injusticebusters logo

Carol Bunko-Ruys

Carol Bunko-Ruys and prosecutor Matt Miazga are continuing their appeal from Judge Baynton's findings they acted with malice. If you are new to this story, this is the best place to start. . .

From Carol Bunko Ruys examination for discovery:

Carol Bunko-Ruys

The defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys was examined by the plaintiff Richard Klassen on the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th days of September, 2002. This is what she had to say about Michael's sexual attacks on smaller children including his sisters Kathy and Michelle. Carol Bunko-Ruys used the word "touching problem" in describing the sexual attacks that Michael was involved in on smaller children in the community of Warman, Saskatchewan and in the home of the Thompson's, as well as at the school in Warman Saskatchewan where Michael attended.

On page 109 of her examination of discovery transcript 558 line 26 question;

Richard Klassen you had mentioned before sexually acting out, as describing? --

Carol Bunko sexually intrusive.

Richard Klassen intrusive, describing some of Michael's actions towards others; is that correct?

Carol Bunko yes.

Richard Klassen is this a term that you have used often?

Carol Bunko it's the term that I've used, yes.

The transcript will go on to show how Carol Bunko used the term touching problem on many occasions. She used this term to describe Michael on almost every ocassion when he would sexually act out with smaller children, this term was used By Carol Bunko Ruys even when Michael raped smaller children in the community, including his twin sisters. Carol Bunko Ruys testified in her examination for discovery that this was a term used by many folks back in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and into 1994. She states that the term they use now is "sexually intrusive behavior."

Page 110 of the transcript of Carol Bunko Ruys line 17, 564;

Richard Klassen So in 1991 you are not sure if you use the term, you're looking at that report -- --

Carol Bunko That's what's listed here, yes.

Richard Klassen Did you at times use the words "touching problem"?

Carol Bunko Yes.

Richard Klassen To describe Michaels sexually intrusive behavior?

Carol Bunko In terms of the language in the literature around children and behaviors, that language has continued to develop and what I recall that the early time of working with those kids that that was a reference used, and that at some point there was literature that started to use the language "sexually intrusive behavior" and I'm not sure what time frame that - as the information developed around children's sexualized activity, that language has changed.

Richard Klassen If you use the word and the terms "Michael has a touching problem" with that properly have described to anyone what happened, say for example in your office?

Carol Bunko To the best of my information and knowledge at that time, that term meant children who could potentially cross boundaries that included sexual activity. Would everyone have known that? I'm not sure. I do recall that the other social workers would have known what that meant and that - yeah, I think that that was the language at that time.

Carol Bunko Ruys continued to call the rape of a 4-year-old boy a touching problem throughout her reports to the Department of Social Services she used that term to describe Michael raping his sister Kathy all night long, tying her up, gagging her so that she could not scream for help, a mere touching problem. She called what happened in her office when the three children were left alone when she left the room to speak To Corporal Brian Dueck, and again where Michael's sisters were raped in her absence, a mere touching problem. When giving testimony in court she called what the children did a mere touching problem. Page 114, 584 line 15 reads as follows;

Richard Klassen did you testify in a trial for the Ross, Ross and white?

Carol Bunko yes I did.

Richard Klassen October 29th, 1992, were sometime in October of 1992, did you tell the court and did you described what the Rosses were alleged to have done to the court as a touching problem?

Carol Bunko I'm not sure what you're asking me.

Richard Klassen when asked what the children alleged about the Rosses did you describe properly to the court what was alleged, or did you describe their activities to the court as a simple touching problem?

Carol Bunko I don't recall being asked that question and I am not sure that I would use that language. In terms of working with children at that time the language that I was aware of was that sexually intrusive behavior at that time was referred to as having a touching problem.


It is the intention of the plaintiffs that they will show the court at trial that there is no way that the judge at the preliminary hearing stage or at any trial stage would have properly known what Carol Bunko Ruys was describing to the court. It is the plaintiff's contention that had the court known that Michael was a full-blown sexual offender, who frequently sexually attacked younger children in such a violent manner the court would have known then that it was more than likely Michael who was a danger to his sisters, and not the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs will show how Carol Bunko Ruys knew this from the start. It is obvious That Carol Bunko Ruys try to pass off to the courts that Michael had just a mere touching problem when she knew all along that Michael was a serious danger to any child younger than himself. If Carol Bunko Ruys had told the court of the serious problem that Michael posed to other children even at the time that she was giving testimony, the court would have come to the conclusion that Michael needed to be removed from his sisters immediately. I am sure that Madame Justice Batten would have asked the question, why is Michael still being allowed to be with his sisters in the same home when it is obvious that they are being sexually attacked on a daily basis? The defendant Carol Bunko Ruys claims in the same examination for discovery that steps were being taken to ensure the safety of Michael's sisters. She claims that there were buzzers put on the door of Michael so that should he leave his room at night the Thompson's would know. Page 163 line 5 of the examination of the defendant Carol Bunko Ruys reads as follows;

Carol Bunko My sense is that the "rope undone," is that this is prior to the installation of the buzzers, and that there was something used to tie the door but I'm not positive. But I believe that's what that refers to, and that he was able to somehow remove that, and that he then went to Michelle's room for sex, and then came to get Kathy, and that he put things in Kathy's mouth and made her suck his penis, and put his penis in her vagina. And then that Michael and Michelle carried her out of that room to Michelle's room where they tied her arms to the bed, and made suck Michael and kiss Michelle's vagina. And Kathy said Michelle made her suck that little part that hangs down in the vagina, and that Michael then laid on top of her and that Michael again screwed her, and they held her mouth. And then later that Michelle said that Michael had threatened them and the whole family that when he's grown-up that he would shift of, and that Cassie won't scream. That he seemed to be threatening Michelle now, too. Maybe its because she's opening up, question mark. And when they face Michael with the gun threats he agrees but keeps it - but keeps saying it's the other people I want to shoot and kill.

Richard Klassen would that properly depict what at least is the allegation that happened that night, what you've just read?

Carol Bunko say that again?

Richard Klassen is that your understanding of what the allegation was that night of what Michael did?

Carol Bunko that's what was reported to Marilyn and then at some point shared with me, yes.

The buzzers that Carol Bunko speaks of were only put on the doors according to her testimony after this violent incident. The evidence will show that there were many violent incidents prior to this one; I guess Carol Bunko decided that this was the straw that broke the camel's back. I will remind the court at this time that there were buzzers put on the door of Michael when he resided in the home of Dale and Anita, and that these buzzers failed to protect Michael's sisters. This information was available to the defendant Carol prior the children moving to the Thompson residence, The Defendant Carol Bunko knew that buzzers would not keep children safe from Michael. We believe that it was at the advice of Carol that Michael be tied in his room at night with a rope, even that extreme measure failed to keep his sister safe. The proper advice that Carol could have given was to have Michael removed from his sisters and any other small children when she had first heard that Michael had sexually raped, 4-year-old Gus. Page 167 of the examination of discovery of Carol No. 32 line 5 reads as follows;

Richard Klassen Michael then was tied and locked into his room. If he's tied and the door is tied shut, he's effectively locked in the room; is that correct?

Carol Bunko That's what my sense is from reading this. I don't recall exactly. And again, in reading this, said that I speculate that that's what's what that means with the rope, yes.

The plaintiffs would ask since when is it the protocol to tie a foster child, or to lock a foster child in their room? If a child is that dangerous to other children wouldn't have it made more sense to just remove Michael from other children? The home of the Thompson's was not a secure environment like it would be in a prison, and surely the Thompsons were not qualified as security guards?

The Department of Social Services and the defendant Carol Bunko had to have known that locking Michael in his room at night would not solve their problems. What about daytime? What if you turned your back for just a moment at any time? You take a bath for 20 minutes, would the girls be safe? The plaintiffs will show the court that smaller children were not safe around Michael at any time day or night, the plaintiffs will show the court for the first time that the complainant Michael even sexually assaulted his sisters while he was giving testimony on the stand. The plaintiffs intend to show the court that Michael could not be trusted at any time prior the laying of the charges and to the duration of the charges. Michael was having sex, raping other children in the community as well as his sisters. The plaintiffs will show the court that the defendants downplayed what Michael was doing by calling it a mere "touching problem." Not one of the defendants can justify this.

The public will now know for the first time that the defendants in this action knowingly aloud their crown witness to rape and sodomize his sisters and other children in the community while they used him and his testimony to convict the innocent. As stated recently on November 2nd 2002 in an article written by the star Phoenix in the weekend extra addition a quote by Saskatoon lawyer Robert Borden who said, "Michael was assaulting his sisters. The police and social workers knew. It was unbelievable," said Borden. And a further quote by Rob Twigg, a therapist and professor of social work at the University of Regina, said he couldn't imagine why officials would knowingly keep a sexually abusive boy under the same roof as his sisters. "I don't know how one would justify that. The first priority should always be the safety of the children," Twigg says.

The Security Measures That Were Put In Place For The Safety Of The Children:

No. 1 Buzzers were put on the door of Michael while he resided in the home of the defendant Anita the sexual assaults of his sisters continued.

No. 2 Michael's door was tied shut at the home of the Thompson's Michael managed to get the rope undone and effectively rape his sister Kathy all-night long without the Thompson's waking up.

No. 3 the buzzers were again put on the door of Michael after the locking of the door wasn't working at the Thompson home -- again more rapes occurred.

No. 4 the defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys testifies that more security measures were put in place after the buzzers was found not to be working. The defendant does not specifically indicate what measures were put in place other than saying that there was more supervision of Michael -- more sexual attacks took place after the extra supervision was put in place.

No. 5 Michael was removed from his sisters in 1994, because it was finally felt by the Department of Social Services and the defendant Carol that there was no other way that they could keep Michael's sisters and other children in the community safe. By this time all the trials of the plaintiffs had ended, and the plaintiff Richard Klassen who had taken to the streets of Saskatoon knocking on doors and telling anyone who would listen that Michael was a danger in the community and that the defendants in this action were covering up this danger, and that therefore the defendants in this action were personally responsible for allowing Michael to sexually Molest our children. After Michael was removed and sent to a secure environment in Regina, there were no more sexual attacks on our children, or his sisters.

The defendants in this action knew all along that Michael would sexually attack any small child given the chance; they must have also known that the only way to keep any of the children safe from Michael was to remove him and not give him an opportunity to carry out his sexual fantasies. One can only imagine why the defendants would believe that they were able to keep children safe from Michael by placing him with his sisters when they knew that that was the very reason Michael was removed from the home of Dale and Anita in the first place.

The defendant Carol wants us all to believe that it was more important for the siblings to stay together than that of keeping them safe. Her role as a therapist/counsellor was to insure that the safety needs of the children was being looked after. Even if The Defendant Carol Bunko believed that the plaintiffs were guilty of sexually molesting the three Ross children, surely the three Ross children could not be seen to be in danger any longer from the plaintiffs. When Michelle and Kathy were removed from the home of Dale and Anita, there should have been no more concern about their safety needs regarding the plaintiffs?

They took the children from a safe environment, and placed them with their brother Michael, that being what they already knew as an unsafe environment. There only excuse is that it was important to keep the siblings together so that they would not loose contact with each other. Certainly one would think that they could have continued contact by allowing visits to occur with the siblings on a regular basis, making sure that those contacts were supervised. There was no reason to put Michael's sisters back in the hands of Michael when they already knew that he would sexually attacked them if given the chance. It is the plaintiff's contention that the public would be more than outraged to hear this evidence.

The plaintiffs intend to point to the fact that the defendant Carol told the defendant Brian Dueck, the Department of Social Services, and the prosecutors on a regular basis all the information that Michael was abusing children in the community as well as the sisters. That the defendant Carol at all times kept the other defendants in this action in formed about Michael's sexually intrusive behavior and that the defendants were from the beginning aware that Michael was a danger. I now turn your attention to page 374 of the examination of the defendant Carol Bunko-Ruys; which reads as follows;

Richard Klassen And your perception of what he was doing was that he had sexual activity or a touching problem; is that correct? . . .