Alleged foster child victim of sex offender Donnie Snook sues N.B. for negligence
A man who was once a foster child in the care of former Saint John city councillor and notorious sex offender Donnie Snook is suing the province for negligence.
David Merritt alleges he suffered sexual, physical, emotional and mental abuse at the hands of Snook "around 2002 through 2003," when he was 10 or 11 years old.
Snook, who turns 52 next month, was granted day parole in May. He had been serving an 18-year sentence after pleading guilty in 2013 to 46 child exploitation-related charges, including sexual assault, making child pornography and extortion.
His crimes involved 17 boys over a 12-year period, some as young as five. One was a 14-year-old foster child, placed in his care by the Department of Social Development.
The former youth-ministry leader, who ran a hot-lunch program, was also sentenced to an additional three months after he pleaded guilty to three child exploitation charges involving a boy under 14 in his home province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Province vicariously liable for Snook's actions
According to lawsuit documents filed with the New Brunswick Court of King's Bench in Saint John, Merritt suffered "psychological injury and harm, psychological and emotional impairments and resulting disability."
Snook's actions were in "direct breach of his parental-like fiduciary duties," Merritt alleges, and because of his young age, he was "particularly vulnerable to and at the mercy" of Snook, who had power and authority over him.
In his statement of claim, Merritt contends the province was responsible for his "care, maintenance, education, protection and supervision" as a foster child, and is vicariously liable for the "sexual battery, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty" by Snook, who was "an employee, servant or agent of" the Department of Social Development.
He is seeking damages for, among other things, past and future medical costs, loss of past income and future earnings, as well as pain and suffering.
He is also seeking costs and any other relief the court deems just.
Province files claim against Snook
The province, meanwhile, argues the lawsuit is barred by statute because too much time has passed. It contends the action should be dismissed with costs.
In its amended statement of defence filed with the court on Dec. 7, the province further argues it met the "requisite standard of care," had no knowledge of Snook's actions, and isn't responsible for any "injuries" he might have caused or "damages flowing therefrom, both of which are specifically denied."
In addition, it claims that based upon a review of records, Merritt only ever stayed with Snook for one respite weekend, Sept. 24-26, 2004 — not 2002 through 2003, as alleged.
Documents related to the lawsuit were filed with the Court of King's Bench in Saint John between Sept. 22 and Dec. 7. No hearing date has been set. (Roger Cosman/CBC)
Merritt allegedly admitted this when he was interviewed by Saint John police on March 4, 2013, as a result of "other events surrounding" Snook coming to light, according to the province.
"Furthermore, the plaintiff was specifically asked if [Snook] sexually assaulted him and he denied same," the province alleges.
If, however, the province is found liable, it argues Snook was "contributorily negligent," and it has filed a third-party claim against him for all or some of the damages and costs.
Failed to screen for suitability, plaintiff alleges
Department of Social Development spokesperson Rebecca Howland declined to comment, citing the matter being before the courts.
Snook was released on day parole to an undisclosed halfway house in B.C. and could not be reached for comment.
Merritt, who now lives in Calgary, could not be reached for comment. His Dartmouth-based lawyer Robert Kimball declined to comment before speaking to his client.
The statement of claim cites several examples of the province's alleged negligence, including that it:
Placed the plaintiff in circumstances in which he was repeatedly sexually battered by an employee when the province knew or ought to have known of the numerous illicit acts.
Subjected the plaintiff to the care of persons whose qualifications by way of formal training and practical experience were never investigated, evaluated or monitored, and whose lack of qualifications were overlooked and/or ignored.
Failed to respond, investigate, evaluate or inquire into complaints of sexual abuse that the province knew or ought to have known of, through its agents, employees and servants.
Failed to qualify or cause to be qualified or to screen for suitability or to supervise, monitor, police or assess the agents, employees and servants, entrusted with his care.
Failed to designate services and methods as protective services or not properly implementing such services.
Failed to revoke the employee's powers and to ensure appropriate supervision, care and custody.
The province argues Snook was an approved foster parent and had "met the requisite standard in place to be an approved foster parent at the time of the events alleged."
A date to hear the case has not yet been scheduled by the court.
