Background
The plaintiff, M.B., brought a civil action against the Basilian Fathers of Toronto and an individual priest, Thomas Michael Rosica, alleging that he was sexually assaulted by Rosica and that the Basilian Fathers were negligent in failing to prevent the assault. The Basilian Fathers brought a motion challenging the civil courts’ jurisdiction over the claims on the basis that the dispute was ecclesiastical in nature and governed by canon law.
Justice ten Cate of the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the jurisdiction challenge in orders dated August 7, 2025 (with reasons at 2025 ONSC 4588 and 2025 ONSC 5347). In doing so, the motion judge cited an academic article and case law that had not been put before her by the parties. The Basilian Fathers appealed, raising two grounds: that the motion judge breached natural justice by relying on materials the parties had no opportunity to address, and that she erred in her jurisdictional analysis.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On the natural justice ground, the court distinguished between a judge relying on facts outside the record — which can breach natural justice — and a judge citing academic commentary or case law, which does not. The motion judge’s reference to an academic article critiquing the court’s own prior decision in Hart v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of the Diocese of Kingston, 2011 ONCA 728, did not taint her decision.
On the jurisdictional question, the court applied the Hart test, which asks whether the plaintiff’s dispute is “ecclesiastical in nature and subject to canon law.” The court found that the gravamen of the plaintiff’s claim — sexual assault by a priest and the religious institution’s negligence in failing to prevent it — is plainly a matter for the civil courts. The court also upheld the motion judge’s discretionary analysis under Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, finding no palpable and overriding errors. Costs of $14,000 inclusive were awarded to the respondent.
Key Takeaways
- Civil courts have jurisdiction over clergy sexual abuse claims even against religious institutions; the Hart ecclesiastical-matters doctrine does not bar such claims where the gravamen is negligence and assault, not a religious dispute.
- A motion judge does not breach natural justice by independently citing academic articles or case law, as opposed to introducing extraneous facts not found in the record.
- Appellate review of a motion judge’s discretionary Van Breda jurisdictional analysis requires demonstrating palpable and overriding error — a high threshold the appellant here could not meet.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Canadian civil courts will not be ousted of jurisdiction over institutional clergy abuse claims simply because the defendant is a religious organization. The ruling clarifies the boundary of the ecclesiastical-matters doctrine: it applies to genuinely internal church governance disputes, not to torts such as sexual assault and negligent supervision that happen to involve clergy.
The court’s treatment of the natural justice issue also provides practical guidance for litigants: judges retain the latitude to consult legal scholarship and precedent on their own initiative, and parties cannot obtain a new hearing merely because the judge cited materials they had not themselves put forward.