A court in Quebec has decided in favor of a Canadian cardinal who brought a defamation lawsuit against a woman who accused him of sexual assault. 

A Superior Court judge in Quebec issued the decision after Cardinal Marc Ouellet filed the lawsuit against Paméla Groleau, arguing that she had damaged his reputation, honor and dignity. 

Ouellet won 100 thousand Canadian dollars, which he pledged to donate to charities supporting Indigenous victims of sexual abuse.

In a statement, Ouellet said he was grateful “the civil justice system of my country has recognized that the allegations of sexual assault made against me were false and formulated with ‘extreme recklessness equivalent to malice.’” 

He expressed his gratitude that “the person concerned has been held responsible for the ‘infamous’ and defamatory statements made against me and widely circulated throughout the world.”

He said he supports “substantiated victims in their pursuit of restorative justice” and stated that he has a personal “commitment to continuing the fight within the Church and society against every form of abuse, particularly sexual abuse.”

The case

Groleau named Ouellet in a 2022 class-action lawsuit against the archdiocese of Quebec, which alleged sexual misconduct by members of the archdiocese.

Groleau said she met Ouellet several times between 2008 and 2010 during her training as a lay pastoral agent in the archdiocese. She said the cardinal engaged in multiple instances of inappropriate conduct towards her, including unwanted touching.

Groleau first reported her allegations anonymously in 2008 to a church advisory committee and then again in 2021 to Pope Francis. The complaint was rejected in 2022.

Justice Martin Castonguay found the accusations not to be credible and wrote that Groleau did not act as a “reasonable person” and that she behaved “recklessly or even maliciously” towards Ouellet.

He also said that after she was unhappy with the response she got from Pope Francis, Groleau changed her account of events in order to get public attention.

He also argued that the evidence proved the accusations were unfounded and that Groleau herself eventually said that only one of the incidents constituted sexual assault.

The incident in question allegedly occurred in 2010 during a priestly ordination. Groleau said the cardinal slid his hand down her back until touching the upper part of her buttocks, which Ouellet denied.

The judge gave credence to Ouellet’s account and pointed out that the then archbishop was holding a crozier during the time the incident was alleged to have taken place.

“Regarding that specific incident, Groleau admits to having altered her account to state that Cardinal Ouellet touched her buttocks, fully aware that the average person would interpret this as touching the curve of the buttocks, which was not the case in reality, nor in her earlier versions,” the judge wrote.

The ruling stated that “the core of the class action is based on the experiences of seven children who were victims of paedophile members of the clergy during a dark period in Quebec’s history, when religious personnel controlled the education system.”

“This is the infamy of which Cardinal Ouellet complains: namely, that he was associated with paedophiles in the proceedings relating to the class action,” the ruling added.

The trial took place last March, during which other women testified, saying Ouellet engaged in other inappropriate behavior. 

One of these incidents involved the cardinal putting a 50 dollar note into the neckline of a woman’s jumper, which Ouellet conceded was a “clumsy mistake”, but he denied sexual intent.

______

You are reading this Crux Now article for free. You can register for our free daily newsletter here, and you can become a Crux Now supporter for full access to all our premium content here. To find out more about why becoming a Crux Now supporter is a great idea, go here.