As a survivor of the abuses of the Clercs de Saint-Viateur (CSV) and a member of the collective action against them, I was challenged by Yves Boisvert’s column entitled “The industry of collective action – the continuation1 “.
I was unaware of this hidden side of class action until I consulted the websites of law firms specializing in this field. I was flabbergasted to see that you can shop there among a multitude of collective actions for problems related to everyday consumer items (coffee capsules, telephones, financial services, automobiles, household appliances, etc.). Anyone can register, often without proof, hoping to receive a small compensation while the law firm will receive 20% to 30% of the total amount despite often minimal risks and efforts on its part. Now I better understand Mr. Boisvert’s point of view.
Naively, I believed that the collective action mechanism was simply intended to balance forces by allowing people harmed by an entity with great legal and financial means to regroup in order to obtain compensation for major wrongs.
It is for this reason that I registered for the class action against the CSV. I admit that I raised my eyebrows when I saw that the law firm’s fees would be a maximum of 25% of the amount of the agreement.
But, as my motivation was not pecuniary, I chose to register for the class action to free myself from this secret that I had carried for more than 65 years by naming my attackers and saying the harm that their abuses caused me. have caused.
Above all, I hoped to obtain from the CSVs recognition of their blindness to the abuses committed by the sexual predators they sheltered and, possibly, to receive financial compensation to recover part of the almost $100,000 spent over the years to deal with the consequences of this trauma.
I salute the professionalism, empathy and dedication of Mr.e Virginie Dufresne-Lemire and Me Justin Wee who, with their team, steered this delicate file with skill in order to obtain a very good amicable settlement fairly quickly while preserving our anonymity thanks to an innovative adjudication mechanism and, above all, with the apologies of the CSV.
I deplore the interventions of the “dissident member” to invalidate the fee agreement even if, like all of us, he had consented to it by joining the class action. His efforts resulted in a delay of more than a year for the conclusion of this painful chapter in the lives of nearly 400 people. In addition, through Mr. Boisvert’s columns, he questioned the integrity of young lawyers devoted to the cause of survivors of sexual assault and exposed them to volleys of hateful comments.
I agree that the mechanisms of collective action must be adjusted to avoid abuses. However, for now, this seems to be the only way for survivors of clergy sexual abuse to obtain redress by saying “me too!” while maintaining anonymity because, like me until very recently, many have never informed their loved ones.