The decision comes as the largest class action settlement in Canadian history, involving thousands of residential school survivors hoping to be compensated for physical and sexual abuse endured during their time in the system, is winding down, with hearings expected to be done by this spring.

There are now less than 100 hearings left, according to the Indian Residential Schools Adjudication Secretariat. As of June 20, it had received 38,000 claims and $3.024 billion had been paid out in compensation.

But not everything has gone smoothly. A former Manitoba residential school student, identified only as J.W., testified at his initial compensation hearing that he was standing at the back of a line of boys, all wearing what he described as “little aprons,” and waiting to use the shower, when a nun called him to come over.

When he approached her, the nun, he testified, grabbed or tried to grab his penis over the apron once, “then ‘got a better grip.’”

He was embarrassed and pushed her hand away—that’s when she became angry, grabbed him by the left ear, shook him, and tried to slam his head against the wall, he testified.

This incident, J.W. claimed, constituted “any touching of a student, including touching with an object, by an adult employee or other adult lawfully on the premises which exceeds recognized parental contact and violates the sexual integrity of the student,” making him eligible for compensation.

While the hearing adjudicator said she believed him and didn’t doubt that the incident had embarrassed him and caused him “certain harms,” she rejected his compensation claim, writing in the decision that she wasn’t “satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there was a sexual purpose associated with [the nun’s] conduct.”

Edmond disagreed, pointing out that the rules don’t require sexual intent or sexual purpose—and other adjudicators have held the same in many other cases.

“Clearly, and on a simple plain-language analysis, a child’s sexual integrity can be violated without a perpetrator having any sexual intent whatsoever,” he wrote.

J.W.’s Winnipeg-based lawyer Martin Kramer said while the decision applies only to his client, “it is our view that the reasoning he employed could be employed in other cases wherein claimants were denied compensation based upon the fabricated sexual motivation requirement.”

“It is unknown to us how many such cases there are, but we are aware of several and, in our opinion, it is very likely that there are at least dozens of such cases, and possibly hundreds,” he told VICE News.

The denial of compensation for J.W., upheld twice—based on the government’s position that claimants should have to prove that there was a sexual intention in the mind of the abuser—meant he was held to a higher standard of proof for sexual assault than what’s required even under the Criminal Code, Kramer said.

This, despite the fact that the rules set up for the evaluation don’t require proof of intent.

“Our view is that this narrow and forced interpretation flies in the face of both the letter and the spirit of the compensation rules,” Kramer said.

J.W.’s case will be reopened and heard again out of court. Those whose claims were rejected on the same basis, who have the legal means to pursue them, could also have their cases reconsidered.

In a statement emailed to VICE News, Chief Adjudicator Dan Shapiro said all adjudicators and counsel had been made aware of the decision, and that secretariat welcomed the direction provided by the decision “in clarifying the interpretation of sexualized touching.”

“Justice Edmond’s decision addresses important jurisdictional issues in the IAP; it is one of only a few cases where a supervising judge has sent back a claim to an adjudicator in the IAP,” said the statement. “We are still studying the decision to determine its impact.”

Follow Tamara Khandaker on Twitter.