Sexual Abuse Claims Blog
Published on:

Ghomeshi sexual abuse claims come to court today

Jian Ghomeshi’s criminal trial starts today. He is charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking. Ghomesi has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges.

I found it interesting that CBC news has reported Ghomeshi was facing charges relating to assaults on other women but the charges were withdrawn because the Crown determined there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

This raises a question that I am asked frequently as a sexual abuse lawyer: “How do I prove I was abused?” In most cases of sexual abuse there are no witnesses to the assaults. The most important evidence is typically the victim’s own testimony. The Judge (or Jury) hearing the case then must weigh the witnesses credibility and reliability to determine whether they believe sexual abuse happened.

The CBC reports have pointed out that, in criminal matters, a witness has a right to remain silent. Ghomeshi has no obligation to testify in his own defence. It is quite possible that Ghomeshi’s lawyers may not call him to testify if they do not believe that the Crown Attorney has proven the criminal charges “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

This raises the interesting distinction in the difference in the burden of proof ion criminal charges versus civil compensation claims. I wrote about this just a couple of months ago in my previous article: What is the Burden of Proof in Sexual Abuse Claims?

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Anyone that has watched television or movies has heard the expression “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. That is the level of proof that is required in order to convict someone of a criminal offence. In other words, before a Judge or Jury can convict an accused in a criminal matter they must be almost 100% certain. Needless to say, that is a high burden to overcome which most of us would likely consider to be appropriate given being convicted of a criminal offence can lead to being imprisoned.

Proof on the Balance of Probabilities

On the other hand, the burden of proof required in civil cases like abuse compensation claims is very different.

In a civil law suit the plaintiff (the victim of the sexual assault) is required to prove their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, is it more likely than not that what the victim is saying is true.

Put another way, in order to successfully prove a sexual abuse claim the victim only needs to provide enough proof to convince the judge or jury that it is slightly more than 50% likely that what the victim says is true.

Ghomeshi Accusers can still achieve Justice

So what about the criminal charges that the Crown has refused to proceed with? Do those women have any options?

While they may not be able to pursue a criminal prosecution they still have the option of pursuing a civil claim against Ghomeshi. Given the much lower threshold of proof required in civil abuse compensation claims it is quite possible that claims that do not have a “reasonable chance of success” in a criminal court may very well be successful in a civil suit.

The O.J. example

The best example I can give people about the differences in the levels of proof between criminal cases and civil cases is the O.J. Simpson murder case. Simpson was criminally charged with murdering his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Everyone knows he was found not guilty because the prosecutors were not able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that O.J. had murdered Nicole and Ron. But when the families sued O.J. in civil court the jury ordered Simpson to pay the families $25 millions dollars in punitive damages because the plaintiffs were able to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that O.J. had murdered Nicole and Ron.

Published on:

School for the Deaf Students make sexual abuse claims

Recently former residents of the Nova Scotia School for the Deaf have come forward with allegations about childhood sexual abuse. I have been representing survivors of childhood sexual abuse for almost 25 years. In most cases the allegations that give rise to the claims are decades old. So the most common question that I get asked about by survivors is: “How do I prove that I was abused?”

What is “The Burden of Proof”?

In order to answer this question you have to understand a legal term called the “burden of proof”. The burden of proof is the level of proof or evidence that you need to provide to the court in order to satisfy the court that your allegations are true.

The level (or burden) of proof required for sexual abuse claims is different depending on whether you want to pursue criminal charges or a civil sexual abuse compensation claim.

Burden of Proof in Criminal Charges

Sometime survivors want to pursue criminal charges against their abuser. The criminal process is designed to punish abusers for their misconduct. Because someone convicted of a criminal offence can be imprisoned the courts want to ensure that the allegations are almost certainly true.

Therefore, the level of proof required to establish a criminal charge is higher than the level of proof required in civil cases.

In any type of criminal case the crown prosecutor must provide evidence to prove that the allegations are true “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In other words, the crown prosecutor, who bring forward the charges on behalf of the victim, must lead enough evidence to establish almost to a degree of certainty that the victims allegations are true. It is not necessary for the judge to be certain. However, if the Judge (or Jury) has any “reasonable doubt” about the accuracy or truth of the allegations then the accused must be acquitted (found not guilty).

Burden of Proof in Sexual Abuse Compensation Claims

On the other hand, the burden of proof in abuse compensation claims is very different. When a survivor sues their abuser (or the institution that employed the abuser) the burden of proof required is only proof “on the balance of probabilities”.

Using the example of certainty, if you have to be almost 100% certain to convict someone of a criminal offence in order to win a civil suit you only have to be 51% certain.

Put another way, if you look at all of the evidence on both sides of the case and place them on a scale, as long as the evidence for the victim tips the scales even slightly in favour of the victim then the sexual abuse survivor has met the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

I have prepared an educational video to explain this concept in more detail.

What Type of Evidence can be used?

It is very rare in cases of historic sexual abuse for there to be witnesses of the abuse. Similarly, most sexual abusers don’t keep a record of their abuse so it is rare (although not unheard of) to find photographs or letters or other documents proving that the abuse took place.

Therefore, in most cases, the only evidence in support of the victim’s allegations is the victim’s own testimony about what happened to him or her.

Since most sexual abusers rarely admit their crimes typically the abuser will deny the allegations.

So most cases of sexual abuse boil down to “he said she said” or “he said he said”. In other words, the court has to weigh the evidence of two completely different stories to determine which story is most likely to be true.

Weighing the Evidence

When a Judge or a Jury considers the evidence from an abuse victim and the evidence from the abuser the court is supposed to consider two factors:

  1. Credibility; and
  2. Reliability.

What is Credibility?

In legal terms “credibility” means whether the witnesses testimony can be considered to be true and accurate. Put another way credibility means how believable the witness is.

So when considering whether a victims testimony is “credible” the court must consider whether the evidence taken in the context of all of the other evidence makes sense.

A simple example in the case of a sexual abuse claim would be where the victim has accused a teacher or counsellor who had regular contact and access to the victim. This type of allegation may be found to be credible when looking at all of the school or institutional records showing how often the victim had contact with the accused abuser.

On the other hand, records may show that the accused abuser didn’t work at the institution during the time the victim says that they were abused. In a case like this the victim’s allegations may be challenged as not being credible because the records show there was no opportunity for the accused abuser to assault the alleged victim.

What is Reliability?

On the other hand, reliability refers to the trust and faith that you have in someone’s evidence. Someone who is trustworthy is someone who’s evidence may be found to be reliable.

Reliablity is a question of law that concerns itself with the quality of the evidence.

Reliability versus Credibility

So in questions of historical sexual abuse the witness may be credible (their story may be believable) but because the abuse happened years ago their memory may be fuzzy so that their recall of what happened may no longer be reliable.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand the difference between these two elements is if a witnesses testimony is reliable then, by definition it is also credible. However, a witness may be credible (believe what they are saying) but the evidence may not be reliable (the evidence conflicts with other independent sources of information).

Want more information about sexual abuse compensation claims? I have written a book for sexual abuse survivors called Breaking the Silence: The Survivors Guide to Sexual Abuse claims in Canada.

Want More information?

For almost 25 years I have dedicated my practice to representing survivors of childhood sexual abuse. I wrote Breaking the Silence: The Survivor’s Guide to Sexual Abuse Claims so that abuse survivors and their families can get good solid information about their legal options, privately and confidentially.

If you would like a copy of Breaking the Silence, you can buy a copy of the book on (all profits are donated to charity) or you can receive a free copy of the book by contacting me through this blog or by calling toll free in Atlantic Canada 1-866-974-8281.

Published on:

Former residents of the Interprovincial School for the Education of the Deaf, more commonly called the Nova Scotia School for the Deaf have come forward with allegations that they were physically and sexually abused while they were students of the school.

The school was originally in Halifax and children from all the Atlantic provinces were sent to the school for education. In 1960 the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick assumed joint responsibility for operation of the school and moved it to Amherst Nova Scotia where is was renamed the Interprovincial School for the Education of the Deaf.

While these allegations have not yet been proven in court they follow a string of other institutional abuse claims from various Residential Schools across the country where children were forced to lived in isolation, separated from their parents. Many of these children subjected to physical, sexual and psychological abuse.

Some people may wonder why these types of allegations tend to surface, sometimes decades after the abuse occurred.

Sexual abuse frighteningly common

Internationally, epidemiological studies estimate prevalence rates of 7 to 36 per cent for females and 3 to 29 per cent for males (Finkelhor, 1994).
The Center for Disease Control has estimated that 1 in 4 girls and between 1 in 7 and 1 in 12 boys are victims of sexual abuse.

Many abuse claims not reported

It is well known that the majority of sexual assault crimes are not reported to Police. For example, one study found that 78% of sexual assaults were not reported to Police.

May take decades for victims to disclose

In Australia a Royal Commission interviewed more than 1400 persons and found that 70% of victims were 50 years or older.

A survey conducted in 2003 found that 34% of sexual abuse survivors took 20 years or more to disclose their childhood sexual abuse.

Premiere Encourages Sexual Abuse Victims to Come Forward

In response to the allegations, Nova Scotia Premiere Stephen McNeil has encouraged sexual abuse survivors to come forward:

“I would say to anyone who feels that – first of all – that they have been a victim of any type of abuse that they would seek out support and come forward to help build an understanding of what happened”

McNeil went on to say:

“The Crown has a responsibility that when we take on the ability for care of any individual, whether its young or old, we have a responsibility to ensure that they’re in a safe environment.”

I have to congratulate Premiere McNeil for recognizing the government’s responsibility to children placed under the care of the government. His encouragement to survivors to come forward is a message that I have been sharing for years.

That’s one of the reasons why I wrote Breaking the Silence: The Survivors Guide to Abuse Compensation Claims. Unfortunately, survivors of childhood sexual abuse carry with them a burden of shame and a preceived stigma that they are somehow to blame for what happened to them. These psychological burdens frequently prevent survivors from coming forward to seek help to deal with the mental, emotional and psychological consequences of their abuse.

I would echo Premiere McNeil’s comments. If you have been a victim of childhood sexual abuse the first thing you need to do is break your silence. Talk to someone, reach out to someone you trust to get help.

If you want more information you can contact us for a free copy of Breaking the Silence.

As a public service, we have published the Maritime Directory of Services for Survivors of Sexual Abuse. Selecting a counsellor to talk about childhood abuse is a highly personal matter. A professional who works well with on individual may not be a good choice for another person. So, as a public service, we have complied a list of professional who work with survivors of childhood abuse so that survivors can find someone to help them. The directory also talks about the different potential services of financial help that may be available to help pay for counselling treatment.

You can get a free copy of the directory by contacting us through this blog.


Published on:

Nova Scotia has proclaimed a new Limitation of Actions Act. That is the law that establishes the statute of limitation period (how long a plaintiff has to sue) for various claims.

There are a number of important changes in the new statute of limitations. Specifically it shortens the limitation period for many claims to two years.

Court still has discretion to extend limitation periods

Nova Scotia used to be unique in that our Limitation of Actions act had a “saving” provision. Even if a plaintiff missed a limitation period the court had discretion to extend the limitation period for up to four additional years if the plaintiff was able to show that there was no prejudice to the defendant.

In the new version of the Limitation of Actions Act the court still has discretion to extend limitations period. However the discretion has been shortened to a maximum of two years after the expiry of the limitation.

This discretion only exists for personal injury claims. So if you have a contract claim (or any other claim that isn’t for personal injuries) and you miss the limitation period you are out of luck.

Therefore, as of September 1, 2015 anyone who wants to file a claim for compensation as a result of personal injuries has two years to file their lawsuit or, in some cases, a maximum of four years (the two year limitation period included in the legislation plus a possible two year extension).

No Limitation Period for Sexual Assault Victims

The most important change for my clients who have been victims of sexual assault is the fact that Nova Scotia has eliminated the limitation period for claims based on sexual assault, domestic violence and assaults involving anyone who is financially, emotionally or physically dependant on another person.

New Limitation Act is retroactive

Another important change is that the new limitation period has been made retroactive for sexual assault victims.

Some people know it is not uncommon for victims of sexual abuse to come forward decades after they were assaulted. In some cases survivors have missed limitation periods because the time to file a law suit ran out before they had the strength and courage to be able to come forward to file a claim.

Nova Scotia’s new legislation protects the rights of innocent sexual assault victims and provides them the opportunity to get access to justice.

If you are looking for more information about how Nova Scotia’s new Limitation of Actions Act will affect your legal rights you can contact me for a free consultation.

Published on:

It has been suggested that Ralph Rowe is one of Canada’s most prolific pedophiles. Rowe was an Anglican Priest and Scoutmaster. He was also a pilot and he flew to 20 remote First Nations communities in Northern Ontario and Manitoba. Rowe would lead church services, organize youth group outings and scout camping trips where he used his position of trust and authority to prey on children.

Controversial deal

In 1994 Ralph Rowe pleaded guilty to 39 sex abuse charges. He was sentenced to 6 years. But part of the plea bargain that resulted in Rowe’s guilty plea involved an agreement that Rowe would not be sentenced to further prison time for similar convictions.

Of course, there were other victims out there. Rowe was convicted again in 2005, 2009 and 2012 resulting in more than 60 convictions.

Rowe served just 5 years of a 6 year sentence even though he has been convicted of abusing more than 60 children and RCMP believe he has abused hundreds more. Rowe is now free and living in British Columbia, where he is able to carry on despite having destroyed hundreds of lives.

I wrote about the claims against Rowe back in 2012: Another former Boy Scout leader charged with sexual abuse.

I have been representing survivors of childhood abuse for almost 25 years so I have seen first hand the kind of devastating effects that histocial abuse can cause to victims and their families.

Documentary provides healing

Survivors Rowe

Now a new documentary, Survivors Rowe provides a look at the life of the estimated 500 victims who were sexually abused by Rowe when he was a priest and scout leader in First Nations communities in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

Director Daniel Roher hopes that the movie will help survivors with their healing. One of Rowe’s victims, Jason Anderson, said that he hoped the new documentary will help people understand why so many men of his generation have turned to drugs and alcohol.

Survivors Rowe premiered at the Hot Docs Film Festival in Toronto this month. Hopefully the documentary will be available for a wider distribution in the near future so we will be able to see it here in Halifax and in other parts of Canada.

Published on:

Burden of proof

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia provides a clear example of the differences between the burden of proof in criminal charges as opposed to civil compensation claims and how that can affect victims of sexual assault.

Her Majesty the Queen v. A.L. is a decision of Justice J. Arnold. There is a publication ban on the identities of the parties so the summary of the information is, by necessity, somewhat vague.

Basically the alleged victim C.S. claimed that when she was 10 years old her mother started a relationship with A.L. A.L was in his late 40’s and was a successful businessman. C.S. and her mother eventually moved into A.L.’s house. C.S testified that, after moving into a A.L.’s home, he began to physically and sexual abuse her.

The court heard detailed testimony regarding the nature and location of the assaults.

The accused A.L. testified in his own defence and denied all of the allegations.

Arnold J. acquitted A.L. of all charges.

What was interesting to me as someone who represents victims of sexual abuse in civil compensation claims was the discussion about the burden of proof. Justice Arnold provided a clear explamation on the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof in criminal matters.

What is proof beyond reasonable doubt?

In criminal matters the Crown must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

After referencing the Supreme Court of Canada’s analysis of the burden of proof in criminal matters Arnold J. stated, at paragraph 253:

“It is therefore not for a trier of fact to simply choose which version of the offence that it believes. The trier of fact must consider all of the evidence. In this case, I have to decide if I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that A.L. committed the various crimes against C.S. over the time period she states the offences happened.”

Justice Arnold went on, at paragraph 254:

“In a case such as this, having heard the testimony of all witnesses, it is not necessarily difficult to achieve the civil standard “balance of probabilities”; however, probability in a criminal case is not the test. If a Judge in deciding any criminal matter determines only, “I think he’s probably guilty” and then registers a conviction, that decision will be wrong in law. Probability is never enough in a criminal matter. The standard in a criminal matter is that the Crown must prove the guilt of a accused person, in this case A.L., beyond a reasonable doubt- which lies somewhere b between probability and absolute certainty, but closer to absolute certainty.”

In acquitting A.L. Justice Arnold highlighted the difference in the burden of proof between civil compensation claims and criminal charges. At paragraph 265 he said:

“As I stated initially, if I was dealing with the civil standard of a balance of probabilities, I might find in favour of C.S. Should she pursue this matter civilly she might end up with a very different result then will be found by applying the criminal standard.”

Justice Arnold has pointed out the significant difference for sexual abuse survivors between criminal proceedings and civil compensation claims.

Proof on the balance of probabilities

In this video I explain the differences between the burden of proof in personal injury cases and in criminal cases.



In a civil compensation claim you only have to tip the scales of evidence just slightly in your favour. In other words, just slightly beyond the 50% mark.

That is what is known as proof on the balance of probabilities (the test applied in civil law suits) as opposed to proof beyond reasonable doubt (the test that is applied in criminal proceedings).

This is a sad and unfortunate result for C.S. who, based on the evidence presented at trial suffered a very difficult life and has had significant problems as a result.

A.L. was not convicted of the criminal charges brought against him. But one hopes that C.S. will consider all of the options available to her.

Published on:

Jian Ghomeshi criminal charges

There are few Canadians that haven’t heard about the sexual assault allegations being made against former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi. Two weeks ago Ghomeshi was charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of physical assault. To date nine women have come forward stating they were victims of sexual or physical assault by Ghomeshi. Some of the allegations date back a decade or more.

Bill Cosby facing sex assault allegations but no criminal charges

South of the border about 20 women have come forward claiming that they were sexually assaulted by Bill Cosby.

Cosby has faced allegation of sexual assault in the past. In 2005 a Canadian woman told Canadian Police she had visited Cosby at his Philadelphia mansion. Cosby gave her medication which she said made her dizzy and pass out. She claimed when she woke up her bra was undone and her clothes were in disarray. At the time, Police found “insufficient credible and admissible evidence” to support criminal charges.

This week prosecutors in California decided not to lay criminal charges against Cosby based on allegations he he sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl.

So why is Jian Ghomeshi facing criminal charges in Canada while Bill Cosby is unlikely to face charges anywhere in the United States?

These two cases highlight the difference in the laws (both criminal and civil) relating to sexual assault.

American Statue of Limitations on criminal charges

A “Statute of Limitation” is a law that sets a time limit on how much time one has to file a law suit or press criminal charges.

In the United States there are statutes of limitations for most criminal charges. In other words, if a sexual assault victim does not swear out a criminal complaint within a certain period of time after the assault the ability to lay criminal charges is barred.

For example, under Nevada law sexual assault victims must lay a charge within 4 years of the assault. In New York sexual assault charges must be laid within 5 years of the assault. In California, where the most recent allegations arise, the time limit for felony sex crimes in 1974 was 3 years from the date of the offence.

In other words, if the victim was 15 years old, she had to go to police to lay charges before she turned 18 years old.

Canada has no statute of limitations on serious criminal charges.

On the other hand, in Canada, there is no time limit for filing charges of a serious criminal nature. So charges of serious sexual assault have no statute of limitations.

As a result, Ghomeshi is now facing sexual assault charges for acts alleged to have happened almost ten years ago.

Difference for civil suits for compensation

There is also a big difference in the laws relating to civil suits for compensation for harms suffered as a result of sexual assault.

In the United States, like criminal charges, civil law suits for sexual assault have specific and sometimes very short statutes of limitations. So if a sexual assault victim wants to pursue their abuser (or the institution that employed the abuser) for compensation they are not able to do so unless they bring forward their claim within a few years of the assault.

Time limits on claims unfair to abuse survivors

This can be problematic for many victims. For people who have been subjected to severe sexual assault the psychological consequences can be devastating. Sexual assault victims may simply be psychologically incapable of filing a civil suit as a result of the harm they suffered because of the sexual assault.

Supreme Court of Canada changed the rules for abuse survivors

In Canada, the laws relating to filing sexual abuse compensation claims changed dramatically as a result of a 1992 court decision known as M(K) v. M(H).

In that case the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the time limit for filing a civil suit did not begin to run until the sexual assault victim discovered the connection between the assault and the harms they experienced later in life.

The Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian Criminal Code recognize that survivors of sexual assault can feel a paralyzing sense of shame and embarrassment. Sometimes the assaults create such a powerful lack of trust that they are fearful of going to the police or talking to a lawyer.

In many cases survivors of sexual abuse suffer serious psychological problems that effectively disable them. Survivors may not realize that the problems they are suffering later in life (alcoholism, depression, problems with interpersonal relationships, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress) are connected to sexual assaults they experienced earlier in their life.

Since the M(K) v. M(H) case, most provinces in Canada have changed their Limitations of Actions Acts to allow victims to sue for compensation for sexual abuse years (and sometimes decades) after the assault occurred.

Most provinces have no limitation period for sexual assault claims. Some provinces apply the “discoverability rule” as described in the M(K) v. M(H) case.

Nova Scotia to change Statute of Limitations for sexual assault claims

Nova Scotia is currently looking at changing its Limitations of Action Act to eliminate all limitation periods for sexual assault compensation claims.

As an advocate for surviors of childhood sexual abuse I fully support the proposed changes to Nova Scotia’s Limitation of Actions Act. But the changes may not go far enough.

Some survivors want the proposed legislation to be made retroactive.

The proposed limitation period, when it is proclaimed into effect, will apply to anyone who brings forward a claim after the new law is in place.

But what about sexual abuse survivors who have already come forward and may have had their claims statute barred?

If the province of Nova Scotia is recognizing that there shouldn’t be a time limit on when sexual abuse survivors can file their claim, shouldn’t that apply to all sexual abuse survivors?

What do you think?

Breaking the Silence

Many survivors suffer in silence thinking that they are the only one who was victimized by their abuser. In many cases when one survivor has the courage to break their silence and come forward to lay criminal chargers or file a civil suit it sheds light on the abusers activities and other victims, who thought they were alone, take courage and are able to come forward to seek accountability.

Sexual assault survivors often carry a crushing guilt throughout their lives blaming themselves for what happened to them. Reaching out to talk to someone; be it a friend, a family member, a health care professional, a police officer, or a lawyer, is for many survivors the first and hardest step in their healing journey.
Continue reading →

Published on:

Dejaeger finally convicted

There is good news for sexual abuse victims of former oblate priest Eric Dejaeger. He was found guilty today on 24 of the 68 charges he was facing in Iqaluit.

The priest pleaded guilty to eight sexual abuse charges last November. So Dejaeger will face sentencing on 32 convictions sometime early next year.

Some charges dismissed

Unfortunately, some of the children who claimed that he assualted them did not receive justice. Dejaeger was not convicted of all of the churches due to concerns the presiding judge had about the evidence presented by some of his alleged victims.

Justice Robert Kilpatrick said:

“The quantity and quality of the evidence available to the court in this case has been substantially weakened by the passage of time. The reliability of the Crowns evidence on many counts is suspect. This is reflected by the results of this trial.”

Delay caused by abuser

The unfortunate fact is that one of the reasons for the extended delay in this case was due, in great part, to the fact that Dejaeger fled Canada and hid in Europe for more than two decades.

You can read more of the details in my article: Nowhere to hide: Internet helps bring sexual abuser to justice.

Dejaeger pleaded guilty to sexual abuse charges in Nunavut for sexual assaults that happened between 1982 and 1989. He pleaded guilty in 1990 and was released from prison in 1991.

In 1995 RCMP charged the priest with a number of sex crimes involving children from Igloolik. The priest was released on his own recognizance with a promise to return to court. He never showed up.

Hiding in Europe

In fact, Dejaeger had fled to Belgium. The Canadian embassy asked Belgium to return Dejaeger. But nothing was ever done.

In 1998 Interpol issued an arrest warrant. But the warrant was never acted on.

RCMP issued a warrant for his arrest in 2002. Still nothing was done. Dejaeger continued to live openly with the Oblate religious community in Belgium.

A great deal of the credit to finally getting police to act goes to Sylvia McEachern who runs the blog Sylvia’s Site, which blogs about the sexual abuse crisis facing the Catholic church and other relgious organizations.

Ms. McEachern’s efforts to publicize the injustice facing Dejaeger’s victims was a factor in finally forcing law enforcement officials to take active steps to extradite Dejaeger back to Canada.

Belgium government not cooperative

In June 2010 Interpol issued another warrant. Even though there is no statute of limitations for the crimes Dejaeger was facing in Canada, the Belgium government considered Dejaeger a citizen and refused to extradite him because the statute of limitations for the sex crimes he committed in Canada had run out in Belgium.

Not a citizen

In 2011 Belgian police finally realized that Dejaeger no longer held Belgian citizenship. He was a Canadian citizen having given up his European citizenship when he came to Canada.


Dejaeger was finally extradited to Canada in January 2011 where his criminal charges have slowly made their way through the courts.

Uncertain memories caused by passage of time

So after 20 years of hiding in Europe is it any wonder that the memories of some of his victims are a little foggy after more than four decades?

Congratulations to all of the survivors who had the strength to testify against Dejaeger and received convictions today. I hope all of his victims receive some solace in the fact that Dejaeger will, at long last receive the punishment he deserves.

Published on:

The Chronicle Herald has reported that Roy Franklyn Newcomb has been arrested and charged with possessing and accessing child pornography.

The charges came about after a student at NSCAD (where Newcomb has worked for thirty years) found a USB thumb drive containing pictures and videos apparently depicting child pornography. Police were called in and computer forensics officers uncovered twenty images and nine videos depicting child pornography.

At the time of his arrest Newcomb was a foster parent and apparently has been for many years.

Anyone investigating the foster home?

This immediately raises the question about whether the Department of Community Services, which regulates foster home placements in Nova Scotia, is conducting an investigation. One would hope that all of the former foster children who have been placed in the Newcomb home will be contacted and interviewed as part of a wider investigation.

The foster child who was in the Newcomb home at the time of Newcomb’s arrest has been removed from the home. A court order forbids Newcomb from being within 50 meters of any playground, schoolyard, pool or any other area where children are known to frequent. He is also prohibited from having contact with any children under the age of 16 unless the child is with a parent or guardian and he is prohibited from using any device that has internet access.

Published on:

Class action settlement announced

A 16 year fight for compensation ended yesterday when the Province of Nova Scotia and former residents of the Home for Colored Children announced the details of a class action filed by former residents.

About 140 former residents of the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children filed a class action seeking compensation for what they describe as years of neglect and emotional, physical and sexual abuse suffered by children in the school.

Last year the Home itself agreed to pay up to $5,000,000.00 to former residents. Yesterday’s announcement says that the province will be setting aside up to $29,000,000.00 to compensate survivors.

Adopts Indian Residential School compensation model?

Few details of the compensation program have been released to the public. However, according to Tracey Dorrington-Skinner, who was interviewed today on CBC’s Information Morning the compensation model sounds a great deal like the one approved by the courts in the national Indian Residential Schools (IRS) class action settlement.

Two parts to compensation model

Ms. Dorrington-Skinner said today that all of the former residents will receive a payment of $10,000.00 if they can prove that they resided at the home. That payment will increase depending on the length of time that the children were forced to live in the school.

According to a report by the Chronicle Herald anyone who was in the Home 40 days or less, will receive $1000.00. If they were in the Home up to a year they will receive $10,000.00. Anyone who was in the Home for longer periods will receive $3000.00 for each additional year.

This part of the Coloured Home settlement follows the IRS model almost exactly. the The payment, like the common experience payment that formed a part of the IRS settlement is being made to recognize the appalling conditions the children were forced to live in while residing in the home and to recognize, at least in the case of the IRS settlement, that the Residential School System was inherently racist.

Compensation for Physical and Sexual Abuse

According to Ms. Dorrington-Skinner, children who suffered serious physical or sexual abuse in the school will also be entitled to apply for additional compensation.

Again, this models the IRS class action settlement. Under the Individual Assessment Program (IAP) IRS survivors are entitled to apply for additional compensation of up to $325,000.00 plus proven income loss if they suffered harm as a result of serious physical or sexual abuse by an employee or another former resident of the school.

Arm’s length administration

One of the key components of the IRS settlement is that the compensation program and compensation payments are not managed by the defendant, Canada. An arm’s length entity, the Residential School Secretariat, was created to manage the claims process and pay survivors.

There is no indication in the details that have been released so far about whether the Colored Home settlement includes the creation of a neutral arm’s length authority to manage the claims process. However, given that the parties appear to have adopted the IRS model it seems logical to assume that the process will also include a third party to manage, validate and assess the claims.

Truth and Reconciliation

Another fundamental part of the IRS class action settlement was the creation of a Truth and Reconciliation commission to explore and investigate what happened in the residential schools, document survivors stories, and create a public record to help educate future generations.

Premier Stephen McNeil has announced that the province intends to embark on a public inquiry. Although the province has not set the terms of the inquiry, as of yet.

Having participated in Truth and Reconciliation hearings on behalf of the Shubenacadie Indian Residential School survivors I can say without a doubt that the TRC hearings for many survivors have been the most important part of the class action settlement process.

Looking to the future

For Ms. Dorrington-Skinner, and the other former residents of the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children, yesterday marked the end of a very long fight for recognition of the harm that they suffered in the school.

The children that suffered physical and sexual abuse will still have to go through a further process to validate and compensate their claims. However, if the parties have adopted the IRS model in its entirety I can say that the Colored Home survivors should be able to receive a fair measure of compensation in a private and confidential process and avoid the time, cost and stress of adversarial and ublic litigation.