Roman Catholic Bishop of Bathurst v. New Brunswick, (2010) 371 N.B.R.(2d) 102 (TD)

• Judge: Ferguson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: November 02, 2010
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2010), 371 N.B.R.(2d) 102 (TD);2010 NBQB 372

R.C. Bishop v. N.B. (2010), 371 N.B.R.(2d) 102 (TD);

    371 R.N.-B.(2e) 102; 959 A.P.R. 102

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2010] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.040

Renvoi temp.: [2010] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.040

L'Eveque Catholique Romain de Bathurst (applicant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick as Represented by the Attorney General of New Brunswick (respondent)

(MM/0103/10; 2010 NBQB 372; 2010 NBBR 372)

Indexed As: Roman Catholic Bishop of Bathurst v. New Brunswick

Répertorié: Roman Catholic Bishop of Bathurst v. New Brunswick

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Moncton

Ferguson, J.

November 5, 2010 and November 9, 2010.

Summary:

Résumé:

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Bathurst (applicant) applied for an order that certain funds resulting from bequests which were the property of the Diocese of Bathurst and held by the applicant in 21 trusts be accessible to pay compensation claims against the diocese for past sexual misconduct of priests. The funds would be dispensed for paying compensation awarded as part of a dispute resolution process put in place by the Bishop and conducted by a former Supreme Court of Canada justice. The bequests were made between 1911 and 1995 and had as their objects funding for the training of candidates for the priesthood. A number of preliminary issues arose.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dealt with the preliminary issues accordingly. The court, inter alia, (1) refused the Bishop's request to have the matter heard in chambers (i.e., in the absence of the public); (2) denied the Bishop's request to have the entire court file sealed; (3) appointed an expert in the field of trust law to represent the objects of the trusts, namely funding for training for the priesthood; and (4) ordered that the media be notified of the release of the court's judgment.

Courts - Topic 1404

Administration - General - Public access to judicial proceedings (incl. court records) - The Roman Catholic Bishop of Bathurst (applicant) applied to access trust funds set aside for education of priests to pay compensation claims against the diocese for past sexual misconduct of priests - The Bishop sought to have the courtroom closed for the entirety of the proceeding such that the hearing be held completely in camera - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, rejected the request to have the matter heard in camera - The court discussed generally when it could exclude the public from court proceedings - The court held that there was nothing in the evidentiary foundation of this proceeding that would warrant an in camera proceeding - The court noted that the common law had to reflect Charter values, the open court principle being one of those important values - See paragraphs 13 to 27.

Courts - Topic 1404

Administration - General - Public access to judicial proceedings (incl. court records) - The Roman Catholic Bishop of Bathurst (applicant) applied to access trust funds set aside for education of priests to pay compensation claims against the diocese for past sexual misconduct of priests - The Bishop applied to have the entire file sealed - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, rejected the request - The court, applying Sierra Club v. Canada (SCC 2002), held that there was no serious risk to "an important interest" that would warrant sealing of the entire file - See paragraphs 28 to 34.

Courts - Topic 1408

Administration - General - Sealing of documents - [See second Courts - Topic 1404 ].

Courts - Topic 1445

Administration - Documents filed by parties (incl. videotapes) - Restriction of right of public access to documents during trial - [See second Courts - Topic 1404 ].

Courts - Topic 1768

Powers - Appointment of counsel - To represent trust beneficiaries - The Roman Catholic Bishop of Bathurst (applicant) applied to access trust funds set aside for education of priests to pay compensation claims against the diocese for past sexual misconduct of priests - The Attorney General of New Brunswick was named as respondent because of her common law responsibility to shoulder parens patriae jurisdiction over trusts in general - An issue arose as to whether counsel should be appointed to represent the objects of the trusts, namely funding for training for the priesthood - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, stated that given the significant nature of the proposed change to the original objects of the trusts that were stipulated by the testators, and also given the Attorney General's neutrality on the meritoriousness of the application, it was prudent to appoint counsel pursuant to Rule 15.03 to represent the interests of the objects of the trusts, that is, the funding of educational training for the priesthood - See paragraphs 35 to 47.

Courts - Topic 4806

Common law - General - Hearings - Open court - [See first Courts - Topic 1404 ].

Evidence - Topic 3007

Documentary evidence - Confidentiality orders - General - [See second Courts - Topic 1404 ].

Practice - Topic 3072.1

Applications and motions - Applications - Place of hearing - The Roman Catholic Bishop of Bathurst (applicant) filed an application in the Judicial District of Moncton, to access trust funds set aside for education of priests to pay compensation claims against the diocese for past sexual misconduct of priests - An issue arose as to whether the court should grant a request by counsel for the applicant that "the court take into consideration this matter being held outside of Bathurst?" - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, stated that considerable deference was owed to the plaintiff's right to commence a proceeding and have the trial heard in the judicial district of his or her choice - Rule 45.01 stipulated that the trial of an application shall take place in the judicial district in which the proceeding was commenced - The court stated that absent an application by the Attorney General to move the trial to the Judicial District of Bathurst, the court had no discretion or request to move the trial from the Judicial District where it was filed in Moncton - See paragraphs 50 to 56.

Practice - Topic 3074

Applications and motions - Applications - Notice of - The Roman Catholic Bishop of Bathurst (applicant) applied to access trust funds set aside for education of priests to pay compensation claims against the diocese for past sexual misconduct of priests - The compensation arose as a result of alternative dispute resolution proceedings - An issue arose as to whether publication of notice of the application should be ordered - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that public notice of the hearing was not required in this case - The court noted that counsel had been appointed to represent the objects of the trusts - That would provide a large measure of transparency to the process - However, in order to give adequate notice of the nature and substance of the proceedings and the date of the hearing, the court ordered the clerk of the court, as soon as reasonably possible, to notify the media of the release of the court's judgment by providing an electronic copy of the judgment - The court, upon reviewing the Public Trustee Act, held that the Public Trustee did not need to be served - However the two plaintiffs who had chosen to litigate their claims should be served with notice - See paragraphs 57 to 59.

Practice - Topic 3086

Applications and motions - Applications - In camera hearings and publication bans - [See first Courts - Topic 1404 ].

Practice - Topic 5002

Conduct of trial - General principles - Open court - Power to hear in camera - [See first Courts - Topic 1404 ].

Practice - Topic 5221

Trials - General - Venue or place of trial - Application for change of venue - Application for - [See Practice - Topic 3072.1 ].

Practice - Topic 5230

Trials - General - Notice of trial - General - [See Practice - Topic 3074 ].

Preuve - Cote 3007

Preuve documentaire - Ordonnance de mise sous scellé - Généralités - [Voir Evidence - Topic 3007 ].

Procédure - Cote 3072.1

Requêtes et motions - Requêtes - Lieu de l'audition - [Voir Practice - Topic 3072.1 ].

Procédure - Cote 3074

Requêtes et motions - Requêtes - Avis de requête - [Voir Practice - Topic 3074 ].

Procédure - Cote 3086

Requêtes et motions - Requêtes - Audience à huis clos et interdictions de publier - [Voir Practice - Topic 3086 ].

Procédure - Cote 5002

Conduite du procès - Principes généraux - En public - Pouvoir d'entendre à huis clos - [Voir Practice - Topic 5002 ].

Procédure - Cote 5221

Procès - Généralités - Lieu du procès - Demande de changement de lieu - [Voir Practice - Topic 5221 ].

Procédure - Cote 5230

Procès - Généralités - Avis de procès - Généralités - [Voir Practice - Topic 5230 ].

Tribunaux - Cote 1404

Administration - Généralités - Accès du public aux procédures judiciaires (y compris les dossiers de la cour) - [Voir Courts - Topic 1404 ].

Tribunaux - Cote 1408

Administration - Généralités - Mise de documents sous scellé - [Voir Courts - Topic 1408 ].

Tribunaux - Cote 1445

Administration - Documents produits par les parties (y compris les bandes vidéo) - Restriction au droit d'accès du public pendant le procès - [Voir Courts - Topic 1445 ].

Tribunaux - Cote 1768

Pouvoirs - Désignation d'un avocat - Représentation des bénéficiaires d'une fiducie - [Voir Courts - Topic 1768 ].

Tribunaux - Cote 4806

Common law - Généralités - Audiences publiques - [Voir Courts - Topic 4806 ].

Cases Noticed:

Beaverbrook Trust and Saint John (City), Re (1980), 30 N.B.R.(2d) 427; 70 A.P.R. 427 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Fougère et al. v. Clements et al. (2007), 311 N.B.R.(2d) 368; 803 A.P.R. 368; 2007 NBCA 4, refd to. [para. 11].

Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522; 287 N.R. 203; 2002 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 12].

MacIntyre v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 129; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480; 203 N.R. 169; 182 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 463 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 16].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. R. et al. (2010), 271 O.A.C. 7; 2010 ONCA 726, refd to. [para. 17].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Mentuck (C.G.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442; 277 N.R. 160; 163 Man.R.(2d) 1; 269 W.A.C. 1; 2001 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 188; 335 N.R. 201; 200 O.A.C. 348; 2005 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 18].

Lac d'Amiante du Québec ltée v. 2858-0702 Québec Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 743; 274 N.R. 201; 2001 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 20].

Vancouver Sun et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 253; 368 N.R. 112; 368 B.C.A.C. 1; 409 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 25].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 27].

Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada, Re (2000), 132 O.A.C. 271; 47 O.R.(3d) 674 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Stillman Estate, Re, [2003] O.T.C. 1148 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39].

Kunze Estate, Re (2005), 263 Sask.R. 248; 2005 SKQB 212, refd to. [para. 39].

Williams & Wilson Ltd. v. Toronto (City), [1946] O.R. 309; [1946] 4 D.L.R. 278 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council v. Rogers, [1988] 2 All E.R. 761 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Saint John (City) v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), Lord Beaverbrook Rink Committee of Citizens Inc. and McKenzie (1983), 51 N.B.R.(2d) 354; 134 A.P.R. 354 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 41].

St-Onge v. Kla (2005), 290 N.B.R.(2d) 330; 755 A.P.R. 330; 2005 NBQB 426, refd to. [para. 50].

M.S.-O. v. R.K. (2006), 304 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 788 A.P.R. 1; 2006 NBQB 250, refd to. [para. 52].

Potash Co. of America v. Kilborn Ltd. et al. (1985), 60 N.B.R.(2d) 227; 157 A.P.R. 227 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 52].

Stelling v. Tantramar Planning District Commission (1992), 122 N.B.R.(2d) 267; 306 A.P.R. 267 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

MacCallum v. Moncton Golf & Country Club Ltd. et al. (2005), 292 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 761 A.P.R. 201 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 52].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (N.B.), rule 45 [para. 54].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Waters, Donovan W.M., The Law of Trusts in Canada (3rd Ed. 2005), p. 788 [para. 39].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Mark R. Frederick, for the applicant;

Nancy E. Forbes, for the respondent.

This application was heard on November 2, 2010, before Ferguson, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Moncton, who delivered the following decisions on November 5 and 9, 2010.