Friday, February 21, 2014
case of MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN SIDING WITH ABUSIVE FATHER
If you want to catch up on the significant case that has been going on for months, here is the blog site written by PAPA INBC. The author has attended court sessions and been giving a running summation of the case in which the incompetence of certain aspects of the Ministry of Children and Family Development is being exposed. Besides the website there is a blog site dedicated to the trial.
For readers not familiar with this lawsuit, you may want to refer to a few past articles. (there is a lengthy series following)
Ian Mulgrew: Children’s ministry sided with sexually abusive father
http://bit.ly/1bJ4rDU Vancouver Sun Ian Kate Mulgrew
Father given unsupervised access to children he molested - British Columbia - CBC News (with video of Jack Hittrich speaking)
Misfeasance (as opposed to Malfeasance) definition is as follows:
(a) the defendant must be a public officer.
(b) the defendant’s conduct must involve the exercise of power as a public officer, or the exercise of public functions.
(c) the defendant must be shown to have one of two states of mind:
(i) targeted malice - conduct specifically intended to injure someone. This includes “bad faith” in the sense of exercising public powers for an improper or ulterior motive; or
(ii) acting with subjective knowledge that he has no power to do the act complained of and subjective knowledge that the act will probably injure the plaintiff; or acting with subjective reckless indifference with respect to the illegality of the act and subjective reckless indifference to the outcome.
(d) the public officer must owe a duty to the plaintiff, which may be established by showing that the plaintiff has the right not to be damaged or injured by a deliberate abuse of power.
(e) causation - the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s abuse of power caused him harm as a matter of fact.
(f) the plaintiff must show that he has suffered damages that are not “too remote” from the defendant’s tortious act. The plaintiff must show not only that the defendant knew his act was beyond his powers, but also acted in the knowledge that his act would probably injure the plaintiff or a person of the class of which the plaintiff was a member.
Category A involves conduct that is specifically intended to injure a person or class of persons.
Category B involves a public officer who acts with knowledge both that she or he has no power to do the act complained of and that the act is likely to injure the plaintiff.
There are two new entries for today on the Papa InBC Facebook page, one is copied over to http://papabc.blogspot.ca to permit better Google searching.
The earliest the submissions will be completed is estimated to be the end of April. The Crown BEGINS its reply submissions on March 31st.
No doubt, Judge Walker will take more than just a few weeks, if not months to produce a appeal-proof ruling.