He married her in a 'campaign' to take her money: How a woman with dementia fell into a predatory marriage

Guests: Donna Devore-Thompson, Jill Loughlin, Emily Clough, Kimberly Whaley

AMT: When an older woman met a younger man in Coquitlam, B.C. back in 2006. No one could have predicted how the ensuing years would unfold. That a decade later the tale of their relationship would be told in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. That it would have a rare outcome or that it would be perhaps a cautionary tale to the country's lawmakers. The Current's documentary editor, Joan Webber, brings us the story of When Donna Met Floyd.

SOUNDCLIP

[phone dialling]

JOAN WEBBER: Oh hello. This is. I'm almost surprised when someone picks up after the first ring. I've been dialling a lot of numbers trying to reach a man named Floyd Sheldon Poulain. I know this won't be him. This is a random Poulain, but I check. Are you related to him?

VOICE 2: Yes.

JW: As luck would have it, I've reached a younger brother on the east cast. I ask how I can reach Floyd.

VOICE 2: I once in a while get a call from him, but I don't have a contact number for him. He's in British Columbia.

JW: So no number. An email maybe?

VOICE 2: Not even that dear, but any call anytime from him actually.

JW: Yeah. Would you be able to get him a message?

VOICE 2: Yeah you can do that. I'll just grab a pen and paper.

JW: Now I'm not sure whether Floyd will call me back, but I will keep trying. I have a lot of questions. He's central to the story I'm about to tell you.

VOICE 2: 4-5. Got it.

JW: Thank you sir. But regardless, I can tell you what happened.

[Music]

DDT: She was very independent. You know, she was a fun aunt. She was my. I used to call her my Mary Tyler Moore aunt.

[Song: Mary Tyler Moore Show Theme]

DDT: She always had her hair done. Her nails were always done. She was cool. She drove a cool car. She's a Christmas.

JW: Donna Devore-Thompson sits beside me. She's showing me old family videos off her phone. They're of her aunt, Donna Walker.

DDT: Well I was named after her, but that doesn't mean that we were close, but we were.

JW: The two became known as Big Donna and Little Donna.

DDT: OK. So this was my aunt when she married her first husband.

JW: She shows me photos too.

DDT: Don't look at my. This is in the 80s. That's me.

JW: Blonde, puffy satin sleeves, big hair.

DDT: We always used to laugh cause my aunt had a very big head and she could never find a hat.

JW: Big Donna, her aunt, wears short auburn hair and a slightly mischievous grin.

DDT: You know if you were mad at your parents, I would send her letters saying I want to move to Vancouver and live with her.

JW: Later, when she was older, Little Donna did move to Vancouver from Edmonton where she'd grown up.

DDT: Probably every week she'd drive out to see me.

JW: The two Donna's took to having what they called Donna days.

DDT: It was a great day and it always ended with some wine in her apartment, maybe ordering some pizza.

JW: But around 2004, Little Donna began noticing Big Donna wasn't entirely herself.

DDT: I noticed that she was starting to repeat things.

JW: Donna Walker became forgetful and people close to her were noticing that she would say funny things. Then in November of 2005, she went to a doctor who diagnosed her with the onset of dementia, probably Alzheimers. She was 66-years-old. In the coming months of 2006, there were incidents Little Donna couldn't ignore.

DDT: She actually walked inside of a neighbor's house, thinking it was my house and he was quite sweet. He actually took her around door to door until they found me and when I opened the door she just went, oh here she goes. Like it was almost like for you and I, we'd would be mortified.

JW: Then that same year, a stranger would come to Donna Walker's home.

DDT: I remember my aunt was telling me there was some man that was hanging around outside.

JW: Little Donna asked her aunt if she should come over or call the police, but she said no. She figured the man would likely just go away.

DDT: Then I remember her telling me she has this new friend and she told me his name. And I said where did you meet this guy and she told me he was five buck guy. And I said, five buck guy? And she goes, yeah, he borrowed five dollars from me in a parking lot.

JW: And I said, so this was the man he was hanging around her apartment. He was trying to give her the five dollars back.

JILL LOUGHLIN: It was you know a huge red flag for us. Huge. Like who is this person?

JW: Jill Loughlin is Donna Walker's other niece, little Donna's sister. She lives in Edmonton. Jill was also close with her aunt and they talked regularly.

JL: And you think so is this person friend or foe?

DDT: He would wait outside her apartment or he would see her in the mall and maybe even help her carry her bag back. Just doing things for her. I think that's kind of how he got into being her friend.

JW: This friend was Floyd Poulain. A 56-year-old man who said he was a crane operator. At first both niecess were wary and would ask after Floyd. Had there aunt seen him or had he been around? But after a while, much to their relief, their aunt stopped talking about him. Donna Walker's condition continued to deteriorate. After an accident involving the gate at her parking garage, her driver's license was revoked. And in the New Year 2007, a geriatric specialist advised Donna Walker that it was time to get her affairs in order. She agreed and with the help of a notary gave her niece Donna and a close friend Shirley, power of attorney.

DDT: And she kept saying to me protect my money protect me. And I remember her telling me that she doesn't know where this disease is going to take her, but just always remember that I love you. My aunt would have gone to the ends of the earth for any of us in our family and back. And you know I felt that she had asked this of me and I'm going to do whatever I had to do.

JW: Then when Little Donna took her aunt on a couple of trips to see family in Edmonton, including Christmas in 2007, Big Donna's decline was evident to everyone.

DDT: My mom and dad have lived in their house for over 50 years and my aunt knew that house inside and out and she didn't know how where to find the basement.

JL: She didn't know how to get to the bathroom.

DDT: Didn't know where the coffee pot was.

JL: She seemed to be having trouble lifting her fork to her mouth.

DDT: I caught her trying to sit down with her head on the chair. She didn't know what she was doing.

JW: Suddenly this video from a Christmas years ago seems so remote. In it you see a cheerful Big Donna, giving her great niece, Jill's daughter, a bracelet that's just a little too big for the toddler. It was Donna Walker's actions in and around 2008 that got her niece really worried.

DDT: I think raising my alarm bells was when the bank was calling me, Karen Nelmes.

KAREN NELMES: Mrs. Walker was taking more than was a reasonable amount of money for her to be taking out. It wasn't in her normal banking practices for sure.

JW: Karen Nelmes is retired now, but at the time she was the manager of customer service at Donna Walker's bank branch in Coquitlam,B.C. And after years of being married to a police officer, she describes herself as a naturally suspicious person and she wanted her clients niece to know something.

DDT: There seemed to be a man hanging around her.

JW: And that man was Floyd Poulain. And they believed there were other strange things. Particularly memorable for both of Donna Walker's nieces was what happened in the spring of 2009, when their aunt suddenly became convinced of one thing.

DDT: She kept talking about moving. She didn't like her condo. Didn't like her condo.

JL: She just didn't.

DDT: And she kept talking about it and talking about it and talking about it.

JL: And I got suspicious. I ended up going on the MLS website where you can view properties and I put in her address to see if it would come up and sure enough it did.

DDT: And sure enough there's her condo for sale.

JL: You're actually. You're flabbergasted because you can't believe this actually happened, but you're not surprised, part of you.

JW: It was a medical report regarding Donna Walker's cognitive condition, along with the legal arrangements they put in place to protect her, that enabled them to cancel the listing. They went to Big Donna's to break the news and it was there they met Floyd for the first time.

DDT: He walked in from the balcony and we were like, oh. OK. Nice to meet you and we sat there. It was very awkward.

JW: Floyd was quiet and he didn't stay long.

DDT: My aunt was quite upset and crying and all she wanted was hardwood floors.

JW: Not only had their aunt been intent on selling her condo. She had it in her head to buy another. Same building, same layout, just one floor up.

DDT: Which made absolutely no sense.

JW: Then in 2010, Little Donna got a call she will always remember.

DDT: From Karen Nelmes at the bank and said I've got some news and you won't believe it.

JL: He'd come in saying that they were married.

DDT: I was really upset.

JL: Oh my God. We were.

DDT: I think I'm going to cry now. Sorry. It's so awful to think about it.

JL: He just you know married her without anybody knowing.

EMILY CLOUGH: And that's all it really takes to get married is you just need that one moment of time. And in this case that marriage happened inside the marriage commissioner's condo with the marriage commissioner, his wife and his daughter, who had never met any of these people before. No family member was told. It just happened.

JW: Emily Clough is Little Donna's or Donna Devore-Thompson's lawyer.

EC: And then Floyd wanted to go and get some collateral evidence to support his version that he and Donna had been dating and were in love and now they were married. And just like every other married couple. So he went to the building manager and asked for him to support, to say don't you know we've been a couple forever. You see me always around here and we're a couple.

BRANDON SERBENIUK: And I never, I'm like I've never seen you before in my life. He's like oh I've been married to Donny. You must have seen me around and I'm like I've never seen you.

JW: Brandon Serbeniuk manages the condo complex where Donna used to live. It's for residents 55 and up.

DDT: He showed him an album, a photo album.

BS: A book of photos.

JL: Pictures of their wedding.

BS: With her and other people I'd never seen and you could see in the pictures there's no smiles. Just like a absolutely blank stare in her. You could tell she didn't know where she really was or who she was with or what she was doing and it was so obvious. But yeah he wanted me to call the bank and let them know that he was married and he lived here and he's been here for a while and I wouldn't do it.

JW: Roughly three months after the marriage, early on Saturday, September 11th, 2010, Big Donna was taken to the hospital after apparently falling in her condo. Floyd was there when it happened. He called the ambulance.

DDT: I didn't receive the call till the Monday.

JW: Little Donna rushed to the hospital and when she got there, she noticed her aunt didn't have anything from home. So she went to her place to pick up some things. It was while Little Donna was at the condo, that her sister Jill and brother Carey arrived at the hospital. Floyd was already there.

DDT: And they were standing outside and they heard him say.

JL: He said Donna is that your condo right now and she's trying to sell it and take your money. She started shaking, her eyes went really wide, as soon as he saw us, he backed out of that room so quickly.

JW: By the time Little Donna returned, Big Donna was still really upset. But among the items her niece had brought, was a photo album.

DDT: And we all sat down on the bed and we showed her pictures and she's like that's me? We're like yeah and who's that. I'm like that's me aunt, that's Little Donna. Little Donna? And she would touch my arm and you're Little Donna. It was very difficult.

JW: And then the family learned of a document that looked as though it had been signed by Donna Walker.

EC: Big Donna had apparently, during her lifetime, signed a power of attorney document, appointing Floyd as one of the people who would make her financial decisions on her behalf. She made that I believe just days before it ended up, that she ended up falling and going into care and being found that her mental capacity was very poor. Immediately there was a swirling of questions about that.

JW: Floyd stopped coming around to the hospital and it was later that month, that Donna Walker moved into a care home. Little Donna helped pack up her belongings and in doing so came across an old record.

DDT: And inside was this notebook, that had all these notes to my aunt and one of them was Donna, takeout, go down the bank and withdraw $40,000. It's really important.

JW: Donna Walker would die three years later on Boxing Day of 2013, when she was 74-years-old. Floyd, still on the books as her husband, named in a will the family believed to be questionable, stood to inherit much of her estate. The family decided to take Floyd Poulain to court. That decision began with a question.

DDT: Is this our fight or is this somebody else's fight? And we sat and thought, okay, let's make it our fight.

JW: That's when Little Donna hired Emily Clough, who would argue in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, that this had been a case of so-called predatory marriage.

EC: We brought a claim to the court to say that not only the marriage was invalid, but that the will was invalid.

JW: The will she's referring to was drawn up in 2009, before the marriage. Floyd had taken Big Donna to a lawyer, to help her make a new will. He had written instructions for changes in the margins of her old will, striking out the name of Donna Walker's executor, a close friend. Replacing it with his own. The family knew going in, getting the marriage set aside would be tough.

EC: It's very rare. Part of the reason for that is that the test for capacity to marry is so low. You need to know very few things. You just need to know that you're entering into a marriage with this person. And as long as you knew that, that's enough.

JW: The trial began in the fall of 2016.

EC: Floyd's evidence was that he never noticed a thing. He never noticed a time when anything seemed to be wrong with her mind.

JW: The judge in the case, Justice Susan Griffin, found the most likely reason for that was that Floyd was not telling the truth. And she called his attempts to access her bank account, a campaign. Justice Griffin also concluded Floyd had fabricated his evidence about moving in with Donna Walker. And the fact that Floyd had been at Big Donna's the morning she was taken to hospital, was not enough to suggest he lived there she said. Adding there could have been other reasons Floyd was there, including pursuing his efforts to have Donna Walker change her banking. For his part, Floyd testified that one family member was trying to steal their love potion and that he'd simply been trying to help Donna Walker access her own money. To overcome restrictions put on her account by her niece. The judge rejected his evidence, concluding he was a "dishonest witness." As for the authenticity of the document signed the day before Big Donna went into hospital, the judge described it as being at issue and found the circumstances around the 2009 will suspicious. The case wrapped up last summer. The judge set aside both the will and the marriage, concluding Donna Walker did not have the capacity to marry. Talking with Emily Clough, it's evident she admires Little Donna for the way she tried to protect her aunt.

EC: She just helped her in a way that is so rare, that I see somebody who has that compassion and that deep love. I still am emotional when I speak of it.

DDT: He took a big chunk of my life and made it very hard for me. I promised her. Made that promise to her and I feel very proud of what I've done and to help protect her and her dignity.

[phone dialling]

VOICE 1: It's been a few weeks now since I tried Floyd's brother so I ring again.

[phone hangs up]

JW: It's Joan Webber from CBC. I wasn't sure if this was an accident, but then Floyd's brother called me back, to see what I wanted. I said to give Floyd a chance to talk about his marriage to Donna Walker, but he said he didn't know why I was pursuing this. And the phone went dead again. I've tried other means to reach Floyd, but to date I've heard nothing back and it makes me wonder where he's gone to.

[Song: Mary Tyler Moore Theme]

AMT: We have been listening to When Donna Met Floyd, produced by The Current's documentary editor, Joan Webber, and producer Liz Hoath. If you missed any of this story or if you have thoughts on it, go to our website, cbc.ca/thecurrent to listen again or to click on the contact link. The CBC News is next and then we'll talk about the implications of this story for other vulnerable Canadians. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Hello I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to a new season of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Coming up, sex ed in the classroom.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: So we get in to the class. We're all in Grade 5. And the nurse comes in. She asked us to get all our giggles out. We all make giggle because it's so weird and she just asks us questions and we're all like, we don't want to answer because we're too scared.

AMT: Well if the students are scared, some teachers are a little nervous as well. Ontario teachers are heading back into the classroom today and many are conflicted about the new interim sex education curriculum put in place by the province. In half an hour, we'll hear how they plan to navigate between what they have to teach and what they want to teach. But first, looking to the law to stop predatory marriages in Canada.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Well in our first half hour, we aired the documentary, When Dawna Met Floyd and if you missed that you can find it on our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. When Donna Met Floyd tells the story of a woman named Donna Walker who is suffering from dementia, when a man named Floyd Poulain marries her without any of her family or friends knowing. Her niece, Donna Devore-Thompson, finds out after a call from a manager at her aunt's bank.

SOUNDCLIP

DDT: And said, I've got some news and you won't believe it.

JL: He'd come in saying that they were married.

DDT: I was really upset.

JL: Oh my God. We were.

DDT: I think I'm going to cry now. Sorry. It's so awful to think about it.

AMT: After her aunt's death, her niece known as Little Donna, took Floyd to court in an effort to have the marriage set aside. In a rare decision, the judge found that indeed her aunt, Big Donna, had not had the capacity to marry. To discuss some of the bigger issues around this case, I'm joined by Vancouver lawyer, Emily Clough. She was Little Donna's lawyer in this case. She's in Victoria today. I'm also joined by Toronto lawyer, Kimberly Whaley. She's the author of a book called, Capacity to Marry and the Estate Plan. Hello to you both.

KIMBERLY WHALEY: Hello.

EC: Hi Anna Maria. Hi Kim.

KW: Hi Emily.

AMT: Emily Clough, let's start with you. As we heard you say in Joan's documentary, it is rare to get a marriage set aside. What made this case unique?

EC: There was a couple of aspects that made it unique. A big part of it was the drive and passion that Donna Walker's family had to write what they saw as an injustice. As, we as lawyers, very often see that the whole process of going to court, hiring a lawyer, it's expensive, it's extremely stressful and for a lot of people their loved one has already passed away and they just can't face the years and the expense of moving forward. In this case, the bond between Little Donna and Big Donna was one of those heartwarming bonds that really makes our society something special.

AMT: And give us a wider perspective Emily Clough, why is this win significant?

EC: We very rarely see cases in Canada, where we see the challenge to a marriage. To the fundamental validity of that marriage to say that marriage is invalid and part of that is because at law, right now, our test of marriage is so low, it really takes very little capacity in order to have the capacity to get married. And so for cases like Big Donna, she was able to go to a marriage commissioner with Floyd and they in fact got married, despite that she was barely cognizant of what was going on in her life, due to her own declining mental capacity.

AMT: Kimberly Whaley, you among others have called this decision unique. What is it about this case?

KW: I think this decision, as well as a couple of others in this past year. So Hunt and Worrod in 2017 and Chuvalo and Chuvalo in 2018 are unique insignificant in fact that they have, I hope moved the law along. To move away from the old historical adage where marriage was a simple test, not requiring a high degree of intelligence. They are unique in that the court had the tools to be able to set aside the marriage, based on the medical evidence available and often that isn't the case. We don't see the available medical evidence because during the person's lifetime, the person who's been preyed upon, has been sequestered or alienated, isolated and not gone to the doctor. But in these three cases in particular, the court has had the luxury, shall we say, of having the tools through the medical evidence to set aside these marriages and not to have to rely on that old historical adage of marriage as a simple test, by applying the factors that the common law have set out previously.

AMT: Emily Clough not everyone has a Little Donna in their lives or the supports that Donna Walker had. How vulnerable are older Canadians at this point in time?

EC: I think it's one of the more significant risks that people are facing. It's so easy to get marrie. It's kind of a funny thing to say because many people who get married, it's a long thoughtful process, but as a matter of fact, you can get married, quite easily, quite quickly and through not much of an expense. And there's many Canadians out there who are vulnerable. They don't have many other people around them and they can be found and they can be preyed upon.

AMT: And Kimberly, you've written a lot about this topic. How do you define a predatory marriage?

KW: I like to define it is where an unscrupulous opportunist preys upon an older adult, a diminished capacity or diminished reasoning, for the sole purpose of financial exploitation. Many years ago I wrote a book called, Capacity to Marry and the Estate Plan, and we coined that phrase in it.

AMT: So is there anyone keeping statistics on this or is it really too hard to actually pinpoint?

KW: I think it's too hard to pinpoint. There aren't really stats on it to know. But it is increasing like financial exploitation is generally increasing and I think that's because we have longevity. People are living longer, they're vulnerable, dependent and they're available to be preyed upon.

AMT: Well I want to hear some other examples of predatory marriages, which stand out for each of you. Kimberly you mentioned a few, just by the names, can you give us some examples of what else you've seen?

KW: Sure. So our office was involved in a case last year that went to trial and we won. In this case where Mr. Hunt was taken advantage of by Ms. Worrod. Mr Hunt had suffered an ATV accident and was catastrophically brain injured. He was 50-years-old and he was preyed upon by an ex-girlfriend, who when he was released from hospital after five months, three days later she kidnapped him. And she took him and she married him. And when his sons found him through a credit card trail, he had already married. And of course the family were devastated and they embarked upon litigation to try and set aside the marriage and they were successful in doing that. And the court, Justice Koch, opined that the marriage should be void ab initio and did go into some of the prior case law, including Devore that came out just before it. But really relied on the medical evidence, which was significant of Mr. Hunt's cognitive impairment.

AMT: And this is a case where he's not "elderly," right? So it is really about cognitive impairment as well, that can happen. It's not necessarily solely age that makes someone vulnerable.

KW: Correct. It is unique in that he wasn't aged, shall we say. This can happen where women are preyed upon, where men are preyed upon and the cognitive impairment is paramount in the situation.

AMT: Emily do you have other examples?

EC: We we do see it out here in particular with the financial abuse that we see with older people, with vulnerable people and we certainly saw it in Big Donna's case. I'll just use that example where she would go to the bank and then Floyd would go with her to the bank and she would start taking out cash and lots of cash and that amount of cash she was withdrawing over time increased and she couldn't explain where it was going. And I see it in a lot of the other cases that I do is it starts with the bank and the taking out of cash and you can see it sort of ramping up with people becoming involved, more and more involved in the vulnerable person's life.

AMT: Kimberly there was a case Banton versus Banton. And I understand that had an interesting twist to it as well. What happened?

KW: Banton and Banton is from a few years ago now. George Banton, he was about 84, he was in a retirement residence and he was preyed upon by the 31-year-old, Muna, who was a waitress in the firm's, in the retirement home. And she took him out for the day. She married him. He was returned to the home. He was castrated. He had prostate cancer. He was very frail and vulnerable and she took him the next day after the marriage to have a new will done and to have powers of attorney done in her favour. A few years later, George Banton died and his children moved to set aside the marriage, to set aside the wills and the powers of attorney. Justice Cullity who is now retired, presided over the hearing and he found that George Banton, he didn't have the requisite testamentary capacity to do a will, to do the powers of attorney, that he had been unduly influenced by Muna, but could not go so far as to set aside the marriage. I think the problem was there was no expert evidence before the court, upon which Justice Cullity could find the marriage to be void of an issue. Justice Cullity did say that the appropriate factors to be applied ought to be the ability for a person to manage their property in personal care, but unfortunately the law wasn't there yet. And so I think the court was restrained from being able to make a decision that wasn't unappealable or unassailable.

AMT: And so how did that affect the children who were obviously in the first will?

KW: Right. So the marriage wasn't set aside, so the state passed on and intestacy and in Ontario at the time the preferential share was $200,000. So Muna received the first $200,000 of George Banton's estate and one third of the residue.

AMT: We should talk about that because the laws vary from province to province and when, even if you have a will in Ontario and a few other provinces, am I right, the marriage can override portions of the will?

KW: Yes. So marriage revokes a will in Ontario and many people don't know that. And if you don't have the requisite capacity to know that or to do a new will, then it creates a big problem. In Alberta, they changed that law. They had a similar law. They changed that in 2012 and in B.C. they changed it in 2014. Quebec for instance, never had that law, but it ought to be repealed, but it doesn't end the whole problem. There can still be people who are preying upon an older adult, even through a common law relationship, where they receive benefits from that relationship.

AMT: How tough is it for a judge to weigh whether someone has the capacity to marry?

KW: It's difficult because there's a presumption at law of capacity and so only through a declaration of incapacity can a court opine that a marriage is void or void ab initio from the get go.

AMT: Emily how do you balance some vulnerable adults independence, their right to enter into what family members might not agree to with the desire to protect the person?

EC: That's the most difficult part of it is and that's what our law needs to do and develop some type of a nuanced way of balancing that right. That independence, our charter freedoms of autonomy and independence versus wanting to protect vulnerable people. We don't want to take away the rights of people to like who they like and get married to whoever they want, however we've got to find that balance to protect people.

AMT: And I guess it's hard too because on the surface we often hear of these cases where they do, they might isolate the parent against the children and then it looks like a fight with the kids. And it's hard, it might be hard to judge.

KW: Sure. Interestingly, in the Devore case, that was case where the case was taken to court after the death of Donna. In our case, in the Hunt and Worrod case, Kim Hunt is alive. Brain injured, but well. And it was unique that the marriage would have been set aside while he was alive and not only that, the court had to opine as to whether or not the predatory spouse could have any contact with Mr. Hunt go forward. And that autonomy, the balance of the autonomy and the rights of the person, was really highly evaluated by the judge in that instance. When he decided that in fact there should be no relationship go forward as between Kim Hunt and Ms. Worrod.

AMT: And Kimberly, you mentioned Chuvalo versus Chuvalo.

KW: Yeah that was the case in 2018, Justice Keightley and it was the first case that our courts have seen in Ontario on the capacity to reconcile. So George Chuvalo and his wife, it was a second marriage I think.

AMT: And this is the famous George Chuvalo.

KW: The boxer. Yeah. The Muhammad Ali boxer. So George Chuvalo had separated, as I understand it for some time, and the question before the court was could he reconcile. So the two sons I believe brought the case forward to court saying they wanted a divorce because he had formed the requisite intention to divorce, to divorce previously. And the court decided that he did not have the capacity to reconcile, more or less on the same factors that a court would look at when evaluating the capacity to marry. Because property rights attach to a reconciliation, so a continuance of marriage, the court found Justice Keightley found that George Chuvalo didn't have the requisite capacity to reconcile. That he didn't understand what his property was. He couldn't manage his property and he couldn't manage this person. And that was consistent again with a very unique expert evidence that was before the court from the time period both before and after when George was assessed by the expert witness.

AMT: So we're looking again at another case where the families have brought it forward, but what do you think needs to happen to better protect older vulnerable Canadians?

KW: Our office has the good fortune of having Professor Mr. Oosterhoff with us as counsel. And we have developed a predatory marriage legislation, shall we say, that we've been trying to put forward to policymakers to try and get through some sort of legislation that assists in being able to set aside these marriages in predatory circumstances. I don't, it's difficult because the public policy concerns are to protect marriage and to protect the rights of the person. We've looked at many other sort of equitable remedies as a way of getting around the legislation. For example, looking at things like undue influence unconscionability, the lack of independent legal advice, fraud, civil fraud, the tort of deceit. Other tools that are currently used to be able to set aside these marriages, where there isn't the overwhelming medical evidence like there is in Chuvalo or Devore or in Hunt-Worrod. But there needs to be some sort of legislation. First start, Ontario could revoke the legislation that marriage revokes a will. It's not going to eliminate the problem and I think our marriages act could be tightened. So we have Section 7 of the marriages act here that says that you can't convene a marriage if a person is incapable. In B.C. it goes further and says that it's a crime, it's a criminal offense to convene a marriage where a person doesn't have the capacity. I think we could do a lot better.

AMT: Emily, what do you think?

EC: Yeah, I agree with Kim's perspective on this. From what I have seen, out here in B.C., you have to get married in person. There has to be a marriage commissioner there who performs the marriage to these two people in person. So that marriage commissioner has that opportunity. And my own view is that there could be something built right in to that mechanism that we already have in place, which wouldn't be a huge burden. It may not be very expensive and it may not overburden the participants as well.

AMT: Are you saying that some of these marriages happen with one party not even present?

EC: Oh no the opposite. Both parties have to be present. So since they're already present, it could become part of the function of that marriage commissioner to do some analysis, do some investigation, do something regarding capacity.

AMT: OK. So go ahead.

KW: In a way you could say that a person wasn't there. I've cross examined where a person who was married at a hospital and on a morphine drip and in a coma and the marriage was convened. So.

AMT: So that's how easy it is to get around some of this stuff right. So what would you each advise people to do to protect themselves?

KW: It's so difficult. People do come to my office and say there is a predator out there of sorts. We think that this person is intent on marrying our parent. How do we avoid it? And the reality is you can't, at least in Ontario there's nothing that you can do to stop that marriage. There is no caveat like there is B.C. for example, you can register a caveat. In Manitoba, they have some similar legislation, so unfortunately you can't prevent it and know that in the background, this predator is working meticulously, trying to unduly influence the person. So that it makes it very difficult for the family to intervene.

AMT: Is there a risk Emily that that making it more difficult for a vulnerable person to marry actually plays into the hands of a greedy family?

EC: Those are the balancing factors. And that's what we've seen in most of these cases, the allegation of the person who did successfully get married to the vulnerable person is something along the lines of well that family is trying to get between us. They don't appreciate our love. They don't see what we see each other and the deep bond that we have. And there's inevitably that allegation that it's just some nayer do well family, that they are the ones in fact who are waiting around just wanting to benefit from the money of their parent often. And that is in some cases that may be the tension that we're balancing between some family members who maybe are trying to inherit and somebody who indeed is wanting to validly marry somebody who also has the capacity to marry.

AMT: And of course that was the accusation of in the case of Donna Walker, right? But it didn't work.

EC: That was absolutely it.

AMT: They were able to prove that that was not their interest.

EC: Yeah. Well Floyd was talking about the love potion between him and Big Donna and it just didn't, it just didn't pass any muster. It didn't make any sense compared to all of the other evidence.

AMT: OK I guess a support system is the most important thing then so that you're aware of what's happening to another member of your family or someone who's very vulnerable, who's part of your friendship or your family group. You need to be there to support them.

KW: That's right, but if you look at the broader picture and where these allegations come in, it's often a family member who's preying upon an older adult. So from the perspective of financial abuse, we often see an adult child who has abused a parent. So when you look at financial institutions like Emily said, it often comes from the financial institution. So support systems, yes often. Some of these situations are identified through neighbours, but everybody should be vigilant to the elder abuse that is going on in our society.

AMT: It's important to hear what you both have to say. Thank you.

KW: Thank you very much Anna Maria and thank you for the opportunity to speak about this very important area.

EC: Thanks Anna Maria.

AMT: That's Emily Clough in Vancouver, a lawyer who focuses on incapacity matters and Kimberly Whaley, a lawyer in Toronto, who specializes in estate and trust, elder abuse and fraud. If you can relate to what you've just heard and you want to tell us your story, we're all ears. Go to our site cbc.ca/thecurrent. Click on the contact link and send us an email. You can also comment on Facebook or on Twitter or we're @TheCurrentCBC. We will be following up on this. There are many stories out there. You are listening to The Current on CBC Radio One, Sirius XM and online at cbc.ca/thecurrent. I want to tell you about something coming up on Thursday on The Current. It's the start of a new junior hockey season, just one week from now. And with that in mind, I've been to Humboldt, Saskatchewan. It's now five months since that bus crash that killed 16 team members and others on that bus and now Humboldt is a place dealing with collective grief.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: You know sometimes when things are well, we feel like we just go on with our lives and we don't really think that we need each other that much. But this I think it made us realize that we needed each other for support. We needed each other for strength. Like for me, suddenly it was like even if a person passes by, it mattered for me to pay attention. They were part of me in a weird way. There were a part of me, when I see fathers come here, I felt the pain of a father. When a young person passing, I feel the pain of a friend. So something just brought us together in a way that I don't think we did before.

AMT: That's Mary, who works at the arena and community center and it really is a center. And what Humboldt's confronting has been magnified and even complicated by the national, international outpouring of sympathy and attention. Listen to Shannon Yeager. She and her husband started printing, "We are Humboldt Strong" t-shirts.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We just want to show support and buy us providing them a t-shirt, it's providing them some type of healing. We had one gentleman and I've relayed this story many times, he said after he received his order and he said I hugged that package before I opened it. He said to you it might just be a t-shirt, sorry. But he said to me, it's so much more. He said thank you from the bottom of my heart. For giving me the opportunity to belong. And like I said, it's just been, it's stories like that continually that we have thousands of e-mails that one day we want to go back and we want to print them. People have reached out to us and it's over 15,000 t-shirts later, people are still coming in wanting something that signifies the club the Broncos. It's just been overwhelming.

AMT: We're going to hear from families who lost so much and then from people like Kevin Garinger, who's been trying with other community leaders to help this town through the worst.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: What I do know is that these people were incredible people and our world is a better place having had them in it and I think through the process I think of healing and grieving. If it meant that so many more people are connected and so many more people are using words like leadership and caring and loving and support and they're doing things that echo that or really reflect that, I think then that's the power in the fact that we have endured like I said, such a significant tragedy.

AMT: You can hear about our return to Humboldt on The Current on Thursday. Stay with us. We're talking sex education in Ontario, in just a moment.

[Music: Theme]

'I'm really going to be relying on parents': Ontario teachers grapple with Ford's sex-ed program

Guests: Yeliz Sherifali, Alanna Hermans, Susan Zuidema

AMT: Hi. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Eve Romer, I'm 11-years-old. I'm going into sex.

VOICE 2: I'm Juliet. I'm 12-years-old also and I'm going to grade 7.

VOICE 3: I'm Nicholas Pinton. I'm almost 12-years-old and I'm going into grade 7. The first time I remember learning about sex was in maybe the fourth grade and there's these kids who were like saying, oh have you heard, we're going to have the talk this year. And I'm like what's the talk. And then they said, oh don't you know, it's when you learn about sex and stuff. And I'm like what's that?

VOICE 2: The first time I learned about sex was in Grade 1 and I remember my teacher had this puppet that was really creepy. It was like orange and purple, yellow. It had like antlers kind of. It was very strange, but she used it to kind of teach us like the basic stuff. And I just remember being really freaked out by that.

VOICE 3: In grade 5 I think. Yeah, like the nurse was doing it just did another slide and it was like a picture of the male reproductive organ, that was what it was labeled and the whole class laughed and felt really awkward. And I'm like uhhhh.

VOICE 1: My most embarrassing moment was probably when she asked a question, everyone liked answered, but the wrong answer and I was sitting in the corner and I answered the correct answer. And then she pointed to me in the back and like said, oh yeah you. You have the correct answer and she pointed to me and I was like completely embarrassed. I was like why did you have to point to me?

VOICE 4: Do you remember what the question was?

VOICE 1: How many holes is there in female private parts. Like everyone just held up like four or two, I said three. And then she pointed to me and I was like no, cause everyone just turned and stared at me and I was like, good job.

AMT: Well it seems as if sex education is always one of the most awkward classes for students, such as those kids in Vancouver, sometimes for their teachers. In Ontario going into the new school year, sex ed is even more complicated. The province, as you know from the news, has been gripped by a fight over the physical and health education curriculum. A new version introduced in 2015, included information about sexual orientation, gender identity, consent, sexting and in grade 1, the names of body parts, including accurate names for genitalia. It was met with protests by some parents and over the summer the new provincial government, Premier Doug Ford announced it was being scrapped.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We want to consult with the parents. Get their input. And once we consult with the parents and get everyone's input. We want everyone's input and then we'll move forward with changing the curriculum.

AMT: Well in the meantime, Ontario elementary school teachers are being told to use an interim curriculum, one that is essentially drawn from a document drafted in 1998. And so as they head back to the classroom today, Ontario teachers are being warned not to stray from that curriculum. Yeliz Sherifali teaches grades 7 and 8 health class with the Waterloo Regional School Board. She's in our Kitchener, Ontario studio. And Alanna Hermans teaches grades 7 and 8 with the Renfrew County Catholic School Board. She's in Eganville, Ontario. Hello.

YELIZ SHERIFALI: Good morning.

ALANNA HERMANS: Good morning.

AMT: Yeliz Sherifali let's start with you. How are you feeling about the interim curriculum that you are asked to teach?

YS: It's very familiar. I'm very comfortable with the 1998 curriculum, however I'm more comfortable with the 2015 revisions and I think you know going forward that I will take you know the comprehensive approach to teaching my students, just like we would in any other subject area.

AMT: And what does that mean? Are you going to stick to just what's from 1998 or are you going to expand and give them more detail?

YS: I mean I think it's my responsibility, my professional responsibility, to expand and provide learning that is authentic and relevant to my students' lives. So the 1998 curriculum is significantly outdated. Therefore, many of the concepts that were brought into the 2015 curriculum, seem to be more appropriate.

AMT: Does that mean you're going to use some of it anyway?

YS: More than likely.

AMT: Alanna Hermans, how about you? What's your impression of the curriculum for this year?

AH: Well I find it ironic because in 1998 I was in grade 8 and I'm about to go into a grade 8 classroom today and that was 20 years ago. And a lot has changed in 20 years. It's the language that's missing from the 1998 curriculum. It just it lacks inclusion. It lacks sexual diversity. However, because I teach in the Catholic board, I'm going to be teaching the Fully Alive program. It does talk about some terms that's not included in the 1998 curriculum, such as homosexuality, pornography, things to do with the media and sex in the media. So I'm actually, it's a good program and it has a little bit more substance to it than what's just there in the 1998 curriculum.

AMT: Yeliz Sherifali, the provincial government has warned teachers not to stray from the material that it has brought in in August. It has encouraged parents to report teachers who do stray. You worried about that?

YS: Not at all. I think that it's highly irresponsible and I think it's a fear tactic and nothing more than that. As educators, as members of the Ontario College of Teachers, the OCT, we know that anonymous complaints are not dealt with and in fact we know that as professional educators that what we do in our classrooms are never you know against the law, if you will. We always act in the best interest of our students. Yes we have a responsibility to assess, evaluate and report on the curriculum expectations, but we also have a responsibility and a right to ensure that all of our students feel safe in the classroom. That they're included and that they're reflected in the learning material and the teaching that happens in the classroom.

AMT: So Yeliz what might you talk about in your classroom that has actually been taken away from the revised, the curriculum that came out in 2015?

YS: Well I find it interesting that the 1998 curriculum doesn't necessarily align with our Ontario Human Rights Code and in fact that it intentionally removes issues around gender identity and expression, which are all protected grounds. And the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides us with the right to talk about equity and inclusive issues. So I mean I would definitely, I mean I wouldn't stray away from talking about those things and having you know gender identity and and different types of people, their differences or commonalities et cetera, reflected in the materials that I use. Whether it's news stories or picture books for example or any of the other resources that we have available to us.

AMT: Alanna Hermans, are you worried that you might be defying the government?

AH: I'm not because it's the direction of our school board that we teach the Fully Alive program for the sexual education component of the curriculum. The only thing I am worried about is students possibly baiting me for questions to see you know what kind of conversation they can stir up in the classroom. And you know I really can't get into those discussions that are missing from the curriculum in the 1998 curriculum. So I'm really going to be relying on parents to fill in the gaps and questions that are directed to me dealing with gender identity, that are outside of the 1998 curriculum, I'm just going to have to redirect back home to parents and guardians.

AMT: What do you mean by redirect? What would you tell them?

AH: I would say, it would depend on the question, but for example it would be something very general. You know, it's a very important question that you're asking, but I'm going to have to ask you to ask that question to your mother and father tonight.

AMT: The union representing elementary teachers has said it will defend teachers who teach kids some of that new 2015 material. Does it give you any comfort?

AH: No I think I'm just going to stick to what my board has directed me to do and because I do have the Full Alive program at my fingertips, I'm going to rely on that to guide a lot of my discussions in the classroom and hope that parents can fill in the gaps at home, until the ministry can come up with you know a more updated curriculum.

AMT: Well, Alanna Hermans and Yeliz Sherifali, stay with me. I want to bring someone else into this conversation. She's been listening in. Susan Zuidema is a former elementary school teacher who's now an education consultant in Ontario. She is the author of a book that is critical of the 2015 curriculum, it's called, "My Child, My Chance." She's in Brantford, Ontario. Hello Susan.

SUSAN ZUIDEMA: Hi. Thanks for having me on the program.

AMT: What are your biggest concerns about the curriculum that the province has now rejected, that 2015 curriculum?

SZ: So there's a few different places to start, but one of the hot button topics that is a big concern is of course we've been talking about here today already with gender identity and expression pieces. We've talked a lot in the past with other media about too much, too soon. And my concern has been that we're seeing such a dramatic increase in the numbers of children who are expressing or identifying as trans. It's been actually a 1700 per cent increase in those kids. And just what the repercussions are going to be for those children. So we spoken today, I can't remember if it was Alanna or Yeliz who spoke about the removal of gender identity expression from this interim curriculum. And it's still there in the preamble talks about the human rights code. So I think we need to be aware of the fact that as educators, we are still charged with teaching students to treat everyone equitably and with dignity. The thing that worries me in the 2015 curriculum about how gender identity, sexual orientation and expression are covered, is that it doesn't just aim for those outcomes of let's treat everyone with dignity and respect the human rights code requires Canadian citizens to do, it goes farther. It actually teaches students ultimately through a progression of restitutions to evaluate and assess their own gender identity. Their own sexual orientation, their own choices in terms of expression and consider how they fit in terms of the variety of options or expressions out there and encourages students to consider that for themselves, students who otherwise might not. And if I can, without dominating the conversation, If I can just say, we don't know because it is so early, and that's we don't know what the outcome is going to be for students who do, who otherwise without this I would call it almost interference, in terms of the suggestion that there are these other opportunities where you could express or identify in a way, another way students who otherwise might be cis gendered, meaning identifying with their biological sex and gender those being in alignment. If they start to question those things, what's the outcome going to be? Are they going to fall into the same risk categories that students that have a natural gender dysphoria fall into in terms of suicide ideation and depression and anxiety and drug use. That's my concern, what's the outcome going to be for those kids?

AMT: What is the source of that? Seventeen hundred.

SZ: I was speaking with a colleague this morning about it. There's been a study that's come out.

AMT: Where?

SZ: It's out of the States. They were doing a comprehensive study in 2017 about about the outcomes of sex education, comprehensive sex education. I typed the name of it out, it's the Institute for Research and Evaluation in 2017.

AMT: The Institute for Research and Evaluation?

SZ: Yeah it did a study on the outcomes of comprehensive sex education, comprehensive sex education is basically the foundation of our program, where it teaches about condom use and how to use condoms and abstinence. That's the basis. And so our curriculum goes in different directions as well, but that's the foundation of it.

AMT: Well you've you've raised a couple of issues there. I want to hear as she listens to you, what Yeliz Sherifali is thinking.

YS: Well I just think that you know as teachers we're never pushing our students to question their own gender identity, but rather to recognize that others may identify themselves differently. In an effort to break down the stigmas and barriers that are attached around gender roles and that kind of thing, you know the curriculum allows a platform to just help students realize that not everybody fits into the typical male and female stereotypes, as the narrative has kind of been historically. I think we need to keep in mind that Ontario is one of the most diverse provinces in Canada and so it's important to allow students the opportunity to understand that despite what you know "box people" choose to be in or what box people fit into, what category they're in or how they identify, that it's all about teaching respect and understanding that there are differences among people.

SZ: I would say you're right. We need to teach respect. My challenge would be what is to be gained by going into detail about areas like gender identity, which are very confusing to young children and are causing having an impact on their own lives and choices, when I think accomplish the same thing by teaching kindness and respect as core principals. So it's not that I would advocate for saying we're never going to talk about people who are transgendered in a classroom because it's a reality in our culture and we're preparing our students for the real world. But our directive really as educators is to try to encourage children to be good citizens and a good citizen teaches everyone with kindness and respect and with dignity. And so I think we can accomplish that without a lot of line items, where you have to cover and really focus in on because there's such a focus on gender identity. So sorry.

YS: No, I just say, I do agree with the whole character education piece and teaching kindness and a lot of those positive attributes is very, very important. But at the same time I think we need to give students connections that they can make, like in the real world to their real selves and to the people around them. All curricula will present challenging topics, where students are going to be curious, where they're going to have struggles trying to figure out whatever the concept is, whether it's in math or geography, history. But I think our job as educators isn't to just ignore those things that are going to be challenges or deflect them or redirect them to other sources. I think it's giving students the tools and the strategies they need to make choices that are best for them and for their lifestyles.

AMT: I'm going to interrupt here because we have my producers as you've been talking have been looking into that Institute for Research and Evaluation. It is a nonprofit research organization based in Salt Lake City that has gained recognition for its work evaluating, this is from its own site, sex education programs, particularly abstinence education intervention. Does that affect how you see that study Alanna or Yeliz?

YS: I can't.

AMT: Who's talking?

YS: It's Yeliz.

AMT: OK.

YS: I'm not certain just because I don't, I'm not well versed.

AMT: No, none of us as we've just heard. But it's worth noting this comes, it looks like it's based on an abstinence education intervention. So I'm just wondering how that clouds the research and any idea, Susan?

SZ: Yeah the research base, there were 60 different programs across the U.S. that were studied. It was the first and truly comprehensive study of its nature that's been done and it's just come to my attention and I've been looking through it. Basically, the gist of this study that I cited, it evaluates is it working. And Ontario's was not one of them, but it's representative of the style, comprehensive sex education and yes, you're right the institute that published it does perhaps have I don't know if I want to use the word bias. They are basically trying to figure out is this working because they want to keep kids safe in their sexual choices.

AMT: They want to keep kids from not having sexual choices, if they're pushing abstinence are they not?

SZ: Well abstinence is the only program that will ultimately keep kids 100 per cent safe. So we have to ask ourselves if you want to keep kids safer give them sexual options. I'm not going to, yeah, go ahead.

YS: I do think, I'd like to say that, I mean we do you know suggest to students that abstinence is a positive choice for adolescents and then we give them a variety of reasons why. Ultimately they're going to have to make those decisions for themselves, based on the the facts and the information that we provide them with. But I do remember that the World Health Organization and I believe the United Nations looked at information about comprehensive sexual education program and what they were finding the trend was that younger people are waiting longer and they are acting safer when they are sexually active. And the reality of it is, whether it's with themselves, with other people, with another person, young people are sexually active in a variety of different ways. So I mean I think we'd be doing them a real disservice if we didn't provide them with a comprehensive sex education program.

AMT: I want to bring Alanna Hermans into this. Alanna, you've been a little silent there. What are you thinking?

AH: Well in the Catholic school system, we teach abstinence. That's a no brainer, but we still teach about STIs, STDs, the effects of everything to do with engaging in sexual activity at a younger age and before you're married. And so, I mean we teach all of that and you're talking about gender identity and everything, we just we sort of have to find a middle ground. I agree that the gender identity topic is a huge topic. It's very confusing. It's confusing to adults. But not talking about it at all versus you know talking about so much of it, it's not reflective of the reality of our students world. Like we need to bring those topics up. They need to be aware of the terms that they're hearing and have some form of knowledge about it, so that they're not ignorant to it.

AMT: Yeliz Sherifali, what do you say to parents when they express concerns to you about what their children are learning?

YS: Well I base a lot of what happens in my classroom around communication with families. And one thing I wanted to say is I found it incredibly heartwarming and reassuring the outpouring of support that I've had from former students, current students, their families, from staff members and colleagues. So I know that we are doing something right in the classroom and I'm not worried about that. But having ongoing communications with families and with your students I think is key in terms of understanding and dispelling any of the myths around what you know people, our fears are happening in the classroom. Also making connections to real community resources and to other people in the community, especially in our religious communities so that you have as an educator, a better understanding of where some of these hesitations and concerns would be coming from. So I've made an effort to speak to you know pastors and things and people in the Catholic community. I've spoken to imams who represent our Muslim families, for example. And really coming to an understanding of where does that fear come from? What are the hesitations that people have? And then does it actually conflict with anything that's being represented in the curriculum and how can we go about making sure that everybody is respected in the classroom.

AMT: And after those conversations Yeliz, have you changed the way you're going to teach or do those conversations actually affirm what you were doing?

YS: I think they absolutely 100 per cent affirm what I was doing. It's all about having those conversations. Most of the time people will come in and say you know I don't want my child to learn about this and you know or I don't want my kid coming to health class. And that's only happened a very limited number of times in my career. And I think it's you know, you sit down and you say, OK what is it exactly in the curriculum as it's laid out that would be concerning to you. And you know, they'll point them out. Sometimes it's a matter of telling them that you know this is something that's protected by our Ontario Human Rights Code. The curriculum won't be modified for these topics, but you know what is it that worrying you? And really coming to that understanding that I am not there as an educator to ever replace the role of a parent, to ever interfere with somebody's religious beliefs or values, but rather to provide factual information so that they can make the decisions in their lifestyle that best suited for them and their families. And then it's just providing them with information so that they can be as safe as they possibly can.

AMT: Ontario teachers have been told there is a line for parents to call if they don't stick to what the Ontario government has said. So Alanna Hermans, as you begin your classes this week, what are you thinking?

AH: Well I'm thinking that's there. It's been well advertised for parents. It's anonymous. Parents can go on, click the school board, the school and write their comments and they don't have to leave their name. It couldn't, it's totally anonymous. So I mean that is there. It is a little bit unsettling that it is there. It makes me feel a little bit nervous, especially for students and families for baiting them for questions to see you know what's going to happen in the classroom. Older students know what's happening. So I mean that's a real possibility that some teachers can be, could be reprimanded possibly for going above what the 1998 curriculum has, you know. With the language there it's just I think teachers are going to be careful. Some.

AMT: We have to leave it there. Thank you all of you for speaking with me today.

AH: Thank you.

YS: Thank you.

AMT: Alanna Hermans teaching grades 7 and 8 with Renfrew County Catholic School Board in Eganville, Ontario. Yeliz Sherifali teaches seven and eight health class with the Waterloo Regional School Board and in Brantford, Susan Zuidema, is a former elementary school teacher. She's the author of, "My Child. My Chance." That's our program for today. Stay with Radio One for Q. Tom Power is speaking with Esi Edugyan today. She's the author of Half-Blood Blues and her new book is called, Washington Black. It goes back to early 19th century slavery and it's on this year's long list for the Man Booker Prize. Stay with us for that conversation. And we're going to stay with the ever contentious topic of sex ed in school. So we're going to leave you more with those 12-year-olds from Vancouver, where the sex ed curriculum is not being scrubbed, nor is it being rolled back. Here they are with their advice to teachers. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thanks for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: We're not learning enough in Grade 6 and like most of the stuff that I'm learning about now I've already found out from like half of my friends. My friends learn from like their older brothers and like yeah.

VOICE 2: Sex ed isn't just about using condoms and tampons. It's also feeing comfortable in your body and how you identify. Being gender neutral, male, female and just feeling comfortable like with your body. And I think that's a good thing to talk about.

VOICE 3: If it's like anonymous and like, I did it at school where you just put the questions in the box and the teacher picks it up and reads it and answers it. It's a lot less embarrassing.

VOICE 4: I'd like to get this advice to teachers. Just try to make a very comfortable environment for the kids because the more comfortable environment, the more willing they are to open up and talk about it.

VOICE 2: Just probably smaller groups. I know some people like big groups cause they can just hide and pretend they're not there, but small groups, I feel like once you get into it, you learn a lot more.

VOICE 3: Also it's a lot better to have like if you're a boy like a guy teaching you. Or like if you're a girl a woman teaching you cause then everybody's like eww and oh that's so grow.

The Current Transcript for September 4, 2018

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

He married her in a 'campaign' to take her money: How a woman with dementia fell into a predatory marriage

'I'm really going to be relying on parents': Ontario teachers grapple with Ford's sex-ed program

Sept. 4, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode