Gary Direnfeld Interaction Consultants reviews and complaints

I . my partner friends and kids have suffered at the hands of this narcissist,

It seems many others have as well and he is about to face his governing body. It should have happened many many years ago. Nonetheless please read what his college has posted on their website

Upcoming Discipline Committee Hearing
I. Gary Direnfeld, RSW
#803466
On April 6, 2016, allegations of the Member’s professional misconduct were referred to the
Discipline Committee for hearing, on a date yet to be fixed. In brief summary, it is alleged that
the Member engaged in conduct that violated sections 2.2, 2.6, 2.36, 2.5, 2.28, 2.29 of O. Reg.
384/00 (Professional Misconduct) and Interpretations 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 2.1.1, 2.1.4, 2.2.3, 2.2.8, 3.2,
3.4 and 5.3.5 of the College’s Standards of Practice by:
1. Failing to observe, clarify, and inquire about information presented to him by clients;
2. Failing to be aware of his values, attitudes, and needs and how these impact on his
professional relationship with clients;
3. Failing to distinguish his needs from those of his client to ensure that, within professional
relationships, clients’ needs and interests remain paramount;
4. Failing to be aware of the extent and parameters of his competence and his professional
scope of practice and to limit his practice accordingly; failing to inform a client of the
option to be referred to another professional when the client’s need fall outside his usual
area of practice; failing, if a client wishes to continue the professional relationship, to
ensure that (1) the services he provides are competently provided by seeking additional
supervision, consultation, and/or education, and (2) that the services are not beyond his
professional scope of practice; and/or failing to be guided by a client’s interests in
making recommendations for particular services, referrals to other professionals, or a
continuation of the professional relationship;
5. Failing to ensure that any professional recommendations or opinions he provides are
appropriately substantiated by evidence and supported by a credible body of professional
social work knowledge;
6. Using information obtained in the course of a professional relationship and/or using his
professional position of authority to coerce, improperly influence, harass, abuse, or
exploit a client/former client;
7. Engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that,
having regard to all circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as
disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional, and/or by failing to avoid conduct in the
practice of social work that could reasonably be perceived as reflecting negatively on the
profession of social work;
8. Failing to deliver client services and/or respond to client queries, concerns, and/or
complaints in a timely and/or reasonable manner;
9. Discriminating based on race, ethnicity, language, religion, marital status, gender, sexual
orientation, age, disability, economic status, political affiliation, or national origin;
10. Failing to make reasonable efforts to inform a client of the parameters of information to
be disclosed, when consent to the disclosure of information is required, and/or to advise
the client of the possible consequences of such disclosure;
11. Abusing a client verbally, psychologically, or emotionally;
12. Contravening the Act, regulations, or by-laws; and
13. Contravening a federal, provincial or territorial law or a municipal by-law in
circumstances in which the purpose of the law is to protect public health

Please do not seek his help. Save yourself the expense and aggravation

This post is in response to stubbornbrown. Without a doubt all of our complaints MUST be centralized. That is the very reason why we created publicvsdirenfeld on this site and on Facebook. I have had many conversations with the members on this board and those who have reached out to publicvsdirenfeld Facebook. As an earlier post stated, the College would like everyone to send their complaints to them. Even if they have already sent in their complaints the College is allowing for resubmissions. In addition we have set up an email account for those who need help or for those who have questions/concerns. It is [protected]@gmail.com Please contact us at any one f the options. Stubbornbrown has reached out as have so many of you. We are doing something about this through the proper channels.

ConsultantS denotes one or more persons consulting. How is it ?Mr Direnfeld is the ONLY person employed by said group? Hmmm you don't think he is trying to appear larger than what he truly is do you? I wonder if misrepresenting yourself or the entity with whom you work for could be construed as false or misleading advertising.

ORDER HO-009
October 2010
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario
1IPC Order HO-009/October 13, 2010

Proposed Regulations As previously stated, the Minister published a proposed regulation which, among other things, prescribed the maximum amount of fees that a Custodian may charge an individual in providing access to records of personal health information under the Act. Although circulated publicly, these regulations were not adopted.

The proposed regulation, which was published in 2006, states in part:
Fees for access to records

25.1 (1) For the purposes of subsection 54 (11) of the Act, the amount of the fee that may be charged to an individual shall not exceed $30 for any or all of the following:

1. Receipt and clarification, if necessary, of a request for a record.
2. Providing an estimate of the fee that will be payable under subsection 54(10) of the Act in connection with the request.
3. Locating and retrieving the record.
4. Review of the contents of the record for not more than 15 minutes by the health information custodian or an agent of the custodian to determine if the record contains personal health information to which access may be refused.
21IPC Order HO-009/October 13, 2010
5. Preparation of a response letter to the individual.
6. Preparation of the record for photocopying, printing or electronic transmission.
7. Photocopying the record to a maximum of the first 20 pages or printing the record, if it is stored in electronic form, to a maximum of the first 20 pages, excluding the printing of photographs from photographs stored in electronic form.
8. Packaging of the photocopied or printed copy of the record for shipping or faxing.
9. If the record is stored in electronic form, electronically transmitting a copy of the electronic record instead of printing a copy of the record and shipping or faxing the printed copy.
10. The cost of faxing a copy of the record to a fax number in Ontario or mailing a copy of the record by ordinary mail to an address in Canada.
11. Supervising the individual's examination of the original record for not more than 15 minutes.

(2) In addition to the fee charged under subsection (1), fees for the services set out in Column 1 of Table 1 shall not, for the purposes of subsection 54 (11) of the Act, exceed the amounts set out opposite the service in Column 2 of the Table.

10. The Regulation is amended by adding the following Table:
TABLE 1
ITEM COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 1. For making and providing photocopies or computer printouts of a record 25 cents for each page after the first 20 pages 2. For making and providing a paper copy of a record from microfilm or microfiche 50 cents per page 3. For making and providing a floppy disk or a compact disk containing a copy of a record stored in electronic form $10 4. For making and providing a microfiche copy of a record stored on microfiche 50 cents per sheet 5. For making and providing a copy of a microfilm of a record stored on microfilm that is,
22 IPC Order HO-009/October 13, 2010
i. 16 mm $25 per reel ii. 35 mm $32 per reel
6. For printing a photograph from a negative or from a photograph stored in electronic form, per print, i. measuring 4” x 5” $ 10 ii. measuring 5” x 7” $ 13 iii. measuring 8” x 10” $ 19 iv. measuring 11” x 14” $ 26 v. measuring 18” x 20” $ 32 7. For making and providing a copy of a 35 mm slide $ 2 8. For making and providing a copy of an audio cassette $ 5 9. For making and providing a copy of a ¼”, ½” or 8 mm video cassette, i. that is one hour or less in length $ 20 ii. that is more than one hour but not more than two hours in length $ 25 10. For making and providing a copy of a ¾” video cassette, i. that is not more than 30 minutes in length $ 18 ii. that is more than 30 minutes but not more than one hour in length $ 23 11. For producing a record stored on medical film, including x-ray, CT and MRI films $5 per film 12. For the review by a health information custodian or an agent of the custodian of the contents of a record to determine if the record contains personal health information to which access may be refused $45 for every 15 minutes after the first 15 minutes 13. For supervising an individual's examination of original records $6.75 for every 15 minutes.

2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400 Toronto, Ontario M4W 1A8 Canada
Phone: [protected] Toll-free: [protected] Fax: [protected] TTY (Teletypewriter): [protected] Website: www.ipc.on.ca Email: [protected]@ipc.on.ca

It is crucial to obtain your personal file from your social worker if your matter has gone south. If a social worker writes anything negative in a report or correspondence you will want your file so as to substantiate a concern or to challenge it.

[protected]@ocswssw.org 1.877.828.9380

PHIPA Toolkit

On November 1, 2004, the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) came into force. The purpose of PHIPA is to provide consistent and comprehensive rules governing the collection, use, retention, disclosure and disposal of personal health information in the custody and control of health information custodians. Health information custodians, such as hospitals and long-term care facilities, employ many social workers and social service workers. Additionally, social workers or social service workers in private practice or who are employed by an agency that is not a health information custodian may, if they provide health care, be considered to be health information custodians under this legislation. To assist members’ understanding of this complex legislation, the College developed a PHIPA Toolkit. The toolkit explains the purposes of the PHIPA, provides important background information on the Act, and explains who is covered by the Act using a decision tree that will help members to determine their responsibilities under the Act.

The toolkit was mailed to all members in 2005. Additional copies are available to purchase from the College. If you would like to order a copy, please complete the PHIPA Toolkit order form and return it by fax or mail to the College.
Download a copy of the Privacy

Social Workers can only charge $30.00 for the first 20 pages and then .25 thereafter for each additional page.

Here is a cut and paste of Gary Direnfelds Med/Arb contract. PLEASE read this before signing.

WAIVER OF RIGHT TO LITIGATE IN COURTS
49. By submitting to arbitration of the designated issues, the parents herby waive any right to
further litigate those issues in Court, whether pursuant to the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c.F.3, as amended; the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1991, c D-3.4 (2nd Supp.), as amended, or any
other statute or law.

COMPLAINTS and COSTS
65. If either parent has a complaint about the way the Service Provider is dealing with him/her or
any issue, he/she (and with their lawyer if they prefer) shall discuss their concern in person
with the Service Provider before pursuing it in any other manner. If, after discussion, the
Interaction Consultants MED/ARB Agreement
Form – March 2015
20 Suter Crescent, Dundas, Ontario, Canada L9H 6R5 Tel: [protected]
www.yoursocialworker.com
12
parent is not satisfied that the complaint has been dealt with satisfactorily, then he/she shall
submit a written letter detailing the complaint to the Service Provider, to the other parent and
to any lawyers representing the parents and/or child(ren). The Service Provider shall provide
a written response to the parents and lawyers within twenty (20) days.
66. If the letter as set out above does not resolve the complaint, the Service Provider will then
meet with the complaining parent and his/her lawyer to further discuss the matter.
67. If the complaint is not resolved after this meeting, the complaining parent may file a motion
on notice to the other parent with the Court to remove the Service Provider as per the
Arbitration Act. The motion shall proceed on the written documents submitted by both
parents and the Service Provider, unless the Court orders a hearing.
68. The parent(s) who initiates the complaint to remove the Service Provider as per the
Arbitration Act shall be responsible for the time and associated fee of the Service Provider
for the complaint process as well as any associated legal fees incurred by the Service
Provider in defending against the claim, and waives the right to have this countermanded by
court order or any other means.
69. Any binding arbitrated decision shall be implemented and adhered to during the time the
complaint process is in effect.
SERVICE PROVIDER’S RIGHT TO SELF-PROTECTION
70. Parents are expected to treat the Service Provider respectfully and courteously.
71. The Service Provider reserves the right to protect himself from vilification, attacks to
integrity, physical, verbal or implied threats, intimidation, assault, vandalism or destruction
of property and/or vilification through electronic means, such as may be distributed by email,
social network websites, electronic complaint bulletin board or by any other electrionic
means not here specified or contemplated. Such self-protection can include any reasonable
strategy to place safeguards on the Service Provider’s well-being and the integrity of the
Med/Arb service. The Service Provider reserves the right to bring legal or police remedy to
concerns arising to the integrity or safety of the Service Provider at the expense of the
offending party. Such actions taken by the Service Provider to ensure self-protection shall not
give cause for the termination of the Service Provider, nor shall such actions preclude the
Service Provider from providing the Med/Arb service as per this Agreement. Further, parents
agree not to badmouth the Service Provider to any other persons whatsoever, be it verbally,
in written material or electronically or by making negative comments available on the
Internet.
72. The parents or anyone acting on their behalf, agree not to bring any actions for damages or
any other claims of any kind or character against the Service Provider for any acts or
omissions in the course of carrying out his duties. They further agree to waive any and all
Interaction Consultants MED/ARB Agreement
Form – March 2015
20 Suter Crescent, Dundas, Ontario, Canada L9H 6R5 Tel: [protected]
www.yoursocialworker.com
13
rights to address any issue against the Service Provider through any Court or any other
process not here specifically contemplated in this or any other jurisdiction.
73. If however a complaint is registered through the Ontario College of Social Workers and
Social Service Workers or through any Court or any other process not here specifically
contemplated in this or any other jurisdiction, the Service Provider retains the right to seek
dismissal or withdrawal of the complaint and may rely upon any documentation generated
throughout the Med/Arb process or any other material available to him as a result of the
Med/Arb process, in defence of the complaint against him.
74. The parent who files a complaint about the Service Provider to the Ontario College of Social
Workers and Social Service Workers or through any Court or any other process not here
specifically contemplated in this or any other jurisdiction shall be responsible for the time
and associated fee of the Service Provider for the complaint process as well as any associated
legal fees incurred by the Service Provider in defending against the claim, and waives the
right to have this countermanded by court order or any other means.
75. The Service Provider shall be entitled to retain independent legal counsel and to be
compensated for the cost thereof on a substantial indemnity basis in circumstances where in
his sole and arbitrary determination, his integrity, independence, and quality of service are
called into question or in any circumstance where he is required to attend and answer
questions in accordance with any subpoena, Order or any other request, whether requiring
attendance in person or by any other means such as correspondence, fax, email or telephone.

If you have a complaint about Gary Direnfeld, please message at

[protected]@gmail.com

All messages are confidential unless indicated otherwise.

Gary Direnfeld is a social worker in Dundas Ontario. Recently he has changed his website to include that he no longer offers OPEN mediation/arbitration and that he will not prepare reports for court or attend to testify.

Gary claims it is so the parties can feel safe and protected by offering full disclosures without the fear of legal repercussions.

THIS is NOT true.

As recent as February 2015 McClintock v. Karam, 2015 ONSC 1024 (CanLII) — 2015-02-17 Mr. Direnfeld was admonished by the court. The Applicant Mother had the where with all to record her sessions,

[21] During the course of the discussion, Mr. Direnfeld made certain statements as follows:

"From my perspective, there’s more than ample evidence and concern to demonstrate that knowingly, unknowingly, inadvertently, intentionally, you’re undermining the relationship of your daughter with her father. That’s a real concern.

*****

It’s your daughter’s right to have that relationship and to not have it undermined. Your, your behaviour consistently works against that. I have suggested to you in the past concern that your daughter will be spoiled, self-righteous. What can I get? What’s in it for me? Never having met your daughter, these things are built in structurally to these situations where the daughter’s needs are put over and above important relationships in their life. The worker – I never talked with Barbara prior to October 22nd. I do not know this woman. Her observation is your daughter is a spoiled, little princess. It’s consistent with what the concerns are I would have and that I’ve relayed to you – maybe different words. That’s an outcome of your parenting at this point.

*****

I will absolutely entertain Josh’s request that Olivia go live with him while you sort things out for yourself.

*****

My concern is you do have a spoiled princess for a daughter. She’s, she’s been spoiled. Kids who are spoiled learn how to manipulate, and learn how to manipulate more and more.

*****

So at, at some point in time, persons like myself, the judge, the assessors, the Children’s Aid, we do have to say, you know what, no more wolf, no more wolf period. We’re gonna take this child from this parent, put the child with the other parent and our, and our options are no access, supervised access, therapeutic access. Those are the options and I will entertain that. You’re going to have to sort out how you’re going to address that. I’m not gonna make a ruling today. I’m not going to address it today, but I am going to put this – I am gonna table this for arbitration. Josh is asking, forthrightly, can my daughter come and live with me?

*****

But I’m not gonna delay this. This isn’t gonna continue because there is too long a history. So I’m absolutely gonna entertain it.

*****

But this is escalating. So between now and when, whenever I arbitrate this, you may want to consider that counselling for yourself. You may want to look at how can – you know, if, if Gary is saying that I’ve got a, a part in this, what is it I can do? How can I manage my daughter differently that mitigate these concerns such that if it’s before Gary as arbitrator, I reduce concern that Gary might make a decision that changes the custodial arrangement?

*****

You are riding a sinking ship. You need to take this very seriously now. Not – I’m not suggesting that you haven’t taken it seriously. You need to take it seriously in a different way. That’s where my thinking is right now – very transparent, very open.

*****

But I do want to set this down for arbitration early in the new year. This is November 12th and we give you ample time to sort these things out.

*****

Ms. McClintock: What’s – can you clarify what exactly is being arbitrated?
Mr Direnfeld: The residential arrangement for your daughter – who she lives with.

*****

You know, behaviour speaks louder. It’s not gonna happen anymore by one of two ways: an arbitration hearing and I change the residential plan, or you change. I have educated, coached, begged, cajoled you. I’m not gonna do any of that anymore. Now I’m gonna arbitrate and you’ll either do it or you won’t. Is that understandable? And I don’t say that facetiously or aggressively or – I do want you to appreciate that. You’re actively teaching your daughter to disrespect her father"

THE COURTS FINDINGS,

[76] " A number of excerpts from the transcript of the meeting that occurred on November 12, 2014 are problematical. Of those excerpts, a number would strongly suggest that the mediator/arbitrator had already made up his mind on issues that were very contentious. While all of the excerpts are problematical, the two excerpts of primary concern are as follows:

From my perspective, there’s more than ample evidence and concern to demonstrate that knowingly, unknowingly, inadvertently, intentionally, you’re undermining the relationship of your daughter with her father. That’s a real concern.
*****
You know, behaviour speaks louder. It’s not gonna happen anymore by one of two ways: an arbitration hearing and I change the residential plan, or you change. I have educated, coached, begged, cajoled you. I’m not gonna do any of that anymore. Now I’m gonna arbitrate and you’ll either do it or you won’t. Is that understandable? And I don’t say that facetiously or aggressively or – I do want you to appreciate that. You’re actively teaching your daughter to disrespect her father.

[77] These excerpts, as well as others, strongly suggest that the mediator/arbitrator had already made up his mind that the applicant had engaged in the alienating behaviour that she disputed, and that he had made up his mind as to what he would do. The words “It’s not gonna happen anymore by one of two ways: an arbitration hearing and I change the residential plan, or you change” can hardly admit of much doubt as to their meaning to an informed person who has thought the matter through – Mr. Direnfeld has already made up his mind, and he will not decide fairly.

[78] The subsequent conduct of the mediator/arbitrator serves only to heighten the concern. He gave notice of a single day of arbitration. The notice was quite short. When counsel for the applicant said he would be out of the country, the arbitrator refused to change the date, even though counsel was only suggesting a delay of two months. Olivia had been residing with her mother for nine years, and it is inconceivable that a delay of two months was unreasonable or could not have been accommodated. However, the mediator/arbitrator insisted on proceeding on the date he had fixed, even though the applicant would be without counsel and the mediator/arbitrator himself conceded that there was no dire emergency. During the correspondence about the arbitration process, Mr. Direnfeld continued to make statements suggesting he had made up his mind, including “Ultimately though, should this matter return to court and in the absence of change with regard to the behaviour of Ms. McClintock, you must know what intervention I would be supporting if called to court.”

[79] In my view, this unseemly rush to judgment would only heighten the concern of an informed person, and cause that informed person to think that it was more likely than not that Mr. Direnfeld would not decide the matter fairly.

[80] For these reasons, I conclude that the applicant has shown that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias.

[81] For somewhat the same reasons, I conclude that the mediator/arbitrator has not treated the applicant fairly, as required by s.19(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

[82] Furthermore, he did not give the applicant an opportunity to present her case as required by s.19(2) of the Act. Having regard to what was at stake, it was important that the mediator/arbitrator give each party a full opportunity to present his or her case. That opportunity must be adequate to the circumstances. This was not a case where some minor adjustment in visiting dates or holiday periods was being proposed. There was potentially going to be a fundamental change in the residence of the child, and could potentially result in the barring of access to the applicant for at least some period of time."

Unfortunately this is NOT the first time that Gary Direnfeld's bias has been brought to court.The case of Padayachee v Padayachee further demonstrates bias of another nature. January 13, 2006 Gary Direnfeld was acting as mediator in another matter. His report was challenged on recommendations that the daughter be placed immediately into the care of the Respondent Father. However, Gary did not provide a thorough investigation resulting in Dr. Raymond Morris' subsequent findings.

Dr. Morris provides the following,

"There is no evidence that assessor has canvassed such areas as the parent's understanding of the children, their approach to parenting, descipline and child management etc.

Dr Morris concludes that the most concerning aspect of the custody and access assessment report was the lack of clinical observation provided as a rationale for the recommendations, and that "the recommendations in their extremity reflect an overreaction and the possibility of bias because many of the assessor's opinions appear to rest on assumption and opinion that does not seem to be well founded".

The judge offers,

"However, the psychological assessment of the mother is in stark contrast with Mr. Direnfeld's assessment of her. I cannot give full weight to Dr. Gorman's findings given that she was retained by the mother and her mandate was limited, but, taken together with the comments of Dr. Morris, whose experience and qualifications are not disputed, I am troubled by Mr. Direnfeld's conclusions.

I find that Dr Moriss's concerns are valid Mr. Direnfeld's conclusions appear to be based largely on his belief that the mother has been untruthful with respect to her allegations and not on clinical data or observations of the parties relationships with the children. What is also troubling to me is that he does not address or consider the impact of his extreme recommendations upon the children's relationship with their mother, nor does he offer any insight into the parents' respective strengths and weaknesses."

This case is of particular relevance to my husbands 10 months of abuse by Gary Direnfeld. When he was retained Gary Direnfeld legally had to disclose that he and Dr Morris had a conflict of interest. The conflict was that Dr. Morris had just completed an 18 month assessment with my husband, his ex wife and two children. Gary Direnfeld was hired just 6 weeks after the assessment was completed. He was very aware of Dr. Morris' assessment report but failed to disclose that he had a "bone to pick with him".

I am grateful that I recorded my call with Gary Direnfeld regarding his views of Dr. Morris. They were transcribed and entered in the public record of the Superior Court of Justice. Gary Direnfeld, as a result, wrote an URGENT letter to both counsel in retribution for our challenging him. The letter was the immediate removal of our children and recommended only supervised access and that our full custody of the children be placed with the mother. We fought him and won! He was removed that week and told to have no involvement with our family ever again.

Lastly, Gary Direnfeld's retainer agreement. Is anyone else troubled by the gag order clause. His contract says that if you or the other party have a disagreement with Gary's findings etc YOU MAY NOT LODGE A COMPLAINT OR TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST HIM. That is not legal.

So for those there who are afraid to come forward because of his retainer agreement you need not be. His contract also says that no one can file a complaint against him with the College. Again that is not legal.

Gary Direnfeld is a monster.