The woman sued the Campbell River officer, claiming he engaged in “increasingly intrusive grooming” behaviour, leading to the two having sexual intercourse shortly after she turned 16 in the 1970s
A former Campbell River Mountie has been ordered to pay a woman $817,000 for “grooming” her as a teen decades ago.
The woman sued Bill Pound, claiming he engaged in “increasingly intrusive grooming” behaviour, leading to the two having sexual intercourse shortly after she turned 16 in the 1970s, according to arecent decisionin B.C. Supreme Court.
She said the relationship continued until she was in her early 20s, and the psychological pain she suffered as a result led to crippling alcohol addiction, social anxiety and an inability to live a productive life for roughly 30 years.
In her lawsuit, the woman, who theTimes Colonistis not naming, said she was 15 when she met Pound, an RCMP officer in his early 30s who lived nearby with his wife and two young children.
She testified she saw Pound around the neighbourhood, and before long, he started complimenting her, telling her she was pretty and that he had been thinking about her.
The first physical contact she could recall occurred in her backyard, a couple of months after they met, when Pound hugged and kissed her, and she felt his erection in his shorts, the woman said.
The physical relationship became more intimate as time passed, but Pound told her they needed to wait until her 16th birthday to have sex, or it would be considered statutory rape, she testified. She said the first time they had sex was just after she turned 16.
Almost all of the sexual encounters took place in his bedroom on Sunday mornings, when his wife and children were at church, she said.
The woman eventually told her mother and two friends, and was disappointed that her friends disapproved of the relationship, because she considered herself to be in love with Pound, the woman testified.
The relationship continued during weekend visits to Campbell River after the woman moved to Victoria for university.
The two last saw each other in 1986, when Pound called to tell the woman he was in Victoria for work. She testified she invited him over and they had sex.
Pound gave a different version of events at trial. He admitted to the sexual relationship but testified it did not begin until the woman was 20 and said they only had sexual contact on three occasions. He denied liability on the basis that the woman was capable of consenting when they had sex.
He testified he first had sex with the woman when she was 20. He said he was at home watching TV with her while his family was away, and told the woman he was going to sleep and she could either go home or join him in bed, testifying it was meant as a joke. When she left the room, he assumed she had gone home, but when he went upstairs, he found her naked in his bed and proceeded to have sex with her, he said.
Under cross-examination, he testified he had sex with the woman “to be polite, and because he felt sorry for her.”
He denied knowing the woman well or socializing with her. Faced with childhood diary entries by the woman’s friend recounting the developing sexual relationship between the two, he called it a “childhood fantasy.”
At issue for B.C. Supreme Court Justice Amy Francis was determining whether Pound committed sexual battery against the woman and, if so, whether a link could be established between the sexual battery and her alcohol-use disorder.
Francis found the woman “a careful and understated” witness who freely admitted challenges with her memory and did not seek to vilify Pound in her evidence, describing him as “lovely” and “gentle” during the first time the two had sex.
Francis described Pound as a challenging witness, whose testimony was brief and lacking detail and who was prone to offering information that did not answer the questions asked.
“For example, a number of times on cross-examination, he made references to [the plaintiff’s] medical records in a way that was not responsive to a question but which, presumably in his mind, served to cast [the plaintiff] in a poor light,” Francis said.
She found his explanation of the first sexual encounter “utterly improbable.”
“Mr. Pound never explained in his evidence how it came to be that a 20-year-old neighbour with whom he had no relationship happened to be watching TV with him in his living room while his wife and children were away,” she said.
Despite denying knowing the woman and her family well, he had detailed knowledge of the family’s history, Francis said in her decision.
An expert psychiatrist testified that the relationship with Pound contributed to or caused her social anxiety disorder, while another said much of Pound’s behaviour amounted to grooming and sexual exploitation.
Francis ordered Pound to pay the woman $817,000, including $567,000 in loss of income-earning capacity, $200,000 for general damages and $50,000 in punitive damages.
[email protected]