CANADA
Winnipeg Free Press
By: Katie May
Posted: 08/21/2016
Some residential-school survivors seeking compensation for sexual abuse were wrongly required to try to prove their abusers’ motive, Manitoba’s Court of Queen’s Bench has ruled.
The recent decision from Justice James Edmond could set a precedent for how residential-school compensation claims are settled, affecting “at least dozens, possibly hundreds” of residential-school survivors, a Winnipeg lawyer says.
The case involves a man, identified only by his initials, J.W., who attended residential school in Manitoba. He told an adjudicator at his initial compensation hearing that he had been molested by a nun as a young boy – that she had called him over while he was waiting in line to use the shower and grabbed his penis. When he pushed her hand away, she took him by his left ear and tried to slam his head against the wall, he testified. The adjudicator said she believed J.W.’s account and didn’t question that what happened to him had caused him embarrassment and “certain harms,” but she denied compensation because she was “not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there was a sexual purpose associated with [the nun’s] conduct,” the decision states.
That logic meant J.W. was held to a stricter standard of proof for sexual assault than is required under the Criminal Code, said his lawyer, Martin Kramer.
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.