A little more now on two Diocese of Pembroke priests who used the sanctuary as a platform to declare Father Howard Chabot’s  innocence.

I spent a good part of today on this, tracking down stories to clarify and confirm, and trying to get in touch with both priests

The priests in question are (1) Father Terrence Sirosky, pastor at Our Lady of Good Counsel in Deep River, Ontario, and (2) Father Grant Neville, pastor at St. Andrew Roman Catholic Church in Killaloe, Ontario.  I did try to contact both priests  for comment.  Father Neville was in Pembroke visiting family and will be gone until sometime on Friday.  Two messages I left for Father Sirosky have to this point gone unanswered.

I had hoped to contact both priests before blogging, however, at this time I will go ahead and post what I have been told.   I do so because I fear the repercussions and damage already done within the Catholic community, not the least of which is the animosity which is being nurtured toward the complainant by Roman Catholic priests.

This is truly unbelievable.

So here is the gist of what I have been told

(1) Father Terrence Sirosky

First, to put this into some context, although Father Chabot is retired he had recently been filling in for Father Sirosky for a number of Sundays.  I think in fact if I remember correctly Father Cahbot said in Deep River the Sunday before he was charged.

As for what was said by Father Sirosky this past Sunday at Mass, I have several sources for this, and all basically have the same message.

I am told that right after Mass Father Sirosky said that he is a close friend of Father Chabot, and that he had talked to Father Chabot about the allegations – Father Chabot in turn apparently asked that a message be taken back to parishioners, and he asked Father Sirosky to tell parishioners that he (Fr. Chabot)  is not guilty and that he (Fr. Chabot) has a clear conscience.  I was also told that Father Chabot  asked Father Sirosky to assure parishioners that the truth will prevail, and to pray for both he and the complainant.

Ask for prayers for both he and the complainant?  By all means.  I would expect such a request from a  priest and from the pulpit.  But the rest?  All of that priestly propaganda about Father Chabot’s clear conscience and innocence?  At Sunday Mass?

No.

As it stands, the priestly message is that Father Chabot is innocent.

What, pray tell,  does that say for the complainant?  As far as I’m concerned it says only one thing about the man who filed the complaint, that being that if indeed Father Chabot is innocent then the complainant is an outright liar.

That’s the message, is it not?  How else can we view it?

I am appalled.  Disgusted. This is such a terrible abuse of the trust which people place in their parish priest.  Whether by accident or design, this is such a brazen manipulation of people’s minds.

Yes, I realize fully that strange things happen when a priest is charged, and that emotions run high.  But, I don’t expect this.  Not from a priest.  Not on the heels of the countless cases we have witnessed in Canada and throughout the world where so many loyal parishioners and friends swore by “Father” and were adamant that he couldn’t possibly have done ‘it,’ and “Father” was equally adamant that he didn’t do ‘it,’ and then, lo and behold, after a little plea bargaining and a whole lot of months “Father” enters an 11th hour guilty plea.

(2) Father Grant Neville

And, much the same but slightly different here.

I am told from one source that Father Neville announced that he and Father Chabot have been friends for years, and that he believes in Father Chabot’s innocence and that this whole thing is just a money grab.

From another source I am told that Father Nevile said that he was in seminary with Father Chabot and he did not believe that Father Chabot could or would have done what he is accused of.

What can I say?  I think I said it all above.  But, I am sick at heart.  Sick for the complainant and his family.  Sick that this may deter anyone who may have been summoning up the courage to go to police and pass on information which they feel would prove helpful, or …deter a complainant who may have just summoned up the courage to go to police with sex abuse allegations against Father Chabot.

Those who truly want the truth to come out must in turn acknowledge that a hostile environment will not encouraging anyone to go to police.

Before closing, let me assure that this is not at all what happened in every parish in the diocese on Sunday.  This is what I am told was said in two churches last Sunday.  There are 48 churches in the Pembroke Diocese.   I have had reports from a number of people telling me that their parish priest spoke well about the charges, and there was no attempt to paint  Father Chabot as wrongfully charged and falsely accused.

And, one final sad note.  I hear that a number of people out and about the diocese are saying that Father Chabot has a clear conscience, and  that this is all about money.

Please pray for the complainant.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

On the issue of the Pembroke Diocese, reporting to police and  the Child and Family Services Act “Duty to Report.

This gets rather convoluted.  I will try my best to explain.

 Backgrounder

(1) Provincial legislation

Perhaps the best place to start is with the Ontario Child and Family Services Act (OCFSA).  This is provincial legislation which, in part, governs the duty to report.  I believe every province and territory in Canada has  similar legislation.

I will quote sections of the act throughout this article,  Those who wish to see it in it’s entirety can access the online version via this external link:  Scroll down to section 72 headed “Duty to Report.”  

A simpler read with some explanatory notes can be found in this brochure published by Service Ontario.

And this from the Ontario Ministry of Child and Youth Services

And, important to know, according to OCFSA, a “’child’” means a person under the age of eighteen years; (‘enfant’)”  However, according to the Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services the duty to report applies to a child who is under 16.  The Ontario Services brochure  also states that the duty to report applies to a child under 16.

I don’t see anywhere in the OCFSA itself that the duty to report applies to a child who is under 16.  If I have missed it could someone point it out?  It seems a strange omission so if I have overlooked it I really would appreciate if someone could point it out to me.

Anyway, as you will see, in the Province of Ontario there is no legal duty to report to police.   I believe the same may hold true for other provinces and territories.  Check online for the legislation which covers the duty to report in your province or territory.

There is no duty to report to police.  There is, however, a duty to report to Children’s Aid or it’s equivalent.

The “Duty to Report” as outlined in the OCFSA, demands in part that:

Despite the provisions of any other Act, if a person who performs professional or official duties with respect to children, has reasonable grounds to suspect one of the following, the person shall forthwith report the suspicion and the information on which it is based to a society [Children’s Aid]:  

. . . 

3. The child has been sexually molested or sexually exploited, by the person having charge of the child or by another person where the person having charge of the child knows or should know of the possibility of sexual molestation or sexual exploitation and fails to protect the child.

4. There is a risk that the child is likely to be sexually molested or sexually exploited as described in paragraph 3.

 . . .

Those who do not report are, as stated below,  guilty of an offence

Offence

(4)  A person referred to in subsection (5) is guilty of an offence if,

(a) he or she contravenes subsection (1) or (2) by not reporting a suspicion; and

(b) the information on which it was based was obtained in the course of his or her professional or official duties. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (2).

This duty to report applies also to the following persons:

(5)  Subsection (4) applies to every person who performs professional or official duties with respect to children including,

(a) a health care professional, including a physician, nurse, dentist, pharmacist and psychologist;

(b) a teacher, person appointed to a position designated by a board of education as requiring an early childhood educator, school principal, social worker, family counsellor, operator or employee of a day nursery and youth and recreation worker;

(b.1) a religious official, including a priest, a rabbi and a member of the clergy;

(b.2) a mediator and an arbitrator;

(c) a peace officer and a coroner;

(d) a solicitor; and

(e) a service provider and an employee of a service provider. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (3); 2006, c. 1, s. 2; 2010, c. 10, s. 23.

And, note the following.  Some persons who are party to a failure to report are guilty of an offence:

(6.1)  A director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in a contravention of an offence under subsection (4) by an employee of the corporation is guilty of an offence. 1999, c. 2, s. 22 (3).

Those persons convicted of failing in their duty to report, or one who authorizes, permits or concurs in such failure, can, at the present time,  face a fine of up $1,000.  A rather paltry sum I’d say.  The good news here is that this penalty will be replaced by one which ups the fine to “not more that $50,000″ and adds the option of imprisonment for up to two years.  The penalty can include both a fine and imprisonment.

Lawyers and lawyers alone are exempt from the duty to report:

(8)  Nothing in this section abrogates any privilege that may exist between a solicitor and his or her client. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 72 (8).

That means that a lawyer has no duty to report any information regarding a molester.  It matters not if he knows a child molester is serving in a parish, or teaching in a school or running a boy scout troop.   Solicitor-client privilege prevails.

For those who may not know, there is no exemption in Ontario for what is heard in Confession.  Roman Catholic clergy are supposed to be legally bound to report what they are told in Confession.

(2) Perry Dunlop

The essence of the duty to report in CFSA has not changed since Perry Dunlop fulfilled his duty to report the David Silmser sex abuse allegations against Father Charlie MacDonald. 

I posted the act  sometime in 2006. Those who wish to check for themselves can do so by comparing with the current version of the act

Many of you will recall that Perry Dunlop went to CAS when he discovered that his police force (Cornwall Police Service) was no longer investigating David Silmser’s child sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald.  Perry had read David’s victim statement and felt the allegations were credible.  He was aware that  Father MacDonald was still in active ministry.    Perry believed that children were at risk.  He decided he had to fulfill his duty to report to CAS.  The fact that Perry was a police officer was irrelevant:  he still had a duty to report to CAS.

We all know what happened. 

Perry Dunlop became the target for the ire of fellow police officers.  Perry was charged with discreditable conduct and breach of confidence under the Police Services Act.  Attempts to have him convicted failed.  On 31 January 1995 the charges against Perry were stayed. 

The Police Complaints Commission appealed.

On Appeal the Divisional Court ruled that

“Constable Perry Dunlop in September 1993 had ‘reasonable grounds to suspect that a child … may have suffered abuse.’  He had a duty, therefore, to ‘forthwith report the suspicion and information on which it is based to a society.’”

The court also ruled – and this is important – that it did not matter that David Silmser was no longer a child when he reported the allegations.

Years later at the Cornwall Public Inquiry the issue of duty to report (to CAS) raised its ugly head again and became the stuff of much dancing on the head of a pin and finger-pointing.   I’m not going to get into all of that.  Suffice to say that (1) Staff Sgt Garry Derochie testified that there was a consensus amongst CPS officers that the allegations against Father Charlie MacDonald did NOT fall within Section 72 of the OCFSA – and that Perry Dunlop was the only officer who thought otherwise; and, very important  (2) in his final report, Justice Normand Glaude recommended that:

“The government of Ontario should amend the Child and Family Services Act to clarify that the duty to report provisions apply to cases of historical abuse where there is a risk that the alleged abuser has current access to children.”

The Ontario government which commissioned the $60M  inquiry has not to date seen fit to comply with Justice Glaude’s recommendation.

(3)  “Historical” sex abuse

There is no mention of historical or historic sex abuse in the OCFSA.  None. 

Somewhere along the line, however, a notion has gained ground that adults reporting childhood sex abuse are to be treated differently than minors reporting such abuse, and with that comes the companion notion, real or perceived, that those molesters who have eluded detection until their victims are adults are less of a threat to children and the crime is a lesser a crime..

I blogged on this several times as the Cornwall Public Inquiry lumbered its way along.  Back on 01 May 2006 I blogged the testimony of Detective Wendy Leaver (Toronto Police Services Sex Crime Unit)  and had this to say:

Historical sexual abuse is NOT, as it implies and most assume, sexual abuse which happened years and years ago.  In some instances that is indeed the case, but in point of fact historical sexual abuse is actually sexual abuse which, according to most experts, is  reported to authorities after the victim is 16-years-of-age.

So, for example, one of Jacque Leduc’s “alleged victims” was sixteen when police showed up on the doorstep of the boys’ home, and to make a long story short the boy eventually disclosed his very current sexual abuse allegations against Leduc.  However, because the boy was sixteen at the time his allegations are categorized as historical.

In short, it matters not how long ago the abuse was going on or what age the child was when it started:  if the victim was 16 or over when he reported it to authorities his abuse is categorized as “historical.”

As far as I’m concerned, historical child sexual abuse is as much child sexual abuse as child sexual abuse, and those who commit these “historical” crimes are every bit as much molesters.  Perhaps indeed there should be additional punishment meted out for the many molester who have  managed to fly under the radar and thereby avoid detection, elude justice, deceive and manipulate the naive and continue to groom and prey.

No matter.  What this relatively new child sex abuse nomenclature has effectively done is draw a dividing line between those victims who report their abuse while they are minors, and those who report when they are adults.  In many instances the designation “historical” has negatively  impacted the manner in which the allegations are handled by various police officers, and also influenced the manner in which the molesters of “historical” abuse cases are treated – as in they are often not viewed as a threat to children.

The Pembroke Diocese Protocol for Sexual Abuse Cases Involving Minors

Now to the Pembroke Diocese Protocol for Sexual Abuse Cases Involving Minors. This is where all of this talk began, the charges against Father Howard Chabot and subsequent media coverage and blogging of those charges. Some questions and some comments…

(1)  Is there a duty to report to police in the Pembroke Diocese Protocol for Sexual Abuse Cases Involving Minors?

The answer is no. 

I mentioned a few days back that I had contacted the Pembroke diocese for clarification of the Protocol.  I wanted to get things sorted out after reading a  30 July 2013 Ottawa  Citizen article “Pembroke priest charged in alleged sex assault” in which Meghan Hurley wrote the following:

“A priest appointed by the diocese was put in charge of taking complaints of sexual assault involving children. The priest is obligated to report allegations that a child was sexually assaulted to the police.”

I was puzzled.

A diocese with a protocol demanding a duty to report to police?  I hadn’t heard of one, at least not in Ontario.  As you have seen, there is no legal duty to report to police so , while it would be very welcome news to find a diocese implementing such a protocol, it would be very surprising.

I called Meghan Hurley.  She told me that she had talked to diocesan spokesman Bruce Pappin, and, that Mr. Pappin told her that civil authorities includes police.  

I emailed Mr. Pappin.  We have had a few email exchanges on the subject,  with me seeking clarification of what the Protocol says and he conferring with Father Peter Proulx before responding.  He also told me that he doesn’t recall telling Meghan that civil authorities included police, and that his recollection of his discussion with Meghan was that it centred more around the history of the document. 

It still isn’t sorted out, but the bottom line is that the Pembroke Diocese Protocol does not demand  that child sex abuse allegations be reported to police.  

Yes, there is the possibility of calling police, but that, according to Mr. Pappin,  is only when  there is no CAS in the area . 

 “there are remote areas of the Diocese in both Ontario and Quebec where there is no effective representation by those child protection agencies because they are based in the larger urban centres. It is then up to the reporting individual to decide if it may be more effective to notify police first, with the understanding that they would notify the appropriate child protection agency”

I truly don’t know if this does or does not comply with teh OCFSA.  It may well.  In the  government of Ontario  guidelines, Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect:  It’s Your Duty  we read:“If you think the matter is urgent and you cannot reach the CAS, call your local police.”

I don’t see such a directive in the Act itself, but,  the above quote comes from the Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services.  If the left hand of government knows what the right is doing and saying, then, perhaps  in those instances where the matter is deemed to be “urgent” and CAS can not be contacted,  police may be contacted?  

We know from elsewhere that police have an obligation to report to CAS, so if an individual is, for whatever reason  unable to report to CAS and instead contacts police,  the police in turn must contact CAS. 

The bottom line, however, is that there is no duty to report to police in the protocol.

According to Mr. Pappin, in the Province of Quebec, the reporting is to La Protection de la Jeunesse. 

(2)  Is there is difference in the protocol when it comes to reporting child sex abuse allegations involving minors, and  “historical” abuse allegations?

Yes, alas, there is difference

Here is an excerpt from the protocol, this one entitled “Obligation to Report.” Read carefully:

2. Obligation to Report

All citizens who have reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is, or may be, in need of protection, have a legal obligation to forthwith report this situation, along with supporting information, to Family and Children’s Services in Ontario (if the child is under the age of 16 years) or La Protection de la Jeunesse in the Province of Quebec (if the child is under 18 years of age). For the purposes of this protocol, the term “child” refers to anyone under the age of 18 years.

“The Bishop’s Delegate will ensure that the civil authorities have been notified. ..”

And then there is this excerpt, entitled “Report by an Adult”:

3. Report by an Adult
In a situation where an adult person alleges sexual abuse while he or she was a child, the Bishop’s Delegate will immediately inform the Complainant of the Complainant’s right to contact the police to commence a criminal investigation. If the Complainant prefers another procedure, the Complainant’s wishes are to be respected. . .

The latter, “Report by an Adult” is clear.  When an adult reports there is no duty to report to police, nor is there any duty to report to CAS.  The complainant will be informed of his/her “right” to go to police.  That’s it.

What about the Obligation to Report?

Well, in reading “Report by an Adult” it is obvious that a distinction has been made between someone under 18 reporting, and an adult (someone 18 or over) reporting.  And it is obvious that there is a difference in how the diocese responds to “historical” allegations, and how it responds to allegations of someone under age 18,

 Look at this section of the protocol regarding the duty to report (obligation to report)  again. 

All citizens who have reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is, or may be, in need of protection,  have a legal obligation to forthwith report this situation, along with supporting information, to Family and Children’s Services in Ontario (if the child is under the age of 16 years) or La Protection de la Jeunesse in the Province of Quebec (if the child is under 18 years of age). For the purposes of this protocol, the term “child” refers to anyone under the age of 18 years.

You see that the duty to report in Ontario relates to a “child” under the age of 16 years?  And that  the duty to report in Quebec relates to a “child” under the age of 18 years?

The Pembroke Diocese straddles both the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec, hence the diocese has to comply with reporting legislation in both provinces.  It seems that perhaps a decision was  made to standardize the protocol for both provinces, hence the protocol defines  “child” as “anyone under the age of 18 years.”

But, does anything there tell you that the reporting is to be done if and only if the abuse transpired when complainant/victim was under age 18?

Not really, does it?  However, the next para with the title “Report by an Adult” is a heads up to go back and sort it out, because, as I have said before, this clearly indicates that these are being handled as “historical” abuse allegations and are therefore being treated differently. 

Thankfully I don’t have to try to explain this further.  According to Mr. Pappin (emphasis in original):

“The duty to report applies when the victim is under 18 at the time of the report, not the time of the incident.  When, as in Fr. Chabot’s case, the allegation is made after the alleged victim is an adult, the alleged victim has the option of going to the authorities or not. The Bishop (or his delegate) has to respect the privacy of the adult complainant. This process is outlined in section 3 of the reporting section of the protocol.”

(Section 3 is “Report by an Adult.” )

So, the “Obligation to Report” is pertinent only to those complainants who are under age 18 when they report their abuse.  In those cases there is no duty to report to police, but there is a duty to report to CAS.

Now, for clarity’s sake,  back briefly to  the Ottawa Citizen and the article by Meghan Hurley in which she wrote: 

“When an adult brings forward allegations of sexual assault, the priest will tell the victim to contact the police.”

That’s not the case.  The victims are not told to contact police.  As I said earlier, the complainants/victims are not told to contact police, nor are clergy or the delegate obligated to report to police.  The victims/complainants are advised of their “right” to contact police. 

And now back  to what I see as the marginalization of victims of historical sexual abuse, the minimization of the crimes of their molesters, and the concurrent minimization of the threat these molesters pose to the community, specifically to children.

The protocol doesn’t say it, but  what is happening is that all historic allegations  are treated in a different manner, and are in fact minimized.  Add to that the fact that when the molester/suspect is alive there is no concern whatever that children are or may be at risk.  None. 

And there you have it.  True, according to the protocol an adult complainant will be informed of his/her “right” to go to police to commence a criminal investigation, but, that’s it.  When it comes to historic abuse and the protocol the duty to report is non existent.

As an aside,  look again at this section of # 3 Report by an Adult  (emphasis added):

“… the Bishop’s Delegate will immediately inform the Complainant of the Complainant’s right to contact the police to commence a criminal investigation. If the Complainant prefers another procedure, the Complainant’s wishes are to be respected.”

“If the compliant prefers another procedure”? 

What other “procedure” might a complainant prefer? 

What “procedure” might be preferable to an adult who, as a child, endured sexual abuse at the hands of a priest?  

I just don’t know.  I know of many a victim of clerical sexual abuse across this country who, as an adult, went to a diocese and wanted no more than an acknowledgment of the abuse and an apology. They didn’t get it.

I know of victims who wanted an apology and were offered money.  Some refused.  Others accepted.

I know of victims who wanted an assurance that “Father” would be removed from ministry and not allowed near children.  Many were assured it would be done.   In a good number of cases “Father” later surfaced in another parish, sometimes in another diocese.

I know of victims who simply ask that “Father” be sent for treatment so that he can ‘get better.’  “Father” is sent off for treatment, and in many cases, in short order is recycled into another parish, or diocese, or ministry, – or maybe even another country.  And, yes, sad to say, in a number of those cases children are willfully placed at risk, and sadder yet, are molested.

 What kind of “procedure” would an adult victim prefer as an alternate to reporting “Father” to police?  Can anyone help me here?

(3)  A soft touch for molesters whose victims struggled for years to come forward

As I said, when allegations are reported by an adult victim, everything changes.  It may not be great when a victim reports before age 18, but it’s really unconscionable when the victim happens to be older than 18. 

It’s great for the “historical” molester mind you –

Think  it through. 

 Why the difference in protocol  when, for example, the accused priest in each of the following cases is alive, age 58,  and serving somewhere in some capacity as a priest?

 (i)  a 17-year-old reports that he was molested by Father V eight years ago  (ie eight-years-old when abused)

 (ii)  a 16 year-old reports that he was molested by Father W yesterday (i.e., 16-years-old when abused)

 (iii)  an 18 -year-old reports that he was molested by Father X  two years ago (i.e., 16 years old when abused)

 (iv)  a 20 year old reports that he was molested by Father Y five years ago? (i.e., 15-years-old when abused)

(v)  a thirty-year-old reports that he/she was molested by Father  Z 20 years ago (i.e. ten-years-old when abused)

 Believe it or not, the only duty to report to anyone is in cases i and ii.  In both those cases there is a duty to report to CAS.  In each of the other three cases, there is no duty to report to anyone.

Crazy?

I think it is.  Dangerously crazy.

 Why, for example,  are Fathers W and X considered a risk to children, while Fathers Y and Z are not?

 Where’s the logic here?    Are Fathers Y and Z any less molesters? and are they any less a threat to children than Fathers W and X?  If yes, how so?

 (5) Does the  Pembroke Diocese protocol adhere to the OCFSA duty to report?

 I’d say no.

Remember Perry.

The charges against Perry were stayed.

In it’s 31 January 1995 decision to stay the charges against Perry the Board of Inquiry ruled in part:

Part 3 of the Child and Family Services Act has been created to provide legislative response to the obvious public demand for protection of children.  To facilitate such protection and to facilitate reporting of suspected cases of abuse, the legislature created an immunity for those who form suspicion upon reasonable grounds and who are required by the legislation to forthwith report it.  The reporting creates a facility to protect not only the child who may have suffered abuse but also any other children that might come into future contact with the suspected abuser.  Therefore. even after the child who may have been abused reaches the age of majority, the duty to report the suspicion continues to exist.

In it’s 07 December 1995 decision to dismiss the appeal of the former with costs the Ontario Divisional Court ruled in part that:

“in my view, Const. Dunlop was an active duty police officer who gained information in the course of his “professional or official duties” – it does not matter that he was not the officer specifically assigned to the case – all police officers have a proimary duty to prevent the commission of crime.  Nor does it matter that the complainant D.S. was no longer a child as he was at the time of the alleged abuse.

Const. Dunlop in September 1993  had “reasonable grounds to suspect a child …may have suffered abuse.”  He had a duty, therefore, to “forthwith report the suspicion and information on which it is based to a society.

The duty to report, and the intent of the OCFSA – even with an adult complainant,  was clear to many, judges included. 

Even Justice Glaude seemed to recognize that the duty to report to CAS encompasses historical allegations.   In his Report Justice Glaude wrote:

“The government of Ontario should amend the Child and Family Services Act to clarify that the duty to report provisions apply to cases of historical abuse where there is a risk that the alleged abuser has current access to children.”

The judges at Divisional Court had no problem determining that Perry did the right thing and David Silmer’s age was irrelevant.

But, on the heels of a $60M inquiry, a call for clarity in the Act.

It seemed to be understood by many, but not, obviously by all.

And, to date,  no response .  No attempt by government officials to quell this confusion.

And, here we are. 

The Pembroke Diocese has protocols which would ensure a Perry Dunlop’s silence.  The protocol is clear. There is no duty to report to CAS when the complainant is an adult.

Why not?

Who, benefits?

Not the victim.

Certainly  not the children who are or may be willfully placed or left at risk.

Not parents who have, unbeknownst to them, naively placed their trust in a real or suspect molester.

Who then gains?

Well, there is no denying that the molester gains.  His name and crimes will probably never the see the light of day.

Those clergy who may have enabled, recycled or covered-up for the  molester gain.  Like the molester, their names and their betrayal of the faithful  may never see the light of day.

Beyond that, I really don’t care much who else gains.  There is a problem here.  A serious problem.

Those who are not from the Pembroke Diocese, check your diocesan sex abuse protocols.  I think you will find much the same thing..

Meanwhile Catholics in the Pembroke Diocese are saddled with a protocol which minimizes the abuse endured by an adult victim, and likewise minimizes the threat a molester poses to innocent children.  Those who drafted the legislation without doubt are familiar with the OCFSA.  Why then the obvious distinction between duty to report for those complainants under 18 and those who are 18 or over?  Is there a lawyer advising there is no need to comply with a duty to report when the allegations  are deemed historic?   Is that what’s going on here?  Or, is it just a  plain old case of go gently on the molesters ?

The one for sure is that the safety and well-being of children are not foremost in anyone’s mind anywhere.  Molesters are.  Why else a protocol which first and foremost fails to demand a duty to report to police for ALL sex abuse allegations ? Why?

In closing, lest anyone think I am advocating a duty to report to CAS here, I am not.  That’s the legislation we have.   We’ve had it for years.   Right now we’re stuck with it.   However I must say that as bad as the situation was in Cornwall I still believe that the primary duty to report should and must be to police.  We are talking about criminal acts involving children.  Let every police officer be bound by a duty to report to CAS if need be, and, if need be let them seek assistance from CAS, but, the duty to report must be to police, and it must be police who investigate all reports child sex abuse.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

An interesting little tid bit.  This regarding the case of Bishop James Wingle, the abdicating bishop of St. Catharine’s Ontario who was born and raised in Eganville, Ontario  (Diocese of Pembroke Ontario). Bishop Wingle, you may recall, resigned suddenly, mysteriously and prematurely April 2010.  He is now actually Bishop Emeritus.

I had several reports last week advising me that Bishop Wingle ‘said’ Mass on Sunday 11 August 2013 in Golden Lake, Ontario.

According to my sources, the parish priest, Father John Lacey, was on vacation. (Father Lacey is pastor at St. James in Eganville – the Nativity of Our Lord in Golden Lake is a mission parish.)

So, on 11 August 2013 Father Richard Starks showed up at Nativity to say Mass.   He was not alone.  At the start of Mass Father Starks was accompanied by Bishop Wingle.

Father Starks announced that he was there to replace Father Lacey, but that he himself was now being replaced by Bishop James Wingle!  APPLAUSE!!

The bishop and the priest concelebrated.

Bishop Wingle ‘gave’ the homily.

The bishop and a Eucharistic Minister distributed Holy Communion. Father Starks sat on the sidelines.

At the end of Mass Bishop Wingle joked that he was on vacation but Father Starks put him to work delivering the homily.

There was no explanation to the congregation of where the bishop has been or what he has been doing. Nothing.  No word either why, three long years ago, he chose to abdicate.

After the recessional Bishop Wingle stood at the entrance to the church shaking hands.  A number of enthralled Catholics clustered around him.

So, the word from the bishop himself is that he  on vacation.  On vacation from what and where we have no idea.  That I suppose is still top secret?

Strangely the Bishop opted to assist at the small mission church in Golden Lake rather than at his home parish of St. James in Eganville.

Just to be clear here, there are no reports regarding the Bishop’s 2010 abdication which indicate any untoward and/or illegal activities.  The problem is and always has been the bizarre manner in which the Bishop abandoned his flock in Catharine’s and the secrecy and total lack of transparency which surrounded his departure and, later, his current whereabouts.

We are still as much in the dark as we were back in April 2010.

Anyway, as I was putting this together I decided to update the Bishop Wingle page with info from his Bio.  How could it have slipped my mind that James Wingle spent five years as a probation officer?  In fact, after spending time at the Redemptorist Novitiate, and studying Theology at St. Michael s College and attaining a BA from Western U, young James Wingle spent five  full years working as a probation/parole officer .  Then James Wingle picked up a Masters degree and was off to St. Augustine’s Seminary.  He was ordained 16 April 1977.

I mention this because, as some of you know,  I have just recently been puzzling over the fact that the recently charged Father Howard Chabot  worked as a probation officer after his ordination.  So now out of sheer curiosity I am trying to sort out if by chance Mr. James Wingle and Father Howard Chabot ever worked together as probation officers.  This is proving difficult – I don’t have the actual dates  when Father Chabot worked as a probation officer, but do know that he  was working for Catholic Social Services in the early 70’s.  But, does anyone know if James Wingle as a layman, and Father Howrd Chabot as a priest ever worked together as probation officers?

Whether I ever find that out or not, the story for today is that  the abdicating bishop has surfaced publicly in his home diocese of Pembroke, which is also the Diocese in which he was ordained and initially served – and all or none the wiser as to why the mysterious abdication.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Father Robert Couture had a cour date in Windosr Ontario this morning (21 August 2013) at 09:30 am.  I will check tomorrow for the next court date.

*****

The grandchildren are gone, and a few more family celebrations have been celebrated.   I finally feel that I can safely say that life will now return to what constitutes “normal” for me.  Time for me to get back on track here   But, shades of a few weeks ago, I am right now waiting for a telephone repairman to arrive – we have had phone problems for the past week – all being well that will be taken care of today

I am posting a number of recent media articles.  Catching up!  Check New to the Site  (A reminder that as I add each new article, document and/or name to Sylvia’s Site I post a link a link on New to the site.  The page can be accessed manually by clicking on the white “NEW” button on the black horizontal menu under the picture above.)

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Father Robert Couture was due back in a Windsor, Ontario court house this morning “to set a date.”

I will check tomorrow to see if indeed a date for something of significance (i.e., guilty plea, preliminary hearing or trial) has been set.  One way or the other, I will get the date for Father Couture’s next court date.

*****

I have added what’s called a “plugin” to Sylvia’s Site.  This one is to allow those who post comments the opportunity to go back to make corrections to their comment within five minutes.  You will see after you submit your comment that a screen opens advising that “Your comment is awaiting moderation” and under your comment a link “Click to edit” with a five minute countdown.  Within that five minute timeframe you can click and edit your comment.  Should you edit, you then click the “Save” button and your changes are saved.  The clock will continue to run down for the remainder of the five minutes, thus  allowing you again to edit if you so choose.  At the end of the five minutes the comment will be posted.

Let me know if there are problems.  And let me know if you like this new feature.

I am hoping this works.  There is a possibility that the plugin will cause problems with other more necessary plugins on Sylvia’s Site.  If that happens I will have to remove it, but, let’s give it a try and see how it goes

*****

Someone with a gmail email address sent me a personal email with questions regarding a priest from the Archdiocese of Edmonton, Alberta.  I attempted to reply but twice the email bounced back.  If you are the person who sent this email and are reading this would you please email me again with a different email address, or perhaps send me your phone number and I can call you?

*****

There is a courtdate for Father Joe LeClair  tomorrow, but this is just his lawyer and the Crown with a judge.  It is NOT open to the public.  This will probably be a bit of sorting out what evidence can or can not be admitted in court at the preliminary hearing, and which witnesses can or can not be called.

The preliminary hearing is booked for 20-31 January 2014 and 24-28 February 2014 at the Ottawa, Ontario courthouse (161 Elgin St.).  Once upon a time that seemed an eternity away.  It’s getting closer.

*****

Father Jean-Claude Lefebvre has a court-date tomorrow morning at the Sudbury Ontario courthouse.

30 August 2013:   09:30 am, for adjustment of some sort, Sudbury, Ontario courthouse (155 Elm St.)

Father Lefebvre was committed to stand trial in the Ontario Superior Court October 2011.  Yes, 2011.  Nearly two years ago.  I was told back then that it could be ages before a trial date is set.  We’re still waiting!

I hope that someone can pop into the courthouse tomorrow to find out what the heck is  going on.

As always, keep the complainants in your prayers.  And, as always, if you hear any news of the outcome, or see or hear anything in the media, please pass it along.

*****

“Tanya” will no longer be posting comments on Sylvia’s Site.

I will post a series of email exchanges between Tanya and I so you know a little more about Tanya and ‘her’ interest in the sex abuse crisis in Roman Catholic Church.  I have not responded to Tanya’s email of 27 August and have no intention of doing so.  Here are the  emails in ascending order, from mine of 26 August, to Tanya’s of 27 August 2013

27 August 1:23 am

Hello Sylvia

Thank you for your reply

Unlike you and the other site “contributors” I have no interest in the “restoration”  or “cleansing” of Roman Catholicism. The libretto I am following  is particularly anti- Christian and anti clerical.

I am using the site to undermine Roman Catholicism- a particular religious identity group I have a visceral loathing for.

You have simply provided me with the tool to further this work.

Clearly my “contributions’ are at an end.

I wish you well in the continued exposure of rapist Roman priests and their supporters. It is always interesting to watch a religious group implode and its followers attack one another in the manner they have done and so brilliantly illustrated on the site.

I shall follow your work with keen interest

Tanya

……

From: sylvia.maceachern@sympatico.ca

To: [Tanya]

Subject: Re: phone call

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:05:19 -0400

Hi Tanya

You were assuming  a dominant role  on the site.  You had reached a point in your “contributions” that I do need to know who you are and what you may or may not know about situations around the world.  You write as someone who “knows” about everything everywhere, however, I have discovered that is not always the case.  I take pains to try to ensure that the facts presented on the site are facts.  If I am uncertain of something, I make that known and ask questions for clarification.  I know my limitations.  

When someone posts something which raises serious questions for me I get in touch privately to verify.  I want all information to be as accurate as is humanly possible.  For me there are both serious legal and moral considerations.

You prefer to remain anonymous.  At this point I am uncomfortable with the situation.  I need to know who you are so that I can try to put what you have to say into context and, in all honesty,  know how much I can trust your research.  You are not the normal blogger.

I think Tanya you might consider starting a site of your own which would leave you free to say what you want.

Sylvia

 ……

 From: [Tanya]

Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 7:23 PM

To: cornwall@theinquiry.ca

Subject: RE: phone call

hello

thanks

i am preferring to remain anonymous here.

if it is about my contributions then i am happy to tone them down or have you moderate before any publication

i hope that is satisfactory

regards

tanya

……

From: sylvia.maceachern@sympatico.ca

To: [Tanya]

Subject: phone call

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:45:43 -0400

Hi Tanya

I need to talk to you.  Would you please send me your phone number and a convenient time to call?

Sylvia MacEachern

*****

In mid August there was some discussion regarding the status of Bill 37 the Child Pornography Reporting Act, 2008.  The discussion ensued because the bill was to amend Child and Family Services Act.  Some thought the amendments t the Act were now in force.  I thought the bill received Royal Assent but for some reason was not in force.  It made no sense.  I said I would check into it to get clarification.

I just today received word that  Bill 37 received Royal Assent, but – five years later – has never been proclaimed and is therefore not in force.

This truly is bizarre.  There are further steps I am supposed to take here to find answers from the Minister responsible..  I will do what I can, but had already contacted that office by phone and was promised answers which, to date, have not been forthcoming.

What I wonder  is the stall on this?  Most if not all of the amendments from the bill deal with child porn and the duty to report.  Check the grayed out areas in the Child and Family Services Act (scroll to Section 72 “Duty to Report” ) – those are all the amendments from Bill 37.  The bill was passed, and received Royal Assent five years ago, and the amendments are still not in force.  Why not?  What’s the problem here?  Who brought this to a grinding halt?

Enough for now,

Sylvia

THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Albert Desrochers osm

Albert M Desrochers osm

Jean-Louis Desrochers osm

Priest, member of Religious Order of Priests known as Servites of Mary  (Servites de Marie) Initials osm behind his name indicate that he is a member of the order – often referred to as Servites.  Ordained 1941.  Sexually abused four brothers ages 11,10, 8 and 7.

_______________________________

17 December 2011:  Father Albert Desrochers obituary

2002:  Attorney General of Ontario v. Father Albert Desrochers, et al  – Supreme Court of Canada  (Application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed with costs) It sounds as though in the end the Ontario Attorney General had to ante in to pay the settlement? and that because of the Crown’s failure to prosecute Desrochers back in 1978?

Lawyers representing various parties at the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Father Albert Desrochers et al

15 November 2001: Paquette v Desrochers 2001 Ontario Court of Appeal  (Ontario Court of Appeal rules that the fiduciary duty and malicious failure to prosecute claims were wrongly struck at the pleadings stage [McKinnon ruling of December 2000]  That means that the Ontario Attorney General was back on the hook to pay or help to pay for damages done to the Paquette boys)

28 December 2000:  Paquette v Desrochers Ontario Supreme Court (Justice Colin McKinnon grants Motion by Ontario Attorney General to be struck from third party claim made by Father Albert Desrocher and Les Pères Servites de Marie de Québec.  The motion, filed by Father Desrochers and the Servites, would have compelled the Ontario Attorney General to help pay damages because of the Crown’s failure to prosecute in 1978)

__________________________________

The following information is drawn from Canadian Catholic Church Directories (CCCD) which I have on hand, the 1980 Ontario Catholic Directory (OCD80), Father Desrochers obituary (obit), media (M) and legal documents (L)

21 December 2011:  Died, age 94, at Francisan Infirmary, Montreal, Quebec (obit)

2002:  Not listed in index (CCCD)

15 November 2001:  Ontario Court of Appeal rules that the fiduciary duty and malicious failure to prosecute claims were wrongly struck at the pleadings stage (McKinnon ruling of December 2000)

December 2000:  Justice Colin McKinnon grants Motion by Ontario Attorney General to be struck from third party claim made by Father Albert Desrocher and Les Pères Servites de Marie de Québec

1998:  GUILTY plea to four counts of sexual misconduct, comprised of two convictions for indecent assault on a male and two convictions for gross indecency. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. (L)

1998:  Not listed in index (CCCD)

1997: 25 charges laid relating to the sex abuse of four Paquette brothers

1997:  6805 rue de Marseille,  Montreal. H1N 1M9  Ph: 514-259-2509 (CCCD) address and phone number for St. Donat Roman Catholic Church, Montreal, Quebec (Pastor Father Andre Maihot osm)

1996: charges laid in relation to sex abuse of of boys in Elk Lake, Ontario – four counts each of indecent assault and gross indecency (M)

1996:  6805 rue de Marseille,  Montreal. H1N 1M9  Ph: 514-259-2509 (CCCD) address and phone number for St. Donat Roman Catholic Church, Montreal, Quebec

1995:  address and phone number for St. Donat Roman Catholic Church, Montreal, Quebec (Pastor Father Andre Maihot osm) (CCCD)

1994, 1993, 1992, 1991:  1237 boul St-Andre, C.P. 160, Acton Vale, Quebec Ph 514-546-2355 (CCCD) (Saint Hyacinthe, Quebec) Address and phone number for St. Andre Roman Catholic Church in Acton Vale – Pastor Father Claude Prefontaine osm)

1985-86:   Address for St. Anthony’s Roman Catholic Church, Ottawa, Ontario (Pastor, Father Andre Carrier) (CCCD)

1980:  Matechewan, Ontario (Mary Queen of the World is the Church, and pastor at the time was an Oblate priest Father R. Payant omi)  (OCD80)  Is this accurate?  Did he really go back to the Diocese of Timmins?  Can anyone confirm or refute?

1978:  moved to Ottawa. Ontario (M)

07 February 1978:  sex abuse complaints received by Constable Boyle (L)

[10] During the course of the preliminary enquiry, Constable Boyle testified that he initially received complaints from the plaintiffs alleging sexual assault on February 7, 1978; he believed that there were reasonable and probable grounds on which to charge Father Desrochers; he met with the Crown Attorney, Mr. Arthur, on February 8, 1978. Mr. Arthur believed that a different course of action would be appropriate. A meeting was arranged with police officers, including Constable Boyle, Mr. Arthur and the Bishop of Timmins and it was decided that Father Desrochers would be removed from the diocese as quickly as possible.

(L)

1977-78:  marriage counsellor for parents of victims – encouraged parents to spend time away from children – he babysat – and molested the boys (M)

1941:  ORDAINED

1917:  Born

_________________________________

Bitter legacy from priest’s sexual abuse still lingers ; Four brothers want the Catholic church to accept blame for their years of torment

The Toronto Star

25 May 2002

Kerry Paquette still doesn’t feel comfortable in a Roman Catholic Church.

It’s easy to understand why.

As an 11-year-old altar boy in the late 1970s, he says he was repeatedly abused by a priest named Albert Desrochers in Northern Ontario. Kerry’s brothers say the same happened to them.

Since then, the Paquettes have been looking for justice. They say it still eludes them.

“Not once did any of us get an apology,” says Kerry.

Eventually, in 1997, Desrochers was charged with a variety of sexual offences involving the boys. A year later, he pleaded guilty to some of those charges and was sentenced to four concurrent six- month terms.

The Paquette brothers have since been mired in a civil suit against Desrochers, his religious order, and the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Timmins.

It’s a case where one defence team is suing the attorney- general’s ministry, arguing the police should have arrested their client many years earlier. That team is also suing the Paquette parents, suggesting they could have done a better job of helping their sons cope with the abuse.

“Like everything else you see on TV right now, the church isn’t taking responsibility. They’re pointing fingers at us, our parents- at everyone except themselves,” says Kerry Paquette.

The story of the Paquettes has more twists and turns than most mystery novels. This week, lawyers representing the brothers filed a motion seeking greater punitive damages. They’re also asking a judge to speed this case to trial because many of the witnesses are getting old. Desrochers is 85.

“We’re seeking very high punitive damages (because) … we believe the church took steps at the time to bury the situation. We figure it will be a landmark case in Canada,” says Owen Smith, senior partner with the New Liskeard firm of Smith, Wowk.

Although The Star has an editorial policy of not identifying those who have been sexually abused, the Paquette brothers say they want their names and their story known. It’s taken them many years, but Kerry says they’ve come to realize that what happened to them as youngsters was not their fault.

“If I can help just one or two people this has happened to by coming out with it, I’ll have accomplished a goal. And I want people to know this stuff doesn’t just happen in big cities. It happens in small towns, too.”

The case alleges church officials either knew, or should have known, that Father Albert Desrochers had a sexual appetite for young children. But instead of directly addressing the issue, the suit says authorities merely covered up or ignored any problems and moved Desrochers from Quebec to Northern Ontario in the mid-1970s.

There, it’s alleged, he repeatedly sexually and physically abused the Paquette brothers at the community of Elk Lake.

“These institutions knew, or ought to have known, of the defendant priest’s proclivities,” reads a court document filed on the brothers’ behalf this week.

“The order (Les Pres de Servites de Marie de Quebec) sloughed Father Desrochers off to another posting thereby exposing Father Desrochers to the plaintiffs.”

That is a huge part of what the lawsuit argues: that church authorities placed Desrochers on a collision course with new victims.

Recent high-profile U.S. cases involve scenarios where known abusers were shuffled to different locales, where they again victimized children. In 1974, there were allegations, which Desrochers denied, that he’d fondled a young girl. The priest- by his own admission- told other priests during confessional that he had sexual thoughts involving children.

“They have an offender priest, they hush it up, and they move him around. What we’re saying is that is totally egregious conduct,” says John Wowk, who’s also working on behalf of the Paquette brothers.

Part of the reason high punitive damages are being sought is because of the length of time it took for Desrochers to be charged. Although police were informed of the abuse in 1978, the priest left town without being charged. It wasn’t until 1997, after the brothers again told their story to police, that charges were laid.

That nearly 20-year delay, the case argues, is because church officials managed to get the police to sweep things under the rug so long ago.

“They … took steps to stifle the investigation and follow-up and, in so doing, were complicit in the abuse,” reads the court document. The allegations have not been proven in court.

The lawyer defending Desrochers and the order sees the case from a different perspective.

Any delay was due to inaction on the part of legal authorities and the boys’ parents. As a result, Desrochers’ lawyers have sued the Ontario attorney-general’s ministry and the Paquette parents.

“The boys reported to their parents that something had happened,” explains Charles Gibson of the Ottawa firm Vincent, Dagenais, Gibson. “The crown attorney and the diocese of Timmins then made an arrangement whereby the priest Desrochers was asked to leave the parish. And they did nothing after that, neither the parents nor the crown.”

“The plaintiffs have complained that their biggest problem arises from the fact it was never dealt with. And it wasn’t dealt with because the OPP and the crown attorney didn’t do anything about it.”

The ministry of the attorney-general has filed papers with the Supreme Court, hoping to extricate itself from the lawsuit. And while ministry policy is not to comment on ongoing cases, spokesperson Brendan Crawley confirmed the ministry was being sued.

“Not only does the church slough off these cases and try to move these people around, but they point the finger at other people,” says Wowk.

Kerry and his three brothers all say they were deeply affected by the abuse, which occurred when they ranged in age from 7 to 11. And all say they can’t understand why church authorities don’t simply admit what happened, instead of involving others.

“My parents don’t deserve the bulls— they’re going through with this,” says Kerry Paquette, now 35.

“My parents are victims as well. They trusted this priest to take care of their children while they were taking care of their marriage.”

And that, apparently, is how the abuse began. During 1977-78, Desrochers served as a marriage counsellor for the Paquette parents. As part of their therapy, he apparently urged them to spend afternoons, then evenings, even weekends, away from the children. On those occasions, he would babysit the brothers, several of whom served as altar boys. It’s alleged much of the abuse occurred during those times when he was in charge of their care.

Legal transcripts of pretrial questioning of the Paquettes are filled with details of Desrochers’ assaults.

“Many nights, I woke up. Many nights, I remember him laying on top of me,” Kerry Paquette testified. “Many nights, his fat face is sitting right here with his little whiskers and his gray stubble and his breathing right in my face, many times.”

Details of the alleged assaults range from forced masturbation to painful anal intercourse lasting up to 45 minutes. Kerry Paquette has gone through several operations to clear up recurring venereal warts he says were caused by Desrochers.

The brothers also allege the priest rewarded sexual compliance with chocolate bars but frequently strapped one of them with a leather belt as a warning to keep silent about their sexual acts.

Desrochers’ lawyer does not dispute there was some contact between his client and the boys. However, Charles Gibson says “the vast majority of the allegations in the statement of claim were not proven in the criminal case.”

For the Paquette boys, the nightmare did not end when the police were called in 1978. Soon after the priest left town, some very dark gossip began spreading through Elk Lake. Kerry Paquette says it plunged the brothers into a new phase of hell.

“I went back to school and this girl looked up and said: ‘There’s those priest lovers, those faggots.’ And that’s when it started.”

The brothers say they were beaten, goaded and taunted by their peers almost daily. They often left school early or had their mother pick them up to avoid schoolyard fights. Psychological assessments done on all four young men indicate damage from the bullying was severe. Three of them left town in their teens; one had repeated problems and wound up in a foster home.

“These young lads have been devastated. Their lives have been totally, totally disrupted and messed up,” says Owen Smith. “Their ability to work has been grievously affected.”

Pretrial questioning indicates this case may not be unique. Keeping things in the shadows, stated one priest, was widespread in Canada.

Father Maurice Magnan, representing the diocese of Timmins, stated that: “My understanding is that in those days, matters of sexual abuse of some kind were always something that was trying to be kept very low profile and hidden…. That was a formal church way of doing things…. That’s the way it was done in every diocese. Not just Timmins; all over.”

Although the lawyer for the Episcopal Corp. of the Diocese of Timmins declined comment, court documents show the diocese denies nearly every allegation in the statement of claim and says it is not liable for the actions of Father Desrochers.

It does, however, cross-claim the order of Les Pres Servites de Marie de Quebec. Meaning that, should the diocese be found liable for damages, it seeks to have the order cover the damages or share in that burden.

But it is the denial of abuse, given that Desrochers served time in jail, that deeply troubles the Paquette brothers.

“He pleaded guilty. What more do you need?” asks a frustrated Kerry Paquette. “They’re still not accepting the blame. He admitted to it. And they still will not accept responsibility. Why don’t they just swallow their pride and let people get on with their lives?”

Kerry Paquette no longer goes to church. He’ll attend the odd funeral, the odd wedding, but only reluctantly. “I just gives me a very eerie feeling,” he explains. “An uneasy, stomach-upsetting feeling to be in church and see altar boys and a priest. I just can’t do it any more.”

_______________________________

Priest wants public to pay victims of his sex abuse

The Ottawa Citizen

20 February 2001

Cristin Schmitz

A Catholic priest who is facing an $8.2-million damages suit for the sexual abuse of four boys in the late 1970s has asked a court to make Ontario taxpayers pay because the authorities waited too long to charge and prosecute him.

A recent Superior Court decision, which is under appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal by the priest and his order, raises the spectre of criminals who are sued by their victims being able to force a province to help pay for some — or even all — of the damages if the defendants can prove that the Crown maliciously failed to prosecute them.

Rev. Albert Desrochers and his co-defendant, the Order of Les Peres Servites de Marie du Quebec, claim the province of Ontario should be on the hook to help pay for the psychological trauma and other damages allegedly sustained by the now-adult victims, because of the Crown’s failure to act.

They say the Crown allegedly failed maliciously to prosecute Father Desrochers in 1978, when police in Timmins, first investigated and concluded there was enough evidence to lay charges.

Instead, after the Crown and a senior police officer consulted with the bishop of Timmins, the priest was quietly transferred out of the diocese.

Twenty years later, Father Desrochers pleaded guilty to two counts of gross indecency and two counts of indecent assault on the brothers, Kerry Paquette, Dean Paquette, Dwayne Paquette and Jason Paquette, who were 11, 10, 9 and 7 at the time of the assaults.

Father Desrochers argues the Crown “maliciously” failed to prosecute him in 1978, and that this led to the plaintiffs suffering more mental anguish and other damages than they would have otherwise. He argues the Ontario government should have to pay a share of any damages that might eventually be awarded to the victims by a court.

In a groundbreaking decision last December that received little publicity, Superior Court Justice Colin McKinnon of Ottawa ruled that provincial attorneys general can be held liable for malicious failure to prosecute, and that in such rare cases criminals who are sued by their victims can claim the Crown should share in paying for the consequent damages.

Judge McKinnon’s ruling establishes for the first time in Canada that the Crown can be sued for maliciously failing to prosecute — a novel flip side to the established legal right to sue the Crown for malicious prosecution.

Although the judge ruled that criminals can proceed against the Crown for malicious failure to prosecute, they can do so only to the extent that they are claiming that the province should jointly share in compensating the innocent victims for the damages caused, he held.

However, the judge ultimately went on to throw out the claims by Father Desrochers and his order against the Attorney General of Ontario, since he concluded that missing evidence and the death of two key witnesses — the Crown attorney and the senior police officer involved in 1978 — would make it impossible to prove that the Crown’s failure to prosecute was malicious.

“To revisit the decision made in 1978 and the potential results of any prosecution at that time would be entirely hypothetical, speculative and incapable of proof to a probability,” Judge McKinnon held.

The judge said it was “entirely speculative,” for example, that the priest would have been convicted in 1978, and that the plaintiffs would have suffered less psychological harm had he been prosecuted and had they faced cross-examination.

The defendants are appealing the dismissal of their claims against the Ontario attorney general, said Ottawa lawyer Mathew Halpin, who represents Father Desrochers.

Mr. Halpin said it would be incorrect to characterize Father Desrochers’s claims for contribution and indemnity against the province as asking Ontario’s taxpayers to pay for damages caused by a convicted criminal.

“The Crown will be paying for its own wrongdoing in maliciously failing to prosecute, not paying for our client’s wrongdoing,” he argued.

However, under the Negligence Act, which makes co-defendants jointly and severally liable to pay a plaintiff’s full damages, “the possibility does exist that the attorney general could be … liable for the whole thing” if the claims by the defendants are allowed to proceed against the province, and if the defendants are unable to pay the full amount of any eventual judgment, said Mr. Halpin’s co- counsel, David Outerbridge. “The plaintiffs could go after the attorney general for the entire amount.”

Charles Gibson, lawyer for the order, which denies any involvement in, or responsibility for, Father Desrochers’s crimes, says his client is a victim too.

“The order had no active involvement in either the (crimes) or in the coverup — the deal between the Crown and the diocese — so we are an innocent third party as well. But for the actions of the Crown, the damages that we are facing in this instance wouldn’t exist as they exist because the complainants would have been dealt with a lot earlier,” Mr. Gibson said.

________________________________

Priest faces 11 sex charges

The Ottawa Citizen

26 March 1997

A Roman Catholic priest who lived in Ottawa in the late 1970s has been charged with sexually abusing four boys in Elk Lake, Ont.

Rev. Albert Desrochers, 79, who now lives in Montreal, is to appear in court on April 25 to face 11 charges: four counts of indecent assault, four counts of gross indecency and three counts of buggery.

The complainants were between six and 10 at the time of the alleged assaults, said to have occurred between 1976 and 1978, when Father Desrochers was a priest at Nativity Parish. The OPP says he moved to Ottawa in 1978, though police were unable to say how long he lived here.

Sgt. Dan Dawson said yesterday four young men, who no longer live in Elk Lake, approached the police about a month ago with their allegations.

Father Howard Chabot has a court date tomorrow at the Pembroke, Ontario courthouse (127 Raglan St. S.).  Unfortunately I don’t have the start time.  I had intended to get it today, but, of course, today was a holiday here in Canada, so, too late.

I think it will be around 9 am.  I suggest that those who plan to go be there by 9 am and check at the desk.

I encourage those who can do so to attend.  Please keep the complainant in your prayers, and please pass on news of the outcome, either by posting a comment and/or with a link to media coverage.

*****

Summer is all but over.  I hope everyone had an enjoyable and relaxing long weekend.  Time is flying.  Before we know it the leaves will be turning …

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Father Howard Chabot‘s court date has been adjourned to 01 October 2013: 9 am, courtroom #1, Pembroke, Ontario courthouse.

Father Chabot was in the courtroom, accompanied by a large number of supporters – at least 20, and at least two of whom were priests (wearing their collars).  Father Proulx was also present, but he sat apart from the Father Chabot contingent.

On the heels of the news I’ve been receiving from Pembroke I was not at all surprised at the show of support.  Several sources told me that the local Knights of Columbus has now become involved and was sending out emails conveying the message that Father Chabot has said he has a clear conscience and asking for prayers for himself and the complainant.

I had difficulty with that.  I don’t believe the Knights should allow themselves to be used in a situation such as this. I don’t know about others, but I see that as being used.  Granted, there was an option, was there not?  Every adult is capable of saying “no.”

So, the KOC is now involved and championing Father Cahbot’s ‘innocence,’ or “clear conscience,” or whatever.

Then, on the heels of that, along came reports that a retired lawyer replied to that email,  expressing his anger that an ‘innocent’ man has been charged and urging people  to do more than pray.

Disturbing ++.

Since charges were laid it seems Father Chabot has been very publicly on the offensive, and having very little trouble finding willing souls to do his bidding.

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen so many supporters of a suspect clerical molester in a courtroom before.  I’ve read about similar cases, but I haven’t seen it with my own eyes.

Basilian priest Father Kenneth O’Keefe had quite a show of support at the Ottawa courthouse one day.  I wasn’t there the day he entered his guilty plea so have no idea what the numbers were then, but some months before, when I arrived early, I took a seat outside an Ottawa courtroom for one of his other court dates, and very quickly realized that the charming smiling little man sitting a few chairs to my left was none other than Father O’Keefe, and there he was busy laughing, joking,  greeting and chatting and with supporters as they arrived.  There weren’t 20.  Maybe 10?

Father Joe LeClair‘s criminal charges are related to finances so the optics are perhaps a little different.  Still, Father Joe did have a small contingent of supporters at the Ottawa courthouse.   One media report identified about 10.  

Twenty is a lot!

I have no problem with the fact that people are entitled to provide moral support for friends going through tough times.  None.  Where I do have problems is when those supporters refuse to acknowledge that “Father” just may be guilty, and the complainant just may be telling the truth, and the police probably had good cause to lay charges.

And, yes, I have great difficult seeing priests using their collars to send a message that they are there to support a priest who is facing charges of child sexual abuse.  Ditto retired lawyers.

My concern here is what message is the complainant getting with all of these visual and verbal shows of support for Father Chabot and his ‘clear conscience’?

I fear this is intimidating for the complainant and his/her family.  I also fear it will intimidate others who may be struggling to come forward.

As I say, terribly disturbing.

Anyway, that’s what’s going on in Pembroke with the Father Chabot charges.

As for the adjournment, there has apparently been further disclosure which Father’s lawyer needs time to study.  The lawyer asked for a one month adjournment.  The Justice of the Peace (sitting on the bench this am) agreed.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Father Phil Jacobs will be sentenced tomorrow morning (04 September 2013):

04 September 2013: 10 am, Victoria BC courthouse

I fear that he will get a conditional sentence.  I hope and pray that I am wrong.

I believe by now most people are aware that, because of the statute of limitations in various States, there are many American Father Phil Jacobs victims and their families who have followed these Canadian charges closely in the hopes that they would finally see justice done.  However, despite knowledge of all of those victims we must all remember that Jacobs was convicted on one charge and one charge only in British Columbia – all other charges were for various reasons whittled away.  He will be sentenced accordingly.  Don’t hope for much and you won’t be disappointed.

Keep all the victims and their families in your prayers.  Tomorrow will be a hard day for them all.  They need to know there are people out there who really do care, therefore, as always, I encourage those who can do so to attend.  I also ask that you give us word of what happens in the courtroom, and, yes, word of the sentence.  Please also send links to media coverage.

*****

In the event that some missed the news from the Pembroke courtroom this morning I will copy that blog here:

Intimidating?

Posted on September 3, 2013 by Sylvia

Father Howard Chabot‘s court date has been adjourned to 01 October 2013: 9 am, courtroom #1, Pembroke, Ontario courthouse.

Father Chabot was in the courtroom, accompanied by a large number of supporters – at least 20, and at least two of whom were priests (wearing their collars).  Father Proulx was also present, but he sat apart from the Father Chabot contingent.

On the heels of the news I’ve been receiving from Pembroke I was not at all surprised at the show of support.  Several sources told me that the local Knights of Columbus has now become involved and was sending out emails conveying the message that Father Chabot has said he has a clear conscience and asking for prayers for himself and the complainant.

I had difficulty with that.  I don’t believe the Knights should allow themselves to be used in a situation such as this. I don’t know about others, but I see that as being used.  Granted, there was an option, was there not?  Every adult is capable of saying “no.”

So, the KOC is now involved and championing Father Cahbot’s ‘innocence,’ or “clear conscience,” or whatever.

Then, on the heels of that, along came reports that a retired lawyer replied to that email,  expressing his anger that an ‘innocent’ man has been charged and urging people  to do more than pray.

Disturbing ++.

Since charges were laid it seems Father Chabot has been very publicly on the offensive, and having very little trouble finding willing souls to do his bidding.

I don’t believe I’ve ever seen so many supporters of a suspect clerical molester in a courtroom before.  I’ve read about similar cases, but I haven’t seen it with my own eyes.

Basilian priest Father Kenneth O’Keefe had quite a show of support at the Ottawa courthouse one day.  I wasn’t there the day he entered his guilty plea so have no idea what the numbers were then, but some months before, when I arrived early, I took a seat outside an Ottawa courtroom for one of his other court dates, and very quickly realized that the charming smiling little man sitting a few chairs to my left was none other than Father O’Keefe, and there he was busy laughing, joking,  greeting and chatting and with supporters as they arrived.  There weren’t 20.  Maybe 10?

Father Joe LeClair‘s criminal charges are related to finances so the optics are perhaps a little different.  Still, Father Joe did have a small contingent of supporters at the Ottawa courthouse.   One media report identified about 10.  

Twenty is a lot!

I have no problem with the fact that people are entitled to provide moral support for friends going through tough times.  None.  Where I do have problems is when those supporters refuse to acknowledge that “Father” just may be guilty, and the complainant just may be telling the truth, and the police probably had good cause to lay charges.

And, yes, I have great difficult seeing priests using their collars to send a message that they are there to support a priest who is facing charges of child sexual abuse.  Ditto retired lawyers.

My concern here is what message is the complainant getting with all of these visual and verbal shows of support for Father Chabot and his ‘clear conscience’?

I fear this is intimidating for the complainant and his/her family.  I also fear it will intimidate others who may be struggling to come forward.

As I say, terribly disturbing.

Anyway, that’s what’s going on in Pembroke with the Father Chabot charges.

As for the adjournment, there has apparently been further disclosure which Father’s lawyer needs time to study.  The lawyer asked for a one month adjournment.  The Justice of the Peace (sitting on the bench this am) agreed.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Some court updates:

(1)  Father Jacques Faucher

Father Jacques Faucher had a court date this morning, 10 September 2013, in Ottawa:

10 September 2013:    08:30 am,  courtroom #5, “to be spoken to,” Ottawa Ontario courthouse (161 Elgin St.)

I will find out tomorrow when the next courtdate is.

As always, keep the complainants in your prayers.

If anyone attended court this morning and has news of what transpired please post a comment or send me an email.

(2)  Father Damian Cooper

The diocese has to disclose most of the files etc which were requested by the plaintiff.  I understand that about 95% of the materials requested must be disclosed.

That’s good news.

Meanwhile the Archdiocese and Father Dmain Cooper are now pushing for disclosure of material which the plaintiff considers privileged.  They will all be back in court for that battle next Wednesday.

(3)  Father Jean-Claude Lefebvre

Well, nearly three years after charges were laid against Fatehr Claude Lefebvre, it’s all over.

Father Lefebvre has been declared unfit to stand trial, and all charges have been withdrawn!

I have no idea why he is ‘unfit.’  If anyone knows any more than this please pass on the word.

I would think that this is without doubt a very unsatisfactory conclusion for the complainants?    Keep them in your prayers.

It’s actually a very unsatisfactory conclusion for everyone, is it not?

(4)  Father Raymond-Marie Lavoie CSsR

In case you didn’t catch it, there is a very significant 20-day trial under way in Quebec City.  The trial, which started yesterday (Monday, 09 Sept) , is a result of the class action lawsuit which was launched against the Redemptorists and Father Lavoie in relation to sex abuse at the Seminaire Sainte-Alphonse, in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre, outside Quebec City.

Father Lavoie is currently in jail.  He entered a guilty plea in 2011 to charges related to the sex abuse of 11 boys ages 11 to 15 – the charges date to 70s and 80s.

The case of another Redemptorist, Father Jean-Claude Bergeron CSsR, is apparently currently before the courts.

I discovered in posting an article this morning that, in addition to Father Lavoie,  there are eight more  Redemptorist priests identified in this class action as molesters:  Fathers Jean-Claude Bergeron, Guy Pilote, François Plourde, Xiste Langevin, Hervé Blanchette, Alexis Trépanier, Léon Roy and Lucien de Blois. Many of the nine are now allegedly dead.

Unfortunately the trial will be conducted in French so English coverage will probably be sparse.  I believe for a number of reasons that we should be trying to follow this as best we can can, not the least because 17 victims will be testifying that there was a system in which priest would trade the like hockey cards (“Seventeen victims will testify there was a system, in which the priests would often trade them like hockey cards.”)

Does that not sound to you like there was paedophile ring functioning?  It does to me!  And, because it sounds mighty like a paedophile ring in action I do beleive that the order (Redemptorists) and whoever else is a defendant in this class action, will fight tooth and nail to try to prove there was NO paedophile ring and that each of this gaggle was operating independent of his molesting peers.  That’s just what seems to happen when there is a boo about a paedophile ring anywhere.  For whatever reason a paedophile ring is anathema.

*****

I am about to post a French article with google translation regarding a record collection and a Levi Noel.  I will post the English google translation here, along with a link to the original French article, in the hope that someone might be able to confirm that this is in fact Father Levi Noel.  I think it is him, but would appreciate confirmation from anyone who knows with absolute certainty.

Just as a reminder, the RCMP investigation into sex abuse allegations against Father Levi Noel began in May 2008. In June 2009 he was charged.  He molested numerous young boys and has twice entered guilty pleas to criminal charges

Here is an external link to the French article.

And here is the google translation

$ 100 000 French songs

News , Wednesday, February 25, 2009 , p. 10

$ 100 000 French songs
Cynthia St- Hilaire

Granby – The Cégep de Granby has hand free on the work of a lifetime. The Quebecers Levi Christmas has hoarded lifetime records and books about the French song. Today , he gave his college valued at more than $ 100,000 collection.

Next Tuesday , the librarian of the Cégep de Granby, Daniel Marquis, return to Quebec with 300 boxes. What do they contain ? Books , 1200, and whose LPs Marquis know the amount . The owner of the collection has never inventoried .

“These are unique pieces that do not exist on CD , notes Daniel Marquis . Ago thirty books to be kept under lock and key and will be available on site. These books are worth between $ 2,000 and $ 3,000. “

Mr. Marquis , who met Mr. Noel three times , said that most of the books are autographed by French singers. The donor has spent much of his life in Paris , where he rubbed shoulders with several stars of French song.

” Mr. Noel has sold his house . There are boxes of books and records around his apartment, says the librarian . He lives alone , this is an original Acadian. ” Voice of the East has failed to join the donor , a resident of Quebec yesterday, despite several attempts .

The man of 81 years asked for the name of Jacques Douai be given to his collection. Mr. Christmas has known Mr. Douai, dubbed the modern troubadour . The poet – singer occurred in cabaret in the 1950s and 1960s. Jacques Douai died on 7 August 2004.

A space at the bottom of the college library will be dedicated to Jacques Douai collection. “There will be a plaque ,” said Daniel Marquis .

Why Levi Noel he decided to sell his property at Cégep de Granby? “Many colleges were interested, including the Sainte -Foy. Mr. Claus lives close by. It would have been easier for him to see his collection, says Mr. Marquis . Granby But is the only college that has expertise in song because of the international song festival Granby and the National School of the song. “

Since its inception, the National School of the song gathers records and books related to the French song . ” But we had a few things for the years 1930 to 1970 , specifies Daniel Marquis . Donations Mr. Noel fill our collection. “

And by chance , the college has purchased recently , rotating tables to play vinyl . ” The teachers at the school , it is sure that they will use the material , says the librarian . They are true fans . “

Enough for now,

Sylvia

CFRA raido (Ottawa)

17 September 2013

By: Alison Sandor (@CFRA_Alison)

A man who suffered years of sexual abuse at the hands of a priest in the Ottawa and Gatineau areas is hoping a lawsuit he filed against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ottawa will not only help him heal, but will compel other victims to come forward.

A third party review conducted by the Ontario Criminal Injuries Compensation Board verified that the man was sexually abused for a seven-year period by Father Jean Gravel, who served with the Archdiocese until 1967. Gravel took his own life in 1980.

Gravel worked at a number of churches in Ottawa and in the Outaouais, including Église de Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours in Montebello and the Saint Remi parish on Dumaurier Avenue.

The victim, who chose to be referred to by the name John said the Archdiocese was very compassionate and helpful when he came forward to them three years ago.

“The leadership at the Roman Catholic Church here in Ottawa have been extremely helpful to me,” said John, which is not his real name. “They went beyond the call of duty to show compassion and extend their care to facilitate some form of reconciliation with the trauma sexual abuse can cause.”

However, there’s only so much information the Archdiocese could divulge and the civil suit will require them to release more information about Father Gravel, so John can piece together more about the man he feared for so long.

“John now takes the final step of having the entire truth known,” said lawyer Rob Talach, with Beckett Personal Injury Lawyers. “He has decided to use the instrument of litigation as both an outreach to others and a tool to access information. Though sympathetic, the Archdiocese cannot just hand over Gravel’s personnel file. Now they will be required by law to provide it as part of their response to this action.”

Talach said getting their hands on the Father Gravel’s file may explain how much the Archdiocese knew about his actions.

“I don’t have anything that I can put my finger on, but I can tell you in 10 years of doing this type of work, to see a priest defrocked in the past, to have his priesthood end before his life is very unusual,” said Talach. “We know that’s the case with Father Gravel, so the question that then follows is: what did the Archdiocese, or the Church, know when it defrocked him back in the day?”

John said he hoped coming forward would mean others would be compelled to come forward and start their healing process as well.

“Healing is the key mantra here, because a victim will suffer in silence out of a disbelief they’ll be believed, out of a feeling it was their fault until they see their perpetrator’s name or another brave soul come forward, and then that becomes the beacon, I’ll use the colloquial Bat Light, for them to step forward,” said Talach.

The majority of lawsuits like these are settled out of court for a six figure sum, but John said it is not about the money -it’s another step in the healing process, that will also hopefully shine the spotlight on the issue of child sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church.

“This is not just about looking back, it is also about prevention for the future,” said Talach in a prepared statement. “By examining what went wrong with this case, we can learn how to prevent or at least reduce its reoccurrence within the Roman Catholic Church. “Even just the conversation about abuse, a subject so shrouded in secrecy, can bring enhanced awareness to Rome with its ability to make sweeping changes. Much needed changes which can be made under the supreme authority of the Vatican.

In an email to CFRA, the Archdiocese said it was still considering ”which comment, if any” it would make on the issue.

There are three courtdates today, Tuesday, 17 Sept. ’13.:

(1)  Father Daniel Miller

Sentencing with facts for Father Daniel Miller in Pembroke, Ontario:

17 September 2013: 10 am, courtroom #1, Sentencing with facts, Pembroke, Ontario courthouse (297 Pembroke Street East)

Those victims and/or family members who wish to give a victim impact statement will do so today.

I encourage those who can do so to attend to support the victims and their families.  Heaven knows these people need to know that there are people in the community who care.  Please, if you are free and can find your way to courthouse, be there, – for the victims.

As always, keep the victims in your prayers.  Every court date is a difficult day, no less so because it is sentencing,

(2)  Father John E Sullivan

Father John Sullivan has a court date tomorrow morning in North Bay:

17 September 2013:  09:30 am, courtroom #101, “to set a date,”  North Bay, Ontario court house (360 Plouffe Street)

I encourage those who are free to do so to attend to keep tabs on what is happening here.  As always, please keep the complainants in your prayers, and, if you do attend please send news of the outcome and the next court date

(3) The civil trial related to the following Redemptorist priests of St. Anne de Beuapre continues:

1. Herve Blanchet  CSsR
2. Jean-Claude Bergeron CSsR
3. Raymond-Marie Lavoie CSsR
4. Guy Pilote CSsR
5. François Plourde CSsR
6. Léon Roy CSsR
7. Alexis Trépanier CSsR
8. Lucien de Blois CSsR
9. Xiste Langevin CSsR
10. Raymond Marie Lavoie CSsR

Keep the prayers going for all the victims who will be taking the stand to testify at this trial, and those who are in the courtroom as observers.

*****

In case you missed it, yesterday the name of  Father Jean Gravel , now deceased and formerly a priest with the Archdiocese of Ottawa, was added to the Accused list.

Well done “John” for speaking up!

*****

And yet again, in case you missed it:

26 August 2013:  Antigonish Diocese appeal to all Canadian priests for funds  to pay off $7M loan

I have to run,

Enough for now,

Sylvia

I’m just home from Pembroke – the Father Daniel Miller sentencing.

First, the judge has reserved his decision until 28 November at 9:30 am.

Second, there were 35 to 40 people in the courtroom.  A good turnout.

Third, the victim impact statements were excellent – heartbreaking, but excellent.

Finally – just for now – I had actually tried to post a comment from my iPhone at lunch.  I thought I had posted it but it didn’t make it through   Another learning curve begins!

There is lots to tell you.  I need a few moments to get supper on and clear my mind.  I find that these are invariably difficult and frustrating days.  If I feel that way, how in the name  of goodness do the victims feel?

Anyway, one more little note for now.  Robert Carew (Father Miller’s lawyer) actually cross-examined the first few victims after they gave their victim impact statements.  He honest to goodness did.  It was cruel.  It was terrible. Yet another re-victimization for those poor souls.  I didn’t expect that.  I don’t think they did either.

I have a few pictures too – will post later.

More later,

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Sun News

17 September 2013  5:30 pm

SEAN CHASE | QMI AGENCY

PEMBROKE, Ont. – A local priest who pleaded guilty to fondling boys decades ago not only took away his victims’ innocence but their faith, court heard Tuesday.

The five men who Father Daniel Miller abused read victim impact statements. The boys, some from broken or impoverished homes, were between the ages of nine and 13 when their trust in the priest was violated.

“For the last 43 years I have kept a dark secret which I couldn’t have told anyone,” said one of the victims, whose identity is protected by a publication ban.

Miller earlier pleaded guilty to five counts of gross indecency and indecent assault against a male. Ordained in Renfrew in 1969, Miller served in parishes in Arnprior, Deep River, Eganville and Petawawa before 1999. The abuse involving the boys occurred between 1969 and 1980.

During Tuesday’s sentencing hearing, the victims expressed their anger not only at the priest but the church for not taking steps to report the allegations to the authorities.

“How could the Catholic church allow these men of the cloth to commit this against me,” asked one of the victims, who was nine years old when Miller befriended his family, adding he has since left the church. “The extent of the abuse cannot be denied or trivialized anymore. The Catholic church has not been motivated enough to rid itself of these abusers.”

A mother took the stand to recount how Miller was accepted into her family because the Catholic church was considered the centre of the community back then. She explained that the priest used kindness and generosity to gain access to her sons.

“I should have protected my children,” she testified. “They lost their innocence. Their childhood was stolen from them. They kept their silence for decades as I allowed Dan Miller to be part of our lives.”

Defence lawyer Robert Carew said his client, who has no previous criminal record and has followed his conditions since his arrest, is a suitable candidate for community supervision and should be considered for a conditional sentence to be followed by a period of probation.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, Miller faces a maximum 10-year prison sentence, but the Crown is seeking a nine-month sentence.

The judge will hand down his decision Nov. 28.

The Eganville Leader

18 September 2013

By Debbi Christinck

Staff Writer

Pembroke — The Crown is asking for Father Dan Miller to spend nine months behind bars for sexually molesting boys in incidents that date back 35 to 40 years ago.

The victims, who ranged in age from nine to 13 at the time of the incidents, were fondled by the priest and many of the assaults occurred while they were visiting the priest and sleeping in the home of Father Miller’s mother in Renfrew. The priest pled guilty to five charges of indecent assault in June and sentencing proceedings began in a Pembroke court on Tuesday. The courtroom was full of the victims, their families and many supporters. One supporter pointed out these men should not be referred to as victims, but rather survivors of sexual abuse.

Many of the victims are from the Deep River area and many supporters were in court from that community.

The tall, thin priest, wearing a grey shirt and not sporting a clerical collar, remained seemingly impassive throughout the proceedings, even while the victims and families of those he abused presented emotional victim impact statements. He was accompanied to the court by Msgr. Douglas Bridge and Father Peter Proulx of the Pembroke Diocese. Father Miller did not speak during the court proceedings, only addressing a few comments through his lawyer.

Crown Attorney Jason Nicol said jail is clearly called for in this case, arguing this is not a case that calls for a conditional sentence. The Crown told Justice Timothy Ray a sentence of between seven and nine months in jail is called for.

“It is not harsh or punitive,” he said. “It’s well in the range.”

Justice Ray asked for a breakdown of the sentence, pointing out there were five victims and if there is no connection between the incidents then the sentence should be consecutive and not concurrent. He said seven to nine months, which Mr. Nicol originally suggested, seemed low for the number of victims.

Following a break, Mr. Nichol said he would suggest four months for one victim, who suffered repeated assaults and 40 days for each of the other victims, which would total nine months. Justice Ray said he would need time to deliberate over all the submissions from both Mr. Nicol and defence attorney Robert Carew of Ottawa before rendering his sentence in the case. A new date for sentencing was set for November when the judge is again in Pembroke.

Father Miller has not functioned as an active priest in the Diocese of Pembroke since 1999 when then Bishop Brendan O’Brien was made aware of the priest having assaulted young boys 20 years earlier. He is still a priest in the diocese, but has not been associated with a parish in the last 14 years. He was charged in early 2012 with gross indecency and indecent assault against a male following a police investigation. He was arrested in late February 2012.

By the time the court proceedings began, there were 12 charges against him in relation to six victims. Father Miller pled guilty to five charges associated with molesting five young boys. The Crown did not proceed with charges from the sixth complainant.

Father Miller was ordained in 1969 and the incidents occurred between 1969 and 1980. There is a publication ban on the name of the victims, but most of the victims were from the Deep River area and one assault occurred while visiting the church of Our Lady of Nativity in Pikwakanagan. In the various instances, Father Miller would fondle the penis of the young boys.

Asking For Jail Time
In his submissions on the court on sentencing, Mr. Nicol said the only reasonable sentence is jail time for the priest, but the question is for how long. He said the court can take into account mitigating circumstances, including the fact the priest pled guilty to the charge. However, Mr. Nicol noted the guilty plea was less than timely and only after the victims had been forced to testify in court and be cross-examined.

The priest has no prior criminal record and co-operated “to a certain degree” in the court proceedings, he added.

“It is an open question if Mr. Miller demonstrated insight into what he did,” Mr. Nicol said.

The priest will not admit his actions were pre-meditated and did not view them as harmful according to court reports, he said. Instead, the priest insisted it was tickling with no sexual overtones in studies done by the court and prior counselling, he said. Multiple times he told police the incidents had not been sexual, Mr. Nicol said.

“This is ridiculous,” the Crown said. “How can someone engage in this behaviour and not recognize the inappropriateness and the clear sexual nature of what he is doing?”
The shame and embarrassment the priest has suffered is a mitigating fact in the sentencing, he said.

“He has been brought low, shamed and embarrassed by what he did,” he said.

At the same time, the “egregious breach of trust” on the young boys is an aggravating fact.
“The parents had complete trust and faith in him as a priest,” the Crown said.

The impact on the men has been devastating, he said.

“The victim impact statements make the point there is no such ting as minor sexual abuse of a child,” Mr. Nicol said.

The fact that the boys were so young and there were multiple victims is another aggravating factor, he said. The Crown also maintains the priest “groomed” the young boys by inviting them on trips and giving them presents. The boys were from poor homes, where there was often an absentee father figure, and Father Miller took advantage of this.

Defence Asks For House Arrest
Mr. Carew, in his submissions on sentencing, said his client is a good candidate for community supervision for part or all of his sentence. He said most of the incidents were isolated incidents and he disputed the idea of the priest “grooming” the boys for abuse.
“There was no physical violence per say,” he added.

Judge Ray interrupted, stating sexual assault on a child is an act of violence in itself.
Mr. Carew added his client is at low risk of recidivism and it has been 35 years since the last allegation against him. He asked for the priest to receive credit for past programs at Southdown Institute, a facility for priests with problems including alcoholism and those who have abused minors. Father Miller was there in 1999 and 2000 following the Diocese of Pembroke being made aware of his abusing boys in Deep River.

“He did this on his own to address the problem,” his lawyer said. “There was no court order.”

However, Mr. Nicol was quick to point out reports from the centre were delivered to Diocese of Pembroke Bishop O’Brien, showing the diocese had been the instigator in the priest going to the treatment centre. Father Miller did tell the court through his lawyer the treatment centre was “suggested by superiors in the Diocese.”

A binder with multiple letters of reference for the priest was presented to the court by Mr. Carew.

“He has been judged on the worst moment of his life,” he said. “Over the last 40 years he has done a lot of positive; that is evidenced by the large number of letters.”

Mr. Carew said his client has already suffered since he, in essence, lost his job in 1999, not being allowed to serve as a priest again with only “very limited involvement” in the church since. Some reports stated Father Miller did serve the Grey Sisters following 1999. The mother of one of the victims, who Mr. Carew referred to as “a very vindictive person”, made sure he would never work again as a priest, the defence lawyer said.

Mr. Carew also pointed out there had been no penetration involved in this case.

Father Miller remains free until the sentencing is delivered on November 28 in Pembroke Court at 9:30.

Editor’s note: Seven victim impact statements were presented in court during the proceedings. For full coverage of the victim impact statements, see next week’s Leader.

PEMBROKE - A Pembroke priest, who has pleaded guilty to fondling boys four decades ago, not only took away his victims’ innocence but their faith, a court heard Tuesday.

During impact statements delivered by the five men who were touched inappropriately by the priest, Father Daniel Miller was described as a revered member of the Catholic church and the community who, secretly, committed the worst possible perversion against them.

Many were exploited by the priest because they came from broken or impoverished homes, the court heard, with Miller offering his friendship and spiritual guidance. They were boys between the ages of nine and 13 when their trust in the priest was violated.

“For the last 43 years I have kept a dark secret which I couldn’t have told anyone,” said one of the victims, whose identity is protected by a publication ban.

Miller has plead guilty to five counts of gross indecency and indecent assault against a male. Ordained in Renfrew in 1969, Miller served in parishes in Arnprior, Deep River, Eganville and Petawawa before 1999. The incidents involving the boys occurred between 1969 and 1980. Police charged him with six counts in February, 2012, however, the crown has since dropped one of the charges.

During a sentencing hearing before Justice Timothy Ray, victims expressed their anger not only at the priest but the church for not taking steps to report the allegations to the authorities.

“How could the Catholic church allow these men of the cloth to commit this against me,” asked one of the victims, who was nine years old when Miller befriended his family, adding he has since left the church. “The extent of the abuse cannot be denied or trivialized anymore. The Catholic church has not been motivated enough to rid itself of these abusers.”

Another victim took the stand to say that Miller molded him at an impressionable age. While he allowed his childhood priest to marry he and his wife and baptize his first child, the victim was haunted by what Miller did but was fearful to say anything. As was the case with many of the boys, the victim said he turned to drugs and alcohol to suppress his guilt. He has also had difficulties in his relationships and subsequent marriage.

“This is a secret I would have taken to my grave,” he said. “Who would have believed me? He was a priest and had a trusted reverence.”

Most of the incidents occurred when Miller took his victims to his mother’s home in Renfrew. One of the victims was fondled at the rectory at Pikwakanagan First Nation in Golden Lake. In that case, Miller pulled down the boy’s underwear and briefly touched his genitals. While the priest’s legal counsel said there is no allegations of threats being made, one victim said Miller told him he would go to hell if he told anyone.

Guilt was especially felt by the parents of the boys. One of the victims’ mothers took the stand to recount how Miller was accepted into their family because the Catholic church was considered the centre of the community back then. She explained that the priest used kindness and generosity to gain access to her sons.

“I should have protected my children,” she testified. “They lost their innocence. Their childhood was stolen from them. They kept their silence for decades as I allowed Dan Miller to be part of our lives.”

In his submissions, defense counsel Robert Carew said his client, who has no previous criminal record and has not breached his conditions since his arrest, was a suitable candidate for community supervision and should be considered for a conditional sentence to be followed by a period of probation. The nature of the allegations are such that the victims nor the accused ever undressed during these incidents, he added. While only one of the five victims claimed to be fondled between three and seven times, the others were only touched once by the priest, Carew stated.

The lawyer added that his client attended residential treatment between 1999 and 2000 after realizing he had a problem. Miller also sought further treatment from 2001 to 2003 at the suggestion of his superiors in the church.

Carew told Ray that Miller was suspended in 1999 and has since lost his job and reputation over this case. He asked the judge not to give any weight to the victims’ criticism of the church noting that the problems they have faced growing up can’t all stem from their time with Miller.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, Miller faces a maximum 10-year prison sentence due to the indictable nature of the offence, however, the crown is seeking a nine-month jail sentence. Pointing to statements that the priest made to police and probation officials, Crown attorney Jason Nicol said Miller indicates he did nothing wrong when he touched the boys.

“How in the world can someone engage in this (type of activity) and not know it was inappropriate,” said Nicol calling this case an egregious breach of trust. “The parents had complete trust in Father Miller. He had that mantle as a trusted member of this community and as a close family friend.”

The crown asked the court not to underestimate the emotional and psychological impact this had on these young men’s lives. Stating there is no such thing as minor sexual abuse of a child, Nicol said Miller took advantage of these boys when they were at their most vulnerable.

“He assaulted these boys when they were isolated and in his control,” he said. “These boys had no chance of escape. They were within his grasp.”

The crown is seeking a nine-month jail sentence.

Ray will hand down his decision on Nov. 28.

Sean Chase is a Daily Observer multimedia journalist

[The following is the Victim Impact Statement which was prepared by a mother whose son was sexually abused by Father Dan Miller - the statement was read to the court on 17 September 2013 by the victim's sister]

I sit here in this court room as a mother of a son who was your victim Dan Miller.   I was a mother who trustedyou with her son, to go with you to the movies and overnightersto your mother’s house.  Now I know, years later that I had completely failed him as a mother.   I trusted in you with my son as I waved  goodbye  to  him as he headedawayon an adventure   as he would  call it with  you.   I was a failure as a mother not to see beneath your smile and charismatic personality that you were truly evil. You-were and are a pedophile.                              .

In our home you had been welcomed.  You were invited in as a faithful leader of my family, with open arms and trust, a trust that I had allowed my children to have with you. A trust I never thought would be broken or shattered as it has now been.

I have spent this past year and a half sad beyond words. It has consumed me and my thoughts.  The guilt, the anger, the sadness has taken control of my aging thoughts.  This Mr. Miller  is how I will spend my last days on earth.  This is what your actions have done. The tears still fall but the love for my God has not faulted.  He is with me always.  I tell God that I forgive you each and every day of my life  but I know that God knows differently, so  far.  It is because of your disgusting actions as a man, a man that I called Father & friend that I now live a life of sorrow.   I have died inside knowing that I failed to protect my son from you. I did not know that a wolf in sheeps clothing existed in my family’s world but we do now, don’t we Mr. Miller.?

Why as a man of the cloth did you extend your friendship to us and to the families of all your victims?

Why as a confessed pedophile have you continued to assault us mentally with this fiasco?

What role did your mother play in your encounters with my son?

Was your love for  God a means  and way for  you to get to the  little boys?  God’s pure children?

Did you use God in that way like you used the kindness of the flock?

These are questions   I will never have answers to, but for the rest of my life I will always ask.

My son’s life is one of complete devastation.     How could you have done this to him?  He was just a child, my child but most of all a child of God.

It has been painful for {redacted] to remember and talk about it, as it is painful for me not to feel  like a complete failure to him when he needed me the  most.  I will always feel like I didn’t protect him as a mother should. I will this never understand what and why you have done this.

All have now is prayer to cling onto. I pray as best I can for my son and all the boys and their families. I pray for the lost souls of faith in God. I pray for my family, right down to my grandchildren who have been touched by your abuse.

Here today we are all your victims for the same reasons but it is our sons, our brothers, our uncles, our nephews who were your targets. Let us all stand together united in hopes that justice will be served today for our loved ones that have suffered yesterday, will suffer today and again tomorrow.