The plagiarizing judge?

Lawsuit headed to Supreme Court over judge's plagiarism

By Kenyon Wallace
Thursday, November 24, 2011

A malpractice lawsuit launched by a B.C. woman on behalf of her brain-damaged son is headed to the Supreme Court of Canada after a multi-million dollar settlement was overturned because the judge in the case plagiarized most of his decision.

Monica Cojocaru successfully sued the B.C. Women’s Hospital and several of its medical staff for negligence three years ago after her son, Eric, was born with permanent brain damage.

The judge in the original case, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Joel Groves, found that the hospital and doctors were responsible when Cojocaru’s uterus ruptured, sending the fetus into her abdominal cavity and depriving it of oxygen for more than 20 minutes.

But Justice Groves’ decision to award Cojocaru $4 million in damages was overturned by the B.C. Court of Appeal, which found 321 of 368 paragraphs in his ruling were copied “almost word-for-word” from the plaintiff’s written submissions.

“I’m feeling sadness and happiness at the same time,” Cojocaru told the Star upon learning her case was destined for the highest court. “I’m sad because I still wonder why we had to get here, why things weren’t dealt with in the proper way, why it has taken so long. The roller coaster hasn’t stopped for us.”

The 43-year-old single mother said Eric, now 10, has struggled all his life with his cerebral palsy. The Grade 5 special-needs student has almost no short-term memory. He can’t read or write. He falls down frequently because his balance is off.

“Every evening when I put him to sleep, I always think of the other children who are listening to stories,” said Cojocaru, who works as a pharmacy technician in East Vancouver. “Instead I have to repeat to him over and over what day it is tomorrow and that he’s going to go to school.”

She says Eric needs extensive occupational, speech and physiotherapy treatments, which she would have been able to provide had the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld her victory.

“All those years, if he would have gotten the help he needed, he would have been able to live an easier life. But we did not get the help we needed.”

In its ruling earlier this year, the B.C. Court of Appeal reasoned that to allow Groves’ original decision to stand would “undermine support for the legitimacy of the justice system.”

“We conclude that the reasons for judgment must be rejected because they cannot be taken to represent the trial judge’s analysis of the issues or the reasoning for his conclusions,” the court wrote. “Rather than exhibiting any sign that the trial judge grappled with the difficult issues confronting him, one is left with page after page of wholesale, uncritical reproduction of the respondents’ written submissions.”

The Supreme Court of Canada did not give reasons Thursday for why it decided to give Cojocaru leave to appeal.

Dan Shugarman, Cojocaru’s lawyer, said it is important for the high court to examine how judges across the country look to prosecution and defence counsel for guidance in rendering their decisions.

“I’d like to think that the Supreme Court agreeing to look at the Court of Appeal’s decision is also to some degree suggestive that they felt my client’s case itself was sufficiently important that it warranted a look as well,” he said. “It has given her some comfort and faith that our system may end up resulting in her having some justice.”