A recent Superior Court decision that dismissed a woman’s lawsuit against billionaire Robert Miller because the plaintiff had already accepted $50,000 in cash in an envelope puts the fundamental rights of victims of sexual crimes at stake, argues the organization Juripop, in a request to intervene before the Court of Appeal on this matter.
“In this case, the issues in dispute are of considerable importance. Several fundamental rights having an immense impact on the lives of many individuals in Quebec are at stake, despite the private appearance of this dispute. […]”Juripop users and the population it is tasked with supporting will be directly affected by the outcome of this dispute,” state the lawyers for the non-profit organization in their request for intervention.
The affair was revealed by The Press Last March, a woman who said she was recruited in high school by a “sexual exploitation network” working for Montreal billionaire Robert Miller attempted to sue the businessman, his former company and his collaborators for $8 million.
The evidence, however, showed that she had already participated in a meeting in the office of Robert Miller’s lawyer, during which she had been offered $50,000 in an envelope if she agreed to waive any future civil proceedings (she retained the right to participate in criminal proceedings).
PHOTO PROVIDED BY A SOURCE
Robert Miller, founder of the multinational Future Electronics
The complainant had left the meeting with the $50,000, without signing the requested waiver. Superior Court Judge Marc St-Pierre had determined that the woman’s lawsuit could not go forward: by taking the money, she had implicitly waived any future lawsuit, even without signing a document to that effect, the judge ruled.
“The plaintiff’s departure with the sum of $50,000 cannot be explained otherwise,” the magistrate wrote in his judgment.
“Although it is quite surprising that a lawyer would let the other party leave with the amount of money without the release document having been signed, it may have happened that way, given the short period of time available to the parties to finalize the transaction,” he added.
Key issues
The complainant appealed the decision. In anticipation of the hearing of her case by the Court of Appeal, Juripop requested to be allowed to intervene in the case as well.
The organization, which receives public funding to provide legal services to victims of sex crimes, says the trial judge’s findings “completely ignore the complexities and dynamics of the relationships between victims and perpetrators of violence and reveal a lack of understanding about this subject.”
Juripop argues in particular that a victim cannot tacitly waive a future recourse: their intention to waive must be clear. The organization adds that the assessment of a victim’s consent must take into account the “context of sexual exploitation between the parties, which implies an imbalance of power.” It also says that the decision ignores the victim’s right to a lawyer, who could have been advised in order to make a free and informed decision before accepting the money.
“The issues raised by this appeal are of paramount importance to Juripop and the victims and survivors it serves. It is essential that the law develops in concert with the evolution of understanding of the specific dynamics surrounding victims and survivors of sexual violence, hence the friendly intervention act introduced by Juripop in this matter,” says the organization’s executive director, Ms.e Sophie Gagnon, in a sworn statement attached to the request.
Along with several civil proceedings, Robert Miller was arrested by Montreal police and charged with several sex crimes at the end of May.