COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Huscroft, Dawe and Wilson JJ.A.
BETWEEN
M.B.
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
The Basilian Fathers of Toronto* and Thomas Michael Rosica
Defendants (Appellant*)
John K. Downing and Jack Masterman, for the appellant
Ondrej Sabo, for the respondent
Heard and rendered orally: June 3, 2026
On appeal from the order of Justice Evelyn M. ten Cate of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 7, 2025, with reasons at 2025 ONSC 4588 and 2025 ONSC 5347.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The appellant, the Basilian Fathers of Toronto, raises two grounds of appeal.
2First, the appellant alleges that the motion judge erred by considering an academic article and case law that had not been put before her by the parties, without giving them an opportunity to make submissions about them. The appellant argues that this breached the rules of natural justice.
3We disagree. The cases the appellant relies on all involved situations where judges relied on facts that were not in the record. The motion judge’s quotation from an academic article criticizing this court’s decision in Hart v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of the Diocese of Kingston, 2011 ONCA 728, 344 D.L.R. (4th) 332 did not breach the rules of natural justice or otherwise taint the decision.
4Under Hart, the test is whether the plaintiff’s dispute with the defendants is “ecclesiastical in nature and subject to canon law”: Hart, at para. 23. The gravamen of the plaintiff’s action is his allegation that he was sexually assaulted by another priest – the individual defendant – and that the appellant was negligent in not preventing the assault. We are not persuaded that the motion judge erred by finding that the civil courts have jurisdiction over these claims.
5We also do not agree that the motion judge made reversible errors when she exercised her discretion under Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, 343 D.L.R. (4th) 577. She properly set out the relevant factors that she had to consider and balance. The appellant has not established any errors in her analysis, let alone palpable and overriding errors.
6The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent are fixed in the amount of $14,000 all inclusive.
“Grant Huscroft J.A.”
“J. Dawe J.A.”
“D.A. Wilson J.A.”