Bulletin: Rejean Hinse: Quebec: Moment of truth: Will Rejean Hinse be compensated for the miscarriage of justice in his case? He alleges that the federal government helped to perpetuate and exacerbate the prejudice he suffered - and - and that the government was guilty of systemic contributory fault in failing to act to acknowledge and remedy the miscarriage. He also argued that the conduct of the federal authorities in his case [translation] “was indicative of reprehensible carelessness, recklessness and total denial, which must be denounced and condemned”. (The Superior Court allowed the action and ordered the Attorney General of Canada to pay nearly $5.8 million. Finding that Mr. Hinse had not discharged his burden of establishing the fault of the federal authorities, the Court of Appeal set aside the decision.") (It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court deals with the evidence given by an expert witness called by the prosecution - a psychiatrist - who seemed to say that his confinement in penitentiary had been a “plus” for Mr. Hinse (who, of course, was an utterly innocent man who should not have had to spend a second of hs life behind bars. HL)

From the Supreme Court of Canada case summary (provided for informational purposes only); On November 3, 1964, Réjean Hinse was convicted of robbery and sentenced to imprisonment for 15 years. From that time on, Mr. Hinse repeatedly, and by various means, sought recognition that he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice, including by trying to obtain a pardon from the Governor in Council and by appealing to the Crown’s power of mercy. It was not until 33 years later, on January 21, 1997, that Mr. Hinse was acquitted by the Supreme Court of Canada after obtaining an extension of the time for appealing his conviction. Following the acquittal, Mr. Hinse brought an action against the town of Mont-Laurier, the Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General of Canada solidarily. However, a settlement agreement was reached with the town ($250,000) and the Attorney General of Quebec ($5,300,000). Against the Attorney General of Canada, Mr. Hinse alleged that the federal government had helped to perpetuate and exacerbate the prejudice he had suffered as a result of the miscarriage of justice and was guilty of systemic contributory fault in failing to act to acknowledge and remedy the miscarriage. He also argued that the conduct of the federal authorities in his case [translation] “was indicative of reprehensible carelessness, recklessness and total denial, which must be denounced and condemned”. He claimed $1,079,871 in compensation for pecuniary damage, $1,900,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and $10,000,000 in punitive damages. The Superior Court allowed the action and ordered the Attorney General of Canada to pay nearly $5.8 million. Finding that Mr. Hinse had not discharged his burden of establishing the fault of the federal authorities, the Court of Appeal set aside the decision.
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=35613
See La Presse article: (Yves Boisvert; 31 March, 2015)........."One can calculate “material damages”, such as the loss of income. But “moral damages”, intangibles, are worth considerably more. There can be no true monetary value put on the suffering and frustration of unjust imprisonment, of missing a part of one’s life. And yet, we must put a figure on it. One of the ways to assess these damages is to seek psychological expertise. During the trial of Réjean Hinse against the Attorney-General of Canada, the Court was able to hear the conclusions of expert psychiatrists on both sides. An expert hired by Mr. Hinse, Dr. Lionel Béliveau, insisted on the considerable “post-traumatic stress disorder” suffered by the former inmate due to years of incarceration, years that have left an indelible mark on his personality. The expert hired by the federal government, Dr. Gilles Chamberland, presented another portrait. Certainly, the Mr. Hinse underwent suffering and frustration. But, being orphaned and mistreated in his childhood, this “child of Duplessis” experienced rage even before undergoing this injustice. The penitentiary caused suffering, but paradoxically Réjean Hinse knew to use his experience constructively. He learned a trade and lived well from it thereafter, continuing his fight against injustice. How can two experts arrive at such divergent conclusions? At trial, Judge Hélène Poulin severely criticized Dr. Chamberland’s conclusions (as did I at the time of the judgment). Dr. Chamberland is a renowned psychiatrist, whose competence no one would call into question. How do we explain such different expert viewpoints? He seemed to say that the prison had been a “plus” for Mr. Hinse. This is truly not the case.
The answer is in the question, the question the expert answered. Dr. Chamberland first claimed that Mr. Hinse has no psychiatric illness. He believes that considering Mr. Hinse’s childhood, imprisonment did not have a “quantifiable” effect on his “later” life. In other words, Dr. Chamberland is saying that Mr. Hinse has no interest in receiving damages due to incarceration, but to what followed. Prison did not provide “harmonious development”, it’s well understood. But it allowed Mr. Hinse to becomes “actively engaged” in his life for the first time. Dr. Chamberland poses no moral judgment on the obvious horror of the judicial error: he clinically evaluates the psychiatric fallout of wrongful imprisonment. Where does so different a portrait come from? Classic, you say: Two experts confront and argue each thesis. The judge must decide. A little too classical for the taste of many within the system. The reform of Quebec’s civil procedure, which aims to simplify and streamline judicial affairs, is leaning towards the elimination of the often sterile battles of expert witnesses. It’s a movement that we see at work in a number of countries: the lone expert chosen not by the parties to the case, but by the judge. Quebec reform is heading in this direction… but only halfway."
 http://www.aidwyc.org/expert-testimony-in-court-how-much-is-five-years-spent-in-prison-worth-when-one-is-innocent/