BC Supreme Court approves partial settlement in class action for abuse of Metro Vancouver students

In a class proceeding alleging abuse by current or former members of the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada, the British Columbia Supreme Court approved the plaintiffs’ settlement with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver (RCAV) and two Metro Vancouver schools. 

The class action in Liptrot v Vancouver College Limited, 2026 BCSC 1432, originated from claims of physical and sexual abuse of children at the Mount Cashel orphanage in St. John’s, Newfoundland, from the 1950s to the 1970s. 

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, senior Christian Brothers allegedly arranged the transfers of six Christian Brothers from Mount Cashel to Vancouver College and St. Thomas More Collegiate in Metro Vancouver. 

In the 1990s, after the abuse in Mount Cashel came to light, four of the six transferees received criminal convictions. 

Class action certified

The plaintiffs alleged that the Mount Cashel transferees and other Christian Brothers physically, sexually, or psychologically abused students enrolled at the two schools from 1976–2013. 

According to the plaintiffs, the senior Christian Brothers who arranged the transfers held leadership positions at the two schools, had connections with the office of the RCAV, and knew what had happened at Mount Cashel. 

On Mar. 8, 2023, the Supreme Court of British Columbia certified the class action under BC’s Class Proceedings Act, 1996 (CPA). 

Settlement agreement signed

Last Feb. 4, the RCAV and the two schools signed a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. These three settling defendants agreed to pay $30 million in total to the class members, subject to court approval under s. 35 of the CPA.

Despite the expiry of the opt-out deadline, 12 former students applied to opt out of the class proceedings and instead bring individual suits against the settling defendants. 

British Columbia Supreme Court approves settlement

The BC Supreme Court approved the settlement agreement as fair, reasonable, and in the class members’ best interests. The court pointed out that the representative plaintiffs and many class members strongly supported the agreement. 

According to the court, the settlement agreement’s benefits included:

• $30 million to resolve the class members’ claims against the settling defendants 
• a non-adversarial and trauma-informed setting for class members to pursue their compensation claims 
• an individualized and confidential claims assessment process 
• compensation provided earlier than from continuing the litigation 

Issues if BC Supreme Court denies settlement

Without an approved settlement, the BC Supreme Court explained that class members might have to: 

• Undergo a lengthy and difficult common issues trial, especially if needing to testify 
• Address the remaining individual issues, including causation and damages, in an adversarial context if the common issues case succeeded 
• Forgo privacy and control over their personal accounts of abuse 
• Face the possibility that the settling defendants’ liability insurance would not cover their damages 

As asserted by CFM Lawyers, the plaintiffs’ counsel, the court agreed that, given the coverage issues: 

• The settling defendants and their insurers were unlikely to pay over $30 million 
• The insurers might not cover the damages if the trial revealed that senior Christian Brothers withheld information about the Mount Cashel abuse and the transfer of some abusers to the two schools 
• Without insurance coverage, enforcing a judgment against the settling defendants’ assets could lead to delay and difficulties with recovery 

Legal fee

The BC Supreme Court also approved the 29 percent contingency fee and expenses sought by CFM Lawyers. In approving this request, the court recognized class counsel’s: 

• commitment to the class members’ cause 
• thorough investigation, analysis, and prosecution of the complex litigation 
• assessment that the settlement would serve the class members’ best interests 

Late opt-outs

The BC Supreme Court decided that approving the late opt-outs sought by the 12 applicants would serve the interests of justice because: 

• The scope of the settlement agreement’s release terms negatively affected the applicants’ individual litigation rights in ways that they could not reasonably foresee by the opt-out deadline 
• The delay did not prejudice the defendants 
• Survivors of serious abuse and harm often benefited from retaining the ability to control their litigation against those responsible 
• The plaintiffs supported the opt-outs even if they might jeopardize the settlement agreement 

BC’s prior personal injury cases

Here are some other injury-related decisions in British Columbia. 

In a matter arising from a personal injury proceeding, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia issued a June 15 ruling that the charge of the client’s former lawyer could still attach to a settlement even if no settlement existed during the termination of the retainer. 

In a negligence claim arising from a motor vehicle collision in Kelowna, the British Columbia Court of Appeal made a May 21 decision affirming a judge’s denial of the injured party’s claim for $312,000 in damages for loss of future earning capacity. 

Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury law news on the main page!