Alberta's top court has confirmed that a lawsuit filed over sexual abuse by an armed forces chaplain can proceed as a class action. In a written decision released Friday, a three-member Alberta Court of Appeal panel rejected an application by the federal government to overturn the decision to certify Bobbie Bees' claim as a class action lawsuit.
The government had challenged Calgary Court of King's Bench Justice Robert Neufeld's certification on the basis that Bees was not a direct victim of Father Angus McRae at Canadian Forces Base Namao in Edmonton. Neufeld defined the class of plaintiffs that could proceed with the lawsuit as either victims of sexual abuse by the armed forces captain, or 'with his participation, encouragement or facilitation.'
'Canada does not dispute that the claim reveals a potentially viable cause of action against Canada by victims of sexual abuse by McRae while he served as chaplain on Canadian Armed Forces bases,' the appeal judges wrote. 'Canada's primary objections arise from the fact that Bees, the representative plaintiff and respondent on this appeal, was directly sexually abused by PS (an altar boy and victim of McRae's), rather than by McRae himself.'
The decision notes Bees lived on CAF bases for most of his childhood and between 1978 and 1980, from the ages of seven to nine, he lived on the Namao base, near Edmonton. McRae had been an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces since 1973 and was employed as an armed forces chaplain between 1968 and 1981. Before being stationed at the Namao base, McRae worked as a chaplain on several other CAF bases.
McRae, who died in 2011 before Bees filed his claim, was court martialled after facing a Catholic ecclesiastic court in June 1980. PS, then 14, began babysitting Bees on the recommendation of McRae to the plaintiff's grandmother and repeatedly sexually assaulted him.
The appeal judges noted Neufeld 'considered Canada's argument that the facts pled in the statement of claim only support a cause of action by Bees against PS, and that the doctrine of vicarious liability cannot extend to impose liability on Canada for actions taken by a 12 to 14-year-old.' But Neufeld found Canada could be liable for conduct of McRae which led to abuse. 'He found that McRae may have committed several torts, including assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if he did not directly sexually abuse Bees.'
The appeal judges agreed with Bees' lawyer, Adam Bordignon, that actions taken by McRae to facilitate abuse by PS or others could make Canada jointly liable. In a prepared statement, Bordignon said the ruling was 'an important decision for survivors.' 'The decision recognizes the realities of institutional abuse and the broader harms that can flow from systemic failures to protect children living on military bases.'
