn, the court ultimately concluded that ss. 7 and 9 of the CPA do not operate to void otherwise valid waivers executed under s. 3(3) of the OLA.
With respect to principle (i) above, the court held that the CPA does not purport to apply a special liability or higher standard of care for actions that are incidental to the role of an occupier. Rather, the CPA seeks to regulate the entirely separate category of consumer transactions between a supplier and consumer. Accordingly, reading the section pursuant to the principle of ejusdem generis, it is clear that the application of any special liabilities or higher standards imposed by the CPA were not meant to be preserved under s. 9(1) of the OLA.
With respect to principle (ii) above, the court held that there is no evidence in the record that in drafting the CPA and the OLA, the Legislature turned its mind to the interplay of these two statutes. There is no basis for expecting an express reference to the OLA in the CPA's exemptions. Accordingly, there is little value to the expressio unius argument in these appeals and it provides no basis to infer that the Legislature intended for the CPA to supersede the OLA.
With respect to principle (iii) above, the court held that the OLA was intended to be an exhaustive scheme at least in relation to the liability of occupiers to entrants on their premises flowing from the maintenance or care of the premises. The very purpose of this legislative scheme would be undermined if the CPA were allowed to reintroduce another novel contractual duty that purports to subject occupiers to an obligation to warrant that their premises are of a "reasonably acceptable quality". Accordingly, the fact that s. 9 of the CPA undermines the very purpose of the OLA is a factor that militates towards holding that the OLA supersedes the CPA.
With respect to principle (iv) above, the court held that the OLA carves out consumer transactions that relate to activities covered by the OLA from the application of the CPA. Put another way, to the extent that an occupier engages with members of the public for the use of the occupier's premises in return for payment, and thus creates a consumer agreement, the provisions of the CPA do not apply to that agreement. At the same time, insofar as parties who are occupiers engage with members of the public and create consumer transactions that do not relate to "persons entering on premises or the property brought on the premises by those persons" (OLA, s. 2), then the CPA would still apply to those consumer transactions.
With respect to principle (v) above, the court held that the conclusion that the CPA does not operate within the sphere of activities governed by the OLA does not undercut the effectiveness of the CPA, nor does it offend public policy. Rather, it allows for the commercial flexibility necessary to promote the goal of encouraging landowners to permit their premises to be used for recreational activities.
(2) No. The purpose behind s. 93(2) of the CPA is to avoid situations where a consumer, who has received the benefit of a consumer agreement, attempts to retain those benefits without performing his or her side of the agreement because of a technical breach of the CPA. Section 93(2) is not intended to permit the court to hold a consumer to a consumer agreement, and therefore s. 93(2) cannot be used to give effect to a waiver that is voided by s. 9(3) of the CPA.
[Feldman, Pardu and Benotto JJ.A.]
Geoff Hall and Patrick Pengelly, for the appellant
Patrick Monaghan and Michelle Fan, for the respondent
The Respondent, Cosolo, is an engineer who was employed by the appellant engineering firm between 2005 and October 30, 2015, becoming a vice-president in July, 2011. During his employment, Cosolo acquired 43,000 Class E common shares of Kelson, which he sold to the company in August 2015 for $891,820. This amount was to be paid in ten installment payments of $89,182 each, plus interest on the outstanding balance.
He received the first installment before resigning in October 2015, but in 2016, after he had become the CEO of a rival engineering firm, Kelson refused to make further payments. It alleged that Cosolo had breached his fiduciary duties by soliciting Kelson employees to join him at the rival engineering firm and by using Kelson's confidential information to compete against Kelson.
The motion judge granted summary judgment to Cosolo for $750,000. The motion judge found that Cosolo did not cause any harm to Kelson by any breach of fiduciary duty. He found that Cosolo did not use any confidential or proprietary information from Kelson, that the employees who left Kelson to work with Cosolo's new employer did so on their own initiative, and that the two employees approached by Cosolo did not leave Kelson.
Did the motion judge make palpable and overriding errors in finding that Cosolo did not breach his fiduciary duty by communicating with two current Kelson employees and that even if he did, the communications were meaningless breaches?
Holding: Appeal dismissed.
No. The court held that the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent did not breach a fiduciary duty was amply supported by the evidence. In other words, there was no genuine issue for trial raised on the record.
[Epstein, van Rensburg and Brown JJ.A.]
Alan L. Rachlin, for the appellants
David S. Steinberg and Rebecca C. Glass, for the respondent
The respondent slipped and fell when entering a store operated by the appellant Hudson's Bay Company, which had a contract with the second appellant, Quinterra Property Management Inc. for maintenance services.
At trial, the judge concluded that the floor of the store was wet and that is why the respondent fell. The trial judge also found that the appellants lacked an effective inspection or maintenance system. The only issue on appeal was liability.
(1) Did the trial judge err in not requiring the respondent to prove that the wet floor "created an unreasonable risk of harm" before making conclusions about the measures adopted by the appellants to make the premises safe?
(1) No. Section 3(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act imposes an affirmative duty requiring occupiers to take reasonable care in the circumstances to make their premises safe. The factors which are relevant to an assessment of what constitutes reasonable care will necessarily be very specific to each fact situation. The plaintiff in an occupiers' liability case has the onus to prove that some act or failure to act on the part of the occupier caused her injury.
The trial judge's reasons disclose that he properly conducted the inquiry required by s. 3(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act. The trial judge had the discretion to reject the expert's testimony that the tiles used on the floor were safe and his reasons for rejecting the testimony were cogent. The expert, during his testing, had not replicated the conditions typical of the entrance to a busy department store on a rainy day as was the case when this slip and fall happened. The evidence of maintenance and other measures taken by the appellants to make the premises safe consisted of a time sheet showing that a single maintenance person had been on duty both as a cleaner and porter in the 118,348 square foot store on the day in question, without any indication of what, if anything, had taken place in the area where the accident occurred. The trial judge reasonably rejected the appellants' defence that they had discharged their duties as occupiers.
[MacFarland, Huscroft and Nordheimer JJ.A.]
Robert Klotz, for the appellant, Miroslaw Kuczera
Patrick Bloomfield in person as Trustee to the Estate of Miroslaw Kuczera, Bankrupt
The appellant was, until about 2007, successfully employed as an electrician until his assets became tied up in matrimonial litigation.
When his income became insufficient to meet the demands of paying support, as well as his legal fees, the appellant began to rely on credit and personal loans to cover his legal expenses. The appellant declared bankruptcy on May 20, 2009, and was discharged on October 14, 2010. However, the matrimonial litigation continued and on April 4, 2011, the appellant's discharge was annulled.
In June 2011, the appellant made a consumer proposal (the "Proposal") in an attempt to escape from bankruptcy. By this time, the appellant's mental and emotional health began to deteriorate significantly as a result of the legal battles he was facing, both in the matrimonial and bankruptcy litigation. According to a later report from his psychiatrist, the appellant became clinically depressed and suffered from a "Dissociative Identity Disorder".
The dispute over the proceeds of the matrimonial home was finally judicially resolved in late 2011. In early January 2012, the appellant received $72,850 from the proceeds of the matrimonial settlement, after all deductions and costs and his own legal fees. The appellant made his monthly Proposal payments to the Trustee until his money ran out in late 2012.
Consequently, his Proposal was annulled on December 1, 2012, and the appellant was again in bankruptcy. The appellant made payments totalling $4,265 under the Proposal. He did not know where all the money went. Amongst other reasons, the appellant says that he had periods of "disassociation" where he was unaware of where he was or what he was doing.
At the discharge hearing, the appellant, representing himself, sought to introduce a brief report from his treating psychiatrist as to his mental state. The Registrar received his evidence as to his psychiatric condition, but refused to grant an absolute discharge to the appellant. Rather, she ordered a conditional discharge. The first condition was that the appellant had to pay $61,000 (the amount remaining due under the Proposal), and the second was that he had to attend a second counselling. Further, the Registrar suspended the discharge for six months. This order was appealed to a judge of the Superior Court, who upheld the Registrar's order.
The appellant had brought a motion, unsuccessfully, to put introduce fresh evidence in the form of two detailed psychiatric reports before the appeal judge, but they were not received. He again sought to introduce those reports as fresh evidence on this appeal.
(1) Did the appeal judge err in refusing to consider the fresh evidence of the psychiatric reports?
(2) Should the conditional discharge be set aside?
Holding: Appeal allowed.
(1) Yes. The court stated that the fact that the psychiatrist was the appellant's treating psychiatrist is not a proper basis for rejecting the evidence. It might go to the weight that the court would give to the evidence, but the asserted lack of independence is not of the type that would normally constitute a disqualifying factor under the Mohancriteria.
(2) Yes. The court explained that neither the Registrar nor the appeal judge gave proper consideration to the psychiatric evidence. The Registrar did, however, hear directly from the appellant with respect to these issues. The mental health issues, from which the appellant was suffering at the time that the settlement funds were received, were significant and they could have affected both his thinking and his actions. Further, the condition imposed by the Registrar that the appellant pay $61,000 as a condition of his discharge, given his personal history, was more than just "difficult" for the appellant. It was crushing, and the court stated it did not reflect the rehabilitative objective of the BIA,as affirmed in Re Moore, 2013 ONCA 769, 118 O.R. (3d) 161.
Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the appeal judge and the order of the Registrar, and granted the appellant an absolute discharge.
Barry Yellin, for the appellant
Matthew Maurer, for the respondent
The defendant appeals from the summary judgment granted by the motion judge that awarded the plaintiff the amount of Canadian dollars sufficient to purchase the sum of US$47,301.92, together with interest and costs.
The appellant was a distributor of the respondent's product. In late 2015, the respondent notified the appellant that it would be increasing its prices effective May 1, 2016. In response, the appellant ordered a significant amount of product just before the price increase went into effect. The respondent brought this action for payment and moved for summary judgment. The appellant defended the motion on the basis that the respondent had allegedly agreed to take back other unrelated product that had been ordered and paid for years before.
The appellant also appeals against that portion of the costs award that granted costs to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis from the date of its offer to settle. The appellant asserts that the offer to settle did not comply with Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
(1) Did the motion judge err in awarding the plaintiff US$47,301.92?
(2) Did the motion judge err in awarding the respondent costs on a substantial indemnity basis?
(1) No. The motion judge correctly concluded that there was no factual foundation advanced by the appellant to support its defence.
(2) No. The appellant contends that the offer to settle did not comply with Rule 49 because the offer provided for payment of US$42,000, as opposed to providing for the payment of the amount of Canadian dollars required to purchase the foreign currency obligation. Rule 49.02(1) allows a party to make an offer to settle on whatever terms it wishes. The requirement under s. 121 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 regarding foreign money obligations applies only to orders of the court for payment of those amounts. Further, even if the appellant's contention was technically correct, r. 49.13 permits a court to consider any offer to settle made in writing in exercising its discretion with respect to costs. Consequently, there was no merit to the appellant's complaint regarding the costs determination.
[Doherty, Rouleau and Miller JJ.A.]
The appellant appeals the dismissal of his claim for negligence against the respondent solicitor. The appellant had commenced several actions in Superior Court and Small Claims Court, and later retained the respondent to assume carriage of three of the actions. The appellant alleges that the respondent's errors caused two of the actions to be dismissed, and prevented the execution of the judgment ultimately obtained in one of those actions. He also alleges that a third action was not prosecuted diligently, resulting in a judgment that could not be executed as the defendant had filed for bankruptcy.
On the summary judgment motion, the judge found that the appellant had failed to adduce sufficient evidence in support of the claims of negligence, and in any event failed to establish any resulting loss.
(1) Did the motion judge err in dismissing the court reporter and proceeding with the motion for summary judgment with no court reporter present?
(2) Did the motion judge err in not referring the matter to trial?
(3) Did the motion judge err by applying the wrong standard of proof?
(1) No. The summary judgment motion was argued based on a paper record without any oral evidence being adduced. A court reporter was not required.
(2) No. As found by the motion judge, the record was sufficient to decide the matter. The basis of his decision was that the appellant simply failed to advance adequate evidence supporting his allegations of negligence or loss caused by that alleged negligence. This contrasted with the respondent's comprehensive materials showing that the dismissals and delays were not caused by the errors he is alleged to have committed. In fact, with respect to the third action, the motion judge found that the delay was caused by the appellant's failure to provide timely instructions and the required retainer.
(3) No. It is well-established that on a motion for summary judgment, the responding party is required to put his best foot forward and show that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. Even assuming that there was some basis for finding that the respondent was negligent in handling one or more of the appellant's files, the appellant failed to meet that onus, and in particular failed to produce any evidence that a loss was incurred.
[Brown J.A. (Motion Judge)]
Sylviette Brown, acting in person
Cynthia Verconich and Jessica Forester, for the responding party
Facts: The moving party, Sylviette Brown, moves to set aside the order of the Registrar dated January 24, 2018 dismissing for delay her motion for leave to appeal from the order of Healey J., sitting as a single judge of the Divisional Court dated April 11, 2014. Healey J. dismissed Ms. Brown's appeal from an order of the Small Claims Court granting judgment in favour of Peel Mutual on its Defendant's Claim against her in the amount of $14,833.77. In her decision, Healey J. also refused to allow Ms. Brown to seek judicial review of or to renew her effort to appeal the dismissal of her Small Claims Court action against Peel Mutual Insurance Company.
(1) Should the Registrar's administrative dismissal of the appellant's leave to appeal motion be set aside?
Holding: Motion dismissed.
Reasons:
(1) No. The principles governing a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal are those set out in Sickinger v. Sickinger, 2017 ONCA 760 (In Chambers). The appellant has not provided an adequate explanation for not completing her motion for leave to appeal materials. Three judges of the court have seen the file at least five times. Several extensions of the time to complete the materials for her motion for leave to appeal were granted. Blair J.A. tried three times in Status Court to prompt Ms. Brown to complete her materials, to no avail.
Brown J.A. had no confidence that she would file her materials on time if granted an extension, given her delay of almost four years in moving the matter along. That delay constitutes real prejudice to Peel Mutual. The merits of Ms. Brown's proposed leave to appeal motion appear very weak as they do not satisfy the criteria set out in Sault Dock Co. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1973] 2 O.R. 479 (C.A.).
L Century and S Shrybman, for the appellant
B Kettles, C P Thompson and S Mathai, for the respondents
The appellants, electricity ratepayers required to pay debt retirement charges to the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation, brought an action seeking damages and declaratory relief concerning the sale of shares in Hydro One, pursuant to a plan to privatize the electricity utility. The respondents are the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Energy, and the Minister of Finance, all of whom exercised Ministerial power and statutory authority in connection with the sale.
The appellants' claim was based on the tort of misfeasance in public office. They alleged that the Premier and Ministers acted in bad faith in connection with the privatization plan, and in particular acted to reward past donors and to obtain further donations to the Ontario Liberal Party.
The motion judge struck out the appellants' claim under Rule 21 and dismissed the action. The motion judge concluded that the action was not justiciable because it concerned a matter of core policy, and therefore was immune from suit unless the decision was irrational or made in bad faith. The appellants did not argue that the decision was irrational. The motion judge found that the material facts pleaded were inadequate to support either a conclusion or an inference that the Ministers had acted in bad faith. Specifically, he concluded that the appellants' claim "does not contain sufficiently detailed and fact-specific allegations linked to actual events, documents, and people, to pass muster as a valid pleading of bad faith conduct by the Ministers".
The appellants argue that, properly understood, their claim pleads facts that support a conclusion of bad faith and that it should not have been struck out.
(1) Did the motion judge err by assessing the material facts in isolation rather than reading the claim generously and as a whole?
(2) Did the motion judge err by misconstruing material facts as independent challenges to government policy, rather than as particulars of the legal elements of the claim?
(3) Did the motion judge err by failing to accept material facts as true and improperly reaching contrary factual findings?
(1) The motion judge was required to strike the appellant's claim only if it was "plain and obvious" that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. In making this determination, the motion judge was required to read the claim generously, making allowances for drafting inadequacies: Nash v. Ontario, 27 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.) at para. 11.
As the Ontario Court of Appeal noted in Trillium Power Wind Corp. v. Ontario (Natural Resources), 2013 ONCA 683, 117 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. 52, the exception permitting challenges to irrational and bad faith government policy decisions under the tort of "misfeasance in public office" is quite narrow: "A core policy decision made by the Executive based on political considerations or electoral expediency does not, on its own, constitute "bad faith" for purposes of a tort claim based on misfeasance in public office." Decisions based on political expediency are to be expected. The check on them lies in democratic, not judicial, oversight. Thus, more is required to sustain a pleading than simply an allegation that government officials have acted in bad faith, or have acted for partisan political purposes. There is no question that it is difficult to plead the tort of misfeasance in public office, but that is so because matters of core policy are supposed to be immune from suit, absent rare cases of irrationality or bad faith.
(2) No. The motion judge carefully reviewed all of the facts pleaded and found that they did not plausibly support either the conclusion or the inference that the respondents acted in bad faith. He did not reject the pleadings on the basis that they were simply an objection to the policy being pursued. Rather, he found that they were precisely the sort of objections to which the immunity was intended to apply. The appellants pleaded that the respondents engaged in fundraising activities that included institutions and law firms involved in the Hydro One share sale. These were no more than pleadings that the government had engaged in political activities that benefited the Ontario Liberal Party, which could not possibly support the conclusion or inference that they had acted in bad faith.
(3) No. The motion judge's reasons, read in context, indicated that there were innocent explanations for conduct the appellants contended was sinister. Read as a whole, the motion judge's decision makes clear that the appellants' allegations simply did not support a conclusion or inference that decisions concerning the sale were made in bad faith.
Given that the claim was not justiciable, the claim was properly struck out and the action was properly dismissed.
[Strathy C.J.O., van Rensburg and Trotter JJ.A.]
D McGoey, for the appellant
E K Grossman, for the respondent
This appeal arose in the context of a dispute between insurers with respect to the payment of statutory accident benefits ("SABS"), and the determination by the arbitrator of a preliminary issue.
Jing Hua Fan, the SABS claimant, owns an automobile repair shop. He was injured in an accident that occurred while he was test driving a customer's vehicle. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company ("Dominion") insured the repair shop under a garage policy of insurance. Mr. Fan was also a named insured under a motor vehicle liability policy issued by Unifund Assurance Company ("Unifund"), covering his personal vehicle. On January 4, 2012 Dominion received Mr. Fan's application for SABS and began paying him benefits. On January 24, 2012, Dominion delivered a notice to Unifund, asserting that Unifund was in higher priority to pay Mr. Fan's claim under s. 268(2) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 (the "Act"). Dominion served Unifund with a Notice of Commencement of Arbitration on November 5, 2012, initiating arbitration proceedings to determine the insurer responsible for paying the claimant's SABS.
After two pre-hearing conference calls with the arbitrator, Dominion notified Mr. Fan of the dispute between the insurers by letter dated June 23, 2014, that enclosed the Dispute Between Insurers (DBI) Notice. The notice informed Mr. Fan of his right to object to the transfer of his claim and, if he objected, of his right to participate in any proceeding that might take place to determine which insurer was responsible to pay SABS. Mr. Fan did not respond to the notice. He attended an examination under oath in July 2014. He continued to receive benefits from Dominion. He did not resolve his SABS claim with Dominion, and the claim remained open during these proceedings. At the commencement of the arbitration hearing, Unifund made a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The objection was based on Dominion's failure to notify the claimant of the dispute between the insurers within 90 days of its receipt of the application for SABS. Unifund argued that such notice was a statutory precondition to Dominion's claim that Unifund pay the claimant's SABS.
The determination of the payor of SABS in priority disputes is resolved in accordance with the rules set out in s. 268(2) of the Act. Section 275(4) of the Act requires insurers to refer any unresolved priority dispute to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17. Disputes Between Insurers, O. Reg. 283/95, governs the procedures to be followed by insurers in a SABS priority dispute.
The arbitrator determined the issue in favour of the appellant. This decision was reversed on appeal to the Superior Court of Justice. The appeal judge applied a correctness standard of review and substituted his own interpretation of the applicable regulation for that of the arbitrator.
(1) Did the appeal judge apply the correct standard of review?
(2) Was the arbitrator's decision reasonable?
Appeal allowed.
(1) The decisions of SABS arbitrators respecting priority disputes are presumptively subject to review for reasonableness on appeal, even where the principal issue is a question of law: Intact Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 ONCA 609, 131 O.R. (3d) 625. The Court of Appeal went on to review the recent decision of Belairdirect Insurance v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (Travelers), 2018 ONCA 101 where the Court of Appeal applied the reasonableness standard of review of Intact to a question that could be characterized as one of statutory interpretation by a SABS arbitrator in a priority dispute: whether a person who was listed as an "excluded driver" was an "insured person" under s. 3 of the SABS regulation. The Court therefore concluded that there is a presumption of a standard of reasonableness, save for "exceptional" questions of law. The arbitrator was a specialized decision-maker engaged in interpreting her home statute and regulation in the context of the determination of a preliminary issue in a priority dispute under the SABS regime and therefore her decision should be reviewed on the standard of reasonableness.
(2) The arbitrator concluded that, while Dominion was required to give notice of the priority dispute with Unifund to the claimant, there was no prescribed time limit for notice. The notice that was given, albeit very late, satisfied the requirement. It permitted the participation by Mr. Fan in the proceedings to the extent contemplated by the regulation. The insured's participation rights are limited to a right to object to the transfer of the claim, to be party to proceedings respecting any transfer, and to approve or object to any settlement of the dispute. The resolution of the dispute depends on s. 268(2) of the Act, and not on any objection or position taken by the claimant. The overriding objective of the regulation is to provide a procedure to determine priority disputes. That objective would not be furthered, and may well be undermined, by importing a requirement that has nothing to do with the determination of the dispute or the rights of the parties. The arbitrator reasonably characterized the claimant's rights as procedural. It was reasonable for the arbitrator to conclude that a 90 day time limit was not essential to protect the claimant's rights to object and participate, which could be protected in other ways. The Court of Appeal therefore found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the requirements of the regulation was reasonable, as was her determination that the appellant's notice to the claimant only after the arbitration proceedings were underway did not bar the appellant from pursuing its priority dispute with the respondent.
[Hoy A.C.J.O., Simmons and Brown JJ.A.]
Donald Dacquisto and Eric Zadro, for the appellant
Sean Dewart and Mathieu Bélanger, for the Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company, on behalf of the respondents
The respondent was the plaintiff in the underlying action who subsequently entered into two agreements with the defendant, H&M Combustion Services Ltd. ("H&M") in 2011 and 2016, to indemnify H&M from any exposure in the litigation in exchange for the assignment of its rights to the plaintiff in pursuing a third party claim that H&M commenced against the appellant.
Neither the respondent nor H&M disclosed the two agreements to the appellant immediately upon execution. Instead disclosure was made in a piecemeal fashion throughout 2016.
The appellants brought a motion to stay the action on the basis that the plaintiff and H&M failed to comply with the obligation of immediate disclosure set out in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Aecon Buildings v. Stephenson Engineering Limited. The motion judge held that while the two agreements should have been disclosed, there would be no stay of the action because the appellants were not prejudiced by the late disclosure.
(1) Did the motion judge err in not granting a stay of the action based on the Court of Appeal's decision in Aecon?
(1) Yes. The obligation of immediate disclosure is not limited to pure Mary Carter or Pierringer agreements. The disclosure obligation extends to any agreement between or amongst parties to a lawsuit that has the effect of changing the adversarial position of the parties set out in their pleadings into a cooperative one. The two agreements made in this case between the respondent and H&M changed the litigation landscape and, accordingly, triggered the duty of immediate disclosure. The absence of prejudice does not excuse the late disclosure of such an agreement and any failure of compliance amounts to an abuse of process and must result in consequences of the most serious nature for the defaulting party. The only remedy to redress the wrong of the abuse of process is to stay the claim asserted by the defaulting, non-disclosing party. The motion judge erred in failing to apply Aecon's remedy of staying the claim of the party that did not immediately disclose a litigation agreement. Such misdirection is not entitled to deference.
[Brown J.A]
A Burgess, for the moving party
S Lemke, for the responding party
The applicant, Joanne Vaughan, applies under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 (the "POA"), for leave to appeal the judgment of Justice Lalande of the Ontario Court of Justice made May 9, 2017 that dismissed her appeal from the conviction and sentence imposed by Justice of the Peace Scully on May 1, 2015. In November 2012, the applicant was charged with operating a rental unit without holding a current valid licence contrary to the City of North Bay's residential rental housing bylaw. The applicant obtained the required licence in February 2013. She and her husband sold the property in April 2013.
She did not attend the trial. At the trial, through her counsel, the applicant entered a plea of not guilty. However, she did not contest the facts read in by counsel for the City. A conviction was entered. Counsel made a joint submission on sentence, which the Justice of Peace accepted. The Justice of the Peace suspended the sentence and ordered the applicant not to operate a rental unit without holding a valid licence for two years. The applicant appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice. She took the position that her counsel did not follow her instructions to vigorously contest the charge. Three witnesses testified before the appeal judge: the applicant and the two lawyers who acted for her immediately before and at the trial, Geoffrey LaPlante and Killian May. The appeal judge dismissed the appeal.
(1) Should Leave to appeal be granted?
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
(1) The applicant sought leave on the ground that at trial she entered what amounted to an uninformed guilty plea, which should be set aside. She argued that it is in the public interest for leave to be granted. The applicant contended that hearing her appeal would enable the court to provide needed guidance on the law governing pleas entered in a defendant's absence.
In order for leave to be granted pursuant to section 131, the applicant must establish: (i) special grounds; (ii) on a question of law alone; and (iii) that, in the particular circumstances of this case, it is essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice that leave be granted.
The issue before the appeal judge was straight-forward: Did the applicant instruct trial counsel to enter a plea of not guilty, not dispute the City's facts, and then proceed with a joint submission on sentence? That called for a factual inquiry. The appeal judge made clear findings of fact. He did not accept the applicant's evidence that she was confused by the offer the City made the day before trial or what would be involved in pleading not guilty, but not contesting the facts. The appeal judge held: "It is difficult in looking at all of this in these circumstances to conclude that [the applicant] was somehow caught off-guard when speaking with Mr. May and confused about what his instructions were to be." The applicant's claim, therefore, was found to be fact-based and leave was denied
Short Civil Decisions
Oliveira v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2018 ONCA 321
Deborah Berlach, for the appellants
Stephen J. Moreau and Michael Mandarino, for the respondent
Keywords: Contracts, Insurance Policies, Interpretation, Coverage, Duty to Defend, Torts, Intrusion upon Seclusion
Criminal Decisions
R v Sadykov, 2018 ONCA 296
[Juriansz, Watt and Miller JJ.A]
Jennifer K. Penman and Karen Heath, for the appellant
Brett Cohen, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Possession of a Weapon, Inmates, Criminal Code, s. 719(1), R. v. Tam
R v Al-Masajidi, 2018 ONCA 305
[Sharpe, Pardu and Fairburn JJ.A. ]
Jamaldin Najma, for the appellant
Kathleen Farrell, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Uttering a Death Threat to an Officer, Sentencing, Immigration Consequences, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 36(1)(a), R. v. Pham
R v George, 2018 ONCA 314
[Brown J.A.]
Anita Nathan, for the appellant
Stephen Oakey, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal, Bail, Special Circumstances, Criminal Code, s. 520, R v Durrani
R v Jeeva, 2018 ONCA 308
[Feldman, Watt and Paciocco JJ.A.]
Dean Embry, for the appellant
Keywords: Criminal Law, Insurance Fraud, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b), R. v. Jordan
R v LC, 2018 ONCA 311
[Sharpe, Pardu and Fairburn JJ.A.]
Melissa Adams, for the appellant
Geneviève McInnes, for the respondent
Keywords: Publication Ban, Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference, Sentencing, Threat to Public Safety, Criminal Code, s. 161 Prohibition Order
R v Mallozzi, 2018 ONCA 312
[Sharpe, Pardu and Fairburn JJ.A]
David Littlefield, for the appellant
Gregory Lafontaine, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Stay of Proceedings, Unreasonable Delay, R. v. Jordan, R. v. Morin, R. v. Cody, R. v. Gopie
R v Primmer, 2018 ONCA 306
Richard Litkowski and John Fennel, for the appellant
Megan Petrie, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Self-Defence
R v Martins, 2018 ONCA 315
Michael Little, for the appellant
Tanit Gilliam, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Search Warrant
R v McBride, 2018 ONCA 323
[Watt, Brown and Roberts JJ.A]
Erin Dann, for the appellant
Mabel Lai, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Harassment, Not Criminally Responsible on Account of a Mental Disorder
R v Canary, 2018 ONCA 304
[Feldman, Brown and Fairburn JJ.A.]
Paul Alexander, for the appellant
Ian Bell, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Drug Possession, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8 and 9, Freedom for Unreasonable Search and Seizure and Arbitrary Detention
Canada (Attorney General) v. Georgiou, 2018 ONCA 320
[Strathy C.J.O., Simmons and Hourigan JJ.A.]
Maurice J. Neirinck, for the appellant
Jeffrey G. Johnston, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Fraud, Kelly Order, Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 30, ss. 9.3(4), Criminal Code, s. 462.3(1)
Review Board Decisions
Sajid (Re), 2018 ONCA 292
Erin Dann and Cate Martell, for the appellant
Gavin S. MacKenzie, for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Christopher Webb, for the Attorney General of Ontario
Keywords: Health Law, Ontario Review Board, Significant Threat to Public Safety
Marchese (Re), 2018 ONCA 307
[Watt, Brown and Huscroft JJ.A.]
Russell Browne, for the appellant Mary Marchese
Megan Petrie, for the respondent the Attorney General of Ontario
Keywords: Health Law, Ontario Review Board, Threat to Public Safety, Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, Winko v British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), R v Owen, Delta Air Lines Inc v Lukács, R v Ferguson, Carrick (Re)
Medcof (Re), 2018 ONCA 299
Nancy Dennison, for the Attorney General of Ontario
Keywords: Health Law, Ontario Review Board, Threat to Public Safety, Criminal Code, s. 672.78, Winko v British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), Carrick (Re), Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, Ferguson and Re Pellet
Hammoud (Re), 2018 ONCA 317
Michael Davies, for the appellant
Jacquie Dagher, for Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Molly Flanagan, for the Attorney General
Keywords: Health Law, Ontario Review Board, Significant Threat Threshold
Magee (Re), 2018 ONCA 300
Carmen Elmasry, for the Ministry of the Attorney General
Janice Blackburn, for the Person in Charge, Waypoint Centre for Mental HealthCare
Keywords: Health Law, Ontario Review Board, Threat to Public Safety
The information contained in our summaries of the decisions is not intended to provide legal advice and does not necessarily cover every matter raised in a decision. For complete information or for specific advice, please read the decision or contact us.
John has been the editor of Blaneys Appeals since the inception of the blog in the Summer of 2014. He is a partner at the firm with over two decades of experience handling a wide variety of litigation matters. John assists clients with…
John has been the editor of Blaneys Appeals since the inception of the blog in the Summer of 2014. He is a partner at the firm with over two decades of experience handling a wide variety of litigation matters. John assists clients with matters ranging from appeals, to injunctions, to corporate, partnership, breach of contract, construction, environmental contamination, product liability, debtor-creditor, insolvency and other business litigation. He also handles complex estates and matrimonial litigation involving disputes over property and businesses, as well as professional discipline and professional negligence matters for various types of professionals. In addition, John represents amateur sports organizations in contentious matters, and also advises them in matters of internal governance. John can be reached at 416-593-2953 or jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com.
Read more about John PolyzogopoulosJohn's Linkedin ProfileJohn's Twitter Profile


For over 20 years, Frontier has been at the forefront of biodiversity research and tropical habitat and species conservation. Frontier projects are internationally acclaimed. The work of our volunteers has served to protect thousands of species and precious ecosystems and is currently contributing to ground-breaking work on climate change. As a volunteer in Asia, whether you're on a gap year, taking a career break or volunteering abroad, you have the opportunity to make a real contribution to one of our award-winning wildlife conservation programs as you travel in Asia. Work within the local community saving endangered species and provide vital help with conservation on your gap year in Asia.
"I volunteered on the Sri Lanka Leopard and Elephant conservation project for three weeks in Septe..."
"If you get an opportunity to do something like what I did, and if you have an interest in outdoor..."
Undertake an exciting conservation adventure which will see you take part in both the tiger trail and turtle conservation.
"The Frontier-Malaysia Islands and Jungles project had given me the opportunity to assist with the..."
Grab this once in a lifetime opportunity to experience the beauty of Bali from a local perspective and make a positive contribution to the community and to marine turtle conservation efforts!
"Volunteering with Frontier was an amazing experience and I'm grateful that I found this place..."
"I spent over three months in Thailand and I can say without question that the two months I spent..."
"We were able to help with such a deserving project run by such informative, welcoming and fun staff,..."
Spend an adventure filled 2 weeks aiding in the conservation of the orangutan, experiencing the traditional life of local Malaysian tribes and exploring the riches of the Malaysia rainforests!
" The whole experience was amazing, the keepers were so friendly and taught us so..."
Soak up all that India has to offer while making lifelong friends and memories, and working to save some of the country's most recognisable and beloved inhabitants.
" My daughter and I visited earlier this year, the work that this organisation do is so..."


Plot your walk weekend! This maps includes our sites and nearby buses, metro, and capital bikeshare.
Suggested Walking Route for Saturday – 1.8 miles round trip!
Suggested Walking Route for Sunday – 2.25 miles round trip!
The mission of the Dupont Kalorama Museums Consortium (DKMC) is to mutually advance the member institutions and create neighborhood cultural experiences. (DKMC) was established in 1983 to promote our "off the Mall" museums and our neighborhoods.


An important safety feature on state highways, this particular one does not have deer warning signs in both directions of Route 33 Business at the border of Manalapan and Freehold Twp. There are heavy wooded areas, just before the Freehold Raceway Mall, in the vicinity of Monmouth Battlefield State Park. According to a NJDOT press release, the amount of deer is increasing and motorists should be extra careful. Installing a couple signs won't hurt either, to warn drivers on the road. Please post deer area signs on Business Route 33.


We are able to offer organisations a breadth of consultancy expertise focused on the education sector.
Contact us on 01243 812157 to find out how our consultancy can help your school.
Highbury Primary School developed in conjunction with the University a work-based learning programme entitled 'Moving to Outstanding Teaching'.
This involved teachers being involved in action based research projects, which had been identified from school improvement targets.


text:
Tag Archives: 2018 March Madness odds
5 Sweet Sixteen Bets to Make in 2018 March Madness
2018 March Madness has been great for fans of the unpredictable. This year's tournament has seen:
Two No. 1 seeds fail to make the Sweet 16 for the first time in 14 years
The South Region's top four seeds lose already.
A No. 16 seed beating a top seed the first time ever.
It's been a crazy March for sure. But this doesn't mean that you can't still navigate the betting market with accuracy. In fact, I see 5 enticing bets in this weekend's Sweet 16.
I'm going to discuss 5 schools that have a great chance to cover. Also, keep in mind that you can bet on these teams as well as the entire Sweet 16 at GTBets.eu.
1. No. 5 Kentucky Covers -5.5 Against No. 9 Kansas State (Thurs, 9:37 p.m., CBS)
Kentucky is the top seed left in the South Region after the top four seeds were upset. Many were expecting the Wildcats have to play No. 4 Arizona and Deandre Ayton, who's considered the top NBA prospect heading into the 2018 Draft. But Buffalo dominated Arizona and, in turn, had the same done to them against Kentucky.
John Calipari's squad now faces Kansas State, which has been a solid team this season. The Wildcats will get a boost when Dean Wade returns to the lineup. However, I'll don't see this making enough of a difference.
K-State is quite possibly the most-predictable tournament team, because they beat teams they're supposed to, and lose to superior opponents. Case in point: they were 10-1 against Big 12 opponents that were lower in the standings, and 0-7 against higher teams.
Add in the fact that Kentucky is playing their best basketball this season, and I don't see this contest being particularly close. The Wildcats have won 9 out of their last 10, and they shouldn't have any trouble continuing this impressive streak.
Score Prediction: Kentucky 82, Kansas State 68
2. No. 3 Texas Tech Covers +2 Against No. 2 Purdue (Friday, 9:57 p.m., TBS)
Purdue had the best inside-outside game in college basketball. But they took a major hit when Isaac Haas got injured. The 7-footer was key to drawing defenders into the paint so that Purdue could get open shots on the perimeter.
The Boilermakers will attempt to use the same formula with backup center Matt Haarms, who had a good game against Butler. Purdue was able to make 11 of their 24 shots from behind the arc in the second round. And they're going to need the same hot shooting to beat Texas Tech.
Carsen Edwards, Vincent Edwards, Ryan Cline, Dakota Mathias, and P.J. Thompson have all shot at least 100 three-pointers and made over 40% of their attempts. Even without Haas, this team will be tough to beat.
But the Red Raiders can also fill up the nets. This is especially the case now that senior point guard Keenan Evans is back on the court and healthy.
Evans has averaged 22.5 points in the first two rounds. While Purdue plays solid defense, Evans will likely once again score over 20 points.
Perhaps more importantly, Tech Tech has a long, mobile defense that can get out on shooters. Without Haas down low, this team will be able to roam around the perimeter even more and force Purdue off the three-point line.
This game is going to be close. But Texas Tech will be on the right side of their +2 spread.
Score Prediction: Texas Tech 73, Purdue 72
3. No. 2 Duke Covers -11.5 Against No. 11 Syracuse (Friday, 9:37 p.m., CBS)
The Midwest Region has almost gone by script so far. But Syracuse is the one surprise in this region.
The Orange were the last team taken by the selection committee. Starting in a play-in game against Arizona State, Syracuse didn't seem to have a chance of going very far. But they've now rattled off three wins to reach the Sweet 16.
Syracuse is a bad offensive team that leans heavily on Tyus Battle to score. But their strength is a zone defense that forces opponents to shoot just 37% from the field.
It's no secret that Jim Boeheim's club will look to slow this game down and make it an ugly affair, much like they did in an upset victory over Michigan State.
Duke has by far the more-talented team here. They feature a starting lineup full of first-round NBA picks, including Marvin Bagley, Grayson Allen, Gary Trent Jr, Wendell Carter, and Trevon Duval.
The Blue Devils can easily turn this game into a blowout if they get out in transition. The same is true if they can speed the contest up.
But what if Syracuse manages to slow this game down as planned? Odds are that Duke will be better at this too.
Duke already beat Syracuse in the same style of game in late February, winning 60-44. The key to this victory was the talented Blue Devils' talented shutting down Syracuse's already inept offense. Expect a repeat of the same on Friday.
Score Prediction: Duke 66, Syracuse 41
4. No. 4 Gonzaga Covers -5.5 Against No. 9 Florida State (Thurs, 10:07 p.m., TBS)
The Zags have exceeded expectations this year, coming off the heels of a national title appearance and losing four of their top eight players. The Bulldogs feature strong guard play with Josh Perkins and Silas Melson. They also like to get up and down the court quickly.
This should make for an interesting matchup, because Florida State also plays at a fast pace. The Seminoles have well-distributed scoring, with their top scorer averaging 12.9 PPG.
Florida State scored an impressive victory against No. 1 seed Xavier. They were able to hold Muskateers stars Trevon Bluiett and Quentin Goodin to a combined 14 points on 31% shooting.
As good as the last victory was, though, Florida State just doesn't have enough prime-time tournament experience to get past Gonzaga. Furthermore, they're a middle-of-the-pack tournament team that's run its course.
Score Predcition: Gonzaga 82, Florida State 73
5. No. 1 Villanova Covers -5 Against No. 5 West Virginia (Friday, 7:37 p.m., TBS)
Villanova and West Virginia are widely viewed as one of the most-competitive games in the Sweet 16.
The Mountaineers feature a tough defense that can suffocate opposing teams. They're great at forcing turnovers, ranking 11th in the nation in this category. And Bob Huggins' team causes real fits for opponents with their full court press.
One interesting matchup in this contest will be between West Virginia's Jevon Carter and Villanova's Jalen Brunson. But while the Mountaineers may match up well here, they'll have a real struggle to also contain Mikal Bridges. Wesley Harris or Esa Ahamd will take turns trying to handle the future NBA lottery pick.
If they're not up to the task, then the Wildcats could walk away with this one. And I don't see Jay Wright's team having much trouble breaking West Virginia's press.
Score Prediction: Villanova 80, West Virginia 72
Posted in College Basketball News	| Tagged 2018 March Madness betting, 2018 March Madness odds, Sweet 16 betting, Sweet 16 odds	| Leave a reply
2018 March Madness Futures & Sweet 16 Rankings
The 2018 edition of March Madness has definitely embodied the name. We saw UMBC become the first No. 16 seed in history to topple a No. 1 seed. Virginia was the unfortunate top seeded team on the other side of this history.
We also witnessed No. 1 seed Xavier go down along with other title contenders like Arizona, Cincinnati, North Carolina, and Michigan State.
This has created a Sweet 16 that's mixed well with championship contenders and Cinderellas. Which of these teams has the best chances of cutting down the nets in San Antonio?
I'll discuss this matter below while covering the Sweet Sixteen rankings from top to bottom. You can also see GTBets' current 2018 March Madness futures below.
2018 March Madness Futures (Mar. 21 – Sweet Sixteen)
Here are odds on the remaining teams in 2018 March Madness. Keep in mind that you can bet on all of these Sweet 16 teams at GTBets:
Duke +350
Villanova +375
Kentucky +700
Gonzaga +750
Kansas +750
Michigan +800
Purdue +1200
West Virginia +1500
Texas Tech +2000
Texas A&M +2500
Clemson +3000
Kansas State +3000
Nevada +3500
Florida State +4000
Loyola Chicago +5000
Syracuse +6000
1. DUKE (28-7)
Defeated: Iona (15), Rhode Island (7)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Syracuse (11)
Duke Futures Odds: +350
I previewed the 2018 NCAA Tournament field last week and discussed how nobody has more talent than the Blue Devils. But they also had question marks regarding their consistency and defense.
Duke has largely eliminated these questions in the first couple rounds. They've dominated opponents on the offensive glass and have been unstoppable on offense.
Wendell Carter is owning the paint while Marvin Bagley is getting to the rim at will. And teams must also worry about Grayson Allen on the perimeter.
The upcoming matchup against Syracuse could be tricky, because the Orange play such good defense. But this will probably be a speed bump on Duke's march towards San Antonio.
2. VILLANOVA (32-4)
Defeated: Radford (16), Alabama (9)
Sweet 16 Opponent: West Virginia (5)
Villanova Futures Odds: +375
The opening weekend wasn't a good one for No. 1 seeds. But the Wildcats certainly played like a top seed in advancing past both Radford and Alabama.
Mikal Bridges and Donte DiVicenzo have been knocking down shots from outside. And the defense, which occasionally looked shaky during the regular season, has improved to title contender level.
The only downside for Villanova is that the East Region was the least impacted by upsets. This leaves the Wildcats having to get by West Virginia, and either No. 2 Purdue or No. 3 Texas Tech in the next round.
3. KENTUCKY (26-10)
Defeated: Davidson (12), Buffalo (13)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Kansas State (9)
Kentucky Futures Odds: +700
Kentucky is an unenviable position right now, because the South Region was filled with upsets.
This leaves the No. 5 Wildcats as the top remaining seed in the South. The second-highest remaining seed in the regional is No. 7 Nevada.
Hamidou Diallo played a great game against Buffalo with 22 points. If he can keep up this play, then Kentucky will have yet another weapon along with their other young talent.
4. KANSAS (29-7)
Defeated: Penn (16), Seton Hall (8)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Clemson (5)
Kansas Futures Odds: +750
Kansas is looking to erase a recent history of tournament disappointments. And they went a long way towards doing this with a 83-79 victory over Seton Hall.
This win is even more impressive when considering that All-American guard Devonte Graham had a terrible game, shooting just 1-for-7 from the field.
Malik Newman made up for this, though, with a 28-point effort. Udoka Azubuike shook off the rust from an injury by scoring 10 points and grabbing 7 rebounds in 22 minutes.
The Jayhawks are the last power-conference champion left in the field. But they have a tough road to the Final Four, with No. 5 Clemson up next and a possible meeting with Duke in the Elite Eight.
5. GONZAGA (32-4)
Defeated: UNC Greensboro (13), Ohio State (5)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Florida State (9)
Gonzaga Futures Odds: +750
Gonzaga has become as a perennial tournament team. But nobody expected them to perform as well as they have after losing most of their starters from last year's national title runner-up team.
But here we are, and the Bulldogs have shown solid all-around offense and strong interior defense. The result is a return trip to the Sweet 16, and possibly beyond.
Guard Zach Norvell and forward Rui Hachimura provided heroics for the Zags in the first two rounds. Norvell's go-ahead three-pointer against UNC Greensboro was especially notable. Hachimura turned out an outstanding effort off the bench with 25 points against Ohio State.
6. MICHIGAN (30-7)
Defeated: Montana (14), Houston (6)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Texas A&M (7)
Michigan Futures Odds: +800
Michigan was a dark-horse title contender to open the tournament. Nothing has changed in this respect, because they still have a solid chance to win the championship.
John Beilein's teams are normally known for great offense. But this Wolverines squad has used lock-down defense to prevail in most of its 30 victories.
The defense was especially important against the Cougars, as Michigan had to stay within striking distance with their offense struggling.
Houston star Rob Gray needed 22 shots to score 23 points, while the team as a whole only made 37.1% of their shots. This is the reason why Jordan Poole was able to hit a game-winning three-pointer within the last few seconds.
The Wolverines may not go much further if they don't finally get some offense going. But they definitely have a chance to win their game against Texas A&M if they bring the same defensive intensity.
7. WEST VIRGINIA (26-10)
Defeated: Murray State (12), Marshall (13)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Villanova (1)
West Virginia Futures Odds: +1500
Many expected the second-round game between West Virginia and their in-state neighbors, Marshall, to be a competitive affair. But the Mountaineers dominated the contest by a score of 94-71.
This should get the Thundering Herd to stop pestering about playing an annual game. More importantly, West Virginia displayed the aggressive perimeter defense that makes them so tough to play.
The Mountaineers don't have an easy path to the title, with top-seeded Villinova up next. But they definitely have a shot with their pressurizing defense.
8. TEXAS A&M (22-12)
Defeated: Providence (10), North Carolina (2)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Michigan (3)
Texas A&M Futures Odds: +2500
Texas A&M's play has been like Jekyll & Hyde this season. Hyde often showed up during a subpar SEC season for the Aggies. But Dr. Jekyll was in the building for an 86-65 victory over No. 2 UNC.
This is a tough team to play, because their frontcourt has a lethal combination of skill, length, and size. Robert Williams looks like a solid NBA prospect, while Tyler Davis and D.J. Hogg also make the frontcourt a nightmare for opponents.
The challenge for Texas A&M is their lack of depth at guard. But starters Admon Gilder and T.J. Starks have been serviceable so far.
9. TEXAS TECH (26-9)
Defeated: Stephen F. Austin (14), Florida (6)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Purdue (2)
Texas Tech Futures Odds: +2000
The Red Raiders weren't quite the same team without Keenan Evans. They lost 2 out of 5 games heading into the tournament. But Evans is back from a toe injury, and the senior has averaged 22.5 points in the first two rounds.
Texas Tech has a quick defense that forces turnovers at a rapid rate. But their weakness is an offense that sometimes disappears. And they'll need all the offense they can muster against Purdue.
10. PURDUE (30-6)
Defeated: Cal State Fullerton (15), Butler (10)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Texas Tech (3)
Purdue Futures Odds: +1200
Isaac Haas' injury could ultimately cost the Boilermakers a chance to make the Final Four. After all, the 7-footer's inside presence opened up a lot of opportunities for this sharp-shooting school.
But backup center Matt Haarms played well enough for this team to work the ball around and make 11 out of 24 three-pointers. Carsen Edwards and Vince Edwards may have to create more shots off the dribble against Texas Tech in order for this team to win.
11. CLEMSON (25-9)
Defeated: New Mexico State (12), Auburn (4)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Kansas (1)
Clemson Futures Odds: +3000
Clemson is far from a basketball school, given that they hadn't made the NCAA Tournament in six seasons until this year. But coach Brad Brownell's squad snapped this streak and has exceeded expectations. In fact, this is the first Tigers squad to make the Sweet 16 since 1997.
Victories over New Mexico State and Auburn haven't even been close, thanks to a high-scoring backcourt and strong interior defense. Clemson has gotten hot at the right time as they prepare to face their greatest challenge in Kansas.
12. NEVADA (29-7)
Defeated: Texas (10), Cincinnati (2)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Loyola-Chicago (11)
Nevada Futures Odds: +3500
Nevada has gotten used to playing from behind so far, having only led for 4 minutes combined in their first two wins. They erased a 13-point deficit against Texas (OT), then came back from 22 points down to beat Cincinnati.
Eric Musselman's team has relied on talented transfers to make it this far. This includes Jordan Caroline and Kendall Stephens, who've are big scoring threats.
The Wolfpack has the weakest Sweet 16 opponent out of anybody remaining. And this should bode well for their chances of moving on.
13. FLORIDA STATE (22-11)
Defeated: Missouri (8), Xavier (1)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Gonzaga (4)
Florida State Futures Odds: +4000
The Seminoles have one of the most-mundane profiles in college basketball.
They finished with an even 9-9 record in the ACC. They lost their first-round ACC tournament game to Louisville. And their top scorer averages 12.9 points per game.
But they do have plenty of athleticism and size, which has helped them get by Xavier and Missouri in the first two rounds. This combination makes them tough to score on in the paint, which should help them against Gonzaga, which relies on inside scoring.
14. SYRACUSE (23-13)
Defeated: Arizona State (11), TCU (6), Michigan State (3)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Duke (2)
Syracuse Futures Odds: +6000
Outside of Tyus Battle and his 19 points per game, this team doesn't have many quality Division 1 scorers. Oshae Brisset and Franklin Howard are the only other two players who are legitimate offensive threats.
It's no surprise that the Orange's defense has led them this far. They have a long team that's athletic enough to make their zone defense work superbly.
Chances are that this outstanding zone defense won't be enough against a vastly superior Duke team. But the Orange won't hang their heads, given that they barely made it into the tournament field anyways.
15. KANSAS STATE (24-11)
Defeated: Creighton (8), UMBC (16)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Kentucky (5)
Kansas State Futures Odds: +3000
Kansas State is a good team on paper. But it's hard to have much faith in them, considering that they went 0-7 against Big 12 opponents who were above them in the standings.
The Wildcats also didn't look very good against No. 16 UMBC, needing a late run to get by their lowly ranked opponent. Perhaps Dean Wade's return could boost K-State. But even if he does play, it's unlikely to be enough against No. 5 Kentucky.
16. LOYOLA-CHICAGO (30-5)
Defeated: Miami (6), Tennessee (3)
Sweet 16 Opponent: Nevada (7)
Loyola-Chicago Futures Odds: +5000
Loyola-Chicago is the tournament's last remaining true Cinderella. But the 11-seeded Ramblers haven't gotten here on sheer luck. They've beaten two power conference schools en route to the Sweet 16 and now have a 30-win season on their resume.
They at least have a chance against Nevada, thanks to their defensive discipline and methodical offense. Plus they have two solid scorers in Clayton Cluster and Donte Ingram.
Posted in College Basketball News	| Tagged 2018 March Madness odds, 2018 March Madness odds Sweet 16, 2018 Sweet 16 odds	| Leave a reply
2018 March Madness Odds – 7 First Round Bets You should Make
The first rule in sports betting is that there's no such thing as a guarantee. This is especially the case with March Madness, where teams from all over college basketball are matched up against each other.
But I see a few 2018 March Madness bets that are definitely worth making. Keep reading as I cover 7 first-round wagers you should consider. And don't forget to check out the odds of all the games right here at GTBets.
1. No. 10 Oklahoma (+2) Covers against No. 7 Rhode Island (Thursday, 12:15pm on CBS)
The Sooners aren't exactly coming into the 2018 NCAA Tournament with a head of steam. The've lost 11 of their final 15 games, dropping them to a double-digit seed.
But make no mistake about it, this bubble team is still rather dangerous. Furthermore, Trae Young will be the best player on the court for either team. Combine this with how Rhode Island hasn't played well since their 16-game winning streak earlier in the year, and I see Oklahoma winning by at least 3.
2. No. 3 Tennessee (-12) Covers against No. 14 Wright State (Thursday, 12:40pm on truTV)
It's never easy to cover 12 points in a March Madness contest, especially when it's not a No. 1 vs. 16 matchup. But I still like the 3-seeded Vols to blow out Wright State.
When Tennessee wins, they win big. 10 of their 25 victories were by 12 points or more. These include wins against teams that were better than the Raiders.
3. No. 5 Kentucky (-5.5) Covers against No. 12 Davidson (Thursday, 7:10pm on CBS)
Betting on the No. 12 seed is always a popular move. This is especially the case when dealing with a familiar high seed like Davidson. But the Wildcats also get priced higher than they deserve due to their famed 2008 Elite Eight run with Steph Curry.
John Calipari hasn't lost a first-round game since taking over as the Kentucky coach in 2009. He's not going to lose this one either, and I look for the victory to be by double digits.
4. No. 11 Loyola-Chicago (+1.5) Covers against No. 6 Miami (Thursday, 3:10pm on truTV)
Loyola-Chicago is one of the hottest teams in 2018 March Madness, because they've won 10 straight games. They'll be facing a Miami team that's missing their top all-around player in Bruce Brown.
I'm a bit worried that sportsbooks have already priced in these factors, meaning Loyola isn't being given a true underdog spread. But I'm still confidently putting money on the Ramblers.
5. No. 4 Arizona (-8.5) Covers against No. 13 Buffalo (Thursday, 9:40pm on CBS)
Buffalo has never seen the likes of DeAndre Ayton, a 7'1″ freshman who can do virtually anything on the court. The future top pick in the 2018 NBA Draft will decimate the Bulls early and often.
The Wildcats also have a motivational factor going for them, after ESPN reported that the FBI is investigating head coach Sean Miller. He denied all charges, and his team has used when they see as a major slight to fuel five straight wins.
6. No. 16 Penn (+13.5) Covers against No. 1 Kansas (Thursday, 2pm on TBS)
Kansas is looking to avenge the past two years, when they had title-worthy squads that came up short of the Final Four. But their first opponent will be trickier than most think.
Penn trailed Harvard in the Ivy League Championship by a score of 30-17. They went on a 28-2 run afterward to grab a commanding lead. This come-from-behind victory was all due to the Quakers' ability to shoot the lights out.
Kansas is certainly different than playing Harvard. But I like Penn's chances of keeping this one under 13 points due to their shooting touch.
7. No. 10 Butler (-1.5) Covers against No. 7 Arkansas (Friday, 3:10pm on truTV)
The Bulldogs have been to the Big Dance six times since 2010. And not once have they failed to get at least one victory in their tournament appearances.
Despite the thin spread here, Butler would likely have to lose to avoid covering. That said, I recommend wagering on the Bulldogs notching another tournament win and extending their streak.
Posted in College Basketball News	| Tagged 2018 March Madness betting, 2018 March Madness odds	| Leave a reply
12 Teams that can Win 2018 March Madness
March Madness starts out with 68 schools that want to hoist the championship trophy. And each school – big and small – dreams of cutting down the nets at the Final Four.
But let's be honest: only about a dozen or so teams have a realistic chance at winning college basketball's most prestigious title. And some of these schools, like Duke, Michigan State, Kansas, and Villanova, are in the title hunt year after year.
Which teams have the best chance to emerge the champ in the April? Let's find out by looking at the 12 best contenders. Also keep in mind that we'll have odds on all of these favorites and other schools throughout the tournament at GTBets.
1. Virginia (1 Seed)
The Cavaliers haven't lived up to their tournament expectations in recent years. And here we are again, with them having a high seed and already drawing doubters.
But this doesn't feel like the same Virginia team that's come up short in the past. There are few reasons to believe that this squad is the one that'll make a breakthrough.
They have a methodical offense that uses every second of the shot clock to get highly efficient looks.
Opponents also use every second against Virginia, but only because they're hounded into doing so.
Virginia's defense is the second best in college basketball in the last 17 years (0.002 adjusted points per possession). They're also really good at forcing turnovers, which is a lethal combo for opposing schools to deal with.
Tony Bennett's pack-line defense has even been smothering against elite opponents like Clemson, Duke, and UNC. The Cavaliers played 16 teams that made the NCAA Tournament this season, holding 12 of 16 of these squads to less than a point our possession (including the three mentioned above).
Virginia hasn't been to a Final Four since 1984, and they don't have any future NBA lottery picks on their roster. But this is the ACC champion, and they have the country's best defense. You can't do any better in picking a potential winner.
2. Duke (2 Seed)
If we're basing everything on pure talent, then the Blue Devils would be the odds-on favorite to win it all. They boast a starting five that's filled with NBA first-rounders, including Grayson Allen, Gary Trent Jr., Wendell Carter, Trevon Duval, and Marvin Bagley
The only problem with this lineup is that they're inconsistent at times. Allen is the only senior, and he's scored 20 points or more 10 times this year. But he's also been held below 10 points on eight different occasions. The underclassmen haven't fared any better in the consistency department.
Duke utilizes a zone defense, which is an improvement from when they were trying to play man to man. But it's still nowhere on par with Virginia right now.
3. Villanova (1 Seed)
The Wildcats come into 2018 March Madness with a top-2 seed for the fifth straight year. It's obvious that as long as Jay Wright stays here, his team is always going to be a contender.
Wright won the title a couple of years ago. The team stumbled as a top seed last spring. Which Villanova squad are going to see this year? My bet is one that wants to avenge last year's disappointing tournament appearance.
Jalen Brunson and Mikal Bridges were role players on the 2016 national championship squad. But now they're the top options and looking for the second championship of their college careers.
4. Kansas (1 Seed)
The Jayhawks have entered each of the past two tournaments as a potential champ. They lost a close contest to Villanova in 2016 before the latter went on to win the title. Kansas also had the misfortune of running into a red-hot Oregon team last year.
I don't think that this year's Jayhawks squad is exactly as talented as the two teams that recently lost. But they've got to be due for better luck with opponents in 2018.
And the talent is still here of course, including star point guard Devonte Graham. Kansas can also rely on the sharp-shooting Svi Mykhailiuk and all-around talent Udoka Azubuike.
5. Michigan State (3 Seed)
The Spartans may not have a top-2 seed. But they do have the potential to rise from being a three seed to cutting down the nets in San Antonio.
Cassius Winston offers excellent guard play, Nick Ward is a load down low, and Jaren Jackson and Miles Bridges are future lottery picks.
The problem with Michigan State's bid is that they're just 2-4 against NCAA tournament qualifiers. They're no doubt going to need a more-complete effort against the top seeds to have any hope at winning. I'm still high on their talent, though.
6. Arizona (4 Seed)
Arizona forward DeAndre Ayton has had a stellar freshman season with 20.3 PPG and 11.5 RPG. The 7'1″ phenom has likely played his way into being the top pick in the 2018 NBA Draft.
This means that the rest of the team has been lacking, given that they've only achieved a No. 4 seed. Sure, Arizona won their conference. But the Pac-12 was down this year, and the Wildcats didn't exactly dominate the conference, despite what their title suggests.
The biggest problem for Arizona is that they don't play great defense. They also have an ugly out-of-conference loss to Purdue (25 points) on their resume.
Despite the drawbacks, Arizona has a chance mainly because of Ayton's greatness. He can shoot three's, score inside, rebound, and block shots. Sean Miller's team also has a solid starting 5 that can provide Ayton support on most nights.
7. Kentucky (5 Seed)
Kentucky is the biggest dark-horse contender in this year's crop. And the chief reason why is because Gilgeous Alexander has played much better than his pedigree.
A four-star recruit in high school, he's shined over the 5-star recruits on this roster. Gilgeous-Alexander's play has helped a young team stay in contention. Kentucky especially helped themselves win seven wins in the past eight games.
This isn't viewed as the same top-5 squad it was to open the season. But they could surprise analysts if their young lineup can finally gel in the coming weeks.
8. North Carolina (2 Seed)
The defending champion punished opponents last year with four big men who owned the paint. Three of these players are gone, and the team is quite different this season. Roy Williams team is now utilizing stretch fours and fives, while the team is shooting more three-pointers than ever before.
The good news for Carolina, though, is that the success hasn't dropped off amid big changes. Luke Maye, a walk-on who was last year's Elite Eight hero, is likely the top player on a balanced team.
9. Michigan (3 Seed)
This Wolverines team is playing the best defense in John Beilen's tenure. They force opponents to work the clock and eventually take bad shots. If Michigan's Big Ten tournament title run is any indication, they have the goods to compete for a national championship.
10. Gonzaga (4 Seed)
Gonzaga had their best-ever tournament run last season, culminating in a close title loss to North Carolina. But they lost four of their top six players from that squad, including lottery pick Zach Collins. Nevertheless, this four-loss team has played its way into being a Final Four contender once again.
11. Xavier (1 Seed)
Xavier isn't getting much love here as a top seed. But they're also the most-vulnerable of the No. 1 seeds, especially since they don't have much depth. Trevon Bluiett must do his best job to carry this team, especially if they meet Gonzaga in the Sweet 16.
12. Purdue (2 Seed)
Purdue has used a successful formula that includes five different three-point shooters (all 39% or higher) and 7'2″ center Isaac Haas. This inside-outside combo has frustrated opponents all season.
Posted in College Basketball News	| Tagged 2018 March Madness favorites, 2018 March Madness odds, 2018 March Madness winner	| Leave a reply

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Texas: Child Protective Services Regional Director Arrested, Charged in Tamryn Klapheke Death Coverup
July 31, 2014 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
As I've reported before several times, back in August, 2012, Tiffany Klapheke became so upset about her boyfriend's redeployment overseas that she walked away and left her three children, all of whom were under five years old. No one is quite sure just how long she was gone, but it was long enough for her 22-month-old daughter, Tamryn to die of dehydration. Her two other children managed to survive, but barely. Klapheke was tried last February, convicted of child endangerment resulting in death and sentenced to serve 30 years behind bars.
But immediately after the children were discovered, the attention of the press and law enforcement officials focused on the local Taylor County, Texas (Abilene) Child Protective Services. Records showed that Klapheke had been investigated by CPS a year previously for neglecting her children and, in violation of CPS protocol, the case had been closed with no follow-up. Tragically, Tamryn died six days after CPS closed the file.
That lit a fire under CPS caseworkers, supervisors and its Regional Director. Did they launch an investigation into what had gone wrong? Did they put forward recommendations to attempt to ensure that such an oversight would never occur again? No, those would have been responsible actions. Instead, they did the classic bureaucratic thing; they tried to cover up CPS wrongdoing. That apparently included altering documents and hiding others.
Abilene police investigators were not pleased. Neither was a state district judge who took the unusual step of appointing a special prosecutor to look into the CPS shenanigans. That special prosecutor was the McLennan County (Waco) District Attorney's Office. We're now seeing the first results of the special prosecutor's investigation here (KTXS, 7/27/14).
An ex-Child Protective Services regional director was arrested Saturday on a tampering with physical evidence charge in connection with her former agency's alleged mishandling of a highly publicized 2012 child death case.
Martha Kiel "Bit" Whitaker, 58, of Abilene has been charged for a third-degree felony offense that allegedly occurred on Aug. 29, 2012, jail records show. Her bond was set at $1,000. She has been released. A third-degree felony charge carries a potential sentence of two to 10 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine.
It looks like she's not the only one. The same grand jury that indicted Whitaker is looking at others too.
While Abilene police named Whitaker and former CPS supervisors Gretchen Denny and Barbara McDaniel as suspects in the investigation before police handed the case over to the McLennan County DA's Office, it hasn't been made public which names were recently submitted to the grand jury.
Whitaker and Denny were put on paid administrative leave for several months during the early stages of the investigation. While Whitaker resigned, Denny was dismissed. Attorneys for Whitaker and Denny made motions to protect the pair from testifying in Klapheke's February trial because of the pending investigation of CPS.
Then there's Howard Baldwin. It's probably no coincidence that the man who led the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, the agency that oversees Child Protective Services, resigned his post just over two months after Tamryn Klapheke's death and the beginning of the investigation into Taylor County CPS officials. My guess at the time was that he saw the writing on the wall and figured he didn't need the grief being in the public spotlight would inevitably entail.
The grand jury is still at work, so we'll see what comes next.
Clearly, there's no excuse for illegally covering up a fatal case of bureaucratic incompetence. But bad as this case is on the part of CPS, it's worth remembering that it came about because someone failed to conduct a follow-up visit of a mother who was known to the agency to be a danger to her kids. Would Tamryn be alive today if that visit had taken place? There's no way of knowing. But the reason Whitaker is facing criminal charges is her and probably others' decision to stonewall the police. They did that because a caseworker had failed to do his/her job.
So the nut of the matter is why that person failed to follow up with the Klapheke family. The answer almost certainly is the same one we see in Texas time and again as well as in other states like California, New York, Arizona and New Mexico. The answer is understaffing. I can't count the number of posts I've done on cases that hinge on that one thing. On average, Texas CPS caseworkers are saddled with about twice the number of cases called for by industry standards.
Into the bargain, those caseworkers are likely to be undertrained and under-experienced. That's because the turnover of caseworkers is so high. As I reported here, a recent review of CPS statewide found a whopping 25.5% turnover of caseworkers in a single year. That was some 1,300 CPS employees. With that many people going out the door and a similar number coming in with no experience, is it really a surprise that someone failed to pay a follow-up visit to Tiffany Klapheke to see if she was behaving like a responsible parent? The plain truth is that something similar happens every day, probably several times a day in a state the size of Texas. The fact that we don't hear about it more is that, fortunately, children don't die most of the time.
We can conduct as many studies as we want. We can investigate till we're blue in the face. And often as not, when we do, we'll find malfeasance among CPS employees. When we do, we're right to discipline them and, where appropriate, send them to prison. But until we do one thing – one obvious thing – we're just going through the motions to convince ourselves that we're willing to do what's necessary to keep children safe. Until we budget enough money to pay child protective workers a decent wage that will keep them in their jobs, lower turnover rates, mean caseworkers have sufficient experience and reasonable caseloads, we will be proving again, for the umpteenth time, that children's well-being isn't nearly as important to us as we claim.
It's an attitude that's all too prevalent. Every time there's a case like that of little Tamryn Klapheke, we get out the pitchforks and torches and go find someone to blame. We never admit that that someone is us. Coincidentally, the KTXS article demonstrates a bit of that attitude itself.
The case has been somewhat of a black eye for CPS.
A black eye. Tamryn Klapheke should have been so lucky.
#TiffanyKlapheke, #childprotectiveservices, #specialprosecutor, #prison


Big came to AAE with his two buddies, Rich and Texas, in January 2019 after a long abandonment on a large property. It seems these three guys have had a crappy time finding a forever home. They have a long story, and our understanding is they are three-strike mustangs that came to California in 2009 after removal from a neglect situation in Nebraska. Long story short, they were placed on a large, beautiful foster property as a group of 10, and when the foster returned to remove them, they were unable to load the three and left them behind. The lived on the foster property for years, until it was recently sold. Little is known about any prior handling, but these guys were feral; none of the three were halterable at the time we picked them up.
Rich is a curious and somewhat confident guy. He is curious about humans and willing to try, but reactive when he feels too much pressure. He was haltered without too much resistance our first afternoon with time, patience, and a slow approach. He was leading slowly in no time. Big gives to pressure, and accepts touching around his neck, chest and withers more readily than his face, but will tolerate facial and forehead rubs. Due to his quarantine period and harsh weather conditions the last several weeks, Big has not had substantial one-on-one interaction; he has been adjusting to a more confined life and daily human presence.
Big will be ready for adoption after hoof and dental care, as well as vaccines and deworming. He likely has a microchip in place. We'll try to get brand and microchip information as soon as weather and safe handling permits. Big will need a person with advanced experience gentling and starting a mustang. He is not suitable for a beginner or anyone without significant experienced gentling mustangs.


Happy Thursday I hope you're in the mood for a fun and laid back wedding theme today,especially summer brides out there! just because you're getting married, it doesn't mean you have to grow up! I'm sure I'm not alone! Today's post I created a totally unique and fun palette and ready to share to you all. For those of you who're looking for something different for summer wedding, why not consider consider a summer fete wedding theme for your summer wedding.
Turn any outdoor wedding into a summer fete with decorations of multi coloured balloons, pretty bunting.
Fun fete games like hook the duck, ring toss , carousel and bumper cars and big wheel.
Desserts like candy apples,cotton candy and of course donuts!
Have your reception under a marquee to complete the theme or look into renting your local fair grounds.
Look into renting real fair carts that serve food.
Short Printed Dresses or lace dresses are ideal for fun fete wedding.
This wedding theme is sure to keep your guest's attention. Think of all the fun you can have with your reception decorations and favors! One thing is for sure: kids will love it.
Looking for more wedding theme?
I am stunned by the simplicity and serenity of this Summer Fete wedding. Great Ideas, Everything about this theme wedding is just perfect. I'm so in love with these beautiful bridesmaid dresses! Definitely inspiring!