A Yukon Supreme Court justice has dismissed a $1.2-million civil action suit against the Yukon government and a former school principal.

Justice John Richard has instead awarded the plaintiff $30,000 in damages for abuse he sustained at the hands of a babysitter.

"The civil standard of proof, i.e., on a balance of probabilities, has not been met by the plaintiff," Richard, who presided over the two-week trial held earlier this spring, noted in his 23-page decision.

The plaintiff alleged that the government should be held responsible for abuse perpetrated by his babysitter approximately 30 years ago, because the babysitter was a ward of the state.

The plaintiff also claimed damages because of sexual abuse he claimed was perpetrated by his school principal, also approximately 30 years ago.

The plaintiff's counsel, Dan Shier, alleged during the trial that his client's long-standing difficulties with alcohol and drug addictions, underachievement in education and employment, and emotional anxieties can be attributed to his abusers' behaviour.

"Why would a 34-year-old man burn himself, cut himself, tear out his toenails?" Shier asked during his final submissions at trial.

John Henderson and Lorena Harris, co-counsel for the government, alleged that the plaintiff's dysfunction could be attributed to many other factors. They include an unstable family life, learning disabilities, and bullying and racism while at school.

The plaintiff, who has one biological parent who is aboriginal and one who is not, experienced bullying from both native and non-native children while at school, notes the court decision.

The plaintiff "had a difficult childhood, a difficult adolescence, and, for the most part but not always, a dysfunctional and unhappy adult life to date," reads the document.

He has a criminal record that includes convictions of assault, theft and break and enter.

Richard noted in his decision that the plaintiff's allegations of sexual abuse against his former school principal, now 70 years of age, is not corroborated by any other evidence.

Richard also expressed his "unease" or "concern" with certain aspects of the plaintiff's testimony regarding these allegations.

"There are some inconsistencies between the plaintiff's trial evidence and earlier narratives," he wrote.

Richard also noted that the plaintiff "had no memory of his childhood sexual abuse until his adult years," and that he first disclosed these memories to his mother in 2002.

Richard noted that recovered memories do exist, albeit rarely. However, he also pointed out that the plaintiff has never made any complaints to police regarding this abuse, and that the possibility exists that the plaintiff has intermixed details of past events.

"Many of the plaintiff's responses, when testifying at trial, followed leading questions posed by his counsel on contentious issues," Richard wrote.

"I am unable to conclude that it is more probable than not that (the former principal) had sexual contact with the plaintiff," Richard wrote.

The plaintiff's former babysitter, on the other hand, admitted to abusing him as a child, both physically and sexually.

Richard noted that her evidence "was presented in a credible and forthright fashion."

Thus, Richard wrote that he is "satisfied that the defendant intentionally had sexual contact with the plaintiff when she was 12-13 years of age, and the plaintiff was 5-6 years of age."

But Richard wrote that since there was simply "no evidentiary foundation that (the babysitter), at age 12-13, had any dangerous or predatory propensity to inflict harm on younger children," the Yukon government could not have foreseen her abuse against the plaintiff.

"It cannot be said that social workers in the employ of YTG and assigned to (the babysitter's) wardship in 1978-1980, could have acted any differently to protect the plaintiff," he wrote.

Despite his acceptance that the babysitter's abuse took place, Richard wrote that the plaintiff "has not established that his current problems were caused by his childhood sexual battery by (the babysitter)."

As such, Richard did not award aggravated or punitive damages.

The $30,000 is for general damages only.

Counsel may make written submissions on costs within 20 days of the date of filing of the court decision, the document concludes.