Parents thank Smiths Falls police after missing son found safe..
Kelley Denham and Derek Flegg went through every parent's worst nightmare when their two-year-old son went missing from their Smiths Falls home last Tuesday, Sept. 27.
The child's father, Flegg, was getting the boy ready to pick up the family’s other three children from school on Tuesday afternoon, leaving the youngest child sitting in the living room in front of the TV about six feet from the front door, Mr Flegg had taken a stroller outside at 2:25 p.m. Shortly thereafter calling for the boy and the child failed to respond, Mr Flegg realized he had forgotten to lock the front door after taking the stroller out and began to worry the child had slipped out the front door when he had gone to lock the backdoor and find his keys.
After a minute of calling and frantically searching the house the father realized the child really was not in the house - phoned the police quickly (by approximately 2:30) for help and by about 2:40 the child was returned to his father and the other children were picked up from school on time.
Four police officers attended the home and while three officers searched the home from top to bottom, even turning over furniture only the one female officer searched the streets with the help of the boy's mother.
Read the newspaper version here -> http://www.insideottawavalley.com/news-story/6893980-parents-thank-smith...
Strangely six days after the incident a rapid response team from the Napanee CAS showed up at the parents Smiths Falls home to begin a new investigation claiming the police officers had made some concerning statements.
The family requested under the freedom of information act all information from the Smiths Falls Police pertaining to the incident. All of the notes were blacked out for a variety of reasons and a copy 911 recording was not released. A PDF of the reasons given for the denial for information by the Smiths Falls police is located on the bottom of the article.
Even though the parents were investigated last year based on negligent and wildly inaccurate statements made by the Smiths Falls Police which resulted in the local CAS eventually withdrawing an application for a supervision order after they could not validate any of their "concerns" last December,,, CAS now firmly believes the family's fully fenced in backyard is unsafe for children and is reopening the family's file and to date has failed to provide any other concern/s verbally or in writing or the basis for them, instead choosing to threaten and intimidate the family with court action if they don't sign consent forms. Other than refusing to sign anything, the parents have co-operated in every way, allowed these unregistered CAS workers into their home and to see and speak with the children themselves.
It's interesting that neither the Smiths Falls Police nor CAS want to disclose the reasons for the new CAS investigation.
CONSENT TO INTERCEPTION
183.1 Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part. [1993, c.40, s.2.]
The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] imposes a general prohibition on interception (recording) of private communications, but then provides an exception where one of the parties to the private communication consents to the interception of that communication. Thus, broadly speaking, Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other peoples' conversations that they are not involved in.
If the police in Canada want to record conversations that none of the officers (undercover or otherwise) will be involved in they can apply beforehand for a warrant permitting them to eavesdrop on the conversation that is expected to reveal evidence of a crime.
State agents may lawfully record conversations that they are involved in, but, unless obtained under authorization of a warrant that recording will have been obtained in violation of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter] and may not be admissible as evidence in court.
Other legislation in Canada protects various privacy rights, but does not prevent Canadians from recording their own conversations with others.