Bus beheading lawsuits drop government, RCMP as defendants

The Canadian government and the RCMP have been quietlydropped from lawsuits filed after the beheading of a young manaboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba.

Victim Tim McLean's father filed a claim soon after his son waskilled in the summer of 2008 againstGreyhound,perpetrator Vince Liand Canada.

The Canadian Press recently discovered that the file wasamended in April 2012 to drop the federal government as a defendantand to add 22-year-old McLean's "infant son" as one of 15 peoplewho have "been deprived of Tim McLean Jr.'s guidance, care andcompanionship."

Lawsuits filed by two separate bus passengers, Debra Tucker andKayli Shaw, have also been amended to drop the RCMP.

• Beheading still haunts bus passengers
• Greyhound bus killer found not criminally responsible

Lawyer Jay Prober, who represents Tim McLean Sr., said the government was dropped from his client's lawsuit because there wereconcerns it wouldn't stand up in court.

"We were concerned that it wasn't a strong enough case," Probersaid.

The lawsuit against Greyhound and Li is proceeding, but has beendelayed because the lawyer representing the bus company has justbeen appointed a federal judge, Prober said.

Heard voice of God

Li has been confined to a psychiatric institution north ofWinnipeg since he was found not criminally responsible for stabbing,mutilating and beheading McLean on a bus heading to Winnipeg in July2008.

Li, a schizophrenic, sat next to the 22-year-old McLean afterthe young man smiled at him and asked how he was doing.

Li said he heard the voice of God telling him to kill the youngcarnival worker or "die immediately." Li repeatedly stabbed McLean, who unsuccessfully fought for his life.

The bus pulled over near Portage la Prairie, Man., and Licontinued stabbing and mutilating McLean's body. Passengers fled thebus and stood outside.

Li eventually escaped through a window andwas arrested.

Failed to ensure passenger safety

The original statement of claim filed by McLean's father allegedthe government of Canada was liable because it isresponsible fornational transportation security.

It also argued that the governmentknew or should have known about previous violence on board Greyhoundbuses and failed to put safeguards in place.

"It knew or ought to have known that the deceased, Tim McLeanJr., was at risk or harm from attack at any time and thatirreparable harm did in fact occur," said the lawsuit.

"Thedefendant Canada knew or ought to have known that the industry onits own, specifically the defendant Greyhound, had not takenmeasures to create a safe, secure system for inter-city bustravel."

The lawsuits filed by passengers Tucker and Shaw in 2011 have notonly dropped the RCMP, but have crossed out asection that allegedCanada "failed to ensure the safety of passengers on board busestravelling between provinces"and "failed to assure that Canada'stransportation system meets the highest practicable safety andsecurity standards."

None of the allegations has been proven in court.

The federalgovernment never filed a statement of defence.

'Sweep with a broad brush'

Denise Reaume, professor of law at the University of Toronto,said it's not unusual for defendants to be dropped as a lawsuitmoves through the courts.

"Generally speaking, the way plaintiffs usually start off iswith a cause of action to include everybody except SantaClaus inthe possible defendants," she said.

"You sweep with a broad brushto begin with."

Suing the federal government or the RCMP in a case like this isparticularly difficult, Reaume said, because theplaintiffwouldhave to prove the defendants knew they were being negligent andcould have foreseen such agruesomeact would occur as a result.

Judges are also wary of punishing a government for failing topass the right laws, she added.

Imagine the slippery slopewhere allthe residents of Lac-Megantic where an oiltrain derailed andexploded into flames killing 47people could sue the federalgovernment for failing to properly regulate railways, Reaume said.

"Even if you could make an argument that they actually shouldhave been able to foresee this kind of thing, there is avery goodchance that a court would say it's not really our job ... to tellParliament what laws to pass."

The passenger lawsuits allege Tucker and Shaw can't sleep or workand suffer from anxiety and depression afterwitnessing the attackon McLean.

Their virtually identical statements of claim still allege thatCanada "failed to take any measures, through its servants theRCMP,to remove the defendant Mr. Li from the bus in a timely manner,thereby allowing him to decapitate thedeceased and mutilate anddefile the body ... and thus adding to the ongoing horror andemotional distress of theplaintiff."

Their Ontario-based lawyer, Bill Elkin, didn't return repeatedphone calls or emails requesting comment.

Greyhound had 'duty of care' to passengers

All the lawsuits still allege Greyhound and Li are responsiblefor damages.

All statements of claim allege Greyhoundfailed toensure the safety and security of passengers, knowing they couldbe"at risk and in imminent danger at any given moment," and didn'tprovide adequate training to its employees.

"The defendant Greyhound owed a duty of care to the deceased TimMcLean Jr. to ensure that he was travelling in asafe, secureenvironment free from harm, bodily injury or death; and,specifically, free from the presence and threat ofweapons or sharpinstruments capable of inflicting bodily injury or death," says theamended statement of claim intheMcLean family lawsuit.

"The defendant Greyhound knew or ought to have known that it wasnecessary to implement systems in their busoperations to providefor passenger security and safety."

Li's actions unforeseeable: Greyhound

Greyhound has filed a similar statement of defence in all threelawsuits.

It says the company "took such care as, in allcircumstances of the case, was reasonable to see that its passengerswere reasonably safe" and it "complied withall applicablesecurity regulations and laws."

Any injury caused to McLean, or any passengers who witnessed hisgraphic killing, was "as a result of the sudden andunforeseeableactions of the defendant Li," Greyhound also says in its defence.

"It has provided its employees with security training designedto ensure that its passengers would be as safe asreasonablypossible aboard its vehicles."