A c.
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada
2019 QCCS 729
SUPERIOR COURT
CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL. NOT :
500-06-000886-172
DATE:
February 27,
2019 _____________________________________________________________________ _
UNDER THE CHAIR OF THE HONORABLE CHANTAL CORRIVEAU, JCS
_____________________________________________________________________ _
AT
complainant c.
WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF CANADA
-and-
WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA
-and-
WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.
-and-
CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
defendants _____________________________________________________________________ _
JUDGMENT
_____________________________________________________________________ _ [1] Ms. A asks the Tribunal to authorize her to take a class action at against four entities related to
Jehovah's Witnesses
.
CONTEXT
[2] The applicant, a member of a family of
Jehovah's Witnesses
, was victim of sexual assault from her brother while she was a minor. She reproaches the defendants for their lack of comfort, protection and appeasement. [3] As a result of the sexual assault of which the plaintiff was a victim, that she was a minor, she spoke to her family, to a
Witness
Jehovah
and an
elder
, one of the spiritual leaders of the organization. These latter discouraged her from reporting her abuser to the police, as she would have risked to tarnish the image of Jehovah god
1
.
PREVIEW
[4] The plaintiff wants to sue the defendants for their breaches as to its protection and the deterrence of reporting to the police authorities the sexual abuse given the culture of silence that animates the community of
Witnesses of
Jehovah
. She sued the defendants so that she and the thousands of people experienced the same situation be compensated for moral and pecuniary damages suffered. In addition, she is seeking a conviction for punitive damages. [5] The plaintiff also wishes to sue the defendants on behalf of all the victims of sexual assault, this time, committed by an
elder
on members of the organization. [6] The defendants oppose by raising several means: in a first time, a request for a declinatory exception was made by the three defendants in the United States, since they consider that they have no connection with the plaintiff. [7] With respect to the defendant
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
In Pennsylvania
(
WTPA
), the Tribunal is satisfied with the Applicant's connection with this entity. This company is responsible for the communication and dissemination of all teachings for the
Jehovah's Witness community
and, well, whether it is incorporated in the United States, it is these same publications that are diffused throughout the world, including in Canada, even in French. [8] The Tribunal is of the view that the defendant
Christian Congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses
(
CCJW
), created in 2000, is not related to the facts raised by the Applicant. The plaintiff has not established that this US defendant perform any action in Canada. [9] As requested,
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York
(
WTNY
) would be a subsidiary of the
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
Pensylvannia,
which is the commercial and administrative body of the
Witnesses of
Jehovah
in the United States. In Canada, it is the defendant
Watch Tower Bible and
Tract Security of Canada
(
WTC
) performing this role.
WTNY
has established its right to the exclusion of the proceedings, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the the absence of a connection with the plaintiff. 1
reremodifiée Request for authorization to exercise collective action and to be granted the status of
Representative
dated December 7, 2018, ss. 23.1. (hereinafter referred to as "Request"). [10] Finally, it should be noted that the respondent
WTC
submits that Ms. A is prescribed. It submits that the three-year limitation period is applicable to particular facts raised by the plaintiff. The Tribunal considers that it is rather the
prescription of 30 years, as provided for in article 2926.1 of
the Civil Code of Québec
(
CCQ
) which is applicable, so that in the absence of a prescription element The Tribunal is blatantly dismissing this defense at the authorization stage. [11] For the rest, the defendants' arguments related to the absence of demonstration by the plaintiff of a legal syllogism. [12] At the end of the analysis of this criterion dictated by Article 575 (2) of the
Code of
Quebec Civil Procedure
(CCP), the Tribunal will find that the plaintiff blame the defendant for deficiencies that are not based solely on opinion on its part, but on factual elements from the documentation issued by Defendants and reported facts. It is not, as the defendants of
Jehovah's Witnesses
religion trial . The Court considers that this criterion dictated by article 575 (2) Cpc is satisfied. [13] With respect to the representative status of the plaintiff, the Tribunal is of the opinion that she meets the factor both with regard to sexual assault against minors, a situation identical to that experienced, as well as to represent the subgroup that pursues the
Ancients
. [14] The Tribunal will, however, limit the subgroup to the victims assaulted that they were minor. [15] The Tribunal is of the view that there are enough common issues to authorize collective action. [16] Given that the remedy is based on sexual assault, collective action is the appropriate means. It would be difficult and impracticable for members, individually, to come out of the shadows and try to assert their claims.
THE QUESTIONS
[17] The Tribunal will address the following issues: 1. Did the plaintiff establish a legal relationship against the three Defenders
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
(
WTPA
),
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York
(
WTNY
) and
Christian
Congregation of Jehova's Winesses
(
CCJW
)? 2. Is the plaintiff's action time-barred? prescription of 3 years? 3. Does the request contain sufficiently precise factual allegations to establish a link between the damages alleged by the plaintiff and the faults she blames the defendants? 4. Did the Applicant establish that it would be impractical to proceed with individual remedies? 5. Did the Applicant establish that there are enough questions despite the variations that may exist between each of the potential claimants?
