Plaintiff appeals dismissal of suit against government

A 34-year-old man, whose $1.2-million civil suit against the Yukon government was dismissed in June following a 12-day trial, has filed an appeal of the verdict.

A 34-year-old man, whose $1.2-million civil suit against the Yukon government was dismissed in June following a 12-day trial, has filed an appeal of the verdict.

The man cannot be identified due to a court-ordered publication ban.

He alleged that the government should be held responsible for abuse perpetrated by his babysitter approximately 30 years ago, because the babysitter was a ward of the state.

The plaintiff also claimed damages because of sexual abuse he claimed was perpetrated by his school principal, also approximately 30 years ago.

The plaintiff’s counsel, Dan Shier, alleged during the trial that his client’s long-standing difficulties with alcohol and drug addictions, underachievement in education and employment, and emotional anxieties can be attributed to his abusers’ behaviour.

“Why would a 34-year-old man burn himself, cut himself, tear out his toenails?“ Shier asked during his final submissions at trial.

John Henderson and Lorena Harris, co-counsel for the government, alleged that the plaintiff’s dysfunction could be attributed to many other factors. They include an unstable family life, learning disabilities, and bullying and racism while at school.

The plaintiff, who has one biological parent who is aboriginal and one who is not, experienced bullying from both native and non-native children while at school, notes the court decision.

The plaintiff “had a difficult childhood, a difficult adolescence, and, for the most part but not always, a dysfunctional and unhappy adult life to date,“ reads the trial judge’s decision.

The plaintiff has a criminal record that includes convictions of assault, theft and break and enter.

Richard noted in his decision that the plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse against his former school principal, now 70 years of age, is not corroborated by any other evidence.

“I am unable to conclude that it is more probable than not that (the former principal) had sexual contact with the plaintiff,“ Richard wrote.

The plaintiff’s former babysitter, on the other hand, admitted to abusing him as a child, both physically and sexually.

Richard noted that her evidence “was presented in a credible and forthright fashion.“

Thus, Richard wrote that he is “satisfied that the defendant intentionally had sexual contact with the plaintiff when she was 12-13 years of age, and the plaintiff was five-six years of age.“

Based on this finding, Richard awarded $30,000 in general damages.

But Richard found that the Yukon government was not responsible for the babysitter’s unchecked, abusive behaviour because the abuse could not have been foreseen.

“It cannot be said that social workers in the employ of YTG and assigned to (the babysitter’s) wardship in 1978-1980, could have acted any differently to protect the plaintiff,“ he wrote.

Moreover, Richard wrote that the plaintiff “has not established that his current problems were caused by his childhood sexual battery by (the babysitter).“

There are no reasons for appealing the decision listed in the court document.