Politicians should steer clear of Maurice case

Let courts handle lawsuit, countersuit involving rancher who shot intruder

As much as the Alberta government is eager to demonstrate its own solidarity with the overwhelming public support for Okotoks-area rancher Eddie Maurice, there is not likely a government solution to his current predicament.

Nor is there likely a government solution in preventing a similar predicament from befalling another Albertan in the future. Ironically, the best hope for preventing a repeat of Maurice’s own ordeal lies with Maurice himself.

But I’m sure no one would fault him for putting this all behind him if the opportunity arises.

We learned last week that Maurice had filed a countersuit after he was hit with a lawsuit in September by the individual who had illegally intruded onto his property in February last year. As most people are well aware by now, that individual was struck in the arm by a ricocheted bullet, one of two warning shots Maurice fired after confronting two thieves who had broken into his vehicles.

It’s the third chapter in the hellish ordeal for Maurice and his family. Chapter 1 was the frightening situation Maurice confronted that fateful night while his wife was away and his infant daughter was inside. Chapter 2 was being arrested and charged by the RCMP only to see those charges dropped months later once law enforcement officials finally came to their senses and recognized the Maurice had indeed fired warning shots and had not deliberately shot anyone. Now Chapter 3 is being hit with a $100,000 lawsuit by the man who tried to victimize him.

Most Albertans are understandably outraged by the idea of a criminal suing his victim for an injury suffered in the commission of a crime, or at least the idea of our courts hearing such a claim in the first place. So news of Maurice’s counterpunch was welcome indeed.

His countersuit lays out a very compelling case of the mental, emotional and financial toll this ordeal has exacted on Maurice and his family. In my own humble opinion, the alleged trauma asserted by the intruder doesn’t hold a candle to what the Maurice family has had to deal with.

But there’s another important element to Maurice’s $150,000 countersuit, one that selflessly looks beyond the particulars of this case. The countersuit makes the case that there “ought to be an award of punitive damages to deter convicted criminals from launching lawsuits against their intended victims.”

This is potentially the precedent that could make a huge difference in preventing this kind of lawsuit from ever coming forward again. Any thought of “what do I have to lose?” would suddenly have to face the cold reality of “a lot, potentially.”

Even if Maurice’s countersuit is successful, it’s not likely that he’ll be able to collect a significant amount of money from the individual named in the suit. Moreover, if Maurice’s lawyer is successful in convincing a judge that the original lawsuit against Maurice is vexatious and should be tossed, it’s possible that Maurice might drop his countersuit altogether. That’s obviously his call to make.

In the meantime, it might be wise for provincial government members to steer clear of this case. Their declarations of public support have no doubt been appreciated by Maurice and his supporters, as was the personal donation Premier Jason Kenney made to the fundraiser for Maurice’s defence costs. But why run the risk of saying or doing something that the lawyer for the intruder might be able to use in court?

There is much the province can do, however. Certainly, there is more work to do on addressing rural crime and ensuring that our courts have the resources to deal with criminal cases. In light of how the RCMP dealt with Maurice, it might also be worth looking at the manner in which law enforcement officers are trained or directed to deal with cases of self-defence or defence of property.

These lawsuits will just have to play themselves out. Hopefully, sanity will prevail.