SEARCHING FOR JUSTICE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF NOVA SCOTIA’S RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE Volume 1 The Honourable Fred Kaufman, C.M., Q.C., D.C.L. January 2002 Searching for Justice: An Independent Review of Nova Scotia’s Response to Reports of Institutional Abuse © Province of Nova Scotia 2002 ISBN 0-88871-714-8 Printed in Canada This Report is available on the Internet at www.gov.ns.ca/just. Acknowledgements No review of this scope and nature can be accomplished without the input, help and dedication of a devoted group of people. I was fortunate to have such a group. Duncan R. Beveridge, Q.C., a seasoned and highly-respected Halifax counsel, accepted my invitation to be Senior Counsel to the Review. Duncan and I had worked together before, and I knew that any task entrusted to him would be carried out with skill, delicacy, and total thoroughness, and so it was. Mark J. Sandler, a prominent Toronto barrister, became my Senior Policy Advisor. As was the case with Duncan, this was not the first time that Mark and I had joined forces in a major undertaking, and I knew that he would approach the task ahead with exquisite skill, dedication and his usual enthusiasm. When I first approached him, he was in the final stages of acting as counsel to the Honourable Sydney L. Robins, who chaired a review “to identify and prevent sexual misconduct in Ontario Schools.” Mark’s experience in that position was of great value to this review, and this is reflected in the Report. Christopher J. Sherrin, one of Mark’s associates, was a tower of strength in the final stages of the review. He worked long and hard on successive drafts and I appreciate his dedication. Andrea Tuck-Jackson, Mark’s partner, took time off her heavy schedule to read the final draft and make many helpful suggestions. Her input makes this a better document. Seetal Sunga, an Ontario lawyer then in Halifax to complete a Master’s degree in law at Dalhousie University, acted as Director of Research. She was assisted by Drago Vidovic, also a graduate of the Dalhousie Master of Law program. Their contribution was of great value to me, my counsel and my senior policy advisor. Faizal R. Mirza, then a student-at-law at Osgoode Hall in Toronto, also assisted in assembling and summarizing some of the documentation. This was a small but highly effective group, and I thank them for their assistance, loyalty and devotion. It was truly a team effort, but the ultimate responsibility is, of course, mine. To fulfill my mandate, my staff or I met with over 100 individuals. These included persons involved in the design and implementation of the Government’s response, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, internal investigators and their staff, police officers, therapists, Dr. Elsie Blake of the Family Services Association, file assessors, administrators, former Chief Justice Stratton and Ms. Viki Samuels-Stewart. Written feedback was also received from a number of file reviewers. I am indebted to them all for their cooperation throughout. Voluminous documentation had to be obtained, particularly from the Government. Nova Scotia officials were forthcoming and helpful, and no request for information - and there were many - went unanswered. I am also grateful for the information provided to this review by officials in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Ontario, British Columbia, and with the Federal Government and Law Commission of Canada. I wish to especially acknowledge the former and current employees, as well as former residents of the youth facilities, with whom I met. I know that many found it painful to discuss the intimate details of their lives with me and my staff, and I am particularly grateful to them for having agreed to do so. Their contribution was extremely important to the content of this Report. A number of counsel met with me or my staff and prepared written submissions for my assistance on behalf of the former residents, former and current employees, the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union and the Department of Justice. They were unfailingly courteous and of assistance to me in my task. Last, but by no means least, I thank my wife Donna, whose love, encouragement and understanding give me much comfort and strength. Table of Contents Chapter I: Scope and Nature of the Review 1. THE MANDATE ................................................ 2 2. “APPROPRIATE, FAIR AND REASONABLE” ....................... 4 3. LIMITATIONS OF MANDATE .................................... 5 4. USE OF TERMINOLOGY ........................................ 7 5. PRIVACY ISSUES .............................................. 8 6. LEGAL PRIVILEGE ............................................. 9 7. EFFECTS OF ABUSE ............................................ 9 8. THE PROCESS ................................................ 12 9. FUNDING .................................................... 16 10. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT .................................. 17 Chapter II: Historical Overview 1. HISTORY OF RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS IN NOVA SCOTIA ....... 18 (a) Shelburne Youth Centre ....................................... 18 (b) Nova Scotia School for Girls ................................... 20 (c) Nova Scotia Youth Training Centre .............................. 21 2. REPORTED ABUSE PRIOR TO 1994 .............................. 21 (a) Policies ................................................... 22 (b) Police Investigations ......................................... 23 (i) Shelburne School for Boys ............................... 23 (ii) Nova Scotia School for Girls ............................. 29 Chapter III: Formulation of The Government Response 1. EVENTS LEADING TO THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE ............. 33 2. FORMULATION OF THE THREE-PRONGED RESPONSE ............. 38 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE ............. 41 4. ANALYSIS ................................................... 46 Chapter IV: The Samuels-Stewart Audit 1. THE AUDIT’S MANDATE ....................................... 51 2. CONTENTS OF THE REPORT ................................... 52 (a) Introduction ................................................ 52 (b) Process and Participation ...................................... 52 (c) The Auditor’s Findings ........................................ 55 (i) An understanding of abuse ............................... 55 (ii) Whether young offenders currently in custody are protected from abuse ................................................. 56 (iii) Whether young offenders currently in custody are being abused ................................................. 58 (d) Conclusions and Recommendations of the Report ................... 60 3. THE ACCOMPANYING LETTER ................................. 61 4. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO AUDIT REPORT ................... 63 5. THE OMBUDSMAN’S OFFICE ................................... 64 6. INTERVIEW WITH MS. SAMUELS-STEWART ..................... 66 7. ANALYSIS ................................................... 67 Chapter V: The Stratton Report 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 83 2. CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION ............................. 84 3. SHELBURNE SCHOOL FOR BOYS ............................... 88 4. SYDNEY CHILDREN’S TRAINING CENTRE ....................... 92 5. NOVA SCOTIA SCHOOL FOR GIRLS ............................. 93 6. DARTMOUTH CHILDREN’S TRAINING CENTRE ................... 95 7. NOVA SCOTIA YOUTH TRAINING CENTRE ....................... 97 8. THE LALO CASE .............................................. 98 9. ANALYSIS .................................................. 100 Chapter VI: The Origin of the Compensation Program 1. BACKGROUND .............................................. 107 2. THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF JULY 20, 1995 ........................ 112 3. ANALYSIS .................................................. 115 4. NEGOTIATIONS ............................................. 117 5. ANALYSIS .................................................. 130 Chapter VII: The Memorandum of Understanding 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 139 2. ELIGIBILITY ................................................ 140 3. COMPENSATION CATEGORIES ................................ 140 4. PROCESS ................................................... 142 5. FILE REVIEW ............................................... 143 6. COUNSELLING AND OTHER BENEFITS ......................... 145 7. LEGAL FEES ................................................ 145 8. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS .................................... 146 9. ANALYSIS .................................................. 146 Chapter VIII: The Commencement of Investigations 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 149 2. FORMATION OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT ......... 149 3. OPERATION OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT .......... 152 4. ANALYSIS .................................................. 159 Chapter IX: The Early Days 1. PREPARATIONS FOR THE MOU ................................ 161 2. THE EARLY OPERATION OF THE MOU ......................... 163 3. EVENTS LEADING TO THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROGRAM ...... 171 4. AUDIT OF CLAIM FILES ...................................... 177 5. ANALYSIS .................................................. 184 Chapter X: Events During the Suspension 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 189 2. REACTION TO THE SUSPENSION .............................. 190 3. DIFFICULTIES IDENTIFIED BY THE ASSESSORS ................. 192 4. MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22, 1996 ............................