Quebec Cardinal Marc Ouellet expressed his gratitude today after winning a civil defamation suit against a woman who accused him of sexual misconduct as part of a class-action lawsuit.
Superior Court Justice Martin Castonguay ruled on Monday that Paméla Groleau’s accusations against Ouellet were unfounded and ordered her to pay him $100,000.
Ouellet issued a brief written statement today from his residence in Rome, Italy.
Get breaking National news
Get breaking Canada news delivered to your inbox as it happens so you won’t miss a trending story.
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News’ Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
In it, he expresses his gratitude to the civil justice system and thanks his lawyers and the witnesses who testified.
Groleau had accused Ouellet of touching her without consent on three occasions between 2008 and 2010, while she was training or working for the church.
Ouelette reiterated his plan to donate the $100,000 in damages to organizations fighting sexual abuse against Indigenous Peoples in Canada.
- New Brunswick wants public feedback on data centre plan
- 7K walking pads sold at Canadian Tire recalled due to electrical hazard
- B.C. MLA Hon Chan pleads not guilty in alleged intimate partner violence case
- Port of Churchill resumes grain shipments for 1st time in 6 years
-
DeGroote professor dissects intensifying Canada-U.S. trade war
-
‘Lake Ontario, actually’: Adam van Koeverden responds to Trump’s ‘Lake America’ name change
-
‘What an embarrassment’: Eby derides controversial Hegseth post about B.C. cadets
-
Eby thinks B.C. NDP candidate will beat ‘hateful, divisive’ Kerry-Lynne Findlay in byelection
Story continues below advertisement
“I pledge to continue the fight within the Church and in society against every form of abuse, particularly sexual abuse, and I unreservedly support substantiated victims in their pursuit of restorative justice,” he writes.
Castonguay’s 52-page ruling, handed down Monday at the Montreal courthouse, is harsh on Groleau.
The judge concluded that her testimony “was neither credible nor reliable.” He noted that she changed her account of the facts several times and that the alleged incidents took place during public events attended by other people.

