|
Q.B. No. 504 of 2001
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH
JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON
BETWEEN:
KATHLEEN JESSICA ROSS and MICHELL MIMI ROSS
PLAINTIFFS
AND:
GREGORY WALEN, BRIAN DUECK, CAROL BUNKO-RUYS,
BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF SASKATOON,
PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN,
UNKNOWN POLICE EMPLOYEE #1, UNKNOWN POLICE EMPLOYEE
#2, UNKNOWN SOCIAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE #3,
UNKNOWN SOCIAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE #4.
DEFENDANTS
Claim
1. The Plaintiff Kathleen Jessica Ross resides in Vernon, British Columbia.
2. The Plaintiff Michell Mimi Ross, resides In Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
3. Both Plaintiffs were born in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on, March 4, 1982.
4. At all material times the Defendant Gregory Walen,
a. resided in or near Saskatoon, and
b. was a Barrister and Solicitor entitled to practice law in Saskatchewan, and
c. acted as solicitor for the Plaintiffs.
5. At all material times the Defendant Brian Dueck,
a. resided in or near Saskatoon, and
b. was employed as a police officer by the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Saskatoon, and
c. was responsible for the investigation of various allegations of sexual assault made by the Plaintiffs, and
d. interviewed the Plaintiffs, and talked with the Plaintiffs on numerous occasions and was thoroughly familiar with the case.
6. At all material times, the Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys,
a. resided in or near Saskatoon, and
b. contracted with the Defendant Province of Saskatchewan, to perform counseling services and other services in relation to the Plaintiffs and Michael Ross, and
c. counseled the Plaintiffs and Michael Ross, and prepared a number of reports about the Plaintiffs and Michael Ross for the Defendant Province of Saskatchewan.
7. At all material times, the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Saskatoon was,
a. the statutory board empowered to administer Police Services in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and
b. the employer of the Defendants, Brian Dueck and Unknown Police Employee #1 and Unknown Police Employee #2, and
c. owed a duty of care to the Plaintiffs.
8. At all material times, the Defendant Province of Saskatchewan (or in the alternative the Minister of Social Services for the Province of Saskatchewan),
a. apprehended the Plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of The Child and FamilyServices Act, (The Act), and
b. was the legal guardian of the Plaintiffs, and
c. had contracted with the Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys to perform counseling services and other services in relation to the Plaintiffs and Michael Ross, and
d. was the employer of unknown employees Unknown Social Services Employee #3 and the defendant Unknown Employee #4,
e. owed a duty of care to the Plaintiffs.
9. Michael Ross is the brother of the Plaintiffs and his date of birth is October 18, 1979.
10. In or about 1990 the Plaintiffs and Michael Ross made numerous allegations about being sexually assaulted on many different occasions by many different persons.
11. Many of the allegations against many of the individuals implicated were completely untrue.
12. In this Statement of Claim, where the Plaintiffs plead "the Defendants" they refer to all the Defendants or one or more of the Defendants.
13. At all times while in the care of the Defendant Province of Saskatchewan, Michael Ross was an extremely disturbed, anti-social and violent child.
14. The Defendants knew of the facts pleaded in the immediately foregoing paragraph.
15. The Plaintiffs and Michael Ross were vulnerable to manipulation by adults and other children and readily adopted and gave false explanations of their sexual behaviour.
16. The Defendants knew of the facts pleaded in the immediately foregoing paragraph.
17. None of the Defendants provided adequate and proper disclosure to any, or one or more of the foster parents, of the background and problems of the Plaintiffs and Michael Ross.
18. The Defendants owed a duty of care to each of the Plaintiffs to prevent each of the Plaintiffs being placed in a position where she;
a. suffered or was likely to suffer physical harm,
b. suffered or was likely to suffer a serious impairment of mental or emotional functioning,
c. was or was likely to be exposed to harmful interaction for a sexual purpose.
19. The Defendants placed, or in the alternative assisted in placing, or in the further alternative acquiesced in placing, each of the Plaintiffs where she;
a. suffered or was likely to suffer physical harm,
b. suffered or was likely to suffer a serious impairment of mental or emotional functioning,
c. was or was likely to be exposed to harmful interaction for a sexual purpose.
20. Particulars of the immediately preceding paragraph are as follows;
a. Each of the Plaintiffs had been repeatedly sexually assaulted by Michael Ross between 1990 and 1996.
b. The Defendants knew that Michael Ross was sexually assaulting each of the Plaintiffs.
c. The Plaintiffs were placed and returned on several different occasions to the same foster homes as Michael Ross.
d. No efforts or in the alternative Insufficient efforts, were made to prevent Michael Ross from sexually assaulting the Plaintiffs.
e. The Defendants encouraged the Plaintiffs in fabricating, and continuing in, untrue numerous allegations about being sexually assaulted on many different occasions by many different persons.
21. The Defendant Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Saskatoon, in relation to the Defendants Brian Dueck, Unknown Police Employee #1 and Unknown Police Employee #2,
a. was responsible to supervise the actions of these individuals as they related to their employment by the Defendant Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Saskatoon and negligently failed to properly supervise the actions of these individuals, or in the alternative,
b. was vicariously responsible for the actions of these individuals.
22. The Defendant the Province of Saskatchewan in relation to the Defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys and the Defendants Unknown Social Services Employee #3 and Unknown Social Services Employee #4,
a. was responsible to supervise these Individuals actions as they related to their contract with or employment by the Province of Saskatchewan and negligently failed to properly supervise the actions of these individuals, or in the alternative,
b. was vicariously responsible for the actions of these individuals.
23. As a result of the conduct of one or more of the Defendants the Plaintiffs have suffered serious and ongoing injuries particulars of which are as follows; sexual assault, physical assault, abuse, threats and intimidation, emotional stress, anxiety, depression, mental anguish, a sense of confusion, a sense of immoral uncertainty, a thoroughly immoral environment, a continued need for counseling, physical distress, and psychological distress.
24. The Plaintiffs say that,
a. s.11 and s.81(1) of The Act provide for statutory duty of care which was breached by the Defendants.
b. in the alternative, the Defendants were in breach of the standard of care and their duty toward the Plaintiffs pursuant to common law.
25. The Defendants took some or all of the above actions for illegal, wrongful and improper purposes.
26. The Defendants behaved deliberately in doing the above actions, or in the alternative the Defendants acted negligently in doing the above actions.
27. The Plaintiffs claim punitive damage on the basis that the conduct of the Defendants was deliberate.
28. The Plaintiffs claim punitive damages, on the basis that the conduct of the Defendants is malicious, oppressive, high-handed, egregious and offends decency.Each of the plaintiffs therefore claims the following relief from each of the defendants:
a. General Damages in excess of $10,000.00,
b. Aggravated damages,
c. Exemplary damages,
d. Punitive damages,
e. Special damages including compensation for out of pocket and other expenses in such amounts as shall be proven at trial,
f. Interest pursuant to the Pre-Judgment Interest Act,
g. The costs of and incidental to this action on a solicitor-client basis,
h. Such other and further relief as may hereafter be sought and as this Honourable Court may allow.
DATED at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this March 2, 2001.
Borden Holgate Law Office
Per:_______________________
Edward Holgate
Solicitors for the Plaintiffs
This document was delivered by BORDEN HOLGATE LAW OFFICE,
702-601 Spadina Cr. E., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7K 3G8
Whose address for service is as above.
Lawyer in charge of File: Edward Holgate.
Telephone: (306) 652-7125
|
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
