Statements of defence from both deny blame over faulty hair tests used in court to remove children from their parents.

He rejects the findings of an independent review led by retired Court of Appeal Justice Susan Lang last year, which harshly criticized hair testing procedures at Motherisk.

“The hair testing methodologies employed by (Motherisk) were, at all material times, accurate and reliable for their intended purpose. The results and interpretations of hair testing results provided by Dr. Koren were similarly accurate and reliable for their intended purpose,” says Koren’s statement of defence, filed in Superior Court in Toronto.

“Dr. Koren specifically denies the findings of the Independent Review of the Honourable Susan Lang referred to at paragraph 127 of the statement of claim and states that these findings cannot be relied upon and are inadmissible in this proceeding,” the statement continues, referring to Lang’s finding that Motherisk hair test results were inadequate and unreliable.

He is asking the court to dismiss Sick Kids’ and Gareri’s cross-claim, with costs.

The independent review was sparked by a Star investigation that found that before 2010, Motherisk did not use what is considered the “gold standard” hair test. The tests, often requested by children’s aid societies, were used in thousands of child protection cases across the country.

After having first defended the lab, Sick Kids permanently discontinued hair testing at Motherisk last year, and Apkon apologized to families who may have been affected.

The provincial government launched the Motherisk Commission earlier this year in the wake of the damning independent review. The commission’s two-year mandate includes reviewing Ontario cases from between 1990 and 2015 where Motherisk may have been involved.

In its statement of defence, the hospital said it did not owe a duty of care to the proposed representative plaintiff, as it was providing expert assistance to the Catholic Children’s Aid Society by carrying out the hair test.

“The hospital defendants advised the CCAS that the results of the plaintiff’s hair tests ought to be interpreted in conjunction with other evidence and ought not to be relied upon as a sole or predominant indicator of best interests of the plaintiff’s child(ren),” says the statement.

“In summary, at all times the hospital defendants acted responsibly and in accordance with the appropriate standard of care owed to the CCAS regarding the plaintiff’s hair specimens.”