Q.B. No. 271 January 31, 1994

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH

FOR SASKATCHEWAN

JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON

BETWEEN:

DENNIS KVELLO, SHELDON KVELLO, DIANE KVELLO,

SHERRY KVELLO (by her litigation guardian Diane K.),

KARI KLASSEN, RICHARD KLASSEN, PAMELA KLASSEN,

MARIE KLASSEN, JOHN KLASSEN, MYRNA KLASSEN,

PETER DALE KLASSEN, ANITA JANINE KLASSEN

Plaintiffs

AND :

MATTHEW MIAZGA, SONIA HANSON, RICHARD QUINNEY,

BRIAN DUECK, OWEN MAGUIRE, CAROL BUNKO-RUYS,

CITY OF SASKATOON, MINISTER OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF SASKATCHEWAN,

MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF SASKATCHEWAN

Defendants

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT

1.

The Plaintiff may enter judgment in accordance with this Statement of Claim or such judgment as may be granted pursuant to the Rules of Court unless

within 20 days if you were served in Saskatchewan;

within 30 days if you were served elsewhere in Canada or in the United States of America;

within 40 days if you were served outside Canada and the United States of America;

(excluding the date of service).

you serve a Statement of Defence on the Plaintiff and file a copy thereof in the office of the Local Registrar of the Court for the Judicial Centre above-named.

2.

In many cases a defendant may have the trial of the action held at a judicial centre other than the one at which the Statement of Claim is issued. Every defendant should consult his lawyer as to his rights.

3.

This Statement of Claim is to be served within 6 months from the date on which it is issued.

4.

This Statement of Claim is issued at the above named judicial centre the 31st day of January, 1994.

Patricia B. Bockus

Deputy Local registrar

SEAL

_____________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

CLAIM

1.

At all material times:

(a)

The Plaintiffs DENNIS K. (hereafter the plaintiff Dennis), PAMELA K. (hereafter the Plaintiff Pamela), DIANE K. (hereafter the Plaintiff Diane), MARIE BLACK (hereafter the Plaintiff Marie), SHELDON K. (hereafter the Plaintiff Sheldon), SHERRY K. (hereafter the Plaintiff Sherry) , KARI K. (hereafter the Plaintiff Kari), and RICHARD K. (hereafter the Plaintiff Richard) resided in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan;

(b)

The Plaintiffs JOHN K. (hereafter the Plaintiff John), MYRNA K. (hereafter the Plaintiff Myrna), ANITA K. (hereafter the Plaintiff Anita), and PETER DALE K. (hereafter the Plaintiff Dale), resided in Saskatoon Saskatchewan, and Red Deer Alberta;

(c)

The Plaintiff Sherry is a minor and is represented by her litigation guardian, Diane K.:

(d)

The Plaintiffs, Dennis and Diane, are husband and wife and at times material hereto were engaged by the Defendant Minister of Social Services to be foster parents of the children Sarde H., Shannavia H., and Stephen H.;

(e)

The Plaintiffs Sheldon and Sherry, are respectively the son and daughter of the Plaintiffs. Dennis and Diane;

(f )

The Plaintiffs Dale and Anita are husband and wife, and between February 1987 and early 1991 were engaged by the Defendant Minister of Social Services to be foster parents of the sibling children:

Michael R., born 18 October 1979,

Kathleen R., born 1March 1982 and,

Michelle R., born 1March 1982;

(hereafter referred to as Michael, Kathleen, and Michelle respectively). These children were moved to the foster home of Marilyn Thompson in or about early 1991;

(g)

The Plaintiff Pamela is the sister of the Plaintiffs Richard, John, and Dale, and at times material hereto was engaged by the Defendant Minister of Social Services to be foster parent of the following children; Michael Jonathon K., Crystal W., and Trevor W.;

(e)

The Plaintiff Marie is the mother of the Plaintiffs Richard, John, and Dale and Pamela, and the wife of Peter K. and at all times material hereto resided with the Plaintiff Pamela.

2.

At all material times:

(a)

The Defendant Matthew Miazga (hereafter the Defendant Miazga) resided in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was a crown prosecutor employed by Minister of Justice in saskatoon;

(b)

The Defendant SONIA HANSON (hereafter the Defendant Hanson), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was a crown prosecutor employed by Minister of Justice in Saskatoon;

(c)

The Defendant RICHARD QUINNEY (hereafter the Defendant Quinney), resided in or near Regina, Saskatchewan, and was an employee of the Defendant Minister of Justice, being employed thereby as the Director of Public Prosecutions;

(d)

The Defendant BRIAN DUECK (hereafter the Defendant Dueck), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was employed by the City of Saskatoon Police Department as a police officer;

(e)

The Defendant OWEN MAGUIRE (hereafter the Defendant Maguire), resided in or near Saskatoon, and was employed by the City of Saskatoon Police Department as a Chief of Police of Saskatoon Police Department, and was responsible for the operations and conduct of the employees thereof;

(f) The Defendant CITY OF SASKATOON (hereafter the Defendant City) is incorporated pursuant to the Urban Municipalities Act, and was the employer of the Defendants Maguire and Deck;

(g)

The Defendant Carol Bunko-Rays (hereafter the Defendant Bunko-Rays), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was a child therapist and counselor with Child Care Consultants in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; and in relation to the matters pleaded herein was contracted to perform services for the Minister of Social Services;

(h)

The Defendant MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF SASKATCHEWAN (hereafter the Defendant Minister of Justice), is an officer of the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan, being responsible inter alia for the operations and conduct of the Saskatchewan Department of Justice;

(I)

The Defendant MINISTER OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF SASKATCHEWAN (hereafter the Defendant Minister of Social Services), is an officer of the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan, being responsible inter alia for the operations and conduct of the Saskatchewan Department of Social Services;

(j)

Hereafter the Defendants Miazga, Hanson, Quinney, and the Minister of Justice, are jointly referred to as "the prosecution";

(k)

Hereafter all actions taken by the prosecution with respect to any of the below mentioned charges against the Plaintiffs shall be referred to as "the proceedings";

3.

On or about 10 July 1991, all the Plaintiffs and Peter K., were charged in information #1774644 alleging sexual assaults against the children Michael, Kathleen, and Michelle.

4.

On or about 10 July 1991, Peter K., and the Plaintiff Pamela, were charged in information #1774644 alleging sexual assaults between 1 January 1981, and 31 December 1990, against the child Trevor H.

5.

On or about 27 November 199, the Plaintiff Pamela was charged in information #3054839 alleging sexual assaults against the children Trevor H., and Michael Jonathon K.

6.

On or about 15 July 1991, the Plaintiffs, Dale and Anita, were charged in information #1632285 alleging sexual assaults against the children Sade Lynn H., Shannavia Elizabeth H., and Stephan Wyatt H.

7.

On or about 15 July 199, the Plaintiffs Dennis, Diane, John, and Myrna, were charged in information #1774644 alleging sexual assaults against the children Sade H. (M.), and Shannavia H. (M.), and Stephan H. (M.).

8.

On or about August 1989, Peter K., was charged in information #1732988 alleging sexual assaults against the children Jennifer K., and Charlene K..

9.

On or about 2 December 1991, the crown commenced a preliminary hearing concerning all the above charges. The Defendants Miazga, and Hanson, acted for the prosecution, under the direction of the Defendant Quinney.

10.

On or about I January 1992, the Plaintiffs were committed to stand trial on the above counts in information #1774644.

11.

On or about 10 February 1993, all the above criminal charges which had not been previously stayed as against the plaintiffs were stayed by the Crown as against all the Plaintiffs.

12.

The Plaintiffs Sheldon and Sherry, were charged pursuant to the Young Offenders Act with sexual assaults of various children which charges were stayed by the prosecution between 2 December 1991, and 10 February 1993.

13

The Plaintiffs did not commit any of the offences alleged above.

14.

The Plaintiffs did not touch for a sexual purpose or otherwise deal with any of the children above named in an inappropriate sexual manner.

15.

The Plaintiffs did nothing with any of the children above named in an inappropriate or wrongful manner whatsoever.

16.

The Minister of Social Services removed all foster children of which any of the Plaintiffs had care prior to the date of the preliminary inquiry above referred.

17.

Margaret Graham-Woloshyn prepared an Assessment and Social History of the child Michael dated September 17, 1987.

18.

All the conclusions and facts in the above referred to Assessment of Margaret Graham-Woloshyn are true.

19.

Dr. Prat Reebye prepared a Psychiatric Examination of the child Michael dated October 6, 1987.

20.

All the conclusions and facts in the above referred to examination of Dr. Prat. Reebye are true.

21.

The Defendant Bunko-Ruys prepared case summaries of the children Michael, Katherine and Michelle, dated 4 December 1989, 19 March 1990, 26 November 1990, 26 April 1991 and 3 September 1991.

22.

The facts and conclusions stated in the case summaries of Bunko-Ruys dated 4 December 1989, and 19 March 1990, are true.

23.

Marilyn Thompson prepared transcripts and notes of conversations she had with the children Michael, Katherine, and Michelle in the fall of 1990.

24.

At all times material to this action Michael suffered from the following problems: constant fighting, refusing to obey, wandering off, behaving aggressively, wanting attention from adults, particularly women, being stubborn and angry in an attention getting manner, sexually abused by friend of birth family and;

25.

The child Michael was known to be a seriously disturbed child prior to 1987.

26.

At all times material to this action, the Department of Social Services recognized that care for the child Michael was extremely difficult to provide.

27.

The Minister of Social Services had originally placed the children Michael, Michelle and Kathleen, in the home of the Plaintiffs Dale and Anita, without adequately and properly revealing the history, problems, and difficulties, of those children.

28.

All the allegations of sexual assault made by the children above named which implicate the Plaintiffs are not true.

29.

All the above named children:

(a)

were vulnerable to manipulation by adults and other children;

(b)

readily adopted false explanations of their sexual behaviour;

(c)

readily gave false explanations for their sexual behaviour:

30.

The Plaintiffs say that all the Defendants or one or more of them encouraged the children above named or one or more of them to make up stories of sexual abuse, and to not tell the truth by providing to the children above named with;

(a)

examples of sexual abuse;

(b)

examples of ritual abuse;

(c)

anatomically correct dolls and emphasizing the sexual parts of these dolls;

(d)

frequent reviews of previous allegations against the Plaintiffs;

(e)

encouragement for making allegations against the Plaintiffs;

(f)

discouragement for not making allegations against the Plaintiffs;

and by acting in manners which were;

(g)

intimidating;

(h)

selectively reinforcing the responses;

(i)

rewarding selectively the responses;

(j)

coercive questioning, using the authority of the Defendant to create an atmosphere of pressure;

(k)

suggesting answers to questions;

(l)

utilizing leading questions, promises, threats of penalty, badgering, harassment, repetition, coercion, suggestions, improper restraint, selective reinforcement;

31.

All the Defendants or one or more of them succeeded in assisting the children to make up untrue allegations of sexual abuse.

32.

Except for very brief periods of time, the three children Michael, Kathleen and Michelle were kept together in the same foster home until early 1994.

33.

At all times relevant to this action frequent sexual intercourse and other sexual activity regularly occurred between the three children Michael, Kathleen, and Michelle.

34.

At all times relevant to this action efforts to prevent sexual intercourse occurring regularly between the three children Michael, Kathleen, and Michelle were unsuccessful.

35.

At all times relevant to this action the child Michael utilized physical force and threats of physical force to induce his sisters Kathleen, and Michelle, to participate in acts of sexual intercourse and other sexual activity.

36.

The three children Michael, Kathleen, and Michelle, were kept in the same foster home by the Defendants or one or more of them, in order to ensure that the stories of the three children Michael, Kathleen, and Michelle, remained consistent.

37.

The Defendants or one or more of them, knew that criticism of their actions for keeping the children Michael, Kathleen, and Michelle, in the same foster home was possible.

38.

The Defendants or one or more of them;

(a)

initiated or encouraged the initiation, or,

(b)

continued or encouraged the continuation; of the proceedings and the police investigation, which resulted in the said proceedings.

39.

The Defendants or one or more of them, took the action referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph for the following improper purposes;

(a)

with a primary purpose other than that of assisting the course of justice,

(b)

in order to deflect possible criticism that the children Michael, Kathleen, and Michelle, were being kept in the same foster home and that the above referred to sexual activity was taking place; and,

(c)

with the purpose of coercing or intimidating the Plaintiffs and Peter Black, into accepting responsibility for acts alleged without regard to the innocence or guilt of the Plaintiffs.

40.

The Defendants or one or more of them, wrongly coerced or intimidated Peter Black into entering an arrangement whereby;

(a)

he would take full responsibility for one or more of the acts alleged,

(b)

he would enter a plea of guilty to sexually assaulting one or more of the said children,

(c)

a sentence mutually agreed upon by counsel would be jointly submitted to the court,

(d)

all of the remaining charges against the Plaintiffs would be terminated.

41.

The Defendants or one or more of them;

(a)

had knowledge of the facts or some of them as stated above from paragraph 1 forward,

(b)

or in the alternative could with reasonable inquiry and due diligence had knowledge of all those facts.

42.

At all times material hereto, the Defendants or one or more of them, did not have an honest belief in the guilt of the Plaintiffs, based upon a full conviction and/or founded on reasonable grounds, and of the existence of a state of circumstances which, assuming them to he true, would reasonably lead any ordinarily prudent and cautious person, placed in the position of an accuser, to the conclusion that any of the Plaintiffs charged were probably guilty of the crime or crimes imputed.

43.

The Defendants or one or more of them, failed to disclose the existence of some or all of the above mentioned facts and things and other facts and things of which the Defendants were aware to the Plaintiffs;

44.

The facts and things that the Defendants or one or more of them, failed to disclose would have assisted a speedy conclusion of the charges favourable to the accused.

45.

All the proceedings were terminated in favour of each and every one of the Plaintiffs.

46.

By reason of the matters referred to herein, the Defendants or more than one of them, conspired one with the other to injure the Plaintiffs and collectively and individually intentionally caused harm to the Plaintiffs.

47.

The Plaintiffs say that by reason of the matters referred to herein, the Defendants or one or more of them, maliciously prosecuted the Plaintiffs.

48.

By reason of the matters referred to herein, the rights of the Plaintiffs to life, liberty and security of the person, pursuant to a. 11 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were breached.

49.

The Plaintiffs say that by reason of the matters referred to herein, the Defendants or one or more of them, negligently wronged the Plaintiffs.

50.

The Defendant City is vicariously responsible for the actions of the Defendant Dueck and the Defendant Maguire.

51.

The Defendant Minister of Justice is vicariously liable for the actions of the Defendants Miazga, Hanson, and Quinney.

52.

The Defendant Minister of Social Services is vicariously liable for the actions of the Defendant Bunko-Ruys.

53.

As a result of the conduct of the Defendants complained of herein, the Plaintiffs have suffered injury, particulars of which are inter alia as follows:

Emotional stress, anxiety, depression, mental anguish, humiliation, public scorn, loss of reputation, loss of self esteem, psychiatric illness, loss of employment, past loss of income, and future loss of income, loss of employment opportunities.

54.

As a result of the said injuries, the Plaintiffs required inter alia the following;

(a)

medical treatment, counseling, medication, medical aids, and hospitalization;

(b)

attendances for assessment and treatment by physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists and other personnel.

55.

As a result of the said conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs, have incurred special damages, the amount of which are yet to be fully ascertained, but which amount shall he proven at trial.

56.

The Plaintiffs plead and rely on the provisions of the Pre Judgment Interest Act, and claim interest on all general and special damages in accordance therewith.

57.

The said conduct of the Defendants or one or more of them, constituted the following:

(a)

premeditated and malicious prosecution;

(b)

abuse of power;

(c)

a high handed and callous disregard, denial of and diminution of the Plaintiffs' rights.

58.

The Plaintiffs say the said conduct of the Defendants was such that it merits the award of punitive and exemplary damages against any one or more of the Defendants in such amount as will;

(a)

express the disapproval of the court of such wanton misconduct; and

(b)

properly discourage and deter the Defendants from further such wanton misconduct;

(c)

properly consider each Defendants financial position and status and ability to pay the amount so awarded.

The Plaintiffs therefore claim:

(a)

General damages;

(b)

Special damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

(c)

Interest in accordance with the said Pre-Judgment Interest Act;

(d)

Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount exceeding $10,000,000.00 or in such amount as this Honourable Court deems just;

(e)

The costs of this action on a solicitor-client basis;

(f)

Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and as this Honourable Court may allow.

Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 31 day of January, 1994.

_____________________________

HOLGATE LAW OFFICE

Edward Holgate,

Solicitor for the Plaintiffs

This Statement of Claim was prepared by: Holgate Law Office

whose address for service is: 319 Ave. G North Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7L 122

Lawyer in charge of file: Edward Holgate

Telephone: (306) 384-6800 Telecopier: (306) 244-8054