Justice tempered with Mercy: A Mitzvah for Passover.

“We’re very happy. We thank the Lord for the good news … I think it’s very obvious that children should be with their parents, with their family, with their friends — in a natural place”..."Hopefully, the whole thing about the community with the whole persecution and allegations, everything will calm down and we will be able to practise our religion quietly and peacefully.” ---Uriel Goldman, Lev Tahor community. SOURCE

Today, Superior Court Justice Lynda Templeton found a way to take us all to a better place. Justice Templeton ruled not only that Justice Fuerth had erred, but also that returning the children to Quebec would not be in their best interest.

“Even if I were wrong with respect to any or all of the above, I am entirely satisfied that it would be contrary to the best interests of these children to be returned to Quebec. I decline to visit upon the children the consequences of the conduct of their parents.”  SOURCE

"To create further upheaval and instability in their lives would most surely have disastrous emotional and psychological ramification for them.”

“I am satisfied that the rehabilitation that may be necessary for the parents in order to achieve reunification of their families… can be commenced and continued in the current locale,” Templeton stated. SOURCE

"Ontario does not have jurisdiction under common law to enforce the Quebec ruling, as a non-monetary and temporary judgment."

"There is currently no provision in the Child and Family Services Act for the enforcement of an order rendered outside Ontario, she ruled. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services had turned to the Children’s Law Reform Act, but Justice Templeton found that enforcement provisions in that law are not available in this case either."

"When a family in such a situation moves to another province, the supervising agency can give evidence in support of their concerns to the agency where the family has relocated “to allow that agency to assess the situation under its own mandate and to apply the provisions of the [Child and Family Services Act] as it sees fit,”..."But “for reasons known only to the agency” in this case, they have not done that." SOURCE

See entire ruling at Chatham-Kent Children’s Services v. J.S., 2014 ONSC 2352 (CanLII)

I cannot speak for the members of the Lev Tahor community because in this matter, they are the ones who have suffered the most over the past few years and in the end it is their assessment/appreciation of today's ruling that carries the most weight. I speak only for myself, as an outsider who has felt compelled to stand with them in spirit, when I say that I am finally allowing myself a sigh of relief. With full awareness that their journey is not over, and that even if it were, there would still be a long period of healing ahead of them, I am still venturing to thank every heart and mind that has hoped for the arrival of this moment. Yes, I do believe that all this pain and destruction could and should have all been avoided but it has happened and there is no turning back. There is a greater scheme of things and I have to trust that, like the song says, there is some redemption to be found:  

Gham ko aapne saath mein lele dard bhi tere kaam aayega
Take the sorrow with you. This pain will be of use to you.
Bhikre tukdon mein Allah ki marzi ka manzar paayega.
On these scattered pieces, you will find God's wishes.
--- Allah ke bande

Superior Court Justice Lynda Templeton's Assurances to Lev Tahor Community.

Some of the newspapers, once again forgetting that their audience includes more than the mean-spirited who delight in the misfortune of others, described Justice Lynda Templeton's cautionary tone during Friday's session with members of the Lev Tahor community as a scolding, a legal smackdown, an admonishment and one even reported that the judge "tore a strip" off a Lev Tahor family.

Searching past the cheers of the sports fans and her stern pronouncements meant in no small part to steady the now wildly rocking boat of due process of law, I chose to focus only on what gave me some hope -  these very welcome and humane assurances which were made on Friday to the Lev Tahor community by Justice Lynda Templeton:

“I can guarantee you will obtain fair hearings, but you must allow the court to do its work.” SOURCE

“I want nothing more than for you to see your children and to have your own community in a healthy, safe, protected environment exercising all the rights we have in this country.” SOURCE

Ever the optimist, I've gently stowed these assurances under my pillow.

But Justice Lynda Templeton said something else and it was that the case was turning into "a procedural nightmare." I don't know much about legal protocol so I can't say exactly what she was referring to, but all serious observers already knew that it was a nightmare, a living nightmare for the community and any external witnesses with more than a passing suspicion that they were being treated unfairly. For the sake of the children and the preservation of the families, it is still my hope that it will be proven that they are not guilty, or the more likely scenario in this case where they have been prejudged to be guilty, that it will be proven that they are innocent.

Maybe the "procedural nightmare" to which Justice Lynda Templeton was referring was the additional layer of complexity which is accompanying the problem that is now before her. I have no idea how information available in the public arena impacts on how a judge approaches a case, but if I were a judge, I should welcome this "nightmare" because of the opportunities to initiate positive changes in how cases like these are approached in the future. You see, although the spotlight has been turned on the Lev Tahor community, that spotlight's beam has been so broad that those who were really paying attention would have noticed that it was also illuminating the behaviour of certain authorities and the instigation of certain players who, I have no doubt, would have preferred to avoid the attention that they are now receiving.

So is this the "procedural nightmare"? Instead of the question being simply about the guilt or innocence of Lev Tahor, is the court now additionally burdened by being asked to simultaneously consider the guilt or innocence of their accusers?