Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: AYL v Director-General, Department of Community Services [2013] NSWADT 236 Hearing dates: 29 August 2013 and 13 September 2013 Decision date: 24 October 2013 Jurisdiction: Community Services Division Before: L Goodchlld, Judicial member M Bolt, Non-Judicial member J Le Breton, Non-Judicial member Decision: That the decision of the respondent is affirmed. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Cases Cited: YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 246 Category: Principal judgment Parties: AYL and AYM (Applicants) Director-General, Department of Community Services (Respondent) Representation: Counsel M Barnet (Applicant) G Moore (Respondent) Katherine Renshall (Applicant) Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 134017 Publication restriction: Section 126 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act (the "ADT Act") applies to these proceedings. Reasons for Decision 1Section 126 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act (the "ADT Act") applies to these proceedings. Section 126 provides: 126. Publication of names or identification of persons involved in certain proceedings. (1A) ... (1) A person must not, except with the consent of the Tribunal, publish or broadcast the name of any person: (a) who appears as a witness before the Tribunal in any proceedings, or (b) to whom any proceedings before the Tribunal relate, or (c) who is mentioned or otherwise involved in any proceedings before the Tribunal, whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of. Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both. (2) This section does not prohibit the publication or broadcasting of an official report of the proceedings that includes the name of any person the publication or broadcasting of which would otherwise be prohibited by this section. (3) For the purposes of this section, a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person. STATUTORY PROVISIONS 2The decision the subject of these proceedings is a decision taken under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 ("the CYPCP Act") and regulations. 3The objects of the CYPCP Act are set out at section 8 and provide as follows: (a) that children and young persons receive such care and protection as is necessary for their safety, welfare and well-being, having regard to the capacity of their parents or other persons responsible for them, and (b) that all institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care and protection of children and young persons provide an environment for them that is free of violence and exploitation and provide services that foster their health, developmental needs, spirituality, self-respect and dignity, and (c) that appropriate assistance is rendered to parents and other persons responsible for children and young persons in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities in order to promote a safe and nurturing environment. 4The principles to be applied in the administration of the CYPCP Act are contained at section 9 and provide as follows: - (1) This Act is to be administered under the principle that, in any action or decision concerning a particular child or young person, the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person are paramount. (2) Subject to subsection (1), the other principles to be applied in the administration of this Act are as follows: (a) Wherever a child or young person is able to form his or her own views on a matter concerning his or her safety, welfare and well-being, he or she must be given an opportunity to express those views freely and those views are to be given due weight in accordance with the developmental capacity of the child or young person and the circumstances. (b) In all actions and decisions made under this Act (whether by legal or administrative process) that significantly affect a child or young person, account must be taken of the culture, disability, language, religion and sexuality of the child or young person and, if relevant, those with parental responsibility for the child or young person. (c) In deciding what action it is necessary to take (whether by legal or administrative process) in order to protect a child or young person from harm, the course to be followed must be the least intrusive intervention in the life of the child or young person and his or her family that is consistent with the paramount concern to protect the child or young person from harm and promote the child's or young person's development. (d) If a child or young person is temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or cannot be allowed to remain in that environment in his or her own best interests, the child or young person is entitled to special protection and assistance from the State, and his or her name, identity, language, cultural and religious ties should, as far as possible, be preserved. (e) If a child or young person is placed in out-of-home care, arrangements should be made, in a timely manner, to ensure the provision of a safe, nurturing, stable and secure environment, recognising the child's or young person's circumstances and that, the younger the age of the child, the greater the need for early decisions to be made in relation to a permanent placement. (f) If a child or young person is placed in out-of-home care, the child or young person is entitled to a safe, nurturing, stable and secure environment. Unless it is contrary to his or her best interests, and taking into account the wishes of the child or young person, this will include the retention by the child or young person of relationships with people significant to the child or young person, including birth or adoptive parents, siblings, extended family, peers, family friends and community. 5Chapter 8 of the CYPCP Act provides a model for the organisation of out-of-home care for children and young people. 6The respondent, Director General, Department of Family and Community Services is the state government department that exercises 'parental responsibility', provides services and promotes the development of policies and procedures with respect to children the subject of the statutory child protection system. 7The CYPCP Act defines a designated agency as the organisation that arranges the provision of out-of-home care (s.139(1)). The designated agency that places a child or young person in out-of-home care of an authorised carer has a responsibility to supervise the placement (s.140). Pursuant to Chapter 8 Part 4 of the CYPCP Act the authorised carer of a child or young person has defined authority with regard to the daily care and control of the child and with regard to physical discipline of a child or young person. 8In these proceedings, Anglicare is the designated agency that sources and supervises foster care placement for children in need of care and protection. 9The applicants are authorised Anglicare foster carers. 10The decision to remove children from the daily care and control of the applicant is reviewable by this Tribunal. (s.245(1)(a) and (c) CYPCPA read in conjunction with s.38 Administrative Decision Tribunal Act 1997 and s 28 Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993). In conducting this review, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the decision maker and is required to determine what is the correct and preferable decision having regard to all relevant material. We may have regard to all material that was relevant at the time the original decision was taken as well as any further material that is relevant as at the time of the hearing (Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, ss.63 and 115; YG & GG v Minister for Community Services [2002] NSWCA 246 at [25]). On review, we may decide to affirm the decision, to vary the decision, to set aside the decision and make a decision in substitution for it or to set it aside and remit it back to the decision maker (Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 s.63(3)). THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW 11The child E, the subject of these proceedings, was born on 30 June 2012. At the time of her birth, the neonatal discharge summary reported the child's urine screen positive for cannabinoids and amphetamines. Neonatal abstinence scoring indicated no significant signs of withdrawal. 12On 6 July 2012, E was placed with the applicants who were authorised Anglicare short-term foster carers. 13E has three siblings. Those three siblings are currently in a placement with their maternal step-grandmother (W) and maternal grandfather in a country town in Victoria. Those children's placement is case managed by St Luke's Anglicare and under the supervision of officers of Victoria's Department of Human Services (DHS Victoria). 14On 23 May 2013, the respondents filed in the Children's Court an Amended Care Plan in relation to E proposing that she be moved to a long-term placement with CP, a friend of the maternal grandparents. CP lives in same country town in Victoria in which E's three siblings live. CP had been, up until March 2013, the respite carer for the three siblings for 3.5 years. CP had the children one weekend a month from Friday night to Sunday evening. 15The Amended Care Plan was tendered in the proceedings. It identified the reasons for placing the child with CP in Victoria as providing the opportunity for E to have regular, informal contact with her siblings and her paternal grandparents. The Amended Care Plan stated that it was proposed that the placement would provide E with the opportunity for contact with her maternal family and with her father. The placement would also support having contact with her mother should such contact recommence. 16The placement was, according to the Amended Care Plan, guided by the NSW Community Services sibling placement policy. The respondents tendered a copy of the policy. 17Final Orders were made in the Children's Court on 30 May 2013 placing E in the parental responsibility of the Minister until she attains the age of 18 years. 18Following the making of the Final Orders, the respondents then set about implementing E's transition to CP's full-time care. On 23 July 2013, the applicants filed an application in this Tribunal seeking a stay of the decision to transition E to CP's full-time care and further, filed an application seeking a review of the decision to remove E from the full-time care of the applicants. 19The applicants contend that on 16 May 2013, they were assessed and approved as long-term carers for E. This was not conceded by the respondents, although this is not a matter of great moment in these proceedings for the reasons that follow. 20On 31 May 2013, the applicants received an email from Anglicare confirming that the respondents had made a decision to remove E from their care and place her with CP in Victoria. The plan to transition E into the care of CP proposed that CP would come to Sydney for one night to meet with E and then five days later the applicants would fly to Victoria with E and transition her to the care of CP that day and fly home the next morning. It was the intention of the respondent that the applicants not have any contact with E after she transitioned to Victoria. 21The applicants were dissatisfied with the decision to remove E from their care. They consider that such a move was not in the best interests of E. They wish E to remain in their care long-term. They sought a review of the decision and on 16 July 2013, they were advised by telephone that the respondent had upheld the original decision to remove E from their care and place her in the care of CP. 22The applicants sought a review of this decision in the Tribunal. 23For the reasons that follow, we determine that the decision to remove E from the care of the applicants and place her with CP to be the correct and preferable decision. THE EVIDENCE The applicant foster carers 24The applicants are married with three children. Ms S works part-time as a hairdresser. Mr S works full time as a police officer. The evidence discloses that the applicants have provided excellent and loving care for E. There is no suggestion that the applicants have done anything other than provide a loving, stable and warm environment for this child to develop and grow during what is a crucial stage of her young life. The applicants are very attached to E and only have what they regard as her best interests in mind. This is no doubt the driving force in their application. 25The placement of E into their care is the first occasion that these applicants have been foster carers. The applicants say that they are aware that short-term foster caring can be emotionally a very difficult experience, particularly in circumstances where a newborn is placed into the care of a foster parent and attachment to the child and attachment from the child to the foster parent deepens. 26The applicants relied upon a Foster Care Authorisation Assessment which, not surprisingly, spoke in glowing terms of them and spoke in glowing terms of their care for E and indicated that they had demonstrated a capacity to provide a loving and nurturing home for E and are committed to her needs long-term. The proposed long term foster carer 27CP is a woman of 55 years of age. She has been married for nearly 30 years and she has 7 children, all of whom are adults. At the time of the hearing and at the time of her assessment by the respondents to be the long-term carer for the child E, she was residing in her daughter's home with her two daughters and her son. Her husband resides and works on the family farm an hour or so out of the country town. The evidence was that CP sees her husband most weekends and school holidays are spent on the family property. This does not seem an unusual arrangement in circumstances of country Australia. 28CP is employed as a primary school teacher teaching literacy, cooking and music to children between kindergarten and 6 years of age. She has a history of teaching with the Victoria Department of Education for 30 years and she deposes to good health. 29One of her daughters with whom she lives is finishing a nursing degree and has a position at a local hospital. The other has just finished an arts degree and is looking for employment and considering other study. Her son was currently unemployed but is said to keep the household running while she and her daughters are at work or involved in study. 30The care arrangements proposed for E are that whilst the primary care of E be the responsibility of CP, it is envisaged that her two eldest daughters will help share the care load for her. CP currently works 5 days per week. She stated in her affidavit that her children are in the home while she is at work. She stated she had no intention or need to place E in day care. By this we understand that if she was not available for the care of E due to her work commitments - that one of her three children would be. CP had been babysitting for an organisation Babysitters R Us for several years. 31Her evidence was that she would give up work if E needed her, that E would be her primary responsibility. 32CP stated that she expected that the contact between E and her siblings, should E be placed in her care, would be 'organic' i.e. flexibility around contact with her siblings such as to be put on short notice to attend the children's events such as award ceremonies, soccer games and ballet. 33The applicants raised concerns as to CP's commitment to care for E. They relied upon email correspondence, which they contend showed some ambivalence of CP towards the care of E. The applicants expressed concern that CP worked full-time and may not be available to care for E. The applicants expressed concern that CP's age may limit her ability to care for E in the long-term. 34We have had regard to these concerns. We have had regard to the observations made by the caseworkers in their assessment of CP and her family. We have had regard to the oral evidence given by CP in these proceedings. 35At the time of hearing of these proceedings on 29 August 2013, a number of questions remained unanswered regarding why CP had ceased in March 2013 providing respite care for the three siblings. The evidence in August disclosed that the DHS Victoria had formed a negative view of CP and did not support the transfer of E to her care. 36Despite the efforts of the respondent's officers, DHS Victoria were not forthcoming in explaining the reasons for its position. In the circumstances of this case, where the respondent had made a decision to place a child in the care of long term foster carers in another State and the equivalent State authority did not support such placement, this Tribunal was concerned to ensure that the reasons for such position be clearly articulated before making a decision. The evidence disclosed that DHS Victoria had not spoken to nor had undertaken formal assessment of CP. 37These proceedings were adjourned for a period of weeks for further material to be filed and served to allow the respondents to obtain information from DHS Victoria as to why it did not support the placement of the child into the long-term care of CP. 38When the proceedings continued on 13 September 2013, by the further affidavit filed by the respondent, it became clear that the primary reason of the DHS Victoria not supporting the proposed transition of E was that department's concern about the possible future cost of supporting such a placement. Despite not undertaking any formal assessment of CP, of not speaking to her or any members of her family, DHS Victoria refused to consent to or consider CP having the transfer of E to her care. It is unfortunate that the officers at DHS Victoria positively asserted that CP was not suitable without undertaking any formal assessment. 39On this Tribunal's evaluation of both the oral and documentary evidence available in these proceedings, there is no evidence to support the contention that CP would not be a suitable long-term carer for E. To the contrary, there is ample evidence to support the fact that CP, having been assessed by the respondent, would be a suitable long-term carer for E. 40The respondents initially proposed that casework responsibility be transferred to DHS Victoria. The respondents now propose that parental responsibility for E be retained by the respondent and not transferred to Victoria. In the circumstances and given the Victorian authority's approach to this matter, that is certainly advisable. The child will be case managed as any interstate children are with initial casework fortnightly or monthly visiting depending upon E's placement needs at the time, then ongoing visits and tele-conferences as deemed appropriate. If there are any referrals required for health and education these referrals would be arranged and paid for by the respondent. CP will be paid a carer's allowance for E and the respondent would facilitate E's contact with her parents and her siblings. EXPERT EVIDENCE 41The applicants relied upon a psychological assessment report prepared at the hand of Ms Alison O'Neill. Ms O'Neill is a competent and experienced clinical psychologist with over 10 years' experience in private practice including conducting assessments and writing reports for the Children's Court and the Family Court. Ms O'Neill's field of interest is in the assessment of parenting capacity in high-risk families with mental health problems or substance abuse. Ms O'Neill prepared a comprehensive report after interviewing the applicants and their children and had regard to some documentation in the preparation of the report. Ms O'Neill did not formally observe E with the foster family. We do not consider this to be a limitation as there is no suggestion that the relationship between the foster carers and E is otherwise than a close and loving one and that there is a close attachment between E and the applicants. 42Ms O'Neill was asked to address seven (7) terms of reference. In summary, her report indicated the following: 43Ms O'Neill opined that E was thriving in her current placement and is securely attached to her current carers. At the time of the assessment, she had been in the current placement for 13 months and the attachment was likely to be strong and secure. 44In terms of the risk associated with E being separated from her primary carers and the risks if her relationship with them was to be disturbed, Ms O'Neill identified that E would feel distressed in the short-term and may have problems rebuilding trust and developing a close relationship with another carer. 45In her evidence given by telephone in cross-examination, she agreed that the fact that she (the child E) is experiencing secure attachment now bodes well for any future attachment. Ms O'Neill indicated that the potential to bond and attachment is unknown with CP. Ms O'Neill stressed that if the child was to be placed with another carer that there be a sensitive transition plan that should be well-managed, thoughtful and that the child's age, stage and relationship with the proposed carer and the current carers should be considered. 46Ms O'Neill considered that any potential difficulties with identity formation if E does not have contact with her birth family could be mediated by regular contact with siblings, the grandmother and the parents. Ms O'Neill opined that the longer-term adjustment if removed from her current foster carers depended on her ability to transition her attachment to the new carer and the stability of the placement. 47Ms O'Neill expressed concern if the placement with CP broke down then E is at risk of having multiple placements and that placed her at greater risk of developing psychological problems. Ms O'Neill noted that the critical bonding period is between 0 and 18 months and that E being now 13 months of age is likely to have a well-established attachment to her current carer and that as she ages she will find it increasingly difficult to cope with disruption to the attachment or changes in caregivers. 48Ms O'Neill expressed concern that the proposed carer was working full-time and had no plan to take 6 or 12 months off work to assist E to transition to her care. She further expressed concern that the proposal is a shared care of E with her adult children and as they will inevitably seek independence at some stage in the next 10 years, may result in further feelings of loss for E. She also expressed concern that CP is in her fifties and she may have difficulty relating to and caring for E in the short, medium and long-term. 49Ms O'Neill recommended that E should remain in the care of the applicants in the long-term and that adoption should be considered and that sibling contact be planned at a minimum of 4 times a year. 50The respondents relied upon a report from Dr McAloon, a psychologist in the employ of the respondents. Dr McAloon gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. In the preparation of his report, Dr McAloon had regard to documentary material. He did not interview the current or proposed carers. His opinion, based upon his assessment of the material, was that E had a positive and healthy attachment to the applicants and this stood her in good stead for being able to develop another positive attachment. His opined that E was still young enough to allow her to develop a positive attachment. He considered that E has a number of attachments figures currently in her life and he did not think that it followed that the proposed care arrangements would not be positive for the child. He considered that the benefits of E having a relationship with her siblings may give her a sense of family, a sense of connection with other people. He considered that the proposed transition plan over a 4-week period plus a further phase was appropriate and well planned. 51As part of the material relied upon in the application, the Respondents relied upon a number of other documents. A practice paper titled Supporting Children and Young People In Care Through Transition (Queensland Government, Department of Child Safety, August 2006) stated that research suggests that attention to how transitions are managed for children and young people in care can mitigate trauma and loss and may even have some therapeutic effects. 52The Research to Practice Note from the NSW Department of Community Services March 2006 (as the respondent then was) noted 70% lower rates of disruption in kinship placements than in non-kinship placements. Maintaining safe contact between children and birth families and/or wider kinship networks is an important step towards continuity in the context of disruption and high turnover in placements. 53The policy of the respondent (version August 2010) stated that in relation to achieving positive outcomes for children in care, research shows there are considerable benefits in placing siblings together with a shared parent or carer - the greater the stability and permanency associated with the placement the better individual life outcomes will be. The policy identifies that in developing individual case plans for children coming into care, the views, preferences and situation of each sibling should be assessed to determine the desirability of co-locating siblings. An assessment of attachment issues should be undertaken by a psychologist, or by a case worker in consultation with a psychologist and need for assessment to guide placement decisions, the key objective of the assessment is to establish whether the degree of attachment in the pre-existing placement is such that this placement ought to be secured over and above opportunities for co-location. 54The policy states that in circumstances where there is placement of siblings apart, siblings are to be placed within a reasonable proximity to one another where appropriate and regular contact between siblings in accordance with their case plans is to be ensured. The policy provides for sibling contact to be a key issue addressed in the child or young person's case plan and states that when it is necessary to place children apart, their relationships with other siblings in care and who remain at home should be retained through regular contact including visits, phone calls, letters and emails. FINDINGS AND REASONING 55The issue in these proceedings is to determine whether or not the decision made by the respondent to transition E from her current foster carers into proposed new foster carers is the correct and preferable decision. The respondent says that having assessed the proposed foster carers in Victoria and having assessed the proposed care arrangements for the child in Victoria and having had regard to the opportunity for the child to have ongoing and frequent contact with her siblings and members of her extended family, that removing the child from her current foster carers is the correct and preferable decision and it is in the best interests of this child. 56We accept that the care offered by the applicants to E since she has been place with them has been of a high quality and E has been in a safe and secure environment. The child's current arrangements cannot be criticised. As identified earlier in this decision, this child has a close and loving attachment with her current carers, and they are very keen to remain her long-term carers. They indicate their preparedness to facilitate contact with her siblings. That would be, however, less frequent than what is proposed in Victoria. Further, it is an arrangement, which would mean that although E is residing in a familial environment, she would not be in the same town, and not have the same frequency of contact with siblings, parents and grandparents as proposed by the respondents should she be placed with CP in Victoria. 57We accept that the proposed carer will provide for E a stable, safe and long-term secure environment in a family setting. We are satisfied that the proposed foster carer in Victoria would provide good quality care to E and we are satisfied that the concerns and questions raised by DHS Victoria have been addressed by the further evidence available in these proceedings. 58We are satisfied that the proposed placement of E with CP will provide E with the opportunity to develop relationships with her siblings, her grandparents and her parents. She will grow up in the same town as her siblings. Sibling contact is proposed to be a minimum of 12 times per year if E was placed in CP's care. It was the evidence of CP that the contact between E and her siblings would be informal and frequent as well as ensuring siblings were together for celebrations such as birthdays and significant occasions such as Christmas and Easter. The contact arrangements encouraging E to develop relationships with her biological family were considered by the respondent's to be of great significance. 59We are satisfied that, despite an initial and expected disruption and unsettled period, that the evidence discloses that given E's resilience and emotional stability, she has the capacity to form a close attachment to the proposed carer. E's secure attachment to her current carers increases the likelihood that she will form a secure attachment to CP. 60The respondent has assessed CP and made a decision as to what is, consistent with its own policy and consistent with the assessments that undertaken, and after consideration of the advice of Dr McAloon, psychologist, in the best interests of this child. 61The identified reason for moving the child to Victoria is that the child would have contact with her biological siblings. It is not proposed that the child reside with her siblings. W has stated that she would not be able to look after all 4 children. 62Sibling contact is very important. Protecting and maintaining sibling contact is in a child's best interests. Having a shared history with your siblings and a shared life assists a child with identity. Children learn social skills, particularly in sharing and managing conflict with brothers and sisters. Sibling relationships provide a significant source of continuity throughout a child and young person's lifetime and are likely to be the most enduring relationship in a person's life. For children in care, sibling relationships take on more importance because they can provide the support and attachment that often is not available in abusive or neglectful families. 63Whilst it is not proposed to place the siblings together, the placement that is proposed is to the same city so that contact between the siblings can be facilitated more regularly, with ease and with less expense. There are a number of matters to consider in the placement of these children. The age gap, the differences in the needs of the siblings, the evidence of the behaviour problems with the siblings may vitiate against placing the child with her siblings. The evidence disclosed that there is no established relationship between the siblings, that they have met but they have had a limited opportunity to develop a relationship. Facilitation of regular contact is critical to maintaining that relationship and the caregivers play a crucial role in regulating that contact. Placing the children nearby ensures that they will be able to see each other regularly. It will serve to preserve sibling bonds. There will be an opportunity for joint outings and joint respite care. The three siblings already have a relationship with CP who will be the foster carer of the child E. 64Having regard to the principles of the Act and particularly s.9 (2)(c), the course to be followed must be the least intrusive intervention in the life of the child both in the short and long-term balancing the needs of the child. Further, pursuant to s.9 (2)(f), if a child is placed in out of home care, the child is entitled to safe, nurturing, stable and secure environment. Unless it is contrary to his or her best interests, this will include the retention by the child of relationships with people significant to the child or young person, including birth or adoptive parents, siblings, extended family, peers, family friends and community. 65In consideration of all of the evidence and the age and developmental level of the child and the principles of the CYPCP Act, we consider that the decision made by the respondent is the correct and preferable decision. 66The respondents have prepared a transition plan which identifies 4 phases occurring over a 4-week period starting with an introduction of the parties which had already occurred by phone and also face-to-face in late August of this year. It is then proposed that the carer visit E's current home arrangement and become familiar with the child's current routine and then increased visits over consecutive days. It is then proposed that over a 2-week period after E is taken to Victoria, E's current carer spend time on consecutive days in the proposed new carer's home where both carers are sharing caregiving tasks until the handover from her current carers to the new carers is complete at the end of a 4-week period. For the next couple of weeks, the proposed carer is to have leave from work and to be the primary carer and allowing her daughters to be involved in the care. The timing then is to allow the current carer to have leave from work at the start of the school holidays at the end of the year, such that the constant care by the proposed carer would be in place from the time of the end of the transition until the carer starts full-time work back at her teaching at the end of 2014. 67Dr McAloon was of the view that the transition plan proposed was a strong one. It is our view that the proposed transition plan takes into account the recommendations of the psychologist, and also the concerns raised by Ms O'Neill. It also appears to bear out the recommendations made and raised by the literature and research relied upon by the respondent. 68We were informed during the hearing that the mother had had another child. Little is known about that child's current circumstances or whether or not she might live with the applicants, CP or the parents or other parental family members. 69Given the presentation of the current foster carers and the manner in which they presented their case in these proceedings, we are satisfied that they will work together with the respondent and the proposed foster carers to ensure that the transition plan that is proposed will work in the best interests of E. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 24 October 2013