Case Summary
vs.
Dr. Leslie Bella, Dr. William Rowe and Memorial University of Newfoundland
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers
Supreme Court of Canada decison on Jan
27, 2006
Why this web site?
This provides the details of the legal case initiated by former Memorial University student Wanda Young against two Social Work professors and Memorial University.
What follows is a factual report of the details surrounding this complex legal matter.
Introduction
Ms. Wanda Young sued Dr. Leslie Bella, Dr. William Rowe and Memorial University for their actions while Ms. Young was taking a Social Work course via distance education in Winter Semester of 1994 The course was taught by Dr. Leslie Bella (now retired) and Dr. William Rowe (since resigned) was the Director of the School of Social Work at the time.
The Precipitating Events
In April 1994 Ms. Young submitted a paper about juvenile sex offenders. Dr. Bella suspected the paper was plagiarized or written for another course.
The paper contained an Appendix which presented a graphic first-person narrative description of a young female who had committed sexual abuse against young children. It was not footnoted, although all other direct quotes in the paper were footnoted. The appendix was not a photocopy – it was typed in the same font as the rest of the paper. The book from which the appendix was copied was referenced in the paper’s bibliography, but there was no indication that an excerpt from that book was used in the paper or appendix.
Dr. Bella consulted with Jane Dempster who was acting director of the School of Social Work and, subsequently, with Dr. Rowe, the director. It was decided that:
1. Dr. Bella would question Ms. Young with respect to the plagiarism issue, and
2. Child Protection Services (CPS) would be contacted for advice on whether a report should be made in respect of the narrative relating to child abuse.
Dr. Bella wrote to Ms. Young on April 28, 1994, inviting her to meet and discuss the origins of her paper. Ms. Young testified that she met with Dr. Bella and provided notes for her paper which might support that it was not plagiarized. Dr. Bella testified that she did not recall this meeting and felt certain that Ms. Young did not take this opportunity to speak with her, particularly in light of the fact that Dr. Bella’s file contained no notes about the meeting nor any draft papers from Ms. Young.
In May 1994 the appendix from Ms. Young’s paper was sent to by Dr. Rowe to CPS for review.
At no time did Dr. Rowe characterize Ms Young as a potential or actual child abuser. He merely expressed concerns about the contents of the appendix and indicated that it may be appropriate for the CPS and RCMP to follow up.
CPS did not contact Ms. Young until September of 1996 (more than two years after Dr. Rowe sent them the appendix). Upon being questioned about the appendix, Ms. Young promptly explained that the appendix had been copied from a book. CPS provided Ms. Young with a letter confirming that no wrongdoing had been found. The investigation was resolved within one day of speaking to Ms. Young.
Apology
Ms. Young requested an apology from the university in the fall of 1996 when she became aware of the report to CPS. The university and the professors refused to provide an apology at that time as they believed they had acted in accordance with the law.
Instead, the university did offer to provide Ms. Young with a letter of clarification explaining the circumstances which led to the making of the report and the outcome. Ms. Young acknowledged this to some degree during her cross-examination but stated that this was not enough - she wanted an apology.
When asked why she did not sue CPS, she indicated that this was because they had provided her with an apology. However, it was pointed out to Ms. Young during cross-examination that the letter provided to Ms. Young by CPS is not in the nature of an apology but is more aptly classified as a letter of clarification. During testimony, a representative of CPS specifically indicated that CPS apologized for the delay in investigating the report but not for carrying out the investigation.
The Jury Trial
Ms. Young sued Drs. Bella and Rowe and Memorial University in defamation and in negligence, claiming that her reputation was damaged and her career plans ruined as a result of the report to CPS. She requested a jury trial.
The University is indemnified against legal matters of this sort and the insurer is the Canadian University Reciprocal Insurance Exchange (CURIE). CURIE contracted the law firm of Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales to provide representation in the matter.
Near the end of the trial, Judge Barry concluded that the defamation claim could not be put to the jury because the words complained of were not capable of being defamatory. That left the issue of negligence. Judge Barry also ruled that there was no evidence of malice on the part of the defendants. The jury was asked to rule on whether the defendants had “reasonable cause” to make the report to CPS. The jury concluded the report was made without reasonable cause.
Damages
Ms. Young had applied for admission to the School of Social Work in 1993 and 1994 but was unsuccessful on both occasions. In 1993 she ranked 86th out of 88 applicants for 30 seats. In 1994 her application was rejected because she failed to meet the minimum requirement of a 65% average in her grades. She was sent a letter from the university to that effect on Feb. 18, 1994. Both of these denials of entry to the Social Work program were made before the events involving her paper for Dr. Bella (which was submitted on April 21, 1994). Ms Young did not reapply to the School of Social Work at any time after submitting her paper.
The jury concluded that Ms. Young would have become a social worker but for the incident in question and awarded her the full amount of past and future loss of income and benefits she would have received if she had become a social worker.
In addition, the jury awarded Ms. Young $430,000 in general damages. The total judgment was $839,400 plus Ms. Young’s legal fees and disbursements made by her lawyer on her behalf. Pending an appeal, CURIE, the insurer, was ordered to make a “down payment” to Ms. Young of approximately $315,000.
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers
As a result of the publicity generated by the first trial, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers (NLASW) conducted an independent investigation under its ethics guidelines. Their findings were:
1. Drs. Bella and Rowe acted reasonably in reporting their concerns to CPS.
2. There was no reason for Drs. Bella and Rowe to inform Ms. Young that a report had been made to CPS. To have done so might have contaminated the subsequent investigation by the appropriate officials.
3. Because they had acted reasonably, any harm done to the profession by media accounts of the court proceedings could not be attributed to them.
4. The NLASW also decided that although it terminated its investigation it could reactivate that investigation if new information came to light or if a review of other court decisions became available.
The Appeal
Lawyers for CURIE, the University’s insurer, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Court of Appeal. In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeal reversed the Trial Division ruling.
Supreme Court of Canada
Ms. Young sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) and on March 17, 2005, the SCC announced that it had granted leave to hear the case.
The appeal was heard by the SCC on Oct. 20, 2005.
The Child Welfare League of Canada (CWLC), a national organization interested in the welfare of children, intervened in support of Memorial University and the professors at the SCC hearing. It was concerned that the various provincial laws in requiring citizens to report suspected cases of child abuse may be weakened by a finding of negligence against Drs. Bella and Rowe and the University.
This provides the details of the legal case initiated by former Memorial University student Wanda Young against two Social Work professors and Memorial University.
What follows is a factual report of the details surrounding this complex legal matter.
Introduction
Ms. Wanda Young sued Dr. Leslie Bella, Dr. William Rowe and Memorial University for their actions while Ms. Young was taking a Social Work course via distance education in Winter Semester of 1994 The course was taught by Dr. Leslie Bella (now retired) and Dr. William Rowe (since resigned) was the Director of the School of Social Work at the time.
The Precipitating Events
In April 1994 Ms. Young submitted a paper about juvenile sex offenders. Dr. Bella suspected the paper was plagiarized or written for another course.
The paper contained an Appendix which presented a graphic first-person narrative description of a young female who had committed sexual abuse against young children. It was not footnoted, although all other direct quotes in the paper were footnoted. The appendix was not a photocopy – it was typed in the same font as the rest of the paper. The book from which the appendix was copied was referenced in the paper’s bibliography, but there was no indication that an excerpt from that book was used in the paper or appendix.
Dr. Bella consulted with Jane Dempster who was acting director of the School of Social Work and, subsequently, with Dr. Rowe, the director. It was decided that:
1. Dr. Bella would question Ms. Young with respect to the plagiarism issue, and
2. Child Protection Services (CPS) would be contacted for advice on whether a report should be made in respect of the narrative relating to child abuse.
Dr. Bella wrote to Ms. Young on April 28, 1994, inviting her to meet and discuss the origins of her paper. Ms. Young testified that she met with Dr. Bella and provided notes for her paper which might support that it was not plagiarized. Dr. Bella testified that she did not recall this meeting and felt certain that Ms. Young did not take this opportunity to speak with her, particularly in light of the fact that Dr. Bella’s file contained no notes about the meeting nor any draft papers from Ms. Young.
In May 1994 the appendix from Ms. Young’s paper was sent to by Dr. Rowe to CPS for review.
At no time did Dr. Rowe characterize Ms Young as a potential or actual child abuser. He merely expressed concerns about the contents of the appendix and indicated that it may be appropriate for the CPS and RCMP to follow up.
CPS did not contact Ms. Young until September of 1996 (more than two years after Dr. Rowe sent them the appendix). Upon being questioned about the appendix, Ms. Young promptly explained that the appendix had been copied from a book. CPS provided Ms. Young with a letter confirming that no wrongdoing had been found. The investigation was resolved within one day of speaking to Ms. Young.
Apology
Ms. Young requested an apology from the university in the fall of 1996 when she became aware of the report to CPS. The university and the professors refused to provide an apology at that time as they believed they had acted in accordance with the law.
Instead, the university did offer to provide Ms. Young with a letter of clarification explaining the circumstances which led to the making of the report and the outcome. Ms. Young acknowledged this to some degree during her cross-examination but stated that this was not enough - she wanted an apology.
When asked why she did not sue CPS, she indicated that this was because they had provided her with an apology. However, it was pointed out to Ms. Young during cross-examination that the letter provided to Ms. Young by CPS is not in the nature of an apology but is more aptly classified as a letter of clarification. During testimony, a representative of CPS specifically indicated that CPS apologized for the delay in investigating the report but not for carrying out the investigation.
The Jury Trial
Ms. Young sued Drs. Bella and Rowe and Memorial University in defamation and in negligence, claiming that her reputation was damaged and her career plans ruined as a result of the report to CPS. She requested a jury trial.
The University is indemnified against legal matters of this sort and the insurer is the Canadian University Reciprocal Insurance Exchange (CURIE). CURIE contracted the law firm of Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales to provide representation in the matter.
Near the end of the trial, Judge Barry concluded that the defamation claim could not be put to the jury because the words complained of were not capable of being defamatory. That left the issue of negligence. Judge Barry also ruled that there was no evidence of malice on the part of the defendants. The jury was asked to rule on whether the defendants had “reasonable cause” to make the report to CPS. The jury concluded the report was made without reasonable cause.
Damages
Ms. Young had applied for admission to the School of Social Work in 1993 and 1994 but was unsuccessful on both occasions. In 1993 she ranked 86th out of 88 applicants for 30 seats. In 1994 her application was rejected because she failed to meet the minimum requirement of a 65% average in her grades. She was sent a letter from the university to that effect on Feb. 18, 1994. Both of these denials of entry to the Social Work program were made before the events involving her paper for Dr. Bella (which was submitted on April 21, 1994). Ms Young did not reapply to the School of Social Work at any time after submitting her paper.
The jury concluded that Ms. Young would have become a social worker but for the incident in question and awarded her the full amount of past and future loss of income and benefits she would have received if she had become a social worker.
In addition, the jury awarded Ms. Young $430,000 in general damages. The total judgment was $839,400 plus Ms. Young’s legal fees and disbursements made by her lawyer on her behalf. Pending an appeal, CURIE, the insurer, was ordered to make a “down payment” to Ms. Young of approximately $315,000.
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers
As a result of the publicity generated by the first trial, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers (NLASW) conducted an independent investigation under its ethics guidelines. Their findings were:
1. Drs. Bella and Rowe acted reasonably in reporting their concerns to CPS.
2. There was no reason for Drs. Bella and Rowe to inform Ms. Young that a report had been made to CPS. To have done so might have contaminated the subsequent investigation by the appropriate officials.
3. Because they had acted reasonably, any harm done to the profession by media accounts of the court proceedings could not be attributed to them.
4. The NLASW also decided that although it terminated its investigation it could reactivate that investigation if new information came to light or if a review of other court decisions became available.
The Appeal
Lawyers for CURIE, the University’s insurer, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Court of Appeal. In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeal reversed the Trial Division ruling.
Supreme Court of Canada
Ms. Young sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) and on March 17, 2005, the SCC announced that it had granted leave to hear the case.
The appeal was heard by the SCC on Oct. 20, 2005.
The Child Welfare League of Canada (CWLC), a national organization interested in the welfare of children, intervened in support of Memorial University and the professors at the SCC hearing. It was concerned that the various provincial laws in requiring citizens to report suspected cases of child abuse may be weakened by a finding of negligence against Drs. Bella and Rowe and the University.
Supreme Court of Canada decision Jan. 27, 2006
On Jan. 27, 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of Ms. Young.
Ms. Young was appealing the decision in favour of the professors and Memorial University that was rendered in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal in 2004.
“Memorial University accepts the decision and will be guided by its implications,” said Peter Morris of Memorial University.
“The professors believed they were acting in accordance with the obligations all citizens have under law to protect children. They believed, and in this they were supported by the university and the Child Welfare League of Canada, that they had done the right thing. But we now must accept that the Supreme Court ruling changes that.
“Although Ms. Young could have applied for admission to Memorial’s School of Social Work at any time after this incident and been evaluated on the same criteria as all other students, we must accept the Supreme Court’s finding that this matter negatively impacted Ms. Young’s desire to pursue a social work degree.”
Mr. Morris said that Memorial has always regretted the difficulty the matter has caused to Ms. Young. Mr. Morris also indicated that the university would be issuing a formal apology to Ms. Young.
He also explained that the entire legal case was undertaken by the university’s insurer and that all the costs of the case are borne by the insurer. “There will be no direct impact on the budget of Memorial as a result of this,” he said.
Dr. Bella retired from Memorial last year. Dr. Rowe left Memorial a number of years ago to take a faculty position in the United States.
