Out-of-province parents denied reviews in Motherisk probe
‘This is a Canada-wide situation,’ says N.S. man who lost custody of child because of lab’s tests
When William McIntyre reached out to the commission looking into child protection cases that used hair test results from the Hospital for Sick Children’s Motherisk laboratory, he was shocked to learn that the review did not apply to him.
Motherisk hair testing was done in cases that dealt with some of McIntyre and Natacha LeRoy’s children.
The Nova Scotia residents are among an unknown number of Canadians who have been affected by Motherisk hair test results — described by an independent review as “inadequate and unreliable” — but who don’t have the possibility of having their cases reviewed by commissioner Judith Beaman because they do not reside in Ontario.
While Motherisk tests were used in four other provinces — British Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia — none has indicated the intention to form the kind of review currently taking place here.
“It’s an atrocity,” McIntyre, 50, told the Star on the phone from North Sydney, N.S. “How could this be just an Ontario thing? You came down and took my hair and sent it to Ontario. . . . This is not just Ontario. This is a Canada-wide situation.”
McIntyre and LeRoy’s 3-year-old son was made a ward of the province and later adopted as the result of a proceeding in which Motherisk said both parents had tested positive for traces of cocaine.
McIntyre and LeRoy — who were previously in a relationship and remain good friends — deny using the drug at the time.
“I would just like everything to come to light and be transparent. My little girl and son have been separated.” NATACHA LEROY
McIntyre also claims that subsequent hair testing done in the U.S. showed he was negative. They say they were asking that the court grant custody of their son to McIntyre with access to LeRoy.
LeRoy, 40, described feeling helpless when their son was taken away. Now she wants answers.
“I would just like everything to come to light and be transparent,” she said. “My little girl and son have been separated. She misses him and I’m sure he misses her.”
The commission, launched by the Ontario government this year, will spend the next two years reviewing potentially thousands of Ontario child protection cases.
Its creation follows a damning independent review — sparked by a Star investigation into Motherisk’s practices — from retired Court of Appeal Justice Susan Lang in December that found that results from the now-discontinued drug and alcohol hair testing at Motherisk were “inadequate and unreliable.”
Sick Kids, whose CEO apologized for Motherisk’s practices in October, is now the defendant in at least one lawsuit, along with former lab director Gideon Koren and manager Joey Gareri, who testified at the hearing dealing with McIntyre and LeRoy’s son.
“The tragedy for Natacha and William is that the surrounding circumstances suggest that Motherisk was the only factor that led to a permanent wardship order being made for their son, who has not only lost his parents, but his older siblings and extended family,” said LeRoy’s Ontario-based lawyer, Julie Kirkpatrick. When the government announced the commission, it indicated that its work would not be conducted outside of Ontario’s borders.
“This is a national issue. They didn’t recognize boundaries when they did the tests, so why should a review suddenly put up these boundaries?” said McIntyre’s lawyer, Mike Dull. “These two parents are a prime example that this extends beyond Ontario. They deserve a remedy.”
A spokeswoman for Ontario Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur told the Star that other provinces have been informed of the commission’s creation “and will be kept informed as necessary.”
There were 49 open child protection cases using Motherisk hair tests in Nova Scotia in 2014. A spokeswoman for the province’s Department of Community Services told the Star this week that the department is reviewing files on a “case-bycase basis,” but said no announce- ment is planned.
“On a case-by-case basis means that we are responding to requests for review as initiated by the client, the courts or the overseeing child welfare agency,” Heather Fairbairn said.
She added that hair-strand test results would not be the “single determining factor” in the outcome of a case.
New Brunswick plans to monitor the outcome of the Ontario review. A spokesman for British Columbia’s Ministry of Children and Family Development said hair test results would be one piece of a larger body of evidence in a court case and that the ministry has “no plans to review any case where a body of evidence has already been considered by a judge,” adding that concerns brought to the government would be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
Motherisk hair tests have been used in Quebec court proceedings, but they were either requested by individuals or children and youth agencies and are not tracked by the government, according to a Ministry of Health spokeswoman.
McIntyre said he received negative hair test results from an Ohio lab in 2015, but that the results — along with the fact that he has custody of his daughter with access to LeRoy — didn’t stop the children’s aid society from finalizing his son’s adoption that year.
McIntyre and LeRoy’s lawyers say it’s too early for them to say what can now be done regarding the boy’s case, adding they’re waiting on transcripts from the court proceedings.
“The possibilities are slim,” McIntyre said, “but I’ll take the chance.”