R. (M.L.) V. DUECK

FILE NO: 2381/01

IN THE COURT OF QUEENS BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON

BETWEEN: MICHAEL LONDON ROSS PETER KLASSEN Sr.

PLAINTIFFS

-and-

BRIAN GEORGE DUECK, CAROL BUNKO ­ RUYS, DIANE ENS, PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN, LIZ NEWTON, ANITA GROSS, DARYL LABACH, CAROL MIDDLETON, JANET MATKOWSKI, WILF TUCKER, MATHEW MIAZGA, SONIA HANSON, STAFF SERGENT JOHNSON JAY WATSON (SOLICITOR), PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN, RICHARD QUINNEY, DR. JOEL YELLAND, SASKATOON BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, SHEILA GAGNE, MARYLYN THOMPSON, LYLE THOMPSON, RON SHINDELL, MARV HANSON, JIM WALKER, (UNKNOWN EMPLOYED POLICE OFFICER# 1), HITCHLINGS, GREG WALEN

DEFENDANTS

This lawsuit was prepared by Michael London Ross & Peter Klassen Sr. Whose address for service is: ********* 88888, Saskatchewan Phone: (306) *******

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.

This statement of Claim is issued at the above Judicial Centre on November 26th/2001

___________________________ (Deputy) Local Registrar

CLAIM 1.

At all material times:

(a) The Plaintiff MICHAEL LONDON ROSS. (hereafter the plaintiff MICHAEL), resided in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; (b) The Plaintiff Peter Klassen (hereafter the plaintiff Peter) resided in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan;

2. At all material times:

The defendant Greg Walen (hereafter the defendant Walen), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, was a barrister and Solicitor entitled to practice law in Saskatchewan, and acted as solicitor for the plaintiff Michael, and represented the minister of social services for Saskatchewan, the department of social services for Saskatchewan, the defendant Dueck,

3. The Defendant BRIAN DUECK (hereafter the Defendant Dueck), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was employed as a police officer by the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Saskatoon, and was responsible for the investigation of various allegations of sexual assault made by the plaintiff Michael, and interviewed the plaintiff Michael, and talked to the plaintiff Michael on numerous occasions and was thoroughly familiar with the case;

4 The Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys (hereafter the Defendant Bunko-Ruys), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and contracted with the Defendant Province of Saskatchewan, to perform counseling services and other services in relation to the plaintiff Michael Ross, and counseled the plaintiff Michael Ross, and prepared a number of reports about the plaintiff Michael Ross for the Defendant Province of Saskatchewan;

5. The Defendant Diane Ens (hereafter the defendant Diane), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and in relation to the matters pleaded herein was a Social worker employed by the Minister of Social Services;

6. The Defendant Liz Newton (hereafter the defendant Liz), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and in relation to the matters pleaded herein was a Social worker employed by the Minister of Social Services;

7. The Defendant Anita Gross (hereafter the defendant Anita), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and in relation to the matters pleaded herein was a Social worker employed by the Minister of Social Services;

8. The Defendant Carol Middleton (hereafter the defendant Anita), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and in relation to the matters pleaded herein was a Social worker employed by the Minister of Social Services;

9. The Defendant Janet Matkowski (hereafter the defendant Janet), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and in relation to the matters pleaded herein was a Social worker employed by the Minister of Social Services;

10. The defendant Mathew Miazga (hereafter the defendant Mathew), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was employed as a Saskatoon prosecutor;

11. The Defendant Wilfred K. Tucker, (hereafter the Defendant Tucker) resided in or near the City of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and was employed as senior Crown Prosecutor in 1991 by the Minister of Justice for Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon;

12 The Defendant Daryl Labach, (hereafter the defendant Labach), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was the (Solicitor) for the plaintiff Peter Klassen in 1991;

13. The defendant Richard Quinney (hereafter the defendant Quinney) resided in or near Regina, Saskatchewan;

14. The defendant Dr. Joel Yelland (hereafter the defendant Yelland), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and in relation to the matters pleaded herein was the doctor who examined the plaintiff Michael London Ross;

15. The defendant Sheila Gagne (hereafter the defendant Sheila), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and in relation to the matters pleaded herein was a Social worker employed by the Minister of Social Services;

16. The defendant Marilyn Thompson (hereafter the defendant Marilyn), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was employed by the Department of Social Services as a special needs foster home;

17. The defendant Lyle Thompson (hereafter the defendant Lyle), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was employed by the Department of Social Services as a special needs foster home;

18. The defendant Sonia Hanson (hereafter the defendant Sonia), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was employed by the Department of Justice as prosecutor;

19. The defendant Jay Watson (hereafter the defendant Jay), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was the (Solicitor) for the plaintiff Peter Klassen;

20. The defendant Ron Shindell (hereafter the defendant Shindell), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was employed by the City of Saskatoon Police department as a police officer;

21 The defendant Jim Walker (hereafter the defendant Walker), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was employed by the City of Saskatoon, Police department as a police officer;

22. The defendant Marv Hanson (hereafter the defendant Hanson), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was employed by the City of Saskatoon police, and was a police officer;

23. The defendant Unknown Police Officer (hereafter the defendant Unknown), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was employed by the City of Saskatoon Police as a police officer;

24. The defendant Hitchlings (hereafter the defendant Hitchlings), resided in or near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and was employed by the City of Saskatoon City police as a police officer;

25. The Defendant the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Saskatoon was the statutory board empowered to administer Police Services in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and the employer of the Defendants, Brian Dueck and Marv Hanson, Hitchlings, Ron Shindell, and unknown police employee #1, and owed a duty of care to the plaintiff Michael;

26. The Defendant Province of Saskatchewan (or in the alternative the Minister of Social Services for the Province of Saskatchewan) had apprehended the plaintiff Michael pursuant to the provisions of The Child and Family Services Act, (The Act), and had contracted with the Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys to perform Counseling services and other services in relation to the Plaintiffs and Michael Ross, and was the employer of Sheila Gagne, Liz Newton, Diane Ens, Carol Middleton, Janet Matkowski, Anita Gross, Marilyn Thompson, Lyle Thompson, and owed a duty of care to the plaintiff Michael

THE ALLEGATIONS;

27. That the plaintiff Michael was allowed by the defendant's or one or more of them to rape and sodomize his sisters between May 29/90 and Jan/94;

28. At all times material to this action the plaintiff 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;

29. At all times material to this action the plaintiff Michael was known to be a seriously disturbed child prior to 1987.

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

31. At all times material to this action the plaintiff Michael was in the care of Social Services and was known as a ward of the Province.

32. At all times Material to this action the plaintiff Michael remained in the home of Marilyn and Lyle Thompson, of Warman, Saskatchewan, and was there as a foster child with his two twin sisters Michelle Mimi Ross, and Kathleen Jessica Ross.

33. The plaintiff Michael's acting therapist was Carol Bunko­Ruys who was contracted through the Minister of Social Services to look after his psychological needs.

34. At all times material to this action the plaintiff Peter was one of the sixteen who stood charged with four counts of sexual assault in what is now referred to as the "Foster Parent Case";

35. At all times material to this action the plaintiff Peter served four years of a four year sentence handed down to the plaintiff after entering a plea of guilty on or about February 10th/1993;

36. At all times material to this action the Plaintiff Peter maintained his innocence to his council acting for him at the time, and at all times material to this action the plaintiff Peter maintained his innocence while incarcerated;

37. At all times material to this action all the allegations that were once leveled against the plaintiff Peter by the three Ross children were not true;

38. At all times material to this action the defendants or one or more of them knew that the plaintiff Michael was seriously disturbed, and failed to address this concern, therefore causing the plaintiff Michael to sexually abuse his twin sisters on a regular basis.

39. At all times material to this action the defendants or one or more of them knew that the plaintiff Michael would sexually abuse young children if given the opportunity, but refused to stop the plaintiff Michael;

40. At all times material to this action the defendant Mathew Miazga, Brian Dueck, and Carol Bunko-Ruys knew that the plaintiff Michael gave incredible testimony but failed to inform the courts of this;

41. At all times material to this action the defendants or one or more of them entered into a criminal conspiracy, one with another, to cover up the facts of the case by deliberately misleading the public;

42. At all times material to this action the Defendant Staff Sergeant Johnson was vicariously responsible for the actions of the defendant Dueck, and that at all times material to this action was in control of the file of the plaintiff Peter Klassen;

43. The plaintiffs say, and the fact is, that the defendant Mathew Miazga on or about February 10th/1993, falsely and maliciously, without justifiable cause or reason, spoke and published to and in the presence of the Saskatoon media, the following words:

"We felt that the children were too traumatized to continue to give testimony, and that it was in the best interest of the children that we stay the charges on the other accused".

44. By the aforesaid words spoken and published and referred to in paragraph 12 above, the defendant Mathew Miazga, was understood to mean that the plaintiff Peter Klassen had committed the criminal code offence of sexual assault. The words used were untrue and calculated to disparage the plaintiff Peter Klassen in the minds of right thinking persons generally, and constituted defamatory statements impugning the honour, integrity, and morality of the plaintiff Peter Klassen;

45. That the defendant Brian Dueck, Mathew Miazga, Sonia Hanson, and some or all of the others deliberately withheld vital relevant documents from the court, therefore keeping the plaintiff Peter Klassen from full answer and defence;

46. NEW EVIDENCE obtained within the last year, conclusively shows that all of the Defendants, or more than one, did not have an honest belief in the guilt of the Plaintiff Peter Klassen, yet failed to address this;

47. That the defendant's or one or more of them, in particular Mathew Miazga, Sonia Hanson, and Richard Quinney, Carol Bunko-Ruys procured the plaintiff Michael to commit perjury;

48. That the defendant's or one or more of them deliberately kept from the plaintiff Peter Klassen information that would have resulted in a probable release from prison, and that the defendant's conspired one with another to keep information from the courts, and public;

49. The Defendants or one or more of them, knew that criticism of their actions for keeping information that would have conclusively shown that the plaintiff Peter Klassen did not commit the crimes in which they alleged, was possible;

50. The defendant's or one or more of them knew that the plaintiff Michael was vulnerable to manipulation by adults and other children, and that;

(a) the plaintiff Michael readily adopted false explanations of his sexual behaviour;

(b) readily gave false explanations for his sexual behaviour:

51. That the defendant's or one or more of them feared that the plaintiff Michael was likely to recant his original testimony against Peter Klassen, and knew that such a recantation would expose them to ridicule, and open the doors to possible criminal charges;

52. That the defendants Carol Bunko-Ruys, Liz Newton, Diane Ens, Anita Gross, Carol Middleton, Janet Matkowski, Sheila Gagne, Mathew Miazga, Sonia Hanson, Brian Dueck, and Marilyn and Lyle Thompson deliberately led the children to believe that they had been sexually abused by the plaintiff Peter Klassen, by rewarding them with continued outings, praise and affection, and that these defendants had no reasonable and probable grounds to suggest that the plaintiff Peter Klassen ever touched the children;

53. That the defendant's or one or more of them entered into a conspiracy, one with the other to keep the plaintiff Peter Klassen in prison;

54. That the defendant's or one or more of them allowed or helped the plaintiff Michael to carry out sexual assaults on the two children Michelle Mimi Ross, and Kathleen Jessica Ross for a period of forty three months, and therefore failed to provide adequate safety for the twin girls;

55. That the defendant's Miazga, Bunko-Ruys, Brian Dueck, Marilyn, Lyle Thompson, and some or all of the others allowed Michael to sexually abuse his twin sisters with complete immunity from prosecution for a period of at least forty three months with the intention to keep the three children together to keep their fabricated stories together;

56. That the defendant's or one or more of them knew that the plaintiff Michael was of the age to be charged as a young offender but failed to address this, and that in the alternative transferred the plaintiff Michael to Ranch-ero where he was eventually admitted as a sex offender;

57. The defendants or one or more owed a duty of care to the plaintiff Michael to prevent the plaintiff from being placed in a position where he suffered or was likely to suffer physical harm, suffered or was likely to suffer a serious impairment of mental or emotional functioning, and was likely to be exposed to harmful interaction for a sexual purpose;

58. The defendants or one or more of them place the plaintiff Michael, or in the alternative assisted in placing, or in the further alternative acquiesced in placing the plaintiff in a situation where he, suffered or was likely to suffer physical harm, suffered or was likely to suffer a serious impairment of mental or emotional functioning, and was or was likely to be exposed to harmful interaction for a sexual purpose;

59. That the plaintiff Peter Klassen says that the defendant Mathew Miazga entered into a conspiracy with the defendant Jay Watson, Daryl Labach, and with the assistance and full knowledge of Wilfred Tucker to coerce the plaintiff Peter Klassen to enter a guilty plea knowing full well that the plaintiff Peter Klassen could not have committed the offence of sexual assault against the three Ross children;

60. That the defendant Jay Watson entered a guilty plea on behalf of the plaintiff Peter Klassen knowing that the plaintiff Peter Klassen was maintaining his innocence, and that the defendant Jay Watson entered this plea after attending a seminar in where he now believed it was ethical to do so;

61. That the plaintiff Michael says that the defendant Mathew Miazga deliberately misled the plaintiff Michael into believing that he would be testifying against his parents when in fact the defendant Miazga knew that the only court case pending was that of Richard Klassen defamatory libel trial. And that the defendant Miazga, Sonia Hanson, Diane Ens, Marilyn Thompson, and Carol Bunko-Ruys knew that the plaintiff Michael was subpoenaed to give testimony, and deliberately kept this information from the plaintiff Michael;

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

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

64. The Defendant Bunko-Ruys prepared case summaries of the children Michael, Kathleen and Michelle, dated 4 December 1989, 19 March 1990, 26 November 1990, 26 April 1991 and 3 September 1991, and that these reports were made to further the investigation of Brian George Dueck;

65. That the facts and conclusions stated in the case summaries of Bunko-Ruys are original and true;

66. 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;

67. 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;

68. 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;

69. 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;

70. 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 Klassen, into accepting responsibility for acts alleged without regard to the innocence or guilt of the Plaintiffs

71. The Defendants or one or more of them, wrongly coerced or intimidated the plaintiff Peter Klassen into entering an arrangement whereby;

(c) he would take full responsibility for one or more of the acts alleged, (d) he would enter a plea of guilty to sexually assaulting one or more of the said children, (e) a sentence mutually agreed upon by counsel would be jointly submitted to the court, (f) all of the remaining charges against the Plaintiffs would be terminated

72. 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;

73. At all times material hereto, the Defendants or one or more of them, did not have an honest belief in the guilt of the Plaintiff Peter Klassen, 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 the Plaintiff Peter Klassen charged was probably guilty of the crime or crimes imputed

74. 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;

75. The facts and things that the Defendants or one or more of them, failed to disclose would have assisted in a speedy conclusion of the charges favorable to the plaintiff Peter Klassen;

76. 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 Peter and Michael and collectively and individually intentionally caused harm to the Plaintiffs;

77. The Plaintiff Peter Klassen says that by reason of the matters referred to herein, the Defendants or one or more of them, maliciously prosecuted the Plaintiff Peter Klassen;

78. The Plaintiff Michael Ross says that by reason of the matters referred to herein, the defendant's or one or more of them ruined the reputation of the plaintiff Michael by defaming him, and by deliberately trying to convince others that he was responsible for the sexual attacks on his sisters all the while knowing that they were the ones that were responsible;

79. The plaintiff Michael Ross says that by reason of the matters referred to herein, the defendant's or one or more of them failed to provide adequate care for the plaintiff Michael;

80. The plaintiff Michael Ross says that by reason of the matters referred to herein, the defendant's or one or more of them deliberately led the plaintiff Michael to make up stories that were not true with the intent to deceive the court;

81. The defendant Jay Watson, Mathew Miazga or one or more of the defendant's conspired one with another to convince Peter Klassen that he should plead guilty to save his family while knowing that no right minded person could have believed he was guilty;

82. The plaintiff Michael Ross says that by reason of the matters referred to herein, the defendants Dr. Joel Yelland, Lyle Thompson or one or more of them surgically removed his foreskin without the consent of the plaintiff;

83. The plaintiff Michael says that by reason of the matters referred to herein, the defendant Diane Ens defamed the plaintiff Michael in the following ways;

i. That the defendant Diane Ens told the plaintiff Michael's sister Kathy that the plaintiff Michael was "gay, and that he was dying of aids"; ii. That the defendant Diane Ens told the plaintiff Michael's sister Kathy that the plaintiff Michael did not wish to see her, and that the plaintiff Michael was no where to be found;

84. 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;

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

86. The Defendant Minister of Social Services for Saskatchewan is vicariously liable for the actions of the Defendant Bunko-Ruys, Liz Newton, Diane Ens, Anita Gross, Carol Middleton, Janet Matkowski, Sheila Gagne;

87. 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

88. 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;

89. 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

90. 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;

91. 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; 92. 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 $2,000,000.00 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 26 day of November 2001.

_________signed___________ ______signed_________

Plaintiff: Peter Klassen Plaintiff Michael London Ross

Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this ___26th_____ day of November 2001.

Search Star Chamber Proceedings

Search This Site and all related sites