Muir v. Alberta, (1996) 179 A.R. 321 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 25, 1996
• Citations: (1996), 179 A.R. 321 (QB)

Muir v. Alta. (1996), 179 A.R. 321 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Lellani Marietta Muir (also known as Leilani Marietta Muir) (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta (defendant)

(Action No. 8903-20759)

Indexed As: Muir v. Alberta

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

January 25, 1996.

Summary:

Muir was a child whose mother did not want her. Muir was at the lower end of the range of normal intelligence. Starting in 1953, Muir's mother sought to have her admitted to the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives. Finally, in 1955 the 10 year old Muir was admitted, even though appropriate steps were not taken to deter­mine whether she was "mentally defective". In 1959, Muir was irreversibly sterilized without appropriate procedures first being complied with. Muir left the school in 1965 at age 21. The sterilization and 10 years of confinement had catastrophic effects on her life. Muir sued the province of Alberta in tort for wrongful sterilization and wrongful confinement. The province admitted liability. The sole issue was the quantum of damages.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded Muir $250,280 general damages for pain and suffering (the maximum award available) and $125,000 aggravated damages (wrongful sterilization). The court awarded a further $250,000 general damages (plus $115,500 interest) for pain and suffering respecting the wrongful confinement. The court declined to award punitive damages or damages for past and future loss of income.

Damage Awards - Topic 630

Torts - Injury to the person - False or unlawful imprisonment or confinement - The plaintiff was wrongfully confined to the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives from 1955 to 1965, from age 10 to 21 - She was wrongfully labelled a "moron" and was catastrophically affected - Her admission and continued confine­ment violated the legislation authorizing such detention - The province negligently labelled her mentally defective without proper inquiries and the province breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff - The plaintiff was also used as a guinea pig for drug testing while confined - She had no privacy, was cruelly disciplined and had almost no liberty - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded the plaintiff $250,000 general damages for pain and suffering for wrongful confinement, plus prejudgment interest of $115,500 running from the day the plaintiff discharged her­self in 1965 - See paragraphs 157 to 171.

Damage Awards - Topic 644

Torts - Injury to the person - Wrongful sterilization - In 1955, the 10 year old plaintiff was wrongfully admitted to the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives - Following proper procedures and proper inquiries would have shown that she was not "mentally defective"; her mother merely wanted to get rid of her - In 1959, the plaintiff was irreversibly surgically sterilized, again intentionally without following proper procedure - The province admitted liability for wrongful sterilization and wrongful confinement for 10 years - The forced sterilization ca­tastrophically affected the plaintiff, who spent 15 unsuccessful years trying to med­ically reverse what had been done - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded the plaintiff the maximum damage award permitted by law for pain and suffering, which in September 1995 dollars was $250,280 - See paragraphs 136 to 144.

Damage Awards - Topic 2011.1

Exemplary or punitive damages - Wrong­ful sterilization - In 1955, a 10 year old girl was improperly admitted to the Pro­vincial Training School for Mental Defec­tives - Proper procedures and minimum statutory requirements were ignored - In 1959, the girl was surgically sterilized (irreversibly) - The province ignored its own standards for sterilization - It was not an isolated matter - The Board authorizing sterilization routinely authorized them without proper consideration - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the province's conduct was unlawful, offensive and outrageous - The court stated that it would have awarded $250,000 punitive damages except that the girl's claim was statute barred yet the province admitted liability and allowed the claim to proceed - This amounted to an apology and an attempt to make things right - The prov­ince should not be punished for attempting to make amends for the wrongs of past governments - See paragraphs 151 to 156.

Damage Awards - Topic 2403

Aggravated damages - Wrongful steriliza­tion - The plaintiff was improperly admit­ted to the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives, without proper testing, when she was 10 years old - She was surgically sterilized in 1959, again without following proper procedures and guidelines - The plaintiff's reproductive capacity was irreversibly taken away and she was wrongfully branded as a "moron" - The province's intentional conduct had ca­tastrophic effects on the plaintiff, who left the school in 1965 at age 21 - The prov­ince acted in a high-handed manner in ignoring its own legislative requirements for sterilization - The province ignored advice that the plaintiff was not "mentally defective" and failed to comply with the minimum safeguards established for ad­mission - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded the plaintiff $125,000 aggravated damages for wrongful steriliza­tion - See paragraphs 145 to 150.

Damages - Topic 904

Aggravation - Aggravated damages defined - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "aggravated damages may be awarded in circumstances where the defendant's conduct has been particu­larly high-handed or oppressive, thereby increasing the plaintiff's humiliation and anxiety ... These damages take into account the additional harm caused to the plaintiff's feelings by the defendant's out­rageous and malicious conduct. Like [damages for pain and suffering] they are compensatory in nature." - See paragraph 58.

Damages - Topic 906

Aggravation - Aggravated damages v. exemplary damages - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "aggravated damages are given for conduct that shocks the plaintiff; exemplary (or punitive) dam­ages for conduct which shocks the jury." - See paragraph 60.

Evidence - Topic 2401

Presumptions - Specific presumptions - Inference from failure to call available evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "an adverse inference should only be drawn where the court is satisfied that the plaintiff did not call the potential witnesses because those witnesses were likely to give evidence that was not favourable to the plaintiff." - See para­graph 74.

Interest - Topic 5008

As damages (prejudgment interest) - En­titlement to - [See Damage Awards - Topic 630 ].

Cases Noticed:

Eve Re, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388; 71 N.R. 1; 61 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 273; 185 A.P.R. 273, refd to. [para. 6].

Antonopoulos v. Gillespie (1992), 10 B.C.A.C. 161; 21 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

Snider v. Henniger (1992), 96 D.L.R.(4th) 367 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Uren v. Fairfax (John) and Sons Pay Ltd. (1966), 117 C.L.R. 118 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Colborne Capital Corp. et al. v. 542775 Alberta Ltd. et al., [1995] 7 W.W.R. 671; 171 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Rookes v. Barnard, [1964] 1 All E.R. 367 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 6].

Huckle v. Money (1763), 2 Wils. K.B. 206; 95 E.R. 768, refd to. [para. 6].

Beatty v. Kozak, [1958] S.C.R. 177, refd to. [para. 6].

Chartier v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 474; 27 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

Snow v. New York (State) (1983), 469 N.Y.S.2d 959 (A.D. Dept.), affd. (1983), 485 N.Y.S.2d 987 (Ct. App.), refd to. [para. 6].

Karpow v. Shave, [1975] 2 W.W.R. 159 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Fenn v. Peterborough (City) (1979), 25 O.R.(2d) 399 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Bunce v. Flick et al., [1991] 5 W.W.R. 623; 93 Sask.R. 53; 4 W.A.C. 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Adam v. Johnson Estate, [1994] 8 W.W.R. 438; 121 Sask.R. 283 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Hatton v. Henderson (1981), 126 D.L.R.(3d) 50 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Teno et al. v. Arnold et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287; 19 N.R. 1; 3 C.C.L.T. 372; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 609, refd to. [para. 6].

Thornton et al. v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267; 19 N.R. 552; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 480; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 607; 3 C.C.L.T. 257, refd to. [para. 6].

Andrews v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 577; 3 C.C.L.T. 225, refd to. [para. 6].

Lindal v. Lindal, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 629; 39 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 6].

Murray v. Saskatoon (City)(No. 2) (1951), 4 W.W.R.(N.S.) 234 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Baumann v. Springer Construction Ltd. (1967), 58 W.W.R.(N.S.) 592 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Kamitomo v. Pasula et al. (1983), 50 A.R. 280; 29 Alta. L.R.(2d) 375 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Panarctic Oils Ltd. v. Menasco Manufac­turing Co. (1983), 41 A.R. 451 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Kwong Estate and Kwong v. Alberta et al. (1979), 14 A.R. 120; 96 D.L.R.(3d) 214 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Neuzen v. Korn (1995), 188 N.R. 161; 64 B.C.A.C. 241; 105 W.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226; 138 N.R. 81; 9 B.C.A.C. 1; 19 W.A.C. 1; 92 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 6].

Vorvis v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085; 94 N.R. 321; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 6].

McElroy v. Cooper-Smith et al. (1967), 62 D.L.R.(2d) 65 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Paragon Properties Ltd. v. Magna Invest­ments Ltd., [1972] 3 W.W.R. 106 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

LaPointe et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al. (1992), 51 F.T.R. 161; 4 Admin. L.R.(2d) 298 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

A.B. et al. v. I.J., [1991] 5 W.W.R. 748; 119 A.R. 210 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

P.B. v. W.B. (1992), 11 O.R.(3d) 161 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 6].

D.C. v. K.C. (1993), 108 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 314; 339 A.P.R. 314 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Heighington et al. v. Ontario (1987), 41 D.L.R.(4th) 208 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Brown v. Waterloo Regional Board of Commissioners of Police (1982), 136 D.L.R.(3d) 49 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

MacDonald v. Alderson and Manitoba, [1982] 3 W.W.R. 385; 15 Man.R.(2d) 35 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Sexual Sterilization Act, S.A. 1928, c. 37, sect. 4(1) [para. 5]; sect. 6 [para. 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) [para. 6].

Donald Marshall, Jr., Inquiry concerning the Adequacy of Compensation Paid to Donald Marshall, Jr. - see Nova Scotia, Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Inquiry concerning the Adequacy of Compensation Paid to Donald Marshall, Jr.

Nova Scotia, Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Inquiry concerning the Adequacy of Compensation Paid to Donald Marshall, Jr. (1990), generally [para. 6].

Waddams, S.M., The Law of Damages (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 11 to 27 [para. 6].

Woodworth, J.S., Strangers within our Gates, generally [para. 97].

Counsel:

P.J. Faulds and S.M. Anderson, for the plaintiff;

D.H. Lewis, W.C. Olthuis, R.F. Taylor and L. Neudorf, for the defendant, Province of Alberta.

This action was heard on June 12-30 and September 8-14, 1995, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on January 25, 1996.