B.C. man who got $8M says he'll be penniless if made to pay sex assault damages
VANCOUVER — A British Columbia man who was awarded $8 million after being wrongfully convicted of sexual assault and spending 27 years in prison says he'll be left "homeless and penniless" if forced to pay civil damages to victims who won a lawsuit against him.
The B.C. Court of Appeal ruled this week that five women who were awarded $375,000 each in January against Ivan Henry can't go after his home or vehicles pending his appeal, but ordered him to pay $232,000 into a trust account.
"The value of the (January) judgment exceeds my net worth," Henry said in an affidavit. "I would be homeless and have no means to support myself."
Henry was convicted of 10 counts of sexual assault in 1983, but was released after an appeal determined he was wrongfully convicted and he was acquitted in 2010.
The appeal ruling says Henry was awarded more than $8 million in 2018 for breaches of his Charter rights after suing the province and others for wrongful conviction, but five women sued him in 2017, alleging he sexually assaulted them in their Vancouver homes in the early 1980s.
The B.C. Supreme Court sided with the women in the civil case but the appeal ruling says Henry has not taken any steps to pay them and both he and the plaintiffs have filed appeals.
The five women are appealing the court's refusal to award punitive damages in the case of $1 million each.
This week's ruling says Henry applied to "stay execution" of the damages award and he told the court he spent millions defending the lawsuit, gave away more than $2 million, and now lives in a mortgage-free home on a monthly stipend from old-age security and the Canada Pension Plan.
Henry filed an affidavit in the Court of Appeal this month that outlines his current living situation, his finances and the history of the case.
It says he has had "significant health issues" since his release from prison, undergoing quintuple bypass heart surgery in 2016.
Henry, now 78, said he lives alone at his home in Hope, B.C., with an assessed value of $650,000, and he owns two vehicles worth a combined $40,000.
Henry said his Charter damages were paid out in instalments.
He said he "gifted" more than $2 million to family members and a former partner, and also made donations.
"These gifts were unconditional gifts with no expectation of repayment," said Henry, who estimated his annual living expenses at around $40,000.
He said the rest of the money went toward living expense and legal expenses fighting the civil lawsuit.
Henry said he continues to have "anxiety and other long-term effects" from his time behind bars, and asked the court to allow him to remain in his home until the appeal is decided.
"My home provides me with a consistent and secure environment that supports my ability to manage these challenges. It is a place where I feel safe and can maintain a routine."
The Court of Appeal found discrepancies in Henry's claims, finding his evidence leaves $1.8 million "unaccounted for," while he couldn't explain where "large sums" flowing in and out of his account went between 2018 and 2023.
The ruling says Henry's affidavit is "not consistent" with what he said in an examination by the plaintiffs a week before he filed the document.
He had said on May 5 that he gave away an estimated $3 million by 2017. He also said he had about $2 million and a house in 2024, but lost millions defending the civil action.
Justice Nitya Iyer found that it is possible Henry doesn't have the money to pay the award and may lose his home, but "inconsistencies" in his affidavit and the examination "raise real questions about whether Mr. Henry has access to more funds than he claims."
The ruling says the appeal will likely be heard this fall, with a decision in the spring of 2026.
Lawyers for Henry and the complainants did not immediately respond to a requests for comment.
The women who sued Henry described sexual assaults in their ground-floor or basement suites between May 1981 and June 1982.
The judge in January's civil ruling found Henry liable, saying "it is more likely than not that he was their attacker and performed the sexual assaults … on a balance of probabilities."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 30, 2025.
Darryl Greer, The Canadian Press
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Downton Abbey 3 Isn't Bringing Back Matthew Goode, But I Actually Like His Reasoning For Why This Is ‘A Really Positive Thing'
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. By the time Downton Abbey, one of the great Peak TV era shows, ended in 2015, Michelle Dockery's Lady Mary Talbot had been lucky enough to find love again, this time with Matthew Goode's Henry Talbot. The two of them were even expecting a child, and we got to meet little Caroline alongside her parents in the 2019 Downton Abbey movie. However, Henry wasn't around in 2022's Downton Abbey: A New Era and also won't appear in Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale, one of the later 2025 movie releases. However, Goode sees his absence this time around as a 'really positive thing' for a specific reason, and I have to say, I like the way he's thinking. As far as why Goode isn't appearing in Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale, it boiled down to scheduling conflicts, as he told THR that he was busy filming the British crime thriller series Dept. Q. The actor also mentioned that even if he had been able to carve out time, there was only 'half a page' of material for him. Goode continued: And actually, I said, you know what? Why can't this be a really positive thing? Because I don't know what they're doing. They might kill [Henry]! I didn't see the script. But it's a wonderful opportunity — [Mary, Michelle Dockery's character] is like this modern feminist icon and in a weird way, maybe she doesn't need a fella. Maybe Downton's enough or maybe some old suitor will come in. Now, it opens up the story to have something significant happen. Why have Henry come? I will admit that the idea of Mary losing another husband doesn't sit too well with me. Downton Abbey fans (who can currently revisit the show with a Peacock subscription) will obviously remember that Dan Stevens' Matthew Crawley was her chief love interest during the show's first three seasons, but he died in a car crash on the way home after seeing his newborn son in the hospital. In fact, Henry being a race car driver was the main reason Mary initially broke off her romantic relationship with him, as she couldn't bear the thought of losing another husband in a car crash. More on Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale Downton Abbey 3 Was Always Going To Be Difficult Without Maggie Smith, And Paul Giamatti Confirms 'It Was Not The Same' Downton Abbey 3's Michelle Dockery On The 'Beautiful' Third Movie And Honoring Maggie Smith But putting that aside, Mary did just fine without Henry by her side in A New Era, with his absence in that movie being attributed to him participating at a racing event in Istanbul. If Matthew Goode's musing that Henry Talbot could be killed off is correct, it's not like Mary is lacking in a support system to help her through this new round of grief, between her parents, sister, brother-in-law, the family's staff, the list goes on. My only request is that if Henry does indeed shuffle off this mortal coil, don't let it be from a car crash. It's also possible that nothing bad's going to happen to Henry, and whatever his small role would have been in Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale would simply have set up the reason for his exit. In any case, I'm ok with not seeing Mary with Henry again, nor do I need to see her take up another suitor. With this being the final film in the Downton Abbey franchise, I'd much rather see her spending as much time as possible with her family and other loved ones in her life. Downton Abbey: The Grand Finale opens in theaters on September 12. For the Matthew Goode fans out there, you're also welcome to watch him play Detective Carl Morck in Dept. Q, which can now be streamed with a Netflix subscription.


Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
G7 protests to be livestreamed to leaders in Kananaskis to give protesters a voice
CALGARY - Law enforcement officials overseeing security at the upcoming G7 leaders summit in Alberta are expecting large protests but plan to make sure they stay peaceful. That includes livestreaming some of the sites to Kananaskis, where leaders from Canada, the United States, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, Italy and the European Union will meet from June 15 to 17. 'These three designated G7 demonstration zones will have live audio and video feeds, which will be broadcast to G7 leaders and delegations at the site of the summit in Kananaskis,' said RCMP Chief Supt. David Hall at a media briefing Monday. 'People who want to express themselves, as is their right, can't get close to the leaders, so the leaders won't see and hear the protests. So by establishing that video link, we are helping facilitate that Charter access.' Hall said teams have been reaching out to protest groups to clarify their intentions. He said protests are legal and every effort will be made to ensure they are given their right to express themselves. Joe Brar, the G7 event security director from Calgary police, said the city has protests every single weekend and it will continue throughout the summer. 'G7 puts Calgary on a global stage so we expect that to draw more protesters as well,' Brar said. 'We are working with organizers in advance ... to have conversations around demonstrations, what people's intentions are, when they're planning on demonstrating ... and ensuring they understand those that are lawful.' A display in the Calgary police parking lot showed some of the security equipment available for G7, including tactical units, protective gear, armoured police and military vehicles, and officers on horseback. 'These tools are reserved for worst-case scenarios and would only be deployed after other available options have been exhausted,' said Hall. Greg Medley, deputy chief of Alberta Sheriffs, said officers will be involved in traffic control, searching vehicles and, if necessary, helping with mass arrests. 'These officers are specially trained in the mass handling and movement of those in custody and will assure the detainees' legal rights are respected and upheld while maintaining public safety and security across all event sites.' Air restrictions over the Calgary International Airport and over Kananaskis Village have already been announced. The radius at Kananaskis Village will be 30 nautical miles (56 kilometres), while it will be 20 nautical miles (37 kilometres) at the airport. The restrictions are set to begin at 6 a.m. June 14 and remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. on June 17. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 2, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reports say Manchester aldermen already have 'significant authority' over school budget
New reports from the Manchester city clerk and solicitor's offices suggest making the local school district a city department wouldn't give the mayor or aldermen much more power over the school budget then they already have. The reports appear as an agenda item for Tuesday's meeting of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, scheduled for 7 p.m. at City Hall. An effort to ask Manchester voters if they support making the school district a department of the city, a topic debated on and off for decades, was given new life recently when Mayor Jay Ruais broke a 7-7 tie to send a request to look at either making the Manchester School District a city department or granting the mayor the power to set the district's budget to the aldermen for study, ahead of possible placement on the November election ballot. While the school district isn't a city department, aldermen must approve its budget. For the matter to appear on a municipal ballot this November, aldermen need to take a final vote on the matter by Tuesday, June 3. City Clerk Matt Normand and City Solicitor Emily Rice were asked to research the topic ahead of a vote on the matter, with the understanding that the goal was to give the mayor more say over the school budget, including line-item veto power. In her report, Rice writes that she investigated the issue through the lens of establishing authority of the aldermen over the budget of the Manchester School District. 'It is the opinion of this office that the Mayor and the Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BMA) possess significant authority in this regard under both the current charter and applicable state law,' Rice writes. Rice points out the mayor has 'extensive authority over the form, procedure and adoption of the city's annual budget,' and the school district budget is subject to the approval of the BMA. 'If the BMA rejects the budget as submitted, the school committee is required to 'submit a revised budget which shall not exceed the maximum dollar amount established by the board of mayor and aldermen,'" Rice writes, quoting the city's Charter. 'The Charter contains no language which would, after rejection by the BMA, permit the submission of (a) school department budget which exceeds the maximum amount established by the BMA. 'It does not appear that seeking to amend the Charter to make the school district a department of city government would be an effective means of attempting to add to the city's significant existing authority over the school district budget.' Rice adds any such amendment would be subject to numerous controlling state statutes and administrative rules governing the authority and responsibilities of local school boards, school districts and superintendents. In a report on his on findings, Normand writes he was asked to present to the board a comparison of charter sections related to the school district within the current City Charter (known as the 1997 Charter) and the previous City Charter (known as the 1983 Charter), to the extent that the district had previously been considered a department. Normand also reviewed the 1996 Charter Commission minutes. 'It is clear that the commission was very deliberate in maintaining the same level of authority for both the district and the BMA outlined in the 1983 City Charter while making minor changes they believed would clarify responsibilities of each,' Normand writes. 'In summary, there is no appreciable difference between the two charters as it relates to the school district. There is no section of the 1983 City Charter that represents the district as a department; in fact, the 1997 City Charter expanded the seats on the Board of School Committee from twelve members to fourteen members (at-large positions), reiterated that the school district budget shall constitute a single line item, yet gave future mayors the ability to veto all acts of the aldermen including actions related to the entire budget or any line item thereof, for the first time.' Efforts to bring city schools under the umbrella of city government have fallen short over the past 20 years.