The following is an excerpt from the Statement of Claim against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Prince Albert and The Prince Albert Separate School Board. The claim is dated 30 March 2012 and signed by E. F. Merchant Q.C, Regina, Saskatchewan. I am still attempting to find out if there is a publication ban on the name of the complainant. For the time being I have deleted the name of the complainant and his date of birth which might identify him. I can say that he was born in the early to mid 60s. Here is the excerpt:
- The Plaintiff, […] whose date of birth is […] [early to mid 1960s], resides in the Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan, and at all material times was a student at St. Mark’s Catholic School (“the Catholic School”) located at or near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.
- The Defendant, The Roman Catholic Diocese of Prince Albert (“the Diocese”), is a Roman Catholic Archdiocese and has a registered office at 1415- 461 Avenue West, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, S6V 5H1, and was at all material times, responsible for the operation and administration of the Catholic School.
- The Defendant, The Prince Albert Separate School Board (“the School Board”), is a Catholic School Board with a registered address located at 118-11th Street E., Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, S6V 1A1, and was at all material times responsible for the operation and administration of the Catholic School.
PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ASSAULTS
- The Catholic School mandated that all students attend St. Mark’s Church (“the Church”) at or near the Town of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan as often as 12 times every week during the Monday to Friday period.
- The Plaintiff was a student at the Catholic School for approximately nine years from Grades 1 through to 6. During this time, the Plaintiff was employed by two priests to do chores at the Church right after school and on Saturday mornings. The Plaintiff could not specifically recall the names of the two priests, but they may be known through church records or photographs.
- The Plaintiff would enter through the back door of the Church. His work duties included cleaning up and throwing out the garbage. While working at the Church, the Plaintiff never saw anyone else working at the Church, including nuns, students, or neighbours.
7. During the time that the Plaintiff worked at the Church, the two priests intentionally assaulted the Plaintiff multiple times, the particulars of which, inter alia, are as follows:
a. Taking off the Plaintiff’s clothes
b. Groping the Plaintiff’s penis and testicles;
c. Forcing the Plaintiff to touch them;
d. Forcing the Plaintiff to masturbate them;
e. Forcing the Plaintiff to perform oral sex on them;
f. Hitting the Plaintiff when he resisted doing the sexual acts;
g. Talking dirty to the Plaintiff;
h. Kissing the Plaintiff’s penis;
i. Licking the Plaintiff’s penis; and
j. Other assaults which will be proven at trial.
8. While the Plaintiff worked at the Church, the Plaintiff was subject to physical abuse by the two priests on numerous occasions, including but not limited to the following:
a. Spanking the Plaintiff on the bare buttocks;
b. Slapping the Plaintiff with a yard stick; and
c. Other assaults which will be proven at trial.
9. The physical and sexual assaults took place on a regular basis in the basement of the Church.
The two priests would take turns with the Plaintiff on alternating days.
10. The two priests exercised authority at the Catholic School and were regularly at the Catholic School.
11. The Plaintiff was kept from informing anyone about the abuse by the two priests, who threatened the Plaintiff that he would be kicked out of the Catholic School if he told anyone. The ability of the two priests to exercise this psychological control of the Plaintiff flowed from the positions of power and influence which the priests were given by the Diocese, the Catholic School and through it, the School Board.
Prince Albert, Saskatchewan is familiar to those who followed the Cornwall Public Inquiry. Many will recall that (1) violin virtuoso and paedophile/molester Richard Hickerson was an ex-Marianist priest who served in the Diocese of Prince Albert, and that (2) serial molester Father Luc Menier also spent time in the Diocese of Prince Albert, Sask. Not mentioned at the inquiry was Father Gaetan Deschamps, a native of Cornwall, Ontario who became a priest in the Diocese of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan in 1956. Deschamps returned to Cornwall in the early 90s and served in the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall while retaining his incardination in Prince Albert. He spent time in Southdown in the early 90s. There were sex abuse allegations against “Father Gates” reported in 2007 – those related to his years in Prince Albert, Sask. The complainant did not, for personal reasons, want to go to police to press charges, but he did contact Bishop Blaise Morand, then bishop of Prince Albert, to try to ensure that Deschamps was no longer in ministry. Father Deschamps denied the allegations.
Several reports on the latest testimony from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia sex abuse and conspiracy trial:
03 April 2012: Jurors Told That Church Put Off Abuse Complaints
03 April 2012: Admitted abusive priest warned to stay ‘low key’
03 April 2012: Jury hears dozens of memos from Philly archdiocese
03 April 2012: Secret reports on priests released
Please note that Father Gana spent time in Soutdown (Aurora, Ontario). And note too that while at Southdown he admitted sexually abusing young boys, ages 11 and 12, and that despite this admission, according to testimony and memos:
” doctors at Southdown concluded that he did not suffer from pedophilia or ephebophilia – sexual disorders involving acts against children or teens – but instead acted out sexually because he was ‘very heavily addicted’ to drugs and alcohol.”
Gana was recycled.
Can you believe it?
Yes, I suppose you can. We’ve heard it all before, haven’t we? It’s all so familiar. I don’t know about you but even though I have heard the same thing time and time again, and even though I so often say that I am beyond being shocked by anything, I still really do get shocked – and disgusted – by the likes of this. I actually pray that, no matter what I may say, when it comes to the sex abuse of children by clergy and cover-ups of the same, I will never cease to be both shocked and disgusted.
Check NEW to the site for other articles of interest posted yesterday (access manually by clicking the “NEW” button on the horizontal menu)
Enough for now,
Joe Basaraba’s Statement of Claim against the Prince Albert Diocese and The Prince Albert Separate School Board has been posted under “Victims.” Joe does not want a publication ban on his name.
I commend you Joe for speaking up.
*You are all fools for believing everything your read. I know this claim will be found to be false. I know the one said “Joe Basaraba”. The only time he set foot in a church is maybe for a school mass, a wedding or a funeral. I lived right next door to the church where these alleged “acts” happened, my family was the janitors of this church,we cleaned it, not “Joe”. remember in Canada we are innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. And it is because of bogus claims such as these that we need that law.
If you, as you claim, have knowledge that these claims are false, have you arranged to speak to the Crown regarding your evidence of falsehood?
Further to this, on what basis do you claim that we are all fools for believing everything that we read? Who has informed you that we all believe this claim?
You yourself are the one who has jumped to conclusions!
Just for your knowledge, I do believe that the truth will come out through due process. Why don’t YOU give it a chance? Mike.
*Yes Mike, I have contacted the Crown and am willing to testify in a court of law….along with about another 20 people and growing….. who are also willing to testify that they spent countless hours in the church and NEVER saw “JOE” there. Funny how this is a lawsuit for money,not charges of sexual assault. Read the link from Sylvia’s comment,”Joe Basaraba’s Statement of Claim against the Prince Albert Diocese and The Prince Albert Separate School Board”. He cant remember the names of the priests he is accusing of sexual assault, also have passed away. He cant remember their names and couldn’t make these accusations while they were living!!!! I work with vulnerable individuals who have been sexually assaulted, and let me tell you that if they are sexually assaulted over a 6 to 8 years span, they ALL remember who their abuser was. I think this is a futile attempt to extort money from the church and school.
* ” Further to this, on what basis do you claim that we are all
fools for believing everything that we read? Who has informed you that
we all believe this claim?
Well Mike, I didn’t see you leave a comment prior to your reply to mine. So I wasn’t talking to you. But I was replying to Sylvia’s comment,”I commend you Joe for speaking up”. And other comments on other blogs that assume because there is a claim against a catholic church priest, that it must be true. I didn’t see you comment on anything else but my comment.
“You yourself are the one who has jumped to conclusions!”
Here’s a little fact for you Mike, not a conclusion, 90% of sexual
assault victims are assaulted in their own home, by a family member.
I am not jumping to conclusions. I know the man making these claims, the church, the school and the priests. And like I said, I am willing to testify that these claims are false. That isn’t a conclusion, that is a fact.
“Just for your knowledge, I do believe that the truth will come
out through due process. Why don’t YOU give it a chance? ”
Thank you for your wisdom Mike. Do you have knowledge you can share in court? I do!!!! My knowledge tells me that the truth will come out in due process too. What is the punishment for making false claims?????? Can you share that wisdom Mike???