Expert legal advice is only the beginning. ”

Grenville Christian College Class Proceeding

A class action has been commenced by former students of the Grenville Christian College seeking damages for psychological, physical and sexual abuse. The Statement of Claim was issued in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto on January 17, 2008 and amended in January 2009 and in March 2010. In the action, the former students of the Grenville Christian College seek a declaration that the defendants have breached their fiduciary obligations owed to the plaintiffs in the operation of the Grenville Christian College as well as compensation and/or damages for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, battery and intentional infliction of mental suffering in the amount of $200 million. The claim also seeks punitive, exemplary and/or aggravated damages.

Download the Amended Statement of Claim March 15th, 2010.
 

The proposed student class is defined as:

Students who attended and resided at the Grenville Christian College between September, 1973 and July, 1997, excepting the children and grandchildren of the individual defendants.
 

The proposed representative plaintiffs are: 

Lisa Cavanaugh, Andrew Hale-Byrne, Richard Van Dusen, Timothy Blacklock and Margaret Granger.
 

The defendants in the action are:

226937 Ontario Limited carrying on business as Grenville Christian College, i.e. the company that operated the school;

The Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Ontario;

Charles and Betty Farnsworth; and

Alastair Haig.
 

The Judge assigned to manage this case is Perell J.
 

Orders and Endorsements:

On June 27, 2008, Justice Perell issued an Order adjourning, on terms, the previous injunction related to the potential sale of the Grenville Christian College property. The Order permits a sale of the property and limits the payment of sale proceeds to specific parties.

The Mareva Injunction was heard on April 22, 2009.  Pursuant to the Order of Perell J., this motion was further adjourned on terms.  The interim injunction of June 28 2008 was dissolved.  Grenville can pay only approved and legitimate business expenses, and any proceeds of sale of the property must be held in trust by the Defendants’ counsel.

Chris Haber has joined us as co-counsel on the case.  Accordingly, his separate action has been stayed by the court, and Timothy Blacklock added as a representative Plaintiff.  The title of proceeding was amended accordingly as per the order below.

On February 18, 2009, the Defendants brought a motion to the court for leave to examine Al Haig.  The Plaintiffs consented to this Order on terms, most of which were granted by Justice Perell.

On March 2, 2009, the Defendants brought a motion to strike out the Plaintiffs Statement of Claim.  While they were not successful in having the entire claim struck, Perell J. did strike out a number of paragraphs, granting leave to amend some.

On October 26, 2009 the Plaintiffs appealed the March 4, 2009 Order of Perell J. to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that several paragraphs ought not to have been struck out and they were therefore restored to the Claim. The Court also granted the Plaintiffs’ leave to amend their Claim in respect of the theory that the Defendants committed to educate the children in accordance with the Anglican faith and breached their duty to do so which resulted in harm to the Plaintiffs.

Statements of Defence

The Statement of Defence of and Crossclaim of the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Ontario was served on us on September 20, 2010.

In its Crossclaim, the Diocese of Ontario claims for contribution and indemnity as against Grenville Christian College, Charles Farnsworth, and J. Alastair Haig.

The Statement of Defence of Grenville Christian College and Charles Farnsworth was served on November 5, 2010.

The remaining defendants must deliver a Statement of Defence or may wait to see whether the action is certified before doing so. It is always open to the parties at any stage, even as early as shortly after the issuance of the statement of claim, to meet for the purpose of trying to resolve the law suit. Any settlement, whenever achieved, must be approved by the Court to ensure that it is a fair and reasonable settlement.
 

Next Steps

Beginning in June 2011 and continuing through September 2011 we have been conducting cross-examinations in respect of the upcoming motion to certify this Action as a Class Proceeding. These examinations have involved some of the defendants, other witnesses, and the representative plaintiffs.

The certification motion is presently scheduled to be heard by Justice Perell in Toronto on December 5 – 8, 2011. There is a 5 part test under the Class Proceedings Act. All 5 parts of the test must be satisfied for the action to be certified. On the certification motion, the court will determine whether a class action is the preferred and appropriate method of proceeding.
 

Updates

As the action progresses, we will be updating this website to keep members of the class informed as to what is happening.
 

What is a Class Proceeding?

A class proceeding is an action that is brought by representatives on behalf of a defined group of people. Success or failure in the action is binding on all members of the class who do not opt out. At an early stage in the action, a motion is brought before the Court to have the action certified as a class proceeding. There is a five-part test which must be met in order for an action to be certified. Once certified, members of the class are given the option to opt out of the action. If a class member opts out, then they will not participate in any settlement or judgment which may result. If a class member does not opt out, then they will be bound by the decision. It is important to note that only the representative plaintiffs have any exposure for costs if the action is unsuccessful.