Judge dismisses inmate’s assault lawsuit against GNWT

An NWT Supreme Court justice has dismissed a lawsuit that alleged the territorial government was liable for a violent assault against an inmate at Yellowknife’s jail.

Justin Clillie had sought $25,000 in damages from the NWT government, claiming that corrections staff had breached their duty of care by not taking reasonable precautions to prevent another inmate, Jason Bard, from attacking him.

The territory argued that corrections staff acted reasonably in the circumstances.

In a written ruling on Monday, Justice Annie Piché sided with the NWT government, saying Clillie’s lawyer had not proven that corrections officials were negligent or that their negligence had caused his injuries. Had she ruled in Clillie’s favour, she said she would have awarded him $20,000 in damages.

‘A vicious attack’

According to the decision, Clillie and Bard were both inmates at the North Slave Correctional Complex at the time of the assault, which took place in 2018.

Just after dinner, Bard approached corrections officer Michael Purcell expressing frustration because he had not yet been assigned a job at the jail.

Bard told Purcell he was going to randomly attack someone, saying, “I’m just going to pick someone and f—ing go for them.”

Purcell told Bard to go outside and get some fresh air and Bard complied.

Roughly three minutes later, Bard came back inside and headed straight toward Clillie, who was sitting alone at a table watching TV. He proceeded to hit Clillie on the head with a plastic cup and repeatedly punched him before Clillie was able to free himself and corrections officers intervened.

The attack left Clillie with a concussion and two lacerations to his head, which required a total of nine stitches. He said he has since experienced anxiety and fear of being the victim of another attack.

“Mr Bard committed a vicious attack on Mr Clillie that caused him significant injuries and could have been even more serious considering the violence of the assault,” Justice Piché wrote. “Mr Clillie was targeted randomly, understandably leaving him in a state of perplexity and apprehension.”

Officer’s response and Bard’s violent past

In his lawsuit, Clillie argued that Purcell had failed to isolate Bard from other inmates after he threatened to randomly attack someone.

Purcell said inmates often make threats and he is trained to de-escalate such situations. Jail policy, he told the court, is to only use physical restraints and segregation as a last resort. He said he believed he had de-escalated the situation when Bard agreed to go outside.

Piché said while “with the benefit of hindsight, one might conclude that the officer needed to do more,” she found that, at the time, it was reasonable for Purcell to believe he was successful in de-escalating.

Clillie further argued that corrections staff had failed to properly collect and review information about Bard’s violent criminal record and previous violent behaviour in custody.

Giving an example of that behaviour, the court decision stated that less than two years before the incident in Yellowknife, Bard had stabbed an inmate in Alberta several times in the face with a pen because he thought he was talking about him.

Purcell admitted that before the attack, he did not know much about Bard. He said he usually does not seek information on an inmate’s background to avoid forming a bias against them. He added that had he known about Bard’s history, it would not have changed how he handled his threat.

The court also heard that while it is standard practice for case managers at Yellowknife’s jail to begin inquiring about an inmate’s background within five business days after they arrive, Bard’s case manager did not do so until more than six weeks later.

The NWT government argued that was reasonable, however, as the case management team has a heavy caseload and limited resources. Warden John Nahanni testified that the Yellowknife jail has approximately 600 intakes a year and four case managers.

Even if she found the case management team had been negligent, Piché said, Clillie had not proven that Purcell would have taken more restrictive measures had he known about Bard’s background.

“There is no doubt Mr Clillie suffered damages because of Mr Bard’s violent assault,” Piché concluded.

“However, following Mr Bard’s threat, the response of reasonably prudent corrections officials would not have prevented this attack. As a result, the GNWT is not liable for Mr Clillie’s loss.”