(Quebec) The Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League (QMJHL) and its teams as well as the Canadian Hockey League knew that abuse was being committed against some of its rookie players. They “either ignored or tolerated” this situation. And class action is the best vehicle to assert the rights of victims of this “systemic negligence,” argued Tuesday lawyer David Stolow, who represents former hockey player Carl Latulippe in this action.
On the contrary, collective action is “not the right procedural vehicle” in this matter, retorted Me Mathieu Leblanc-Gagnon, who represents the QMJHL.
All parties were gathered at the Quebec courthouse before Judge Jacques G. Bouchard as part of the hearing aimed at authorizing the class action brought by Mr. Latulippe on behalf of all QMJHL players who have suffered abuse while they were minors in the QMJHL, from 1969 to present. At this stage, the request for collective action has not been judged on its merits. Judge Bouchard must instead determine whether or not he allows the procedure to move forward.
The Press presented the story of Carl Latulippe in April 2023. The man said he was the victim of physical, psychological and sexual abuse among the Chicoutimi Saguenéens after being selected as the first pick in the 1994 draft.
Mr. Latulippe, who was also allegedly the victim of abuse with the Voltigeurs de Drummondville, filed a request for class action in May 2023. He is seeking $650,000 from the defendants and $15,000,000 in collective punitive and exemplary damages. .
“Unfortunately, tragically, [M. Latulippe] is not the only one,” pleaded Me Stolow, who criticizes the QMJHL and other defendants for having “failed to establish effective procedures in a timely manner to prevent abuse.” “They all knew and no one did anything,” he said.
More than 21,000 players have played in the QMJHL since 1969, but it is too early to determine exactly how many people would be targeted by the collective action if it is authorized.
According to Me Stolow, Mr. Latulippe’s case “meets the criteria to be authorized” as a class action. According to him, the Canadian Hockey League (CHL), the QMJHL and its teams demonstrated “systemic negligence” by tolerating “a culture of abuse and silence”. “We are talking about a mistake of omission […] Everyone knew and no one said anything,” argued the lawyer.
Teams that have changed ownership
The lawyer for the QMJHL, Mathieu Leblanc-Gagnon, believes instead that the request for authorization of collective action must be rejected, among other things because “join everyone in the same claim and request their joint liability without regard to their concrete actions […] is an indefensible thesis.
The lawyer recalled that “out of 18 of the teams targeted in the appeal, 13 did not exist at the time of the facts”. He criticizes the fact that the action attempts to make all teams jointly liable for abuses, “without regard to changes in ownership” that have occurred over the years. For mee Leblanc-Gagnon, “culture goes with the operators”. “Here, we have 18 different legal entities with different cultures […] We cannot take for granted that they were all the same,” he pleads.
The spectrum of Ontario procedures
Lawyers for both parties also discussed the “Carcillo affair”, a similar proceeding that has been taking place in Ontario for months. There, a request for authorization of a class action brought by three former hockey players claiming to have been victims of abuse, including Daniel Carcillo, was rejected in February 2023 by Judge Paul Perell. The decision was appealed. But at the same time, Judge Perell offered the parties another vehicle to resolve the dispute, namely individual actions filed for each team by groups of plaintiffs.
For mee Stolow, “the usefulness of the Carcillo file for this court [québécois] is limited. The requirements for class actions in Ontario and Quebec are different, he argued. As for the idea of filing individual procedures, Me Stolow believes that it is precisely to avoid this type of multiplication of procedures that collective actions exist. According to Me Leblanc-Gagnon, we must on the contrary consider the Carcillo appeal and reject Mr. Latulippe’s request for collective action, which would be “an inefficient use of judicial resources”.
Upon leaving the courtroom, Carl Latulippe said he did not want to join the Ontario proceedings and said he would “prefer that his case be heard here.” “Let people talk about it [des abus dans la LHJMQ], that people are aware of what is happening, that’s good,” he says. Judge Bouchard took the decision under advisement.