morning your honour's place court that's sufficient grounds to vacate and which section one a level of the administrative review law against section one away be requires the entire record be filed or is not that's a record is that explains these types of rules rule that relied upon by the agency is a gatekeeper designed to be used by the agency to determine whether or not when except to accept the first place case this case involved abuse because mr overspeed got involved in a situation that he didn't know anything about there was no need for his intervention because there were no other children to be protected there were three adults in the room with the child there were two adults outside the door all of them had more training than he had been doing with this sort of situation and he wasn't even trying to help calm or contain the child he thought they were to his own testimony he thought they were being too soft or permissive moments of silence but then as soon as he put the child down and the other people came back into the room then the child started up again saying it's but even if the child may have been lightly injured temporary pain there were no lasting bruised and so the child suffered temporary pain and in  but this case is not about actual injuries not because not because you think there were none as i just said it was temporary pain and fear and it can't reasonably d incident was traumatizing because all the adults in the room found it so that the testimony in the case that they were shaking afterwards and that they were shocked and so forth but the greater problem presented in this case is that barak his actions likely to cause impairment of physical or emotional health and the director in this case found that his acts were violent and intimidating acts that caused excessive pain or fear within the meaning of the regulation which satisfies the requirement that there be impairment of physical or emotional health under the statute and the right we get to this by looking at a number of factors based on the regulations it was which may have limited his ability to comply with requests that he himself down immediately the child was essentially abandoned by his protectors because  because the school personnel deferred to him as a police officer they wouldn't have allowed anyone else to approach this town do the things they allowed this police officer to do if he had not been a police officer every action was as as i've already suggested all the unnecessary to protect the child or anyone else now bit the child did suffer trauma but it could have been significantly worse he could have dropped the child especially if the child failed or lashed out he could easily have impaired the child's breathing remember that the child was already upset add to that the shock of all of the sudden intervention with meth in the air and then any pressure against the child's windpipe and it's not difficult to see the danger he could also have easily hurt or bruised a child in grasping him and pressing against the wall it's not hard to hurt small time were merely about whether excessive force was used in a single incident i take these cases the whole that this is not enough even if there was a slight miscalculation of the force necessary to accomplish the legitimate a parents and they had specific training in dealing with children with behavioral disorders or at least experience and with the police school while the resource officer was called for another child there was a larger seven year old child who was out of control and the resource officer was called to deal with that officer obols be heard this on the radio and at that end he realized he could get to the classroom faster than the resource officer so he volunteered to come and they allowed him to do so that's how he became volved he was never specifically invited and no one was asked to intervene in the situation with the child that  child or other children safe and that is not at issue here i also note that there is a principle that unifies both these three cases and two other cases involving tie in close confinement which is that the shoebox and the walk cases and that is that all those cases they found no abuse because the alleged perpetrator was taking reasonable actions to keep the child safe this case is more like a lehman case the difference in that case is that that was the case involving the little girls that safety purpose and these were entirely disproportionate response to the situation and so that's why this case is different from being slightly one and the other cases satisfy the statute and this is why the although the director's decision does mention the statute to focus is mainly on the regulation and that's because the purpose of the regulation is  whether the stack to try terms were satisfied but there are two problems with this one is it it doesn't make sense to apply a complex multi factor rule as a sort of get keeper will sometimes we apply simple rule in order to avoid having to engage in a more complex analysis of a number of cases but we don't do it the other way around would that would mean that we're doing a lot of extra work for nothing if we are applying this only to get to a very simple will later and the other problem with that is that if we apply the statute in terms different from the regulation if we do our analysis in different terms then the point of the regulations is lost because then we have no assistance in interpretation of rock standards of the statute and there is no deference to the department's experience and expertise in this area or sensitive walk therefore it's bad law i'm saying  mistaken on that ground yes if we think otherwise you lose it if you think that separately if we think there are cases soundly cited do you lose well i you would you would have to do more than just to be with fact you would also have their neck when the child is having a fit and you don't know the child it's easy to it's easy to drop them it's easy to do other things and when you have you believe it's easier to drop them or do if you have if you have a small child that is pitching a fit and you're holding them up in the air around the neck and the child play i will sir you can see when i hear something it's easy to drop them or hurt them causing that child pain and fear which is unjustified when you consider that there's no need for it that he that they shouldn't be doing this in the in the first place because he wasn't trying to protect the child because he didn't know about the situation for all those reasons and when you look at the totality of the circumstances then you have to say that that this shouldn't happen and to cause pain and fear without a need is under the reasonably read that's what he did there's no there's nothing that suggests that the l j felt that he was entitled to diversion the statute or  that for some reason he was doing something that took him out of the way that the department usually interprets the the regulations which is to fulfill the statutory  will fall or what part of him what's right the ground to that stick with the screws to say that we have to come up with some kind of evidence just to show that the child is likely to be injured that we have to come up with statistical evidence or expert testimony that would that would be the equivalent in in in reasonable it it would be no more reasonable to require that kind of evidence than it would be in a case like that or to require a statistician to come in and testify about the probability given a certain amount of muscle strength and a good mom a child a certain place the likelihood will drop because because when you when you look at the risks in that situation the risks to the child oh way and then no reason to hang the child out the window it would be easy for this court to say that that is a reasonable and we are right and that's what the question do in this case it's not quite as the situation not quite as flagrant sample as that one but but we think it is an outrageous example and it was entirely unjustified which makes the pain absurd to think that he's entitled to one free whack as long as it's not likely to see the child again and although the department's the language of the regulation doesn't echo all of the language of the statutes definition of abuse child  if the court has no further questions say thank you your honors and we ask this court uphold the department's decision denying all these