We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
K.M.M. v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of the Diocese of
London in Ontario, 2011 ONSC
Starting when she was 7 years old, the plaintiff was repeatedly
sexually abused by her parish priest, Father Charles Sylvestre. The
abuse continued over three years.
Before the abuse, the plaintiff led a happy life. Afterwards,
she left the Catholic school she had been attending and had to
repeat a year of school because of her difficulty adjusting. She
was angry and became withdrawn. She received low marks in school
and later had difficulties at work and maintaining employment. She
never achieved her goal of becoming a social worker. Because of the
abuse, she continued to have difficulty trusting others and
suffered from low self-esteem, depression, anxiety and suppressed
anger.
The plaintiff decided to come forward when she was 41 years old,
after she learned that the priest, Father Sylvestre, had been
criminally charged and convicted for sexual assault of 47 other
women. She sued the Diocese of London, which had charge of the
priest who abused her. The court found that the Diocese was not
only vicariously liable for Father Sylvestre's sexual
misconduct, but also negligent in its own right and should have
taken steps to prevent the sexual abuse.
Though the plaintiff's difficulties in life were, the trial
judge concluded, caused in part by other struggles, including
learning she was adopted and coming out as a lesbian, the court
found that if she had not been sexually abused by the priest, she
would have been better able to cope with other sources of stress in
her life.
The court awarded the plaintiff $190,000 for her pain and
suffering, $400,000 for past and future loss of income, and $20,000
for therapy and other out of pocket expenses, for a total award of
$610,000.
Elizabeth Grace heads the Toronto office sexual assault
group, she is a partner at the Ontario law firm, Lerners LLP, and
has specialized in sexual assault matters for almost two decades
now. See her
professional biographyfor more information about
Elizabeth and her work in the area of civil liability for sexual
abuse.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Amato v. Welsh, 2013 ONCA 258 marks an interesting development in the law – it suggests the previously inviolable doctrine of absolute privilege which protects lawyers from suit may admit an exception.
As the current trend to self-representation increases, regardless the reason, one must ask if the tradition of lawyers appearing before Courts, above the Ontario Court of Justice, ought to continue the traditional legal wearing of robes.
The Supreme Court of Canada has recently considered when a civil court should bar claims on the basis that the issues in dispute were finally disposed of in a prior administrative proceeding.
A discussion on a recent case where the Supreme Court of Canada granted a leave application in the following case of interest to Canadian businesses and professions.
Many Canadian limitations statutes explicitly state that "no limitation period" is applicable to a proceeding in which the relief sought is a declaratory judgment.
