CLAIM
1. The plaintiff claims damages as follows:
(a) non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering in the amount of $1,000,000.00;
(b) past and future pecuniary damages estimated in the amount of $1,000,000.00;
(c) punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00; and
(d) special damages in the amount of $100,000.00.
2. In addition, the plaintiff claims:
(a) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the above-noted amounts pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as amended;
(b) costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis;
(c) an Order that Aloysius Matthew Cardinal Ambrozic defend this action on behalf of himself and as a representative defendant of the defendant class, the College of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, pursuant to Rule 12.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194; and
(d) such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may deem to be just.
Parties:
3. The plaintiff, Adrien Donat St. Louis (the “Plaintiff”), was born on October 19, 1956 and resides near the town of Apple Hill, in the Province of Ontario.
4. The Plaintiff was at all material times, a member of the Roman Catholic Church through the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of The Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall ("Alexandria-Cornwall"). Specifically he was a member of Saint James parish (the "Church") located in Maxville, Ontario.
5. The Holy See (State of the Vatican City) (the "Holy See") is a religious body which has been extended the status of sovereign state and is located in Rome, Italy. The Holy See operates as one of the central authorities of the Roman Catholic Church and is the legal international entity which controls and holds the financial, real property and other assets of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church, outside of that which is held by Dioceses around the world. The Roman Catholic Church is an unincorporated association which constitutes a Christian religion which has extensive membership worldwide. The Holy See operates the Vatican Bank to assist them in their financial tasks.
6. The College of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Catholic Church (the "College") is an unincorporated worldwide association of the senior most ranking members of the Roman Catholic Church which constitute the ecclesiastical governance of the Roman Catholic Church. The College is a defendant class of which there are approximately 181 members. The College's representative for purposes of this action is Aloysius Matthew Cardinal Ambrozic ("Ambrozic"). The College has funds held in trust for it by the Holy See and the Vatican Bank.
7. Aloysius Matthew Cardinal Ambrozic ("Ambrozic") is an individual who resides in the municipality of Toronto. Ambrozic is the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Toronto and is a member of the College having been so appointed on February 21, 1998. As a member of the College he continues a line of succession of Cardinals which stretch back centuries. As a Cardinal he acts in both an advisory and governance capacity with regard to the worldwide operations of the Roman Catholic Church. Ambrozic shares a common interest with the rest of the College.
8. The defendant, The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of London ("London") is an incorporated body in the Province of Ontario charged with carrying out the activities of the Roman Catholic Church within its geographical region. London selected, trained and ordained the defendant LaRocque to the priesthood as well as screened, submitted and recommended his appointment to Bishop.
9. The defendant, The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall ("Alexandria-Cornwall") is an incorporated body in the Province of Ontario charged with carrying out the activities of the Roman Catholic Church within its geographical region. Alexandria-Cornwall screened and selected the defendant Scott and provided him with religious rights and faculties within their Diocese. As Bishop the defendant LaRocque was the corporation sole of Alexandria-Cornwall.
10. The defendant, Bishop Eugene LaRocque (“LaRocque”), is an individual who resides in the Municipality of Windsor, in the Province of Ontario and was, at all material times, a priest and later a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. As a priest he was employed by London and as a Bishop he was controlled by either the collective or individual direction of the defendant Holy See and/or the College and swore allegiance to them. LaRocque was ordained by the Holy See and/or the College to Bishop of Alexandria-Cornwall on September 15, 1974 and held such a position when he inflicted the sexual abuse upon the Plaintiff.
11. The defendant, The Estate of Donald Scott (the "Estate") by his Litigation Administrator Gordon Cudmore is the legal representative of Donald Scott (“Scott”), who is deceased and was, at all material times, a priest of the Roman Catholic Church and was employed by the defendant Alexandria-Cornwall. For the majority of the material time, Scott was also a parish priest at the Church. The Estate is responsible in law for the former actions of Scott.
12. The Holy See, the College, Ambrozic, London and Alexandria-Cornwall had a duty of care to Roman Catholics such as the Plaintiff. This duty of care was based upon the close proximity of the defendants' religious activities, especially the activities of its priests and Bishops, to the lives of Roman Catholics such as the Plaintiff. Furthermore this duty of care was amplified by the extreme level of trust and faith which Roman Catholics such as the Plaintiff and others extended to these defendants and their clergy. Scott and LaRocque also owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff based upon the Priest/parishioner and Bishop/parishioner relationship which existed between them.
The Actions of the Holy See, the College and Ambrozic
13. The Holy See and the College jointly and/or in collaboration with each other represent the governance of the Roman Catholic Church. Their governance includes but is not limited to the following:
(a) appointing, supervising and disciplining Bishops through the Congregation for Bishops and other bodies;
(b) interpreting, defining and enforcing the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church upon the Bishops and their Diocese through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and other bodies;
(c) controlling and disciplining the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church through the enforcement of their own internal law know as the Code of Canon Law; and
(d) the drafting, authoring, publishing and transmission of directives and policies on the internal governance of the Roman Catholic Church; and
(e) electing the Pope and advising him on the above activities or actually carrying out said activities with delegated authority.
14. The members of the College, such as Ambrozic run the operations of the Roman Catholic Church, through the numerous congregations, committees and other governing entities which they staff. The principle of succession is in effect amongst the College and its members whereby Cardinals enforce and carry on the activities of their predecessors thereby inheriting any liabilities which the College or its members may have incurred. Ambrozic and the present membership of the College are therefore liable for their own actions within the College as well as those of their predecessors.
15. The Holy See and the College interpreted and enforced the following general teachings of the Roman Catholic Church during the material time:
(a) that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true religion and is the representation of God’s true teachings on earth;
(b) that the authority of the Roman Catholic Church is supreme;
(c) that by following the rules, principles and ideologies of the Roman Catholic Church one will gain the right to go to Heaven and that by failing to follow the same one will not go to Heaven and will go to Hell;
(d) that parents must bring their children up in the ways of the Roman Catholic Church and that children must attend at Catholic schools so that they can be educated with respect to the ways of the church;
(e) that you must go to church at least once a week and attend Catholic schools where the rules, principles and ideologies of the Roman Catholic Church and religion are taught;
(f) that the rule of God is supreme and that to disobey the rule of God is a mortal sin which will cause one to go to Hell;
(g) that God’s representation on earth and the teachings of God are done through priests;
(h) that priests and clergy are the chosen representatives on earth of God and have special powers; and
(i) that priests and clergy are to be viewed with special reverence, power, respect, honour and authority.
16. The Holy See and the College specifically through their Congregation for Bishops, which they staff and direct, and other bodies were responsible for the task of screening, appointing, controlling, supervising and disciplining the activities of Bishops such as LaRocque, which constitute a relationship akin to that of employment and they are thereby vicariously liable for the actions of LaRocque in so far as they are linked or empowered by his status as a Bishop.
17. The Holy See and the College appointed and employed LaRocque to carry out the religious purposes and teachings referred to above in dealing with Alexandria-Cornwall and its parishioners. They provided LaRocque with the opportunity and means to come into contact with the Plaintiff. They fostered a relationship between LaRocque and the Plaintiff. They provided LaRocque with a position of respect and trust which the Plaintiff was bound by the rules set out above to follow and honour.
18. The Plaintiff pleads that, at all material times, the defendant LaRocque, was acting in the course of his duties within the Roman Catholic Church and Alexandria-Cornwall and was using the aforementioned rules, principles and ideologies to further his attempts to manipulate the Plaintiff and engage in deviant activities.
19. The Plaintiff pleads that the aforementioned rules, principles and ideologies of the Roman Catholic Church, as pronounced by the Holy See and the College, created an opportunity for the defendant LaRocque, to exert power and authority over the Plaintiff. This power and authority allowed the defendant LaRocque, to engage in the aforementioned behaviour and to continue to engage in same without resistance or question of the Plaintiff for considerable time without risk of being exposed and thereby put the Plaintiff at risk of being abused by LaRocque.
20. The Plaintiff pleads that the defendant LaRocque, was, as a result of his position as Bishop, allowed to use the premises owned by Alexandria-Cornwall where the aforementioned behaviours and activities occurred and to gain access to the Plaintiff affording him an opportunity to foster a trusting relationship with the Plaintiff and engage in the aforementioned behaviours for many years without the risk of being exposed, caught and thereby put the Plaintiff at risk of being abused by LaRocque.
21. As a result, the defendants the Holy See and the College are vicariously responsible and liable for the actions of LaRocque.
22. The Holy See and the College either collectively and/or individually were negligent in their governance of the Roman Catholic Church and failed in their duty to the Plaintiff as follows:
Appointment and Supervision
(a) they failed to effectively interview, screen, and scrutinize LaRocque prior to his appointment to Bishop;
(b) they failed to follow their own internal policies in ordaining LaRocque to Bishop and/or allowing him to work within the Roman Catholic Church and Alexandria-Cornwall, namely then Canons 330 and 331 of their Code of Canon Law;
(c) they failed to effectively supervise LaRocque in his conduct as a Bishop with regard to the level of power they afforded him;
(d) they failed to provide him adequate guidance as a Bishop through the mechanism of the visit ad limina and other processes of training and guidance for Bishops;
(e) they failed to verify the information provided by LaRocque on his quinquennial report and other reports regarding himself and the status of Alexandria-Cornwall;
(f) they failed to convey and include LaRocque in an adequate number of Synods of Bishops to ensure his rightful conduct as a Bishop;
(g) they have failed to this day to react to indicia of difficulties which LaRocque or Alexandria-Cornwall exhibited;
(h) they failed to warn members of the Roman Catholic Church and others who may come into contact with LaRocque of his prior difficulties as both a seminarian and a priest;
(i) they failed to protect the Plaintiff from LaRocque when they knew or ought to have known that he was vulnerable to the attentions and influence of LaRocque;
(j) they failed to screen and/or monitor the character, sexual orientation and sexual activity of the defendant LaRocque;
(k) they failed to warn the Plaintiff and others of the propensities of LaRocque;
(l) they failed to remove LaRocque from his duties upon learning of the allegations of sexual and inappropriate conduct thereby leaving the Plaintiff exposed to LaRocque, and his actions without protection as well as those actions of clergy under LaRocque's deficient supervision;
(m) they failed to protect the Plaintiff;
(n) they failed to take steps to investigate the activities of LaRocque once they knew or ought to have known of his problems in an effort to locate and assist any victims; and
(o) they failed to identify/counsel and assist the Plaintiff once they knew of these behaviours.
Doctrine and Teachings
(p) they failed to recognize that a certain percentage of the priests would become sexually deviant and would make sexual advances to young children;
(q) they failed to mandate that priests in training and ordained priests and other clergy be instructed about the possibilities of becoming sexually deviant and/or making advances to children;
(r) they failed to have a central system of reporting and documenting the shortcomings and related discipline of their clergy;
(s) they failed to educate members of the Roman Catholic Church about the possibilities of such deviant behaviours;
(t) they failed to have any, or a proper, system of self- reporting, other-reporting or counselling in place for priests who engage in such behaviour;
(u) they failed to mandate a regime of disciplinary action and internal and external prosecution of sexually deviant priests and actually ensure such a system was being carried out;
(v) they failed to mandate dismissal of priests and other clergy found to have engaged in sexual deviance and chose instead to implement, encourage or acquiesce to a policy of transfer and deception;
(w) they fostered a system, based on the rules, principles and ideologies of the church, in which deviant sexual practices were bound to develop among a percentage of the priests;
(x) they fostered a system, based on the rules, principles and ideologies of the church, in particular, the rule that priests have absolute authority, whereby the reporting of such deviant sexual behaviour of a priest by its members would be considered to be “wrong”;
(y) they denied the existence, or alternatively were wilfully blind to the existence of the behaviours described herein;
(z) they implemented and maintained a system which was designed to cover-up the existence of such behaviour, if such behaviour was ever reported, namely the 1962 Instruction entitled On the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation (Instructico De Modo Procedendi In Causis Sollicitationis) which imposes the highest level of secrecy upon such matters;
(aa) they have failed to follow or require Diocese to follow their own internal judicial procedures for dealing with sexually deviant priests and clergy as defined within the Code of Canon Law;
(bb) they have failed to impose in a timely fashion any effective protocols and remedies to address the global and longstanding epidemic of clergy sex abuse;
(cc) they have failed to discipline or publically denounce Bishops and others who ignore or propagate the clergy sex abuse problem and have actually promoted such men to even greater positions of authority within their ranks;
(dd) both historically and currently have suppressed information or disclosure concerning the problem of clergy sex abuse in an attempt to avoid scandal rather than brining awareness and resolution to the issue; and
(ee) they have ignored, tolerated, disregarded, permitted, and condoned, both through inaction and action, the sexual abuse of young people by their clergy.
23. In addition to, and in the alternative to the above, the Plaintiff pleads that the defendants Holy See and the College knew that the defendant, LaRocque, had the propensity to engage in such deviant behaviours and was, in fact, engaging in such deviant behaviour because of the following:
(a) LaRocque's difficulties as a seminarian;
(b) LaRocque's difficulties with sexuality;
(c) The concerns of other clergy, parishioners and others;
(d) The frequency with which the Plaintiff and other children were involved with LaRocque;
(e) The unusual interest that LaRocque took in young males;
(f) the frequency with which the Plaintiff and other young males were at the churches, rectories and schools where LaRocque worked and resided;
(g) the frequency of activities and outings in which LaRocque would be alone with young males;
(h) the duration of time and the number of years in which the Plaintiff and other young males spent regular time alone with LaRocque;
(i) the attendances of LaRocque and a number of his clergy at social functions at Pilon Point, Ontario; Cameron's Point, Ontario; Birch Avenue, Fort Lauderdale Florida; Saltaire Motel, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Lot 17 Concession 1, RR# 1 Cornwall, Ontario; Stanley Island, Ontario; St. Andrew's Parish house, Cornwall, Ontario and other locations where young males as the guests of adult men would consume drugs and alcohol and engage in sexual activities with each other; and
(j) the fact that the defendant LaRocque, would have, in accordance with the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, confessed about these deviant sexual behaviours (i.e. sins) from time to time to one or more of the other priests.
24. Despite their knowledge of same, the defendants the Holy See and the College took no steps to stop the behaviour, report such or ultimately to protect the Plaintiff.
25. In the alternative, if the defendants the Holy See and the College, did not have direct knowledge of the aforementioned behaviours the Plaintiff pleads that these defendants ought to have known about same because of the circumstances, as detailed above, surrounding the acts.
26. If the defendants the Holy See and the College did not know of the aforementioned behaviour, it was because of the existence of its own rules, principles and ideologies which allowed the defendant LaRocque to conceal his activities and cover up his deviant behaviour.
27. The Plaintiff says that the defendants the Holy See, the College and Ambrozic, for the aforementioned reasons failed in their duty of care to the Plaintiff and were thereby negligent.
Sovereign Immunity
28. The Plaintiff pleads that the Holy See or any of its agents or employees cannot rely upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity as the Holy See is not a "foreign state" within the meaning of that term as it applies to the doctrine of sovereign immunity within customary international law and the common law and statutory law of Canada.
29. In the alternative, if the Holy See is a "foreign state" for the purposes of sovereign immunity the Plaintiff pleads that no immunity affixes for the following reasons:
(a) the actions upon which the Holy See's liability rests are not actions of a sovereign state for which immunity would affix;
(b) the Holy See has implicitly or explicitly waived any rights under or is estopped from raising sovereign immunity as a defence by, amongst other things failing to raise such defence over a period of decades;
(c) the doctrine of sovereign immunity was not intended to shelter activities which constitute a violation of international human rights and/or criminal activity; and
(d) the Plaintiff relies upon the State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1990, c.S-18 and the fact that the herein action is for personal physical injury to the Plaintiff which occurred in Canada with its resultant emotional and psychological effects for which there is no sovereign immunity.
30. For purposes of the State Immunity Act the cause of action in this matter arose no earlier then July 15, 1982 via the concepts of discoverability and continuing cause of action. In the alternative the State Immunity Act being procedural in essence and conveying a benefit upon states applies retroactively.
31. In the further alternative, to impose sovereign immunity through the State Immunity Act or other governmental act in this matter would constitute a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter"), as follows:
(a) the Plaintiff's right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, pursuant to section 7 of the Charter would be violated; and
(b) the Plaintiff's equality rights, pursuant to section 15 of the Charter would be violated on the basis of discrimination based upon religion in that as a Roman Catholic, the Plaintiff is restricted from seeking legal recourse against the central authority of his religion.
The Actions of London
32. The defendant London selected trained and ordained the defendant LaRocque to the priesthood. They provided him religious rights and faculties within London and ultimately appointed him to prestigious positions within London. LaRocque was at all times prior to his ordination to Bishop incardinated to London and thereby the responsibility of London.
33. The Plaintiff pleads that the defendant, London, was negligent and failed in their duty to the Plaintiff, the particulars of which are set out below:
(a) they failed to recognize that a certain percentage of the priests would become sexually deviant and would make sexual advances to young children;
(b) they failed to instruct priests in training and ordained priests about the possibilities of becoming sexually deviant and/or making advances to children;
(c) they failed to properly investigate LaRocque's background, character and psychological state prior to allowing him to become a seminarian and later a priest;
(d) they failed to document, discipline, or expel LaRocque for his shortcomings as a seminarian;
(e) they failed to follow their own internal policies in ordaining LaRocque to the priesthood and/or allowing him to work within London;
(f) they failed to warn LaRocque's immediate supervisors, parishioners and others who may come into contact with LaRocque of his prior difficulties as both a seminarian and a priest;
(g) they were deficient in their screening of LaRocque's candidacy for Bishop, knowing full well the reliance which other parties would place upon their reference and recommendation for such a prestigious and powerful post;
(h) they recommended LaRocque for Bishop when they knew or ought to have known that he was not capable or competent for such a post;
(i) they failed to educate members of the Roman Catholic Church about the possibilities of such deviant behaviours;
(j) they failed to have any, or a proper, system of self-reporting, other-reporting or counselling in place for priests who engage in such behaviour;
(k) they fostered a system, based on the rules, principles and ideologies of the church, in which deviant sexual practices were bound to develop among a percentage of the priests;
(l) they fostered a system, based on the rules, principles and ideologies of the church, in particular, the rule that priests have absolute authority, whereby the reporting of such deviant sexual behaviour of a priest by its members would be considered to be “wrong”;
(m) they denied the existence, or alternatively were wilfully blind to the existence of the behaviours described herein;
(n) they implemented and maintained a system which was designed to cover-up the existence of such behaviour, if such behaviour was ever reported;
(o) they failed to protect the Plaintiff from LaRocque when they knew or ought to have known that he was vulnerable to the attentions and influence of LaRocque;
(p) they failed to properly supervise, control and give guidance to their then employee, LaRocque;
(q) they failed to screen and/or monitor the character, sexual orientation and sexual activity of the defendant LaRocque;
(r) they failed to warn the Plaintiff and others of the propensities of LaRocque;
(s) they failed to remove LaRocque from his duties upon learning of the allegations of sexual and inappropriate conduct thereby leaving the Plaintiff and others exposed to LaRocque and his actions without protection;
(t) they failed to protect the Plaintiff;
(u) they failed to take steps to investigate the activities of LaRocque once they knew or ought to have known of his problems in an effort to locate and assist any victims; and
(v) they failed to identify/counsel and assist the Plaintiff once they knew of these behaviours.
34. In addition to, and in the alternative to the above, the Plaintiff pleads that the defendant London knew that the defendant, LaRocque, had the propensity to engage in such deviant behaviours and was, in fact, engaging in such deviant behaviour because of the following:
(a) LaRocque's difficulties as a seminarian;
(b) LaRocque's difficulties with sexuality;
(c) The concerns of other clergy, parishioners and others;
(d) The frequency with which the Plaintiff and other children were involved with LaRocque;
(e) The unusual interest that LaRocque took in young males;
(f) the frequency with which the Plaintiff and other young males were at the churches, rectories and schools where LaRocque worked and resided;
(g) the frequency of activities and outings in which LaRocque would be alone with young male;
(h) the duration of time and the number of years in which the Plaintiff and other young males spent regular time alone with LaRocque; and
(i) the fact that the defendant LaRocque, would have, in accordance with the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, confessed about these deviant sexual behaviours (i.e. sins) from time to time to one or more of the other priests.
35. Despite their knowledge of same, the defendant London, took no steps to stop the behaviour, report such or ultimately to protect the Plaintiff.
36. In the alternative, if the defendant London, did not have direct knowledge of the aforementioned behaviours the Plaintiff pleads that the defendant London ought to have known about same because of the circumstances, as detailed above, surrounding the acts.
37. If the defendant London, did not know of the aforementioned behaviour, it was because of the existence of its own rules, principles and ideologies which allowed the defendant LaRocque to conceal his activities and cover up his deviant behaviour.
38. The Plaintiff says that the defendant London, for the aforementioned reasons failed in their duty of care to him and was thereby negligent.
The Actions of Alexandria-Cornwall
39. The defendant Alexandria-Cornwall employed Scott to carry out the religious purposes and teachings referred to above in dealing with the Plaintiff. They provided Scott with the opportunity and means to come into contact with the Plaintiff. They fostered a relationship between Scott and the Plaintiff. They provided Scott with a position of respect and trust which the Plaintiff was bound by the rules set out above to follow and honour. They provided Scott with a residence at various rectories which further added to his position of power and respect.
40. The Plaintiff pleads that, at all material times, the defendant Scott was acting in the course of his duties within the Roman Catholic Church and Alexandria-Cornwall and was using the aforementioned rules, principles and ideologies to further his attempts to manipulate the Plaintiff and engage in deviant activities.
41. The Plaintiff pleads that the aforementioned rules, principles and ideologies of the defendant Alexandria-Cornwall created an opportunity for the defendant Scott, to exert power and authority over the Plaintiff. This power and authority allowed the defendant, Scott, to engage in the aforementioned behaviour and to continue to engage in same without resistance or question of the Plaintiff for many years without risk of getting caught and thereby put the Plaintiff at risk of being abused by Scott.
42. The Plaintiff pleads that the defendant Scott was, as a result of his positions with the defendant Alexandria-Cornwall, allowed to use the premises owned by Alexandria-Cornwal where the aforementioned behaviours and activities occurred and to gain access to the Plaintiff affording him an opportunity to foster a trusting relationship with the Plaintiff and engage in the aforementioned behaviours for many years without the risk of getting caught and thereby put the Plaintiff at risk of being abused by Scott.
43. As a result, the defendant, Alexandria-Cornwall, is vicariously responsible and liable for the actions of Scott. The abovementioned opportunities and empowerment also apply to LaRocque and with him being the Corporation Sole of Alexandria-Cornwall, that defendant Diocese is also vicariously liable for his actions.
44. The Plaintiff pleads that the defendant, Alexandria-Cornwall, was negligent and failed in their duty to the Plaintiff, the particulars of which are set out below:
(a) they failed to recognize that a certain percentage of the priests would become sexually deviant and would make sexual advances to young children;
(b) they failed to instruct priests in training and ordained priests about the possibilities of becoming sexually deviant and/or making advances to children;
(c) they failed to properly investigate Scott's background, character and psychological state prior to allowing him to become a priest of the Diocese;
(d) they failed to follow their own internal policies in ordaining Scott to the priesthood and/or allowing him to work within the Diocese;
(e) they failed to warn Scott's immediate supervisors, parishioners and others who may come into contact with Scott of his prior difficulties both as a seminarian and as a priest;
(f) they failed to educate members of the Roman Catholic Church about the possibilities of such deviant behaviours;
(g) they failed to have any, or a proper, system of self- reporting, other-reporting or counselling in place for priests who engage in such behaviour;
(h) they fostered a system, based on the rules, principles and ideologies of the church, in which deviant sexual practices were bound to develop among a percentage of the priests;
(i) they fostered a system, based on the rules, principles and ideologies of the church, in particular, the rule that priests have absolute authority, whereby the reporting of such deviant sexual behaviour of a priest by its members would be considered to be “wrong”;
(j) they denied the existence, or alternatively were wilfully blind to the existence of the behaviours described herein;
(k) they implemented and maintained a system which was designed to cover-up the existence of such behaviour, if such behaviour was ever reported;
(l) they failed to protect the Plaintiff from Scott when they knew or ought to have known that he was vulnerable to the attentions and influence of Scott;
(m) they failed to properly supervise, control and give guidance to their employee Scott;
(n) they failed to screen and/or monitor the character, sexual orientation and sexual activity of the defendant Scott;
(o) they failed to warn the Plaintiff and others of the propensities of Scott;
(p) they failed to remove Scott from his duties upon learning of the allegations of sexual and inappropriate conduct thereby leaving the Plaintiff exposed to Scott and his actions without protection;
(q) they failed to protect the Plaintiff;
(r) they failed to take steps to investigate the activities of Scott once they knew or ought to have known of his problems in an effort to locate and assist any victims; and
(s) they failed to identify/counsel and assist the Plaintiff once they knew of these behaviours.
45. In addition to, and in the alternative to, the above, the Plaintiff pleads that the defendant Alexandria-Cornwall knew that the defendant, Scott had the propensity to engage in such deviant behaviours and that he was, in fact, engaging in such deviant behaviour because of the following:
(a) Scott's difficulties as a seminarian;
(b) Scott's difficulties with sexuality;
(c) The concerns of other clergy, parishioners and others;
(d) The frequency with which the Plaintiff and other children were involved with Scott;
(e) The unusual interest that Scott took in young males, particularly the Plaintiff;
(f) the frequency with which the Plaintiff and other young males were at the churches and rectories where Scott worked and resided;
(g) the frequency of activities and outings in which Scott would be alone with young males;
(h) the duration of time and the number of years in which the Plaintiff and other young males spent regular time alone with Scott; and
(i) the fact that the defendants, Scott would have, in accordance with the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, confessed about these deviant sexual behaviours (i.e. sins) from time to time to one or more of the other priests.
46. Despite their knowledge of same, the defendant, Alexandria-Cornwall, took no steps to stop the behaviour or to protect the Plaintiff.
47. In the alternative, if the defendant, Alexandria-Cornwall, did not have direct knowledge of the aforementioned behaviours the Plaintiff pleads that the defendant Alexandria-Cornwall ought to have known about same because of the circumstances, as detailed above, surrounding the acts.
48. If the defendant, Alexandria-Cornwall, did not know of the aforementioned behaviour, it was because of the existence of its own rules, principles and ideologies which allowed the defendant Scott to conceal his activities and cover up their deviant behaviour.
49. The Plaintiff pleads that the defendant, Alexandria-Cornwall, owed a special duty to the Plaintiff by virtue of its relationship with him to identify, counsel and render assistance to the Plaintiff once they became aware of the behaviours of the defendant Scott.
50. The defendant, Alexandria-Cornwall, knew or ought to have known that the Plaintiff was in need of counselling, assistance and support because of the actions of the defendants, Scott and that such assistance would be necessary in order to minimize the consequences of Scott's actions and the effect of the same on the Plaintiff. They have failed to this day to investigate the extent and severity of the abuse and have failed to render any assistance to the Plaintiff.
51. The Plaintiff states that the relationship between him and the defendant Alexandria-Cornwall and Scott commenced when the Plaintiff was a young person, as such, the defendants owed to the Plaintiff a high duty/standard of care and, in particular, a duty to protect him from harm by its employees (i.e. clergy) and specifically sexual abuse.
52. The Plaintiff says that the defendant, Alexandria-Cornwall, for the aforementioned reasons failed in their duty of care to him and was thereby negligent.
The Actions of LaRocque:
53. Following ordination, selection and training, London granted LaRocque the necessary spiritual rights and faculties to act as a priest within London. In 1974, the College and/or the Holy See, through the Congregation for Bishops approved, appointed, ordained and installed LaRocque as Bishop of Alexandria-Cornwall, a post he held until his retirement on April 27, 2002. He presently holds the post of Bishop Emeritus of Alexandria-Cornwall.
54. The Plaintiff became aware of LaRocque through his involvement with the Church of which he was a member. The Plaintiff personally met LaRocque at a parish rectory where LaRocque would stay temporarily during parish visits.
55. Through his position as a Bishop and representative of Alexandria-Cornwall and an employee of the Holy See and/or the College, LaRocque befriended himself to the Plaintiff.
56. LaRocque engaged in activities with the Plaintiff in his capacity as a Bishop, counselling him in religion, Catholic education and other matters.
57. Through his position as Bishop and representative of the defendant Alexandria-Cornwall and employee of the Holy See and/or the College, LaRocque was an important ecclesiastical authority to the Plaintiff. The young Plaintiff viewed LaRocque as a powerful, righteous and godly figure.
58. LaRocque used his position as a Bishop of the defendant Alexandria-Cornwall, and employee of the Holy See and/or the College which was a position of authority and trust, to develop a close personal relationship with the Plaintiff when he was young. The relationships that LaRocque developed with the Plaintiff, under the guise of a friendship based on a bishop-parishioner relationship, allowed LaRocque an opportunity to be alone with the Plaintiff and to exert total control over him, prey upon him and sexually abuse him.
59. In or about 1975 when the Plaintiff was approximately 18 years of age, LaRocque repeatedly sexually abused, assaulted and molested the Plaintiff, exposed him to prurient sexual behaviour, encouraged him to engage in deviant and prurient sexual behaviour and taught him how to be rewarded for doing so. The particulars of same are as follows:
(a) exposing his naked body to the Plaintiff;
(b) fondling the naked body of the Plaintiff, including but not limited to his penis, scrotum and buttocks;
(d) masturbating the Plaintiff;
(e) masturbating himself in the presence of the Plaintiff;
(f) ejaculating on the Plaintiff;
(g) engaging in other sexual activities with the Plaintiff;
(h) in order to facilitate the abuses LaRocque engaged in a pattern of behaviour which was intended to make the Plaintiff feel that he was special in the eyes of LaRocque, the Church and God; and
(i) in order to facilitate the abuses LaRocque also engaged in a pattern of behaviour which was intended to make the Plaintiff feel that his soul was in jeopardy.
60. The abovementioned activity occurred after the Plaintiff reached the age of consent, and the Plaintiff pleads that no consent was possible owing to the power dependency relationship between the Plaintiff and LaRocque.
61. The aforementioned behaviours occurred on premises, which were owned or controlled by the defendant Alexandria-Cornwall, the Holy See and/or the College, specifically at a parish rectory while the Bishop was visiting that parish.
62. The aforementioned behaviour occurred on a repeated basis. As time progressed, abuse intensified in both frequency and nature. All of the aforementioned behaviours were related to Bishop/parishioner activities.
63. Throughout the period of time that the aforementioned behaviour was occurring, LaRocque used his position of authority and trust, as well as, the dependency relationship that he had fostered with the Plaintiff, to ensure that the Plaintiff did not tell anyone about the behaviours they had engaged in.
64. LaRocque's behaviour constituted sexual abuse and assault. It was also a breach of the duty of care that he owed to the Plaintiff in that, inter alia, he did wilfully and/or negligently inflict pain and suffering, mental suffering, humiliation and degradation upon the Plaintiff, assaulted the Plaintiff and interfered with his normal upbringing and childhood solely for the purpose of his own gratification.
65. Additionally LaRocque counselled, encouraged and protected other priests within Alexandria-Cornwall that were engaging in deviant sexual activities with young males, including but not limited to Scott.
66. In doing such LaRocque became one of the leading members of a pedophile clan (the "Clan") based out of Cornwall, Ontario. His involvement in the Clan allowed for the continuation of his acts of sexual abuse of the Plaintiff and others and both deterred and prevented the Plaintiff from exposing the abuse and seeking redress, treatment and healing.
67. LaRocque was instrumental in forming the Clan, whose complete membership is not fully known to the Plaintiff but the following people were either members of the Clan or through passive and/or active participation, wilful blindness or complicity assisted in the perpetration of the Clan's activities:
a. Father Charles MacDonald;
b. Ken Seguin;
c. Nelson Barque
d. Richard Hickerson;
e. Monsignor R.J. MacDonald;
f. Father John McPhail;
g. Father John Donihee;
h. Father Norman Loney;
i. Malcom MacDonald;
j. Dr. Arthur Peachy; and
k. Brian Dufour;
68. LaRocque's membership, leadership and assistance to the Clan, whether it be intentional and/or negligent, which involved abuses of his ecclesiastical office allowed him and Scott to abuse the Plaintiff without fear of recourse and contributed to the damages suffered by the Plaintiff. For such involvement in the Clan, as it contributed to the damages suffered by the Plaintiff, LaRocque is in law responsible.
The Actions of Scott:
69. Following ordination, selection and training, Alexandria-Cornwall granted Scott the necessary spiritual rights and faculties to act as a priest within Alexandria-Cornwall. He was immediately posted to parish work within Alexandria-Cornwall.
70. The Plaintiff met Scott through the Church of which he was a member. Through his position as a priest and representative of the Alexandria-Cornwall, Scott befriended himself to the Plaintiff and his family.
71. Scott engaged in activities with the Plaintiff in his capacity as a parish priest, counselling him in religion, Catholic education and other matters. The Plaintiff became an altar server under the tutelage of Scott and was also involved with a Church sponsored youth group.
72. Through his position as parish priest, teacher and representative of Alexandria-Cornwall, Scott was to Plaintiff an important ecclesiastical authority to the Plaintiff.
73. Scott used his position as a priest of the defendant Alexandria-Cornwall, which was a position of authority and trust, to develop a close personal relationship with the Plaintiff when he was young. The relationships that Scott developed with the Plaintiff, under the guise of a friendship based on a priest-parishioner relationship, allowed Scott an opportunity to be alone with the Plaintiff and to exert total control over him, prey upon him and sexually abuse him.
74. Commencing in or about the year 1974 when the plaintiff, was 17 years old and for the following three years, Scott repeatedly sexually abused, assaulted and molested the Plaintiff, exposed him to prurient sexual behaviour, encouraged him to engage in deviant and prurient sexual behaviour and taught them how to be rewarded for doing so. The particulars of same are as follows:
(a) exposing his naked body to the Plaintiff;
(b) fondling the naked body of the Plaintiff, including but not limited to his penis, scrotum and buttocks;
(c) directing the Plaintiff to fondle the naked body of Scott, including but not limited to his penis, scrotum and buttocks;
(d) masturbating the Plaintiff;
(e) directing the Plaintiff to masturbate Scott;
(f) performing fellatio on the Plaintiff;
(g) directing the Plaintiff to perform fellatio on Scott;
(h) sodomizing and anally penetrating the Plaintiff;
(i) ejaculating on or in the Plaintiff;
(j) engaging in other sexual activities with the Plaintiff;
(k) in order to facilitate the abuses Scott engaged in a pattern of behaviour which was intended to make the Plaintiff feel that he was special in the eyes of Scott, the Church and God; and
(l) in order to facilitate the abuses Scott also engaged in a pattern of behaviour which was intended to make the Plaintiff feel that his soul was in jeopardy.
75. The abovementioned activity occurred after the Plaintiff had reached the age of consent, in which case the Plaintiff pleads that no consent was possible owing to the power dependency relationship between the Plaintiff and Scott.
76. The aforementioned behaviours occurred on premises, which were owned or controlled by the defendant Alexandria-Cornwall, specifically the Church and related rectory as well as the rectory at Saint Raphael parish.
77. The aforementioned behaviour occurred on a regular and repeated basis. As time progressed, the abuse intensified in both frequency and nature. All of the aforementioned behaviours were related to priest/parishioner activities.
78. Throughout the period of time that the aforementioned behaviour was occurring, Scott used his position of authority and trust, as well as, the dependency relationship that he had fostered with the Plaintiff, to ensure that the Plaintiff did not tell anyone about the behaviours they had engaged in.
79. Scott's behaviour constituted sexual abuse and assault. It was also a breach of the duty of care that he owed to the Plaintiff in that, inter alia, he did wilfully and/or negligently inflict pain and suffering, mental suffering, humiliation and degradation upon the Plaintiff, assaulted the Plaintiff and interfered with his normal upbringing and childhood solely for the purpose of his own gratification.
Damages:
80. The Plaintiff states, and the fact is, that as a direct result of the behaviour of the defendants he has suffered damages and losses, the particulars of which are as follows:
(a) physical pain;
(b) mental anguish;
(c) nervous shock, humiliation, degradation;
(d) loss of enjoyment of faith;
(e) loss of religious life/beliefs;
(f) impairment of his opportunity to experience a normal adolescence and adulthood;
(g) impairment of his ability and opportunity to obtain and complete an education appropriate to his abilities/aptitude;
(h) impairment of his ability to earn an income and support himself and time off work due to emotional trauma;
(i) impairment of his mental health and emotional well being;
(j) loss of interdependent relationship;
(k) clinical depression;
(l) post traumatic stress disorder; and
(m) a loss of enjoyment of life.
81. The Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer physical, emotional and mental pain and suffering and a loss of enjoyment of life. The Plaintiff was deprived of a normal healthy childhood and adolescence as a result of the actions or in-actions of the defendants. The life of the Plaintiff was fundamentally and forever changed by the above-noted behaviour.
82. The Plaintiff was so profoundly negatively affected by these behaviours and activities that he spent many of the formative years of his life struggling to deal with the physical, mental, psychological and emotional sequelae of these events. The Plaintiff has suffered the following:
(a) failure/drop-out of school;
(b) addiction to alcohol/drugs;
(c) inability to develop and engage in normal human relations;
(d) difficulties with the law; and
(e) a propensity to engage in reckless and careless behaviour.
83. The Plaintiff has suffered a tremendous loss of enjoyment of life and ongoing pain and suffering. His ability to carry on a normal life has been extinguished or impaired.
84. The Plaintiff has suffered physical, mental, psychological and emotional stress, shock and suffering which will continue forever.
85. The Plaintiff has been required to undergo medical treatment and psychological counselling and will continue to require same indefinitely throughout his lifetime.
86. The Plaintiff has sustained out-of-pocket expenses the particulars will be provided prior to the trial of the within action.
87. The Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer economic losses, including past income loss, future and ongoing income loss, loss of competitive advantage and various other out-of-pocket expenses the particulars of which will be provided.
88. The Plaintiff pleads that the conduct of the defendants, as described herein, was harsh, high-handed, malicious and as such, should be punished with aggravated and/or punitive damages.
89. The Plaintiff has only recently been able to face these effects and relate the extent of his victimization to the sexual abuse perpetrated upon him by the defendant's Scott and LaRocque and the failure of the other defendants to act appropriately.
90. To this day the Plaintiff has not fully realized the extent of his victimization but for the purposes of discoverability the Plaintiff had adequate awareness of the impact of these matters as of approximately January 2005.
91. The Plaintiff relies upon the discoverability rule and the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. The parties were in a special relationship with each other and given that relationship, the defendants' abovementioned actions amount to an unconscionable thing and the effect of the defendants' conduct has given rise to a concealment of the cause of action.
92. The Plaintiff relies upon the State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1990, c.S-18, the Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.N1., and Schedule B of the Constitution Act, 1982 being the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
93. The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried in the City of Ottawa.
Date of Issue: P. M. LEDROIT (LSUC#12470Q)
Ledroit Beckett
Litigation Lawyers
630 Richmond Street
LONDON, Ontario
N6A 3G6
Tel: (519) 673-4994
Fax: (519) 432-1660
