Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Cohen Highley LLP Terms & Conditions.

© Copyright 2002, Cohen Highley LLP. All Rights Reserved.  Cohen Highley Privacy Policy.

Improvements to the old Dispute Resolution System (DRS) have now been implemented into the Individual Assessment Program (IAP).

1. Payments will be increased and standardized.

Under the old DRS, there are different compensation grids for residents of different provinces. Residents of BC, Yukon and Ontario received higher compensation than residents of other provinces. Also under the old system, payment of the full award was dependant on compensation from the Churches. The Catholic Church, for the most part, refused to pay a share of the compensation and the amount received by an individual was reduced by 30% reflecting this arrangement.

Under the new IAP, the overall compensation grid has been increased, (from a former high of $245,000 to $275,000) and other provinces have been brought up to the level of BC/Yukon/Ontario levels. All persons will receive 100% of their compensation regardless of the Church affiliation of their residential school.

2. Compensable Harms have been changed.

Lower level physical abuse and wrongful confinement within the institution is no longer compensable, but persistent abuse or other wrongful acts which have caused serious psychological consequences will be compensable.

3. Liability for sexual and physical abuse has been extended from employees of the institution to any adult person lawfully on the premises.

Claimants have been extended from students at residential school to persons under the age of 21 permitted by an adult employee to be on the premises to take part in authorized school activities.

4 The list of schools covered by the program has been extended by including boarding facilities to which students were dispatched to attend local schools.

5. The basis for liability for abuse by other students has been extended from sexual to physical abuse.

Where the assaults are serious sexual assaults, the onus is on the defendants to show that reasonable supervision was in place at the time. In less serious assaults the claimant must show that an adult employee of the government or church had or should reasonably have had knowledge that abuse of the kind alleged was occurring at the IRS in question during the time period of the alleged abuse, and did not take reasonable steps to prevent such abuse. This is a broader standard than the previous test which required that the claimant prove that the assault in question was the subject of a pattern of sexual assaults which continued after the staff of the IRS had actual knowledge the sexual assaults were occurring.

6. The grid covering opportunity loss has been increased.

Actual income loss, formerly not compensable, is available up to $250,000 within the IAP proper and in excess of that amount where the Chief Adjudicator refers the matter to the Court for determination.

7. Additional aggravating factors resulting in increased compensation have been added to the previous list.

8. Provision has been made for settlement of claims without a hearing.

This was not possible under the old system. Similarly under the old system expert reports, which are required to prove certain harms and impacts, were available only after a hearing. Under the new process, the parties may consent to the obtaining of these reports prior to a hearing.

9. Timelines for resolution of individual claims have been incorporated into the process.

In particular, there is a commitment that individual claims would be resolved within nine months, provided the delay is not on the part of the claimant. No fewer than 2500 decisions per year are to be made. Where these timelines are not met, the National Administration Committee may apply to court to change the process to permit their realization.

10. Claims will no longer be vetted by the government in advance. They will be submitted directly to the Secretariat.

11. The government will no longer have the option of modifying the program unilaterally.

This can only be done, in respect of minor changes, by the National Administration Committee, 5 of whose 7 members represent, in one fashion or another, claimants. In respect of major changes, these can only be done by the Courts, and the entire implementation of the settlement, including the IAP, will ultimately be subject to judicial supervision.