|
Sterlings
settle | Michael
Cardamone | Abdulahi Mahamad
| Stacey Dodd | Carol
Bunko-Ruys | Saskatchewan government
intervenes to kill malice judgment | Derek
Bemister: another NFLD story | Albert
Royer, Timmons, Ontario |
Wanda Young
Child abuse hysteria
in Memorial University's School of Social Work Date
Red Flagged (W5 video) Illustrations are
grabbed from this video
CTV (Canada) W-FIVE Staff,
Apr. 9 2005
Wanda Young is a young woman
from the Newfoundland outport community of Spaniard's Bay. From
the age of 12, she wanted to dedicate herself to victims of sexual
abuse. It was her goal to become a social worker and help kids
who had suffered from abuse. "I just felt in my heart and
soul that I had something that I could do for these kids",
says Wanda, "I don't know, I just wanted to help them out
in any way I could."
In the early 1990s she enrolled
in Memorial University in St. John's. She immediately began taking
courses that would lead her to entrance into Memorial's School
of Social Work. But it wasn't easy going for Wanda. The competition
was fierce and her marks just bordered under the acceptance rate
of 65 average. She decided to ask then acting department head
Jane Dempster for advice on how to upgrade her marks and get
into the school of social work. "She told me that they didn't
think I had what it took to be a social worker. And if I wanted
to pursue a career in social work I would have to go elsewhere."
Reeling from this news she reluctantly gave up her dreams of
becoming a social worker.
What Wanda didn't know was
that Professor Dempster had been in touch with Professor Leslie
Bella and they suspected that Wanda might be sexually abusing
children in her care.
Wanda had written a 12-page
term paper about juvenile sex offenders. The last two pages contained
an appendix entitled "Case Study," a graphic and lurid
account written by an actual teenage sex offender who would molest
children in her care. Wanda had taken it word-for-word from a
textbook. She refers to the appendix in the body of her paper
but had forgotten to add a footnote. [The source was included
in the bibliography as well.]
Professor Leslie Bella is a
professor at the School of Social Work at Memorial University,
but was away on a research project in Labrador. Although Professor
Bella does not know Wanda and they have never corresponded, she
decided that the account was Wanda Young's own story, a confession
or "cry for help" and that Young might be a child sexual
abuser. Professor Bella writes to Wanda Young expressing concerns
about it Bella complains that it was handed in late and
it amounts to academic plagiarism because it was submitted in
two different courses but she does not ask Wanda anything
about the appendix.
Instead Professor Bella contacts
the province's Child Protection Services and suggests Wanda Young
be investigated as a possible child sexual abuser. Child Protection
Services says that without a specific child being suspected of
being abused, they cannot act. They also tell Bella that she
should discuss the matter with Wanda Young. But Bella does not.
Professor Bella takes her suspicions
to Professor Jane Dempster and asks her to access Young's application,
which is kept in a locked cabinet, and review it to see if it
lists the names of children Wanda Young has babysat. It does
not.
In May 1994 Professor Bella
goes to her department head, Professor William Rowe, when he
returned from holidays. Rowe also makes no attempt to talk to
Wanda Young to ask her about the appendix. Prof. Rowe does contact
the St. John's office of Child Protection Services and suggests
Wanda Young be investigated by Child Protection Services and
the RCMP. His letter is received by another Memorial Student
working part time in the Child Protection Services office. Rowe
sends Child Protection Services only the abuse account appendix,
not the rest of the assignment. Young's bibliography, which is
not sent to Child Protection Services, lists the book that was
the source of the abuse account.
From 1994 to September 1996
the Wanda Young file is transferred from person to person and
office to office with the province's Child Protection Services.
The suggestion that Wanda Young may be a sexual abuser of children
is communicated to between 10 and 19 social workers in different
communities.
It wasn't until September 1996
when social worker Bob Dixon was assigned the file that Wanda
was contacted. He asked her to come into his office in Manuels
immediately and to bring her boyfriend Roy Daley, whose two daughters
lived with them part time to accompany Wanda. This was Wanda's
first indication that she has been under investigation for two
years. "He asked me do I have any reason to believe that
Wanda was sexually abusing my children," says Roy.
The social worker began to
read from the appendix and at that point Wanda realized what
had happened. "I said I copied this word for word from this
book," recalls Wanda. "For the first second I was really
upset. But then I realized that it was something that I could
clear up so easily."
She rushed home and brought
the book back to Bob Dixon's office. Within 24 hours Child Protection
Services sent Wanda Young a letter clarifying that she was in
no way a child sexually offender.
In the days that follow, Wanda
tried to make a formal complaint against Memorial University
but was told she cannot because she is no longer a student there.
She sought apologies from Professor Bella and the School of Social
work but was rebuffed. Wanda Young then decided to sue Memorial
University.
Memorial University's Communication
Director Peter Morris says the university did just what they
are obligated to do in when they suspect child abuse. "all
the decisions in this indicate that the professors and the university
did do no wrong. What we did, was what we were legally and professionally
authorized to do."
Professor Bella concurs. "That's
what we thought might be the case, which is why I consulted with
my director in terms of what I should do about it, what should
be done about it."
While the case proceeded slowly,
Wanda worked in a series of low-paying casual social service
jobs. During a temporary job as a youth care worker at the Pleasantville
Remand Centre in St. John's, Wanda told her supervisor Andrew
Caddigan about what had happened with her and Memorial University.
Caddigan considered Wanda one of his best workers. "Wanda
was a great worker. Wanda definitely had a feel for people who
weren't doing as well as she was doing. Wanda's great,"
recalls Caddigan.
But Wanda couldn't get hired
for better jobs. She felt that something was holding her back,
but it wasn't until Andrew Caddigan came upon several workers
talking about Wanda Young in the corridors of the Confederation
Building that it all made sense. The workers were talking about
whom to hire as a youth care worker and the workers dismissed
Wanda because they had heard that she was red-flagged as a sexual
molester. "I was very angry", Wanda tearfully remembers.
"Once again, this has caused a major disruption in my life
I mean, it's still popping up."
In October 2003 Wanda Young's
case against Memorial University went to court. After a three-week
trial that made headlines in Newfoundland, the six-person jury
found Memorial University, Professor Leslie Bella and Professor
William Rowe negligent and awarded Wanda a cash settlement of
$880,000. "It was really overwhelming. Here I was fighting
this for nine years and finally I had won."
But unfortunately for Wanda
her nightmare was far from over. Memorial University appealed
the jury's decision and won. Now Wanda has to pay back amount
of money she had received from the settlement about $330,000
and may be on the hook to pay Memorial's legal costs. Wanda
doesn't know where she'll get the money to pay back the money
and she's taking her case to the Supreme Court of Canada. In
March 2005 her case was accepted by the Supreme Court and so
Wanda Young will be fighting once again to clear her name. Something
she feels must be done.
"I just feel that I've
got to. These people have got to be told they did wrong and I
hope we'll get the answer from the Supreme Court."
Memorial University
Top court to hear false
sex abuse case
Canadian Press, March 18,
2005
OTTAWA (CP) -- A Newfoundland
woman suing Memorial University for $800,000 for wrongly labelling
her a potential sexual abuser of children will get her day in
the country's top court.
The Supreme Court of Canada,
in a decision released without comment Thursday, agreed to review
the case.
As a student at Memorial in
1994, Wanda Young wrote a paper on sex abuse. She included a
passage -- taken from a class textbook and duly noted in her
bibliography -- that featured a first-person account written
by an anonymous sex abuser.
Her professor thought Young
might be describing herself and reported her to the provincial
child protection service.
No charges were ever laid,
but Young's name was eventually passed on to the RCMP and entered
in a database of suspected sex offenders.
She later learned she had been
red-flagged as a potential abuser.
She won a damage award of $839,400
from a civil jury in 2003, but the award was overturned the next
year in a split decision by the provincial appeal court. ©
The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2005
The bitter taste of vindication
By KIRK MAKIN, Globe and
Mail, November 2, 2004
When a Newfoundland jury awarded
Wanda Young $849,400 last year for having been wrongly labelled
a possible child abuser, it was vindication and compensation
rolled into one.
"I'll never forget that
moment as long as I live," Ms. Young said. "A jury
of my peers had sat for three weeks hearing all the evidence.
Justice had been totally served."
Until last month, that is,
when justice appeared to veer off the rails. In a head-scratching
ruling, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal effectively supported
Ms. Young's case, but cancelled the monetary award against Memorial
University. She was left with nothing but grief and mounting
legal bills.
"For the first few hours,
I was in total disbelief,"she said in an interview. "I
was totally devastated." And the university has applied
to have Ms. Young repay its legal costs both from the trial and
the appeal. That bill would run into the hundreds of thousands
of dollars.
Ms. Young, 33, also faces having
to repay $318,000 she has received so far from the award.
"The bizarre and unusual
events which led to her trial . . . concern matters of national
interest," Gillian Butler, Ms. Young's lawyer, said. "Perhaps
this brave young woman was destined to carry this case all the
way to the Supreme Court of Canada to have . . . her reputation
cleared not just locally, but nationally." Ms. Butler expects
to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court soon.
From the age of 7, Ms. Young
dreamed of working with abused children in rural Newfoundland.
She was on her way to achieving that goal when, in 1994, a professor
at Memorial University abruptly informed her she was a dud. "I
was totally demoralized," Ms. Young recalled. "I felt
that all my dreams had all gone out the window. . . . I went
out in my car and cried."
What she did not know at the
time was that quotes she had appended to a class essay had been
interpreted by concerned faculty as a cryptic cry for help from
a closet child abuser.
It would be two years before
she was confronted with the allegation, a period during which
communications flew back and forth between Memorial faculty,
police and child-welfare officials.
When she was finally asked
about the reference in the essay, she was dumbfounded. "I
just couldn't believe I had actually been accused of something
I'd stood so strongly against," said Ms. Young, who is married
with two stepdaughters.
She instantly identified the
addendum as a first-person account written by an abuser, which
she had culled from a British Columbia text. She was shattered
to learn that, over two years, investigators had gone so far
as to question mothers of children she had babysat.
"I still can't believe
they did all that," she said. "I just couldn't believe
that nobody had contacted me." Memorial University declined
to apologize, Ms. Butler said. Ms. Young sued for defamation
and negligence, severe anxiety, lost income, insomnia, paranoia
and depression.
In response, lawyers for Memorial
argued that Ms. Young was a mediocre student who had little chance
of making it as a social worker. They also said that faculty
were protected from liability by a law encouraging people to
report suspected child abuse.
The jury thought otherwise
and sided with Ms. Young.
The university appealed the
jury's ruling, arguing that the award had been unreasonable,
disproportionate and out of synch with the evidence.
When the province's Court of
Appeal threw it out, Ms. Butler was flabbergasted. Simply getting
a civil jury trial in Newfoundland is extremely rare, she said.
It is that much rarer for a civil jury award to be overturned.
But to have such an award overturned by an appeal court panel
split in three different directions is probably without precedent.
In her reasons for judgment,
Madam Justice B. Gale Welsh said the jury lacked proper grounds
to make an award. She also agreed the university and faculty
enjoyed immunity from legal action under the Child Welfare Act.
She concluded there should be no new trial.
Judge Welsh noted in passing
that the fiasco had been avoidable. "The file was transferred
from person to person, and office to office for more than two
years, with little apparent regard for confidentiality,"
she noted disapprovingly.
Mr. Justice Denis Robert held
the opposite view - wholeheartedly endorsing the jury's findings.
"The trial judge made no errors of law," he said. "The
jury's findings of negligence were supported by the evidence.
The award of general damages was not wholly 'out of proportion.'
The other awards were supported by the evidence." Because
he supported the verdict and award, he did not call for a new
trial.
Mr. Justice Malcolm Rowe occupied
a middle ground. He felt that the university did enjoy immunity
in respect to reporting possible abusers. At the same time, he
said a new jury ought to be assembled to consider whether the
university's subsequent actions in deterring Ms. Young from staying
in her program were negligent.
"In my view, the plaintiff
should not be denied her day in court, which she will if this
case cannot be heard," Judge Rowe concluded.
The upshot? Two of the three
judges felt that Ms. Young had a genuine case to be tried. Yet
she lost both her award as well as the possibility of a new jury
hearing her case.
The legal anomaly set Ms. Young
and Ms. Butler reeling. According to law, Ms. Butler said, the
bar is quite sensibly set extremely high when it comes to overturning
jury awards. Awards are impregnable unless they are "so
plainly unreasonable and unjust as to satisfy the court that
no jury reviewing the evidence as a whole and acting judicially
could have reached it.
"In light of this test,
Ms. Young was, naturally, extremely disappointed and has been
under enormous stress," she said. "My client started
her legal action in 1998 and . . . she put her complete faith
in the judicial system.
"It is hard to deal with
a situation where you have decisions that are as unusual as this."
After her university life was
upended, Ms. Young has worked in a succession of office jobs
and contract positions. She is currently on a short-term contract
in the client-services section of the provincial Labour and Employment
Ministry.
Thanks to
Adriaan Mak for providing the following:
Some old
and recent articles and a column about the Young case. There
is lots of irony here. Both the student and the professor were
child abuse activists. The 1994 paper was written at a time when
the case against 11 Christian Brothers from the Mt. Cashel Orphanage
had been charged and were convicted of scores of physical and
sexual assaults.
A number
of the accusations against some brothers were claimed to be false;
this was never fully revealed. see also:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/essays/bill_pope.html
and
http://www.ccjc.ca/resources/institutional.cfm
"There
were numerous incidents of false accusations made public by witnesses
who were beyond any challenge in the context of the commission.
Those falsely accused had no redress and no public forum in which
to refute the allegations." MICHAEL A. MAHER, CFC President
of the board Church Council on Justice and Corrections
Peter Morris
Damage control? But
we must first understand the damage. Does the university truly
believe it is just for Young to receive nothing?
Peter Morris sent this letter
which he has said the Globe and Mail has refused to print. Perhaps
they did not print it because it continues to beg the question.
The first thing that jumped out at me as I read about this case
is that a professor would betray a student by turning over a
paper written in one context for purposes entirely outside that
context. I don't care how many courts vindicate the university:
the professor was wrong. That to me is the simple issue. If students
cannot engage in frank and open discussions with their professors
without fear of reprisal, and if professors do not keep an open
mind, it certainly reflects upon the academy.
November 3, 2004
Editor:
Re: "The bitter case of
vindication" by Kirk Makin, The Globe and Mail, Tuesday,
Nov. 2, 2004
The case of Wanda Young in
relation to Memorial University is an unfortunate one. But that
situation was not caused by any action of Memorial University
or its professors. The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal
was very clear on that matter. The Newfoundland and Labrador
Association of Social Workers, in an independent review of this
issue, arrived at similar findings.
The university is not unsympathetic
to the situation in which Ms. Young finds herself, however it
has been established clearly that that circumstance is in no
way related to any inappropriate act by Memorial University or
its officials.
Your reporter and editors made
no effort to contact the university for its position in advance
of publishing this article and, as a consequence, the article
contains factual errors. For example, it is the university's
insurer taking action to recover its costs and not the university
as erroneously reported.
The professors involved in
this unfortunate circumstance exercised their best professional
judgment in reporting their suspicions to the appropriate authorities.
They did what they believed they were professionally and legally
bound to do. Once they reported their suspicions, that was the
end of the university's involvement. Both the Court of Appeal
decision and the review conducted by the professional association
recognize this.
The title of the story "The
bitter case of vindication" could just as easily apply to
Memorial University and the two social work professors who, despite
having done the right thing and despite having had to endure
two difficult trials and despite having been thoroughly vindicated,
are still subject to quasi-sanction by some media who
refuse to grasp the essence of this complex issue.
Sincerely,
- Peter S. Morris
- Associate Director of University
Relations
- Memorial University of Newfoundland
Memorial University to
appeal decision
Memorial University Today
News November 2, 2004
Memorial University has decided
to appeal the decision rendered in the recent provincial Supreme
Court case involving former student Wanda Young. Yesterday a
jury of six found in favour of Ms. Young in the civil suit. The
university disagrees with this decision and will, on the advice
of its legal counsel, exercise its right to launch an appeal.
CBC Newfoundland Sep 24 2003
Former MUN student claims
defamation
ST. JOHN'S - The Supreme Court
of Newfoundland and Labrador is hearing an unusual case claiming
defamation against Memorial University and one of its professors.
In 1994, the university warned
the province's child protection services that a student, Wanda
Young, could be abusing children.
Two years later, Young got
a phone call from a child protection worker, demanding that she
see him immediately. Young was suspected of sexually abusing
children. The suspicion was raised by Young's former professor,
Leslie Bella.
Young had written an assignment
for Bella about juvenile sex offenders. Attached was a first
person account from a young person detailing her sexual abuse
of children.
According to court documents,
Bella believed Young herself wrote the story as a desperate cry
for help.
The professor noted the case
study was not properly footnoted. Young testified that she copied
the story directly from a book by a well known author in the
field.
Young's lawyer says Bella and
others at Memorial misled child protection workers. They were
shown only one page of the 12-page paper.
Child welfare
not given all the facts
Elizabeth Crawford, a former
director of child welfare, has testified that if she had been
given a complete copy of the assignment, the matter would have
been dropped.
Crawford and the child protection
worker have apologized to Young.
While the abuse allegation
was cleared up, Young claims the incident put in motion a series
of events that affected her reputation and her ability to pursue
a career in social work.
But the defence maintains Bella
and Memorial were obligated to report their suspicions under
the Child Welfare Act. Leslie Bella will testify Wednesday.
Abuse fears justified
report: professor
CBC Newfoundland Sep 25
2003
ST. JOHN'S - A Memorial University
social work professor being sued for defamation by a former student
defended her actions in Supreme Court Thursday. Leslie Bella
says she had to act on her suspicions Wanda Young had sexually
abused children.
Bella says in 1994, there was
a heightened awareness of child sexual abuse in the province.
She referred to Mount Cashel orphanage, where she says people
in authority should have acted but didn't.
When Bella read a term paper
by Young, she informed child welfare the student could be abusing
children. A child protection worker wouldn't act on the concerns
because there was no child identified in the essay.
The worker advised Bella to
meet with Young, the same advice a senior colleague had given
her, but she ignored their advice.
The professor says, in the
atmosphere of the time, she chose to seek further advice from
her director. Searched student's file
Bella also attempted to find
names of children who might be in danger by checking Young's
university file, where she found none listed.
Gillian Butler, Young's lawyer,
suggested to Bella that checking the file was inappropriate.
Bella says because it was a question of a child possibly being
at risk, it was a reasonably unobtrusive step to take.
In her lawsuit, Young also
names the university and the former director of the school of
social work.
Defamation or duty?
By Chantelle Newhook, The
Express (St Johns, Newfounfland, Canada) October 30, 2004
Is negligent behaviour as damaging
as malicious behaviour? It certainly can be. Take, for example,
the situation faced by Wanda Young.
In 1994, when the 23-year-old
MUN [*] student submitted her final paper for a distance education
course, she set into motion a bizarre chain of events. Her paper
on juvenile sex offenders included a case study, attached as
an appendix. The case study was copied directly from a textbook,
but was not footnoted. It was, however, referenced in her paper
and listed in her bibliography.
The case study was a narrative
of a female, written in the first person, who had been abused
as a child and in turn abused children when she was older.
The professor to whom the paper
was submitted, Dr. Leslie Bella, reported to Child Protection
Services that she was concerned Young was in fact the author
of the case study, and that she may have been a child abuser.
Dr. Bella did not meet with
Young to discuss the content of the case study or her concerns.
For more than two years, the
complaint was transferred within Child Protection Services from
person to person and office to office. In the words of Court
of Appeal Justice Gail Welsh, "When action was finally taken,
the investigation required just one meeting and was completed
the following day." The problem is, that over the course
of the two years the complaint resided with Child Protection
Services, Young's reputation was under steady attack.
In 1998, Wanda Young launched
a lawsuit for defamation and negligence against Bella, as well
as the director of the School of Social Work, William Rowe, and
their employer, MUN.
A civil jury - and it's extremely
rare for a civil jury to decide both liability and compensation
for civil (non-criminal) matters - addressed eight questions
posed by trial judge Leo Barry. The lawyers representing Young,
the professors and the university had significant input as to
what the questions would be. The jury answered each of the eight
questions in favour of Young.
After hearing from 21 witnesses
during a three-week trial, the jury decided Young had indeed
been the victim of a negligence conduct that had far-reaching
effects on her life and her future. Not only that, it awarded
her a whopping $839,000.00 in damages.
Last week, our Court of Appeal
reversed that decision.
I disagree with its decision.
At the heart of the lawsuit
was the Child Welfare Act, which imposes upon people a duty to
report any information about suspected child abuse.
There is no doubt the purpose
of that duty to report - and prevent child abuse - is admirable.
The Act also, however, obligates
the person doing the reporting to "report all the information
in his or her possession." It goes on to say you can't sue
someone who makes a false report about you unless they made the
report "maliciously or without reasonable cause."
Doesn't that mean an individual
who either makes a malicious report or who reports without reasonable
cause may be sued? And isn't reporting without reasonable cause
the same thing as being negligent?
Some will argue that in order
to encourage people to report suspected child abuse, it's necessary
to protect them from lawsuits. True. But reporting without reasonable
cause is one of only two situations that would leave you open
to being sued.
When Bella reported her suspicions
about Wanda Young to Child Protection Services, she did not have
reasonable cause. Her concern about the origin of the case study
would likely have evaporated if she had taken the time to call
or meet with Young and simply asked where it came from. (True,
Young did not properly document the source of the case study
and, for that, could have been the subject of academic reprimand.
That, however, is a far cry from being a suspected child abuser.)
It could even be argued that
a professor at the School of Social Work might be held to a higher
standard than the average person. Who, after all, is better qualified
to understand the ramifications of making unsupported allegations
of child abuse?
Bella and William Rowe also
failed to provide Young's term paper to Child Protection Services
when they reported their suspicions. They chose instead to merely
submit the one-page case study. Doesn't that mean they failed
to submit all of the relevant information in their possession?
In fairness to Young, the case study should not have been presented
to Child Protection Services in a different context than the
one in which she presented it to her professor.
The acting director of the
School of Social Work (with whom Bella had met to express her
concern Young was a child abuser) said at trial she had not even
read the term paper and did not realize the case study was referenced
in it.
It is true, the professors
- and by extension the university - may not have acted with malice.
They did, however, act with a wanton disregard for their student.
As for Child Protection Services,
considering it took two years of dithering before the complaint
was investigated (and then dispensed with in a matter of hours),
it's a good thing there really weren't any children being abused.
Her lawyer calls Young "a
tragic victim of circumstance." I call her a tragic victim
of poor judgment.
Wanda Young update
By Nadya Bell, THE MUSE
Memorial University Student's Newspaper October 30, 2004
The court battle is not yet
over for former Memorial student Wanda Young.
The university appealed the
controversial jury verdict that awarded Young $839,400 in damages
for an investigation for sexually assaulting children, began
by her professors.
MUN's statement says "[The
jury award for the case was] excessive and wholly out of proportion
to the . . . evidence," and that the judge's work in handling
the case was flawed.
The settlement was based on
Young's projected earnings if she had continued her studies in
social work, even though she was never admitted to the school.
The defendants felt Young's projected earnings were unreasonable.
During the case, Justice Leo
Barry concluded that there was no defamation. However, he allowed
the jury to rule on other aspects. The university feels the entire
case should have been taken from the jury once the judge decided
there was no defamation.
In the appeal, Young is asking
for an increased settlement to cover interest from the previous
verdict, as well as her legal fees.
Term paper confusion
sparks child abuse inquiry and $839,00 damages
Community Action (Newfoundland),
Nov 17, 2003
ST. JOHN'S -- An improperly
footnoted term paper by a social work student and hasty action
by Memorial University of Newfoundland professors caused a serious
child abuse investigation. The result is an $839,400 judgement
against the university. Both sides are appealing the decision.
Ten years ago Wanda Young was
a third-year student at the university who, in the final paper
for her social work course, appended a first-person account about
juvenile sex offenders. The appended copy was not properly foot-noted
leading her professor, Leslie Bella, to believe that the first
hand account was a "cry for help" rather than reference
material.
Bella, along with the then
director of the school's social work department, ignored advice
given by child protection workers and an administrator in her
department to meet with Young to discuss her suspicions directly.
Instead, a report was filed with authorities causing Young's
applications for work in the field to be red-tagged until in
1996 she was contacted by a case worker. The two and a half year
delay between Young submitting her final paper for a school project
to talking to the case worker stemmed from a series of delays
at the child welfare department.
The problem was quickly resolved
once Young became aware that she was the subject of an investigation
by showing the caseworker the reference book from which she had
taken the appended account.
However, the rumors about Wanda
Young lasted until October of this year, a six-person Newfoundland
Supreme Court jury found that the university and its professors
were negligent in making the report of suspected child abuse.
They also found them to have
breached "the duty of care" owed to students when they
report. The breach resulted in her "pain, suffering, loss
of reputation and loss of enjoyment of life."
The award is based on Young's
projected earnings if she had continued in social work even though
she was never admitted to the school of social work.
In its appeal MUN claims that
the judge erred by allowing the jury to rule on other aspects
of the case after he concluded that there had been no defamation.
Young is also appealing her award asking for an increased settlement
to cover interest from the previous verdict and her legal costs.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Community
Action Publishers COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
