WATCH: Did the City of Westmount “turn a blind eye to disturbing and illegal behaviour” of a long-time employee? Anne Leclair talks with Benedict Matthew Bissonette, who is hoping to launch a class-action lawsuit against the city for ignoring ongoing alleged child abuse.
MONTREAL — Did the City of Westmount “turn a blind eye to disturbing and illegal behaviour” of a long-time employee?
Westmount has been targeted in a potential class action lawsuit related to the alleged sexual abuse of at least 50 boys, apparently referred to as “Johnny’s pets.”
A Los Angeles resident is hoping to launch a class-action lawsuit against the city of Westmount alleging negligence that resulted “in the repeated sexual assault of many children” in the city’s sports programs.
Benedict Matthew Bissonette filed a motion requesting permission to authorize the class action in the Quebec Superior Court on Friday.
Bissonette alleges that the city of Westmount “turned a blind eye to disturbing and illegal behaviour” of their long-time employee, John Garland, while he acted as Superintendent of the Westmount Parks and Recreation Department from 1953 to 1987.
Compensation is sought for all those who suffered due to the “trauma they experienced at the hands of John Garland.”
Why is Westmount being targeted?
At the time of the alleged faults, the Department of Parks and Recreation supervised 40 hockey teams on which 600 children played.
- Life in the forest: How Stanley Park’s longest resident survived a changing landscape
- ‘They knew’: Victims of sexual abuse by Ontario youth leader sue Anglican Church
- Carbon rebate labelling in bank deposits fuelling confusion, minister says
- Buzz kill? Gen Z less interested in coffee than older Canadians, survey shows
Bissonette alleges that the city of Westmount was aware or should have been aware of the faults committed by its employee John Garland in the performance of his duties as Superintendent of the department.
According to the claim, while working for the city, Garland consistently took a special interest in one or two boys each year who participated in the department’s programs.
The motion to institute the class action alleges that department participants and employees referred to these boys as “Johnny’s pets.”
It suggests Garland would regularly allow these boys special access to the arena, including his personal locker.
It also alleges that he would invite these boys to his apartment in Westmount, where he lived alone, and would drive them home from the arena by car, claiming these apartment visits were common knowledge among department participants and employees.
According to the motion, as many as 50 boys were victims of Garland’s abuse.
The statement of claim says that many of these children would later develop serious psychological problems including but not limited to depression and drug or alcohol abuse.
Bissonette’s lawyer, Annabel Busbridge, told Global News that “we don’t have to know all the members of the class until a final judgement is rendered.”
Why is Bissonette coming forward today?
Global News spoke with Bissonette, who explained the sequence of events that led up to the motion deposed in court on Friday.
Bissonette said he later learned that the cops also did not keep a record of him filing the complaint. He said the police, by denying the existence of the problem, made it such that there would be no way to detect a pattern of abuse.
“I was lucky enough to have a great therapist and family around me to help me out.”
After struggling with alcohol, Bissonnette began to come to terms with what had happened.
“Getting sober, I later realized how unhealthy the situation in Westmount was.
“When I decided to re-open the matter and decided that I would bring the charges again, the pedophile, John Garland, died.”
This prevented Bissonette from being able to proceed with the criminal charges.
“It’s been a long road with some times when you wish it could have been dealt with earlier.”
“Hopefully the city will view this as a way to correct a past wrong, to apologize to the victims and the Westmount community, and to the people who suffered abuse.”
“I hope it creates a climate where victims feel comfortable to come forward.”
What are the legal arguments?
Primarily two legal claims are made in the motion.
First, Bissonette alleges that the city of Westmount, by keeping Garland in a position of authority, permitted him to regularly and consistently maintain unusual and inappropriately close relationships with the boys he supervised.
Second, Bissonette alleges that the city of Westmount failed to prevent Garland from assaulting the participants in its programs.
Accordingly, Bissonette claims that the city of Westmount is liable to compensate the victims for injuries caused by the faults of its employee, Garland, in the performance of his duties.
Even though Garland is deceased, Bissonette’s lawyer told Global News that “his testimony is not directly pertinent to the allegations.”
“We are not suing Garland,” said Busbridge.
“We simply need to determine whether or not Westmount knew about his actions.”
What damages are sought?
Bissonette seeks $100,000 in damages for psychological and moral injuries, and $25,000 in punitive damages.
The motion also seeks that an amount (to be determined) be paid to all victims who are members of the class action.
Bissonette told Global News that the amount requested is low, relative to other similar lawsuits.
Suppose there really are 50 victims and all of them suffered similar levels of harm compared to Bissonette.
This would imply the city of Westmount could be facing a bill of approximately $5 million (assuming that the quantum of damages calculated by Bissonette’s lawyer is accurate).
Of course, for this bill to be paid, the class action would have to be authorized, and the judge would have to award all members of the class the sums requested by the motion.
For now, we are a long way from that possibility.
As Bissonette’s lawyer noted: “This is not about the money. It’s about recognizing something that went wrong and how to make it right going forward.”
Anyone who may have been affected by these allegations are invited to contact the legal team here.
Read the motion requesting permission to authorize the class action in the Quebec Superior Court here:
Comments