CTV
November 27, 2010
http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101126/mtl_bishop_101126/20101126/?hub=MontrealHome
 |
| Shirley Christensen won the right to argue she still has the right to file a $250,000 lawsuit against the priest who abused her. |
Shirley Christensen fought for years to have her day in court and she will have it, even though she'd rather avoid it.
Christensen received a letter from the province's archbishop stating it has no intention of paying her an indemnity for sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of a Roman Catholic priest when she was 8 years old in the late 1970s.
Last month the Supreme Court of Canada resurrected the Quebec City woman's sex-abuse civil lawsuit against the priest, Paul-Henri Lachance, and the province's archbishop.
The justices ruled 7-0 that Christensen's case should go back for trial more than 30 years after the alleged abuse took place.
In a letter dated Nov. 25 and signed by Monseigneur Gerald Cyprien Lacroix, he says the archbishop is prepared to debate the matter at trial, whereas Christensen was hoping to reach a settlement out of court.
She says she was raped 40 times by Lachance in Quebec City in the late 1970s, but only realized in 2006 that the abuse was linked to her psychological problems. Lachance pleaded guilty in the criminal case against him and received a sentence of 18 months in prison.
Christensen filed her $250,000 suit in 2007, but the archbishop moved for dismissal, saying it came too late.
Quebec Superior Court and the Court of Appeal agreed, saying that since her parents knew of the abuse at the time it happened and failed to act within the three-year window allowed for such suits under Quebec's civil code, her right to sue had evaporated.
Her parents complained to the archbishop at the time and were told that the matter would be dealt with privately.
The prelate urged them not to go to the police or sue and they complied.
Christensen argued that the limitation window only opened in 2006, when she made the connection between the abuse and her troubled life.
Before that, she said, it was impossible for her to act and the archbishop's advice meant her parents couldn't act, which effectively suspended the limitation period.
While the majority on the court of appeal rejected her position, Justice Jacques Chamberland dissented.
He said the question of when the statute of limitations kicked in was a matter for a trial, not simply a motion for dismissal. He said a trial judge should decide the matter only after hearing evidence.
The high court agreed last month, saying the question of when the clock started ticking on the limitation period couldn't be decided simply on the record.
The window for filing such suits varies from province to province, although Quebec's three years is the shortest. Quebec Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier said last month the province will look at amending that three-year window, and in the cases of sexual abuse, it may be best to either extend it or abolish it altogether.
In a 1990 case dealing with incest, the Supreme Court ruled that the limitation clock only started running when the victim recognized a connection between the abuse and psychological troubles.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.