Lavoie: Father Raymond-Marie Lavoie CSsR

Share Button

Raymond-Marie Lavoie CSsR (Father Raymond-Marie Lavoie)

Raymond-Marie Lavoie

Redemptorist priest.  Ordained 1964. taught at the Seminaire Sainte-Alphonse, in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre, outside Quebec City.  December 2009:  Charged.  Eleven “alleged” male victims all of whom were boarders at the school in the 70s and 80s and between the ages of 11 and 15 when the alleged offences transpired.  11 July 2011 GUILTY plea.  09 February 2012:  sentenced to 3 years in jail.  The Crown appealed.

28 October 2012:  The Quebec Court of Appeal sentenced Lavoie to five years imprisonment

 R v Lavoie – 23 November 2012 (Quebec Court of Appeal – three-year sentence increased to five years) FRENCH pdf file

Rev. Raymond-Marie Lavoie walks outside for a lunch break at his trial in Quebec City, Monday, July 11, 2011. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jacques Boissinot) First Posted: 02/10/2012 1:56 pm Updated: 02/10/2012 2:29 pm

Rev. Raymond-Marie Lavoie walks outside for a lunch break at his trial in Quebec City, Monday, July 11, 2011. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jacques Boissinot) First Posted: 02/10/2012 1:56 pm Updated: 02/10/2012 2:29 pm

Named in a class action lawsuit filed against a number of Redemptorist priests affiliated with the Redemptorists of the Province of  Ste. Anne de Beaupry, Quebec.  Trial started 09 September 2013.  According to media coverage, the suit alleges that the priests:   “consulted with one another and conspired in an effort to determine which students they would abuse, and divided (the victims) up amongst themselves.”  The other Redemptorist priests name in the lawsuit are:  Fathers  Raymond-Marie Lavoie, Jean-Claude Bergeron, François Plourde, Herve Blanchet, Guy Pilote, Alexis Trépanier, Léon Roy ,   Lucien de BloisXiste Langevin, and Hervé Blanchette,


12 August 2014:  “Quebec Catholic order agrees to $20M abuse settlement” & related articles

10 July 2014:  “Abuse victims win landmark lawsuit against Redemptorist Order” & French article

17 March 2014: Redemptorist sex abuse trial in Quebec City draws to an end

18 September 2013:  “Redemptorist Fathers trial:  abused by four priests , including a director” & original French text

17 September 2013:  ‘Redemptorist Fathers trial: a testimony of infinite sadness’ & original French text


September 2013:  Trial – class action lawsuit- scheduled for 20 days

Sentence appealed.  The appeal will be heard 02 May 2012.  I believe that will be in the Édifice Ernest-Cormier, the Quebec Court of appeal in Quebec City, Quebec

Next scheduled court appearance: 10 February 2012 for  sentencing; 28 October 2011 for  victim impact Statements;   11 July 2011 GUILTY plea ; 31 January 2011(prelim hearing, but a deal for a guilty plea could be worked out before then) 08 November 2010 (Guilty plea anticipated)



09 September 2013:  Quebec priests face class-action lawsuit for sex abuse

08 September 2013:  “Landmark priest sexual abuse trial opens in Quebec City” & related article

04 May 2012: Class action against the Redemptorists: Father Lavoie denies the alleged damages

02 March 2012:  Raymond-Marie Lavoie -The Crown appealed the sentence

11 February 2012:  Ex-priest gets 3 years for assaulting children

10 February 2012:  BLOG Three years

10 February 2012: Raymond-Marie Lavoie, Quebec Priest, Gets 3 Years For Sexually Abusing 13 Boys

10 February 2012:  Quebec priest sentenced to three years in jail for sex assaults

11 July 2011: Quebec priest pleads guilty to sexual assault charges, asks for forgiveness

09 November 2010: Priest faces multiple charges

08 November 2010: Priest charged with multiple sex-assault charges back in court in January

08 November 2010:  Quebec priest pleads today in sex abuse trial

21 June 2010:  Priest accused:  Raymond Lavoie back in court


Quebec priest charged with sex assaults

National Post

Published: Tuesday, May 04, 2010

Canwest News Service 

A Quebec Roman Catholic priest was arrested again yesterday and charged with three new counts of sexual assault on two boys who attended a private Catholic school in the 1970s. Raymond-Marie Lavoie, 70, was a teacher at the Seminaire Sainte-Alphonse, in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre, just outside Quebec City, when the assaults are alleged to have taken place. The charges laid yesterday bring the total of alleged young male victims to 11, police said. The first victim pressed charges against Father Lavoie in 2008. Quebec provincial police launched an investigation and eventually found other alleged victims: all boarders at the college in the 1970s and 1980s, who were between the ages of 12 and 15 at the time. Fr. Lavoie was first arrested in December 2009 and faces a series of charges of sexual assault, indecent assault and gross indecency.


 Que. priest facing more sex-related charges

Montreal Gazette

03 May 2010

Canwest News Service May 3, 2010

Raymond-Marie Lavoie, 70, was a teacher at the Seminaire Sainte-Alphonse, in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre, just outside Quebec City, when the assaults are alleged to have taken place.

QUEBEC — A Quebec Roman Catholic priest was arrested again Monday and charged with three new counts of sexual assault on two boys who attended a private Catholic school in the 1970s.

Raymond-Marie Lavoie, 70, was a teacher at the Seminaire Sainte-Alphonse, in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre, just outside Quebec City, when the assaults are alleged to have taken place.

The charges laid Monday bring the total of alleged young male victims to 11, police said.

The first victim pressed charges against Lavoie in 2008. Quebec provincial police launched an investigation and eventually found other alleged victims: all boarders at the college in the 1970s and 1980s, who were between the ages of 12 and 15 at the time.

Lavoie was first arrested in December 2009 and faces a series of charges of sexual assault, indecent assault and gross indecency.

He is due back in court on June 21 and his defence lawyer hinted he could plead guilty.

“There is a certain number of alleged victims. We’ll look into each case separately, but we certainly won’t go to trial unnecessarily,” said Serge Goulet.

Lavoie could also face a major lawsuit if a bid for a class-action launched by one if his alleged victims last month is approved.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service


10 December 2009:  Churches rocked by sex abuse scandals

9 Responses to Lavoie: Father Raymond-Marie Lavoie CSsR

  1. Sylvia says:

    I added his ordination date to his profile under “Accused.” Also the fact that he is a Redmptorist priest (CssR).

    It looks as though he spent his entire priesthood teaching at that Catholic private school. I would guess there are a multitude of other “alleged” victims out there.

    No doubt many a parent pinched pennies believing they were going to give their boys a good Catholic education. Such a terrible travesty.

  2. Kevin V Russell says:

    I came to this site via Huff Post I just want to say I don’t beleive in God I don’t beleive in Hell so it seems the only way this bastard is going to pay is if he spends the rest of his life in jail. I also don’t beleive he is sorry in the least. He is only sorry he got caught. I hope the court sentences him to twenty plus years.

  3. Baspuit says:

    THE CANADIAN PRESS — QUEBEC – A Quebec priest pleaded guilty to sexually abusing 13 children and told a courtroom how sorry he was for his crimes Monday.

    But his victims were unswayed by his expression of contrition.

    One of them glared at Rev. Raymond-Marie Lavoie for a moment, before declaring that he and other priests were “destroyers of children” who would wind up “in hell.”

    This was after Lavoie, 71, pleaded guilty to all 21 charges against him for committing sexual crimes against young boys at a seminary in the 1970s and 1980s.

    The Redemptorist priest was accused of sexual abuse against 13 former students while he was a teacher who oversaw the dormitory at the now-defunct St-Alphonse Seminary near Quebec City.

    Lavoie pleaded guilty to all charges against him Monday during what was to be the opening day of his trial.

    With the trial cut short, lawyers for the Crown and the defence began debating what would be a proper sentence for his crimes
    Two victims addressed the court. One of them, Frank Tremblay, took a few moments to stare at Lavoie before reading from a letter.

    “I’m disgusted by the way you carried yourselves,” said Tremblay, who predicted that religious leaders who abused children would face eternal damnation.

    The Crown outlined its case against Lavoie: that sexual touching and certain assaults, on Grade 7 and 8 students, took place in the room Lavoie had in the dormitory.

    It was during that sentencing hearing, before Quebec court Judge Chantal Pelletier, that Lavoie apologized.

    “I slipped on a dangerous slope at a certain point and didn’t have the wisdom to put on the breaks,” Lavoie said.

    “I’m deeply disappointed in myself and I didn’t act in respect and within the law.”

    Lavoie will return to court in October. A pre-sentencing report will be tabled before the court decides on a punishment.

    Crown prosecutor Carmen Rioux said the maximum time Lavoie could receive is 10 years behind bars.

    One advocate for sex-abuse victims said any sentence Lavoie receives won’t be enough.

    “For years I’ve been attending trials like this and I deplore the (lenient) sentence this dangerous pedophile priest is going to receive,” said France Bedard, head of L’Association des Victimes de Pretres, a group that helps victims of sexually abusive priests in Quebec.

    She said history shows the sentence will be short.

    “He’ll be able to play golf next year,” Bedard fumed during an interview at the courthouse in Quebec City. “We must re-write the Criminal Code when it comes to sentence lengths.

    “It’s not severe enough and it’s ridiculous.”

    Bedard also said she doesn’t understand what the Catholic Church is waiting for to start compensating victims of abuse suffered at the hands of priests.

    Lavoie was one of the priests named in a class-action suit, filed by alleged victims, that has been authorized by the courts.

    “We know there was collusion, it was orchestrated,” Bedard said. “They were trading boys the way we trade hockey cards.”

    This from :

  4. Sylvia says:

    I just posted R v Lavoie, the Quebec Court of Appeal decision to increase Father Lavoie’s sentence from three to five years. The document is in French. I will post the google translation of the text of the ruling here. As always, it’s not the greatest translation over-all, but much it is quite easy to read. Here its is:

    [1] The appellant seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Québec, Criminal and Penal Division, District of Quebec (Honourable Chantale Pelletier) of 10 February 2012, which imposed the respondent to imprisonment of three years after he pleaded guilty to 21 charges for sexual offenses committed against 13 boys minor.

    [2] The respondent, in particular, pleaded guilty to 11 counts of indecent assault (former art. 156 CC), four counts of gross indecency (former art. 157 CC) and 6 counts of sexual assault (former art. 246.1 CC).

    [3] The respondent is a religious, today aged 72. Between 1973 and 1985 he was a music teacher and supervisor in a boarding school dormitory resident boys. The actions involved touching, sometimes above, sometimes clothes. Five victims are the subject of masturbation. Most victims suffer touching or fondling of the respondent on a regular basis during their stay at the school, while some report only one or two events. The victims were aged 12 to 15 years.

    [4] The appellant raises four grounds of appeal. At the hearing, she takes focusing on four alleged errors the judge errors, the effect of their combination, require, according to her, the intervention of the Court. It focuses its argument on the following points: the judge would have ignored the situation of captive victims (students at a boarding school) it wrongly, considered as a mitigating factor the fact that if a child rejected the respondent it stopped his movements, and the sentence would not recognize the primacy of general deterrence, and finally, it would not have limited the range of sentence only in cases of crimes committed by clergy. These means imply that the sentence is manifestly inadequate and unreasonable, as the appellant alleges, moreover, in his application for leave to appeal.

    [5] The first criticism made by the appellant, the lack of consideration by the judge of the captive nature of the victims, does not hold.

    [6] The trial judgment clearly reflects the offenses committed by the respondent, a person in authority who abuse vulnerable victims, who were in his thank you because he was the supervisor of the boarding school dormitory where the underage youth residing during the school year.

    [7] The judge tells briefly, but nevertheless substantial, sustained touching What the 13 victims reported their consequences and implications thereof. The reader’s judgment is able to determine the nature of the indecent acts (touching, fondling, masturbation) raised by the respondent. Without telling in detail the sexual touching and assault which is basely delivered to the respondent, it is nevertheless clear from the judgment that the judge knows the gravity of the acts committed during many years (1973-1985) by Respondent Raymond-Marie Lavoie, himself aged 34 to 45 years at the time of the offenses. The heinous nature of the actions taken in respect of students boarding the dorm supervisor spring narrative evidence. The judgment raises the recurring gestures.

    [8] On the other hand, by briefly describing the current status of the respondent, the judge does not diminish the seriousness of the offenses.

    [9] In short, the judge is in any way obscured or failed to consider the status of captive victims, all residents of a minor.

    [10] Second way: the judge erred in principle in holding as a mitigating factor the fact that the respondent cease his actions as soon as the victims were opposed.

    [11] The appellant argues that the judge wrongly considered this evidence as a mitigating factor. As the victims are at a disadvantage and that the consent of the victim is of no relevance to sexual assault, which is true, she argues that the strength of the victims would not have been taken into account.

    [12] The judge lists a number of factors to consider for the purpose of punishment, before releasing him who, in his opinion, is the most critical, is the abuse of authority. Here is how it is expressed:

    [43] In this case, the factors to consider are:

    – The crimes were committed against 13 victims, all aged between 12 and 14 years while the accused was in a position of authority to them;

    – On 10 victims, offenses are repeated several times;

    – The commission of the crimes took place over a period of 12 years. Premeditation element is important because the accused was new victims each school year;

    – The victims of traumatic sequelae. The testimony of X and Y, as well as written statements of the other victims, show that these events have changed their lives;

    – The plea of ​​the accused avoids victims to testify;

    – The accused expressed regrets and acknowledges that his delinquent behavior have caused harm to the victims;

    – Many of the alleged acts are touching, often over clothing;

    – The accused stopped his actions as soon as the teenager showed his disagreement or refusal to be touched;

    – The accused has no criminal record and has not returned since 1985.

    [44] The aggravating factor the most important is undoubtedly the abuse of authority. Parents who send their children to these schools expect them to be safe under the protection of individuals concerned about the responsibility delegated to them. As dormitory supervisor, the accused enjoyed a privileged situation: young prey, helpless and at hand.

    [13] The first four items listed by the judge are aggravating factors, the others are from his point of view, mitigating factors. The impact on sentencing factors favorable to respondent, as also those who are unfavorable to him, varies. It goes without saying that these factors are not all of equal importance.

    [14] However, the fact that the respondent “stopped his actions as soon as the teenager showed his disagreement or refusal to be touched” would not have been considered by the judge as a mitigating factor. Upon analysis, it appears rather as an aggravating factor, since the refusal opposed by some young people should have led the respondent to recover and stop any further attempts. But when pushed by a young boy, he then simply turned to other, more vulnerable, who did not dare offer resistance to the dormitory supervisor, although they suffered in silence indecent actions on them. The uncontradicted evidence attests abundantly.

    [15] The error is obvious and we shall see later its impact on the sentence of three years imposed by the judge.

    [16] Third way: the appellant argues that the judge should have given more importance than it did the goals of deterrence and denunciation, as required by section 718.01 CC For her, the sentence of three years does not meet the overarching goal of general deterrence.

    [17] The court is aware that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and the degree of responsibility of the offender (s. 718.1 CC). It takes explicit account of the fact that abuse against a child and abuse of authority are aggravating circumstances (article 718.2 CC).

    [18] Contrary to the finding made by the Court in R. c. J. L. [1], the denunciation of the conduct and general deterrence were not ignored by the trial judge, but the question that arises, however, is the following: the sentence it simply translate the importance of these factors in the offenses committed by the respondent to his young victims?

    [19] The judge dismisses the suggestion of the respondent, which proposed a sentence of less than two years with probation requiring him to undergo therapy, the main reason that “[t] he purpose of rehabilitation thus appears secondary to the importance of general deterrence and denunciation. ” It considers, rightly, that a prison sentence is necessary in the circumstances.

    [20] Even if, moreover, the term of imprisonment of eight years suggested by the appellant appears on the “clearly inappropriate” judge, because she “did not respect the fair balance between the seriousness of the offense and criminal liability of the offender, “the three-year sentence of imprisonment imposed in this case is just as inappropriate as it does not adequately reflect the objectives of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing. To understand the significance of this finding and further investigate, it seems suitable to address immediately the final ground of appeal regarding the sentencing range.

    [21] In this regard, the appellant complains that the judge not taking into account that sentences of clergy in authority. The complaint is well founded.

    [22] It should be noted that a range of penalties have already been imposed only serves as an indication. This tool can be useful in the process of determining the appropriate sentence, however its use is not without limits. [2] This is particularly true in regard to sexual offenses, it is virtually impossible to provide an exhaustive list of the relevant sentences delivered in Canada. Their large number makes the exercise to establish a representative ambitious range. The list is necessarily incomplete. Given its implicit limits must give priority to the examination of the specific circumstances that led to the commission of offenses against the principles and goals of punishment, yet the “range” remains a reference tool.

    [23] Moreover, in R. c. Chav [3] the Court, recalling the necessary restraint to an appellate court in sentencing, reiterated its power to check whether the sentence is consistent with those imposed “for similar offenses committed in similar circumstances ”

    [14] We know: appellate courts should exercise great restraint in reviewing decisions of trial judges in sentencing. In R. c. Shropshire, 1995 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1995] 4 SCR 227, it says, at para. 46:

    An appellate court should not have the discretion to modify an order on the sentencing simply because it thinks that a different order would have been made. The formulation of an order regarding the sentencing is a deeply subjective process, the trial judge has the advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses, while the court of appeal may be based only on a written report. There is amended sentence unless the appellate court is convinced that it is not indicated, that is to say, if it finds that the sentence is clearly unreasonable.

    [15] Then, in R. c. M. (CA), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 500, at para. 90:

    Put simply, absent an error in principle, failure to consider a relevant factor, or an overemphasis of the appropriate factors, a court of appeal should only intervene to vary a sentence imposed at trial if it is demonstrably unfit. Parliament has expressly granted to judges to pronounce sentences discretion to determine the type of sentence to be imposed under the Criminal Code and the importance of it.

    [16] This principle of deference has been taken by the Supreme Court in particular R. c. LM, 2008 SCC 31 (CanLII), [2008] 2 SCR 163, at para. 14 and 15 A. c. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 61, at para. 123-126, R. c. McDonnell, 1997 CanLII 389 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 948, at para. 14 to 17, and R c. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 (CanLII), [2010] 1 SCR 206. In the latter case, LeBel J. writes:

    However, the broad discretion given to judges in sentencing has limitations. It is partly bounded by the decisions made in certain circumstances, general ranges of sentences for certain offenses, in order to promote, in accordance with the principle of equality enshrined in the Code, the consistency of sentencing decisions. It should be borne in mind that, although the courts must take into account these ranges represent at most guidelines, not absolute rules. A judge can order a sentence that departs from the established range, provided it complies with the principles and objectives of sentencing. Such a sanction is not necessarily inappropriate, but it must take into account all the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense and the offender, as well as the needs of the community in which the offense occurred.

    [17] In short, the trial judge has a wide discretion, and an appellate court may only intervene in circumstances that indicate an error in principle, an undue emphasis on an appropriate factor or a failure to consider a factor relevant, unless the sentence is demonstrably unfit simply, ie clearly unreasonable. It is in this spirit that still retaining appellate courts retain the power to determine whether the sentence is consistent with those imposed “for similar offenses committed in similar circumstances”, which is also the para. 718.2 b) CC which provides.

    [18] Similarly, in R. c. M. (AC-), supra, we read:

    92 It goes without saying that the appellate courts play an important role in controlling and minimizing the disparity between the sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offenses committed in various parts of Canada. […] However, in exercising this role, appellate courts must still exercise some restraint before interfering with the exercise of specialized discretion that Parliament has expressly granted to judges responsible for sentencing. […] For these reasons, in accordance with the general standard of review that we made in Shropshire, I believe that a court of appeal should only intervene to minimize the disparity between sentences in cases where the sentence imposed by the trial judge deviates significantly and substantial penalties are usually imposed on similar offenders committing similar crimes.

    [19] In sum, when the rule of consistency in sentencing is concerned, only a marked and substantial departure may justify appellate intervention.

    [24] The question then becomes: is that the three-year sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial judge deviates “significantly and substantially” sentences customarily imposed for similar offenders, whether or not the clergy? Which can be criticized by the judge, is to have used a too narrow range.

    [25] It would have to include, for purposes of determining the relevant range, the penalties imposed on persons in authority other than the clergy, in similar circumstances, but not necessarily identical. The list of penalties relating to sexual offenses would therefore have contained, as an indication, the case of lay teachers, coaches, parents or other adults in authority who sexually abused young people under their responsibility.

    [26] That said, the range of both it differs significantly from that seen especially by the trial judge? The answer requires a few nuances.

    [27] First observation: the judge determines, firstly, that the sentences of religious who have committed sexual offenses range from 12 months to 8 years imprisonment. Then, having identified the penalties in cases that are closer to the circumstances of the case, the judge adjusted in some way, the range of sentences and fixed between 12 months and 4 years. Here is how she explains this:

    [34] A review of decisions on the death penalty (see Appendix 1) imposed on religious in authority, having been accused of sexual offenses, illustrates that each case must be considered on merit. Indeed, the penalties range from a few months’ imprisonment to 8 years in prison. However, it appears that the range of sentences for similar crimes is between 12 months and 4 years, the penalties being modulated according to the circumstances of each case.

    [28] The approach is, in itself, consistent with the practice. It aims to define or specify the most relevant range in the circumstances. However, as noted above, the exercise of determining the sentencing range should include here considering decisions for similar offenses committed against children or adolescents with adults in position authority, and that, whether or not members of the clergy.

    [29] Even if the ends of the range in this case remain essentially the same, especially as the maximum penalty for the most serious crime is 10 years, the range of cases is growing and is likely to provide better lighting. If we now try to refine the range to delineate differences in sentences for offenses whose characteristics are closer to the facts of the case, as the judge tried to do, the range is rather between 4 and 6 years [4].

    [30] In the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario R. c. DD, Moldaver judge today in the Supreme Court of Canada established order of increasing ranges of sentences for sexual offenses against children:

    44 To summarize, I am of the view That as a general rule, When adult offenders, in a position of trust, sexually abuse innocent young children on a regular and substantial businesses persist BASIS over periods of time, They can expect to receive mid to upper single digit penitentiary terms. When the abuse Involves full intercourse, anal or vaginal, and it is Accompanied by other acts of physical violence, terrorism threats of physical violence or other forms of extortion, upper single digit to low double-digit penitentiary terms Will be Generally considers. Finally, in cases Where thesis Elements are Accompanied by a pattern of severe psychological, emotional and physical brutalization, still higher penalties Will Be warranted. [5] [Citations omitted.]

    [31] Of course, these categories are used as a guide. [6]

    [32] If the sentence imposed in this case is technically within the widest range, it is still outside the range of business with the most similarities with the circumstances of the case. Thus, the sentence imposed is therefore outside of the range, without the particular circumstances can justify it. However, even if it was considered that the range is from 3 to 6 years instead of 4 to 6 years old, the 3-year sentence of imprisonment remains unreasonably lenient in the circumstances which will now be examined. This exercise is part of the process of individualization of punishment.

    [33] Indeed, if we take into account, as appropriate, the nature and intrinsic gravity of offenses against teenagers (between 12 and 15 years), frequency, duration, during which the offenses are repeated, abuse of trust and authority, and the impact of crime on victims, the study of the individual situation of the respondent requires a more severe penalty.

    [34] It must be considered that in this case 17 of the charges against the appellant are liable to a penalty of 10 years imprisonment, or the 11 counts of indecent assault and six counts of sexual assault, four other leaders are liable to five years imprisonment for gross indecency. The 13 victims were aged 12 to 15 years. The offenses were committed over 12 years. While most boys have been touching, five victims have been subjected to acts of masturbation on the part of the respondent, the dormitory supervisor. The frequency of deviant actions towards these teenagers obviously varies from one victim to another. Without reporting the details of actions, their recurrence thrilled. For illustrative purposes only, sexual abuse (masturbation) to some victims are repeated several times a week for several years.

    [35] The testimony of several victims and the testimony of two of them show very serious consequences for offenses committed by the respondent on their lives.

    [36] All these facts argue for a prison sentence which reflects not only the very important objective and subjective seriousness of the offenses committed by the respondent, but also gives due priority to considerations of denunciation and deterrence, which referred Otis Judge Court in JL, supra:

    There are crimes that reflect protected by a human community at a particular time in its history and values, thanks to the evolution of societies, eventually become obsolete. It is a different order of sexual crimes committed against young children. Even before repressive penal laws punish these crimes, the protection of children was one of the core values ​​and perpetuated by most organized societies. The fragmentation of the personality of a child when his fledgling organization reveals a very weak defensive structure, generate – long-term – the suffering, distress and loss of self-esteem. If intolerance is a healthy society should never emancipate it is that concerning the sexual abuse of young children. [7]

    [37] The respondent took advantage of the vulnerability of these 13 teenagers using them to satisfy their selfish impulses, without considering for a moment the heavy consequences inevitably his deviant behavior. He also abused the trust of the parents of these young boys and failed miserably in his role as an educator.

    [38] The judge took into account the presence of mitigating factors, the weight varies. The plea of ​​the respondent, which prevents victims to testify, is certainly one that should be taken into account, as indeed he expressed regret and empathy he has shown, very late , however.

    [39] The absence of history is of little significance here, like the fact that the respondent has not returned since 1985. The offenses have still been committed for 12 years. The low risk of recurrence, according to the testimony of the probation officer and the report of the sexologist, is explained, as the judge also mentioned by the current age of the respondent (72 years) and supervisory measures religious community after the discovery of offenses.

    [40] The qualified mitigating factor by the judge, that “many of the alleged acts are touching, often over the clothes,” is limited in scope, particularly if the high frequency of touching one takes into account all victims and the fact that five of the 13 victims have been repeated sexual assaults, often for long periods of time.

    [41] Finally, the court held, as already mentioned, a mitigating factor is not one, is that “[t] he accused stopped his actions as soon as the teenager showed his disagreement or refusal of be affected. ” Rather, as already mentioned, an aggravating factor, since the refusal opposed by some young people has never been enough to convince the respondent to stop attacking other young most vulnerable.

    [42] The critical errors accumulated in the judgment of first instance or the mischaracterization of the factors taken into consideration, the underestimation of the objective of general deterrence and influence on pain of range inaccurate sentences outweighs the need for action to increase the penalty.

    [43] The exercise of balancing all the factors aggravating as mitigating, put in context with the severity of the offenses, the particularly high frequency, the extended period during which the respondent has prevailed and the serious consequences for victims advocates in for the imposition of an aggregate sentence of 5 years in this case.

    [44] A final comment is needed. The appellant has emphasized, both in its written statement at the hearing on two cases in particular, is the R. c. D.D., supra, and R. v. English [8]. The sentences in these cases are respectively nine years and one month and 10 years (hardly comprehensive). However, the nature of certain offenses and circumstances of these cases differ significantly from those of the present appeal.

    [45] In DD, the accused was convicted of 11 sexual offenses on victims 4 5 to 8 years after a trial that lasted two weeks during which he testified denying the commission of offenses. It was not until the sentencing hearing that he accepts, through his lawyer, the commission of offenses, is “only at the eleventh hour” (at the eleventh hour), as noted Justice Moldaver in the grounds of the judgment [9], and it added: “By this time of course, the four young victims HAD beens Compelled to testify not ounce goal twice, first at the preliminary hearing and at the trial. ” In addition, some of the actions taken against children are more severe in this case.

    [46] In English, the total sentence is 10 years, including sentences of four and five years for indecent assault. The accused, a religious orphanage (it is not the only member of the Christian Brothers have been accusations) was convicted after a jury trial, of nine counts of ‘indecent assault, 2 counts of gross indecency and two counts of assault causing bodily harm against 12 victims between the ages of 8 and 13 years. The accused expressed no remorse or show empathy towards the victims. The subjective severity of sexual offenses and the fact that some victims were beaten and severely injured by the defendant are all factors, among others, that distinguish this case from the present.

    [47] For all these reasons, it is necessary to intervene to substitute an aggregate sentence of 5 years to the sentence.

    [48] ​​FOR THESE REASONS, the Court:

    [49] GRANTS the motion for leave to appeal;

    [50] the appeal;

    [51] AMENDED paragraph [46] of the judgment on the sentence handed down on 10 February 2012 by the following:

    [46] The accused was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of five years to serve as the first-instance judgment.

    Yves-Marie Morissette, J.C.A.



    Ms. Carmen Rioux

    Attorney for criminal prosecution and criminal

    For the applicant

    Me Serge Goulet

    Garneau Verdon

    For the Respondent

    Date of hearing:

    On October 26, 2012

  5. JG says:

    Just watching the french CBC news (RDI) and it appears the “Redemptorists” are now showing $15,000,000.00 LESS in their coffers! As if by enchantment the financial statement has shrunk now that the court proceedings and the evidence is much stronger, more favorable to the 80 victims who have come forward…The victim’s representative(sorry, didn’t get his name, yet) explains how cunning and crafty this “order” is showing itself to be in response to the abuse by its members.
    He says they have plans to have them loose their “tax free” status as a “charitable organization”(YES!!!) in view of their response.
    The head of the clergy in Quebec has been absolutely silent…They will try to “reach” Ouellet and ultimately “Monsieur le Pope” to verify this humble, sincere and generous new approach in Rome!
    I’ll try to find more verbatim information to post.
    The redemptorists are continuing this hide and seek mentality we have been accustomed to with the church.

    $15,000,000.00 which could/would have helped to compensate the victims….Poof!
    Is there any doubt where or what the priority is!!???…


  6. BC says:

    Lavoie was released today to day parole from the Montée Saint-François Institution in Laval. He’ll be moving into a half-way house for sexual criminals. There have been media reports that Lavoie was being routinely assaulted by other inmates in prison, which partly explains why day parole was granted to him.

  7. Michel barnabe , Richard Lowel , Phillippe Myre , Byron Parker , says:

    We were at that school in inter provincial transfers from Christian brothers training school in alfred Ontario to st John’s training school in Newfoundland back in the early seventies. St Anne de beaupré school in st Alphonse Québec was the pit stop where they would keep us until st john training school for boys could accept us . To us that were abused by them in st Alphonse seminary we had it worst since we had no privilèges and we were kept segregated and we were punnished if we spoke to other résidents , we were told to keep within the priests vecinity our éducations was in the dorm behind temporary walls and the aggressions we were victim of were severe and in grouoes . Also our sexual aggressions were extremly different . Today I think we know now that back then thoses religious bastards had a pedophile ring and used there power to accentuate the supply of Young boys that way . Even if we ran away and told police what they were doing the police would just bring us back and we were not beleaved !

    • Sylvia says:

      Michel, Richard, Phillipe and Bryon, what a terrible ordeal for young boys to endure. The moves, and segregation, and – the sex abuse. I am so sorry.

      I personally have not heard that the Christian Brothers had such an arrangement with the Redemptorists in Quebec.

      I have some questions which might help us all to understand what was going on back then

      (1) You say you were on transfer to St. John’s Training School in Newfoundland. Do you mean Mount Cashel in St. John’s? I think perhaps you do but am not certain.
      (2) Why were you all being transferred from Alfred Ontario to Newfoundland? were you originally from Newfoundland?
      (3) Why were you not kept at Alfred until there was room for you in Newfoundland? do you know?
      (4) Who from Alfred accompanied you on the transfer? was it one of the Christian Brothers?
      (5) Did whoever accompanied you stay at St. Alphonse and then escort you on to Newfoundland?
      (6) Were any or all of you sexually abused at Alfred?
      (7) You say “the aggressions we were victim of were severe and in grouoes.” Do you mean that several of the Redemptorists abused you at the same time? or that several boys were abused by a priest at the same time? or, was it both – several priests molesting several boys at the same time?
      (8) If whoever escorted you from Alfred was there, was he involved in the sex abuse in Quebec?
      (9) Was there more sex abuse in Newfoundland? or, were you mercifully left alone there?

      My thoughts and prayers are with you all.

Leave a Reply