- Doe v. Bennett
-
John Doe v. Bennett 
Hearing: January 14, 2004
Judgment: March 25, 2004Full case name: {{{full-case-name}}} Citations: 2004 SCC 17, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 436 Docket No.: 29426 Ruling: Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed Court membership Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris FishReasons given Unanimous reason by: Beverley McLachlin C.J. Laws applied Bazley v. Curry, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534; Jacobi v. Griffiths, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 570; K.L.B. v. British Columbia, 2003 SCC 51, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403 John Doe v. Bennett, 2004 SCC 17 is a legal ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada which upheld the lower court's decision that the ecclesiastical corporation, Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. George’s, was vicariously liable (as well as directly liable) for sexual abuse by Father Bennett.
The Court concluded that the ecclesiastical corporation's secondary responsibility originates from the power and authority over parishioners that the Church gave to its priests.[1] The facts satisfied the close connection test: "the evidence overwhelmingly satisfies the tests affirmed in Bazley, Jacobi and K.L.B. The relationship between the diocesan enterprise and Bennett was sufficiently close."[2] It asserted that:
The relationship between the bishop and a priest in a diocese is not only spiritual, but temporal. The priest takes a vow of obedience to the bishop. The bishop exercises extensive control over the priest, including the power of assignment, the power to remove the priest from his post and the power to discipline him. It is akin to an employment relationship...The relationship between the bishop and the priest is sufficiently close. Applying the relevant test to the facts, it is also clear that the necessary connection between the employer-created or enhanced risk and the wrong complained of is established...First, the bishop provided Bennett with the opportunity to abuse his power...Second, Bennett’s wrongful acts were strongly related to the psychological intimacy inherent in his role as priest...Third, the bishop conferred an enormous degree of power on Bennett relative to his victims.[3]The Court declined to address the "difficult question of whether the Roman Catholic Church can be held liable in a case such as this."[4]
References
- ^ Vicarious conclusion
- ^ At para 32.
- ^ At paras 27-30.
- ^ At para 36.
External links
- Full text of Supreme Court of Canada decision available at LexUM and CanLII
Sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church Manifestations Consequences Priest transfer · FinancialReception Government responses Activist groups Pre-modern Gregorian Reform · Liber GomorrhianusCategories:- Canadian case law
- Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Canada
- 2003 in case law
- 2003 in Canada
- 2003 in religion
- Canadian law stubs
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
