A 34-year old woman who grew up in Surrey has been awarded $909,851.33 by a B.C. Supreme Court judge in a lawsuit against her stepfather, whom she alleged sexually abused her when she was three years old until she left the family home at age 14.
The defendant, James Arthur Smith, denied her allegations. Justice Maegen Giltrow ordered a publication ban on the plaintiff's name, identified in court only as M.R.P.
The case was heard in Vancouver in March and Giltrow rendered her reasons for judgment on Monday, June 2.
"I have no hesitation in concluding that the childhood sexual abuse at the hands of the defendant is a significant cause of the psychiatric injuries she suffers," the judge concluded.
The plaintiff asked the court to find Smith liable for sexual assault and battery, as well as intentional infliction of mental suffering, and sought to be compensated for the damage. Giltrow found him liable for sexual battery and assault.
"I dismiss the claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering, as I find that the defendant's indifference to the consequences of his actions against the plaintiff does not demonstrate the calculation to cause harm that the tort requires," Giltrow decided.
"In my view there was not sufficient evidence at trial to establish that the defendant鈥檚 attitude toward the consequences of his actions for MP went beyond indifference."
The judge found that despite the woman's "determination and resilience" she has suffered "significant psychological injuries due to the defendant's actions" and that "this is a case in which aggravated as well as punitive damages are appropriate, given the vulnerable position of the plaintiff as the defendant's step-daughter, and the abuse of the defendant's position of trust."
The plaintiff told the court her earliest memories are of being abuse by the defendant. She testified he forced her to watch pornography, on high volume, and she described to court her recollections of sexual abuse, saying it was "woven in to daily life."
Smith denied this.
The court heard M.R.P once called the Kids Help Phone from a payphone. "She recalled they asked her some questions, and remembers feeling uncomfortable answering them and that she was scared to give specifics about any abuse," the judge noted in her .
After that call, a social worker from the Ministry of Children and Family Development came to their house. The plaintiff testified the social worker didn't ask her if she was experiencing sexual abuse in the home and that she decided not to tell the social worker about the abuse "because she did not believe the social worker would get her out of the home, and she would not be safe," the judge noted. "MP testified that the social worker did not provide her a safety plan, but only gave her her card. MP recalls thinking at the time that she would not call that social worker."
The plaintiff testified that she eventually disclosed the abuse to a school counsellor who then took her to speak with the Surrey RCMP. After being interviewed, she testified, she received a follow-up call from police whom she recalled told her there wasn't enough evidence to charge Smith who, for his part, testified at trial that police had called him and this was the first time he learned his stepdaughter made sexual touching and abuse allegations against him.
The court heard the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff, on which he was cross-examined, writing in part "Sorry for making you feel the way you do" and "because of what happened in the past you do have some hatred against me fair enough."
"But can we not put this in the past and move forward in a positive way and become somewhat of a normal family. I miss you and I love you so please try and forgive," Smith wrote.
Giltrow noted that during cross-examination the defendant "would not admit that this past conduct he was referring to was anything more than neglecting the plaintiff and not making her feel part of the family." But the judge decided his testimony about the letter "and the past events he was referring to in the letter was not credible."
She also rejected Smith's testimony that his stepdaughter was harbouring false memories.
" Far from appearing unreliable, MP鈥檚 memories of abuse were characterized by her clear memories of specific details associated with the events. There was no basis in the evidence other than the defendant鈥檚 testimony to find that MP鈥檚 memories from her childhood are false memories of events that did not occur," Giltrow concluded.
"I found the defendant鈥檚 testimony to be not credible on a sufficient number of points that I am compelled to find that he, unlike MP, was not a credible witness."
She ordered Smith to pay the plaintiff $330,000 in non-pecuniary (general and aggravated) damages, $250,000 in punitive damages, $71,281 in past wage loss, $100,583 for loss of future earning capacity, $12,260 in special damages, $130,000 in cost of future care and $15,727.33 in health cost recovery.
