Vancouver Man Claims in Lawsuit That Archdiocese Knew His Foster Father Was a Pedophile

By Keith Fraser
The Province
March 14, 2014

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Aboriginal+claiming+sexually+abused+child+will+court/9619685/story.html

An aboriginal man who alleges he was sexually and physically abused more than 40 years ago when he was placed into foster care by a society with links to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver will get his day in court.

The man, a member of the Squamish Indian Band who is only identified by the initials N.J. in a court ruling, was in the care of William and Mary Aitken, both of whom are now deceased, from 1956 to 1971.

He claims that he was sexually assaulted by William Aitken more than 100 times, from age five onward.

It’s alleged that the Archdiocese knew or ought to have known that Aitken was a pedophile with a history of abusing children in his care.

N.J. also claims Mary Aitken physically abused him. He is seeking upwards of $1 million in damages.

N.J. was placed in the care of the couple by the Children’s Aid Society of the Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver, which had the power to place children committed by the Provincial Court into foster homes.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver provided guidance to the society on spiritual and moral matters, court heard. The church disputes an assertion by the plaintiff that it controlled the society.

The Archdiocese, a named defendant along with the B.C. government, went to court in a bid to have the case against it dismissed before it could go to full trial, which is set for February next year.

But in a ruling released Friday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice William Ehrcke dismissed the application to have the matter involving the Archdiocese heard as a summary trial, by way of affidavits rather than witnesses called to testify in court during a full trial.

The judge noted that there was another alleged victim, only identified as M.J., and found that it would be a waste of resources to have all the same issues litigated anew for M.J.

In addition it would put the court in a “potentially awkward” position since there might be inconsistent findings before two trial judges on the same issues, he said.

“In my view, a summary determination would not be just to the other defendant and plaintiff, it would not assist in the efficient resolution of the proceedings and the evidence raises issues of credibility that cannot properly be determined on the affidavit evidence.”

Contact: kfraser@theprovince.com