{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02581311306143521, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011874032008260196, 'mean_word_length': 5.113564668769716, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Negligent Misstatement in Canada: Young v Bella

WANDA YOUNG was a social work student at the Memorial University of Newfoundland. Her ambition was to be a social worker. She submitted a piece of coursework on juvenile sexual offenders, which included an appendix. The appendix was “a narrative, written in the first person, by a female describing sexual abuse she had committed against children whom she was babysitting”.1 The professor to whom the coursework was submitted was shocked: she thought that it was a personal confession by the student. She consulted the head of department, and they made a report to Child Protection Services, the government agency responsible for preventing and investigating child abuse. The professor also showed the coursework to the chairwoman of the department’s admissions committee. The chairwoman later advised Young against pursuing a career in childcare. It took two years for Child Protection Services to investigate, during which time Young’s name was placed on a register of people prohibited from working with children. As a result, the suspicion against her also circulated in the social work community. When, eventually, Child Protection Services put the allegation to Young, a different explanation emerged: the appendix had not been a cry for help, it had been plagiarised from a textbook, and not footnoted.2 But by then, her career prospects had been destroyed. Young brought an action for negligence against her professor, the head of department, and the University. The case was heard by a jury, which found that she had not been contributorily negligent,3 and awarded her $839,000 damages ($430,000 nonpecuniary, $409,000 pecuniary). The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal reversed this decision by a majority,4 but the Supreme Court of Canada has now restored it.5 The reasoning of both Canadian appellate courts illustrates important general issues of principle and policy.