
Sexual Abuse in the Church
If you have experienced sexual abuse at the hands of priests or other church authorities, your life might be impacted in several ways. For instance, you could be impacted psychologically, mentally, physically, socially, emotionally, and more. If you are victimized by a religious leader, it might result in significant harm to your interpersonal relationships, ability to trust other people, education, career, spirituality, and one’s relationship with God. You may be struggling to make sense of those experiences.
What is Sexual Abuse in the Church?
Any physical intrusion of a sexual nature, whether through force, unfair power dynamics or coercion, is considered sexual abuse. Sexual abuse might take place in places like churches, schools, or even on holidays.
While sexual abuse is wrong in any context, it is especially harmful when it takes place in places of worship and other religious institutions. For the followers of these religions, these are supposed to be safe areas of trust and healing. Sexual abuse in religious settings can have negative repercussions survivors’ physical, mental, and spiritual health in significant and persistent ways.
When a member of the clergy abuses a non-consenting person—typically a minor—it is deemed to be sexual abuse by the clergy. In the Catholic church, clergy sexual abuse can often involve priests. Because of this, abuse of clergy is sometimes called abuse of priests.
If you or a loved one has been abused by a clergy member, Donich Law can help you explore legal avenues for recourse. When a person in a ministerial position has sex with a parishioner or congregant, it is considered clergy abuse. Lay leaders, pastors, camp employees, volunteer church leaders, and other representatives of a religious or spiritual community might be involved in this.
Usually, sexual assault involves the assailant making unwelcome physical contact with the victim. The physical contact might start off as “innocent” touching such as tickling or other lighthearted touches which might make you feel uncomfortable. Another example might be a member of the church making “accidental” contact with your intimate body parts. In some cases, complainants might cite instances of a hug that lasts too long or that presses against your body as one instance supporting an allegation of sexual interference, depending on the severity of the circumstances.
A clear example of inappropriate sexual relations in the Church would be a minor having sexual intercourse with their priest. Moreover, there are other forms of abuse within a church besides sexual assault or physical contact. Some other instances of non-physical touch that might be considered sexual interference might involve expressing provocative or otherwise sexual comments. It might involve church officials speaking of their sexual escapes or experiences, and asking for personal details about your relationships’ intimate information.

- CP24: Civil Sexual Assault Lawsuit at St. Michael’s in Toronto
- CityNews: Jordan Donich comments to CityNews regarding challenges with Sexual Assault Trials in Toronto
- CityNews: Jordan Donich provides expert commentary to CityNews regarding Sexual Assault Prosecution.
- CBC Radio: Interview with Mayor John Tory and Jordan Donich on CBC Radio.
- Breakfast Television: Role of Mental Health in Court Proceedings.
- Global News National: Bruce McArthur will not serve consecutive sentences.
- CTV News National: Handgun ban supported by majority of Canadians: Nanos survey.
- CP24: Sentencing Hearing for Chair Girl.


What are the implications of being accused of institutional sexual abuse within a Church?
It is possible for the Church to be held vicariously liable for the misconduct, namely the sexual abuse of children, by its employees. This means the Church might be ordered by the Court to compensate victims if the abuse was closely connected to the Church leader’s actions and enabled by the institution.
Furthermore, accusations of sexual abuse can have an irreparably detrimental impact on the Church’s reputation and public trust, leading to a decline in membership, donations, and community support. Media coverage can amplify the negative impact and pressure Church leadership to respond appropriately.
Abuse allegations often lead to significant changes in church leadership, with bishops, priests, and other officials stepping down or being dismissed. To prevent future abuse, Churches may need to implement comprehensive policy reforms, including stricter screening processes for clergy, mandatory abuse prevention training, and clear procedures for reporting and handling abuse allegations.
The Church might also need to conduct internal investigations to discover the extent of the sexual abuse and address systemic issues. This process can be lengthy and disruptive to typical operations of the Church.
What are some defences for institutional sexual abuse in churches?
Without any extenuating circumstances, a Court will typically not impose vicarious liability on an institution only because of its employee’s sexual misconduct. According to case law, simply providing a chance or opportunity for an employee to engage in sexual assault is inadequate to reach such a conclusion that the institution is vicariously liable.
For example, school boards have many workers, including custodians, teachers, secretaries, principals, and computer technicians. Every one of these employees is assigned to a setting where they collaborate closely with kids. This means that there is almost always going to be the possibility of abuse and it can be quite challenging to eliminate the chance for abuse all together. Case law demonstrates that more is needed for the school board to be held vicariously liable than just this opportunity to take advantage.
In previous case law, the Court decided that vicarious liability might be applied if there was a reasonable connection between the attacker’s position and authority and the conduct that the superiors or managers of the institution allowed to happen.
Common Sexual Assault Defences used by Lawyers

When Does a Behaviour Turn into a Sexual Assault?
Priests engaging in sexual activity or acting in a sexualized manner is unethical, and illegal in many cases. A person serving in a ministerial capacity and a member of their congregation possess different levels of power. You are unable to give valid consent to a sexual encounter with a Church leader as a result of this.
When people are facing difficulties in life, individuals typically turn to their religious leader for help. You can be emotionally manipulated by a religious leader when you are under coercion or pressure, which could be either indirect or direct. For instance, you might feel pressured to engage in the sexual activities they are asking you to do because you are afraid they might tell your parents something to get you into trouble if you do not comply with their demands. They could get frustrated when you reject their advances, indirectly subjecting you to a form of coercion.
Some signs of sexual abuse might start off with the clergyman or priest showing you an unusual high level of attention in a way that makes you feel “special”. The victim’s interactions with their religious leader might be leaving you feeling uneasy, uncomfortable, and/or confused. Another sign might be that the priest extends an invitation to you and you only for private, social events.
Please note that these are only signs and are not a necessary indicator of sexual abuse. It must be viewed in the broader context of the circumstances.
New Changes to Sexual Assault Laws in 2024
What are some factors that make it more difficult to disclose sexual abuse in the Church?
Survivors of sexual assault in religious institutions—especially churches—face distinct and difficult obstacles. In contrast to other organizations, the close spiritual bond between clergy and congregants frequently cultivates a kind of atmosphere of profound sanctity and trust, which makes it more difficult for survivors to come out with their experiences of sexual abuse. It is more difficult to disclose these spiritual experiences because of the fear of severing family and community ties that are associated with such spiritual connection. Survivors often have a deep spiritual struggle as they attempt to make sense and meaning of the betrayal they have experienced and their faith. Since members of many religious organizations are close-knit and frequently hold the church in high regard, disclosure may be further impeded by fears of not being believed or being ostracized from family and fellow members. This fearful and reverent atmosphere can pose significant challenges to justice and support for those affected by sexual abuse within these institutions.
Recent Cases
John Doe v. Bennett, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 436, 2004 SCC
In John Doe v. Bennett, the Court considered the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. George’s liability for a priest’s sexual abuse. The corporation was held to be accountable for the abuse both directly and indirectly by the court. The bishops’ negligence was shown by them taking inadequate steps to stop the abuse from happening, even after becoming aware of it. This helped to establish their liability. Because of the relationship between the church and the priest, whereby the church’s policies and practices fostered an atmosphere that permitted the abuse, vicarious liability was established.
This holding by the Church emphasized that ecclesiastical companies bear accountability for the conduct of their priests, particularly in cases when the abuse is facilitated by the institutional framework and power dynamics. This ruling shows us the duty of care owed by religious institutions to their congregants and emphasizes the legal culpability of those institutions for failing to prevent or treat sexual abuse by their clergy.
B.N. v. Anglican Church, 2020 MBQB 2
This case dealt with a plaintiff who was sexually assaulted by a priest, J.H., throughout her childhood years. The assaults took place in the basement of the Church while B.N. attended Sunday School.
The Court assessed whether the Diocese of Brandon was vicariously liable for J.H.’s actions. Vicarious liability means that an employer can be held responsible for the actions of their employees if those actions are closely related to the tasks the employees were assigned to perform and if the employer’s enterprise significantly increased the risk of such actions occurring.
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine where an institution (such as a Church) can be held liable for the wrongful actions of its employees if those actions are closely connected to their duties and if the institution’s operations increased the risk of such actions occurring. This liability is based on the role that the Institution played in creating, enabling, or enhancing the risk of sexual abuse occurring.
The relationship between J.H. and the Diocese of Brandon was analogous to an employment relationship. The Diocese had significant control over J.H., including his placement, duties, and discipline.
The Court found that the Diocese of Brandon was vicariously liable for J.H.’s actions. The significant connection between J.H.’s role within the church, the opportunities his position provided, and the abuse he committed led to this conclusion. The Diocese’s control over J.H. and the trust placed in him by the community were critical factors in establishing vicarious liability.
This case serves as an important precedent in understanding how vicarious liability applies to religious institutions and the measures they must take to prevent and address abuse within their organizations.
Doe v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver, 2023 BCSC 833
In Doe v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver (2023 BCSC 833), the plaintiff, known as John Doe, sued the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver for sexual abuse by two members of the Church while he was a child attending Holy Trinity Elementary School and parish in North Vancouver. The provides gives us a significant example of how the Court might handle institutional liability for instances of sexual abuse committed by clergy members.
Vicarious liability makes an institution, like a Church, accountable for the wrongful acts of its members if those actions are closely linked to their official duties and if the institution’s environment contributed to enabling those wrongful acts of sexual abuse.
The plaintiff argued that because of the priests’ positions, which gave them the ability and power to commit the abuse, the Church should be held vicariously accountable for the harm they endured. There was a clear link between the wrongdoing and the priests’ roles because of the Church’s influence over them and their positions of power.
The plaintiff further claimed that the Church was directly negligent in failing to safeguard them from abuse, pointing to insufficient supervision and rules as contributing causes.
This case serves as a reminder of the legal doctrine that holds religious organizations, such as churches, accountable for the deeds of their clergy members when those deeds are directly related to their employment and supported by the institutional setting.
The case highlights the need of religious establishments putting policies in place and upholding them to stop sexual assault and safeguard vulnerable people, like children. Not doing so may expose you to serious legal consequences.