Child advocates see chill in abuse reporting in Supreme Court ruling.

St. John's, NL -- The Supreme Court of Canada backed Wanda Young against Memorial University of New Foundland and two social work professors in the Supreme Court of Canada. She was awarded $850,000 because she was mistakenly identified as a potential child abuser. The professors were Leslie Bella and William S. Rowe, director of the school of social work.

The Child Welfare League of Canada was an intervenor in the case. The League expressed concern the decision could place a chill on reporting because the decision limits the protection from civil liability for those who report suspicions of child abuse and neglect in good faith. Most provinces have similar reporting and registry systems for those suspected of child abuse. They are expected to reconsider their legislation and regulations.

Young was an undergraduate student interested in entering social work, when she submitted a term paper to Professor Bella in 1994. She attached an unattributed (i.e. missing a footnote) first person account of a woman sexually abusing children.

The professor assumed that the report was autobiographical but did not seek an explanation from the student. Bella took the matter to social work director William Rowe. Without further inquiry, a report was sent to the province's Child Protection Services and Wanda Young was "red flagged" as a potential child abuser.

The report was unknown to her until she was approached by the Child Protection Services two years later. (The judges wondered why it took so long.) The CPS investigation quickly determined that student's account had been copied from a textbook, (identified in the bibliography) and the suspicion was found baseless.

However, the story of her being named in the Child Protection files continued to follow Wanda Young afterward. The initial report was known to at least 10 social workers, including a personal friend. Her application for the School of Social Work was turned down and she had problems in applying for any job that would bring her into contact with children. She brought an action for negligence against the professor, the director and the University.

A jury trial concluded the University's treatment of Young was negligent and because of this negligence her chosen career prospects had been destroyed. It awarded $839,400 in damages, including $430,000 in non-pecuniary damages. However, the Court of Appeal in a split decision ruled that the Child Welfare Act protects an informant unless the person acted "maliciously or without reasonable cause."

The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the professors had not met the standards of care expected between the university and its students. There was a breach of duty in failing to check before reporting Young to the Child Protection Services.

Child Welfare League of Canada Executive Director Peter Dudding said: "Anything that would delay the timely reporting of suspicions of child abuse is critically important to our effort to protect children and could result in a significant risk of a chill on the reporting of child abuse and neglect."

He added: "The Supreme Court decision reinforces the need for good public awareness and professional education to ensure that all Canadians are knowledgeable about the ways to report their suspicions and concerns."

www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2006