Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE LARRY PHILIP FONTAINE in his personal capacity and in his capacity as the Executor of the estate of Agnes Mary Fontaine, deceased, MICHELLINE AMMAQ, PERCY ARCHIE, CHARLES BAXTER SR., ELIJAH BAXTER, EVELYN BAXTER, DONALD BELCOURT, NORA BERNARD, JOHN BOSUM, JANET BREWSTER, RHONDA BUFFALO, ERNESTINE MICHAEL CARPAN, BRENDA CYR, DEANNA CYR, MALCOLM DAWSON, ANN DENE, BENNY DOCTOR, LUCY DOCTOR, JAMES FONTAINE in his personal capacity and in his capacity as the Executor of the Estate of Agnes Mary Fontaine, deceased, VINCENT BRADLEY FONTAINE, DANA EVA MARIE FRANCEY, PEGGY GOOD, FRED KELLY, ROSEMARIE KUPTANA, ELIZABETH KUSIAK, THERESA LAROCQUE, JANE CORNELIUS VERONICA MARTEN, STANLEY THOMAS NEPETAYPO, FLORA NORTHWEST, NORMAN PAUCHEY, CAMBLE QUATELL, ALVIN BARNEY SAULTEAUX, CHRISTINE SEMPLE, DENNIS SMOKEYDAY, KENNETH SPARVIER, EDWARD TAPIATIC, HELEN WINDERMAN and ADRIAN YELLOWKNEE Plaintiffs ?and~ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN CANADA, THE GENERAL SYNOD OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA, THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA, THE BOARD OF HOME MISSIONS OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA, THE MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, THE BAPTIST CHURCH IN CANADA, BOARD OF HOME MISSIONS AND SOCIAL SERVICES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN BAY, THE CANADA IMPACT NORTH MINISTRIES OF THE COMPANY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL IN NEW ENGLAND (also known as THE NEW ENGLAND COMPANY), THE DIOCESE OF SASKATCHEWAN, THE DIOCESE OF THE SYN OD OF CARIBOO, THE FOREIGN MISSION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN CANADA, THE INCORPORATED SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF HURON, THE METHODIST CHURCH OF CANADA, THE MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA, THE MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF THE METHODIST CHURCH OF CANADA (ALSO KNOWN AS THE METHODIST MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF CANADA), THE INCORPORATED SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF ALGOMA, THE SYNOD OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF THE DIOCESE OF QUEBEC, THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF ATHBASCA, THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF BRANDON, THE ANGLICAN SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF CALGARY, THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF KEEWATIN, THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF THE SYN OD OF THE DIOCESE OF NEW WESTMINISTER, THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF YUKON, THE TRUSTEE BOARD OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN CANADA, THE BOARD OF HOME MISSIONS AND SOCIAL SERVICE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF CANADA, THE MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA, SISTERS OF CHARITY, A BODY CORPORATE ALSO KNOWN AS SISTERS OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL, HALIFAX, ALSO KNOWN AS SISTERS OF CHARITY HALIFAX, ROMAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF HALIFAX, LES SOEURS DE NOTRE AUXILIATRICE, LES SOEURS DE ST. FRANCOIS INSITUT DES SOEURS DU BON CONSEIL, LES SOEURS DE DE LES SOEURS DE JESUS-MARIE, LES SOEURS DE DE LA SAINTE VIERGE, LES SOEURS DE DE LA SAINT VIERGE DE LES SOEURS DE LA DE ST.-HYACINTHE, LES OEUVRES OBLATES DE LES RESIDENCES OBLATES DU QUEBEC, LA CORPORATION EPISCOPALE CATHOLIQUE ROMAINE DE LA BAIE JAMES (THE ROMAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF JAMES BAY), THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF MOOSONEE, SOEURS GRISES DE NUNS OF MONTREAL, SISTERS OF CHARITY (GREY NUNS) OF ALBERTA, LES SOEURS DE LA CHARITE DES T.N.O., HOTEL-DIEU DE NICOLET, THE GREY NUNS OF MANITOBA INC-LES SOEURS GRISES DU MANITOBA INC., LA CORPORATION EPISCOPALE CATHOLIQUE ROMAINE DE LA BAIE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF BAY, MISSIONARY OBLATES GRANDIN PROVINCE, LES OBLATS DE MARIE IMMACULEE DU MANITOBA, THE ARCHIEPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF REGINA, THE SISTERS OF THE PRESENTATION, THE SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF SAULT ST. MARIE, SISTERS OF CHARITY OF OTTAWA, OBLATES OF MARY IMMACULAT PROVINCE, THE SISTERS OF SAINT ANN, SISTERS OF INSTRUCTION OF THE CHILD JESUS, THE BENEDICTINE SISTERS OF MT. ANGEL OREGON, LES PERES MONTFORTAINS, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF KAMLOOPS CORPORATION SOLE, THE BISHOP OF VICTORIA, CORPORATION SOLE, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NELSON, CORPORATION SOLE, ORDER OF THE OBLATES OF MARY IMMACULATE IN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, THE SISTERS OF CHARITY OF PROVIDENCE OF WESTERN CANADA, LA CORPORATION EPISCOPALE CATHOLIQUE ROMAINE DE GROUARD, ROMAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF KEEWATIN, LA CORPORATION ARCHIEPISCOPALE CATHOLIQUE ROMAINE DE ST. BONIFACE, LES MISSIONNAIRES OBLATES SISTERS DE ST. BONIFACE-THE MISSIONARY OBLATES SISTERS OF ST. BONIFACE, ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHIEPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF WINNIPEG, LA CORPORATION EPISCOPALE CATHOLIQUE ROMAINE DE PRINCE ALBERT, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF THUNDER BAY, IMMACULATE HEART COMMUNITY OF LOS ANGELES CA, ARCHDIOCESE OF VANCOUVER THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF VANCOUVER, ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF WHITEHORSE, THE CATHOLIC EPISCOPALE CORPORATION OF MACKENZIE-FORT SMITH, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF PRINCE RUPERT, EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF SASKATOON, OMI LACOMBE CANADA INC. and MT. ANGEL ABBEY INC. AMENDED REQUEST FOR DIRECTIONS AND NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR RE-HEARING IAP Claim Number: A. PARTY REQUESTING DIRECTION FOR A RE-HEARING, et.al. 1. This Amended Request for Directions (RFD) is ?led on behalf of the former student of St. Anne?s IRS, Whose IAP application form was assigned the IAP claim number 15019 (?The Applicant?). The Applicant is seeking the relief set out below. B. 2. RELIEF REQUESTED The Applicant seeks: a. A Preliminary Order: (1) (ii) To direct Canada to update its Certi?cate of Completion of Canada?s Documents and to ?le the amended narrative, POI reports, related source documents/summaries for St. Anne?s IRS in accordance with the Orders of Justice Perell dated January 14, 2014 and June 23, 2015 including for the named by the Applicant in the IAP hearing transcripts and/or his af?davit dated December 4, 2015; ?lings to be ?le with the IRS Adjudication Secretariat through EDI for H-15019 along with transcripts, decisions and other documents; federal of?cials responsible for Canada?s EDI ?lings shall have access to the Applicant?s Record through Ms. Catherine Coughlan or Mr. Brent Thompson; and To seal from public disclosure, the appropriate IAP materials; documents for H-15019, plus the af?davit from the Applicant claimant in on terms that allow the IAP ?lings to be reviewed by Justice Perell and to direct legal counsel for the parties to this RFD to protect con?dentiality of all IAP ?lings viewed for the purpose only of this and in any event, by publication bag, to protect the identity of the Applicant and/or the contents of the Applicant?s story by removing names and the identifying features that could cause the identity of the Applicant and/or family members from being disclosed in any public records; and to allow for an in?camera hearing, in?whelaer in part, when reference is made to the testimeny, sew documents and transcripts in H-15019 as necessary for the purpose of this submissions for Sealing Order and publication ban should be available to Mushkegowuk Council through Edmund Metatawabin, and notice requested to be allowed to the public/media of the request for Sealing Order and publication ban; and To direct that Canada shall ?le a Responding Application Record, setting out its legal support or opposition to this RF D, including the Resolution of Mushkegowuk Council, and to direct that Canada ?le af?davit evidence, from DOJ Counsel, Ms. Gail Soonarane and Ms. Catherine Coughlan, to explain: 8) b) Who decided and by what process, that the ?ndings and Order of the Court dated January 14, 2014 for proper documentary disclosure were not honoured for the Applicant in for both the ?nal submissions for the IAP hearing on July 25, 2014 and for the subsequent Review in 2014/2015; and Who decided and by what process, that and lawyers for the Catholic Church entities at St. Anne?s IRS, withheld the same 12,300 documents about abuse at St. Anne?s IRS from the Secretariat, contrary to Appendices and IV of Schedule and/or Articles 2.9 and 2.10 of Schedule 0-3 to the IRSSA, which documents were withheld and/or false Narrative and P01 reports were used in IAP hearings for St. Anne?s survivors from 2006 until compliance with St. Anne?s RFD #1 started around August 2014; and to reveal any oral or written agreement/understanding between lawyers for Canada and the Catholic entities that operated St. Anne?s IRS, after the Cochrane Civil Actions were settled, regarding use/disclosure of the 12,300 documents about abuse of IRS children' and What steps, if any, have been taken by Canada and/or the Catholic Church entities since January 14, 2014 to identify IAP claims regarding abuse at St. Anne?s IRS, where the compensation was denied and/or possibly undercompensated, and an IAP Claimant (1V) (V) (vi) (represented by legal counsel or self-represented) could reasonably be expected to argue that the newest 2015 Narrative, POI reports and source documents corroborate the IAP claim such as 019; and what steps have been taken to ?le admissions for SOS abuse at St. Anne?s IRS. To allow the IAP hearing Adiudicator in H-15019 to be given a copy of the unredacted form of the af?davit of the Applicant sworn December 4, 2015 (without exhibits) and all POI reports that should have been ?led by Canada, and to direct that IAP Adiudicator to ?le an af?davit to the Court as to Whether or not the IAP hearing Adiudicator told the Applicant, outside the IAP hearing, that the Adiudicator believed the Applicant, as per paragraph 19 of the af?davit of the Applicant sworn December 4, 2015, and to advise the Court Why ?nal submissions and/or ?nal disposition did not require the reports and documents due from Canada under Order of Justice Perell in St. Anne?s RFD and To direct the IAP review Adindicator in H-15109 to be given a copy of the newest Narrative and P01 reports of Canada that should have been ?led by Canada in and to ?le an af?davit to advise the Court why the IAP review did not require disclosure as ordered by the Court in St. Anne?s RFD #1 and also advise the Court why the IAP review in H-15019 did not await the outcome of St. Anne?s RFD #2 (?led and underway since November 2014); and To direct that the Catholic Church entities that operated St. Anne?s IRS shall ?le a response to this RFD, and evidence as to whether the . documentary disclosure requirements of Appendices HI and IV of Schedule and Articles 2.9, 2.10 and 2.12 of Schedule 0 to the IRSSA, have been ful?lled and if not, Why not; and any evidence material thereto and/or to this and (vii) To direct Canada and the Catholic Church entities that operated St. Anne?s, to ?le af?davit evidence as to whether the Defendants paid a settlement to the Plaintiffs in the following Cochrane Civil Actions and to produce redacted excerpts of the allegations of abuse contained in the transcripts of examinations for discovery for the following Cochrane Civil Actions to the Court and Applicant counsel under seal: a. FTA 041124 (pg. 61,2015 POI report); b. FTA 040919 (pg. 68, 2015 report); c. FTA 041238, FTA 041270; FTA 041268; FTA 041271; FTA 041233; FTA 041232; FTA 041282 (pg. 70, 2015 POI report); d. FTA 040440 (pg. 72, 2015 POI report); e. FTA 040116 (pg. 72, 2015 POI report); f. FTA 040256 (pg. 78, 2015 POI report); g. FTA 040115 (pg. 80,2015 POI report); h. FTA 041019 (pg. 82, 2015 POI report); i. FTA 040159 (pg. 83,2015 P01 report); j. FTA 040121 (pg. 85, 2015 POI report); and To direct the Chief Adiudicator to ?le af?davit evidence of the Secretariat, to advise the Court why and under what process, the Secretariat did not enforce the Order of this Court under St. Anne?s RFD and did not compel Canada to ?le remedial documentary and report disclosure in prior to ?nal disposition by the IAP hearing Adiudicator, and/or by the review Adiudicator, and to con?rm that no documents were ever received/ gathered by the Secretariat from b. (ix) (X) An Order: (1) (ii) (iv) the Catholic Church entities that operated St. Anne?s IRS, pursuant to Appendix IV item of Schedule to the IRS and Advance costs of $40,000.00 to the Applicant, towards fees, taxes and disbursements of Applicant counsel and for disbursements incurred for the Applicant to attend all public proceedings before the Court on this and To direct any other terms necessary to provide access to the Count by this Applicant in this re~hearing process, which terms this Honourable Court deems just, in the context of supervising administration of justice under the IAP process of the IRSSA, To give leave to the Applicant to amend his written IAP application within 30 days of being granted a re?hearing; and To adjudicate the IAP claim in on all the proper evidence, under the IAP, to prevent abuse of process and to address the fact that three IAP Adjudicators failed to enforce the Orders of this Court in St Anne?s RFD #1 and to provide rulings on the admissibility and use of the new evidence; and To consider payment of aggravated and/or punitive damages, and any other proper remedies for breach of IRSSA, to IAP Claimants prejudiced by the Defendants? failure to make documentary disclosure to the IAP and proper reports thereupon, until November 2015, such as the Applicant in and Alternatively, to direct the Chief Adj udicator to oversee the re-hearing of IAP claim H-15019 on the correct documentary record, by a fresh IAP adjudicator who is fully familiar with the additional documents (V) (Vi) (vii) for St. Anne?s IRS under the Orders of Mr. Justice Perell dated January 14, 2014 and June 23, 2015; and, if the Applicant?s testimony is found credible, to have the Secretariat arrange a evaluation of the Applicant as to the level of harm suffered by the Applicant plausibly linked to the abuse so found; and To remove lawyers from the Department of Justice (DOJ) from representing Canada or any Defendant in all IAP re-hearing processes brought by former students of St. Anne?s IRS, such as in and To direct IAP adjudicators as to the rules of evidence in the IAP and as to prevention of ?abuse of legal process?, that apply to the corroborating evidence contained in new narrative, POI reports and summaries, and/or source documentation about sexual and physical abuse at St. Anne?s, in the private and confidential IAP hearings and/or re-hearings, when IAP claimants seek to rely upon that and/or evidence to prove compensable abuse and/or harms aggravating factors in the IAP process; and To estop legal counsel for Canada and/or for the Catholic church entities that operated St. Anne?s IRS, during the confidential and private IAP hearings for St. Anne?s claimants (including in H-15019), from opposing the admissibility of criminal trial transcripts and signed statements of former students to the OPP and/or from denying the attendance of adult supervisors at St. Anne?s during times that are now substantiated in the documents of the Catholic Church obtained by the OPP under search warrant (but never directly filed by the Defendants for the IAP process); and To View the Applicant?s IAP claim for the purpose of determining whether other former students of St. Anne?s IRS may have been prejudiced in the outcome of his/her IAP claims, similar to the (1X) (X) Applicant, due to the lack of documentary disclosure and proper reports to adiudicators and claimants from St. Anne?s IRS, contrary to the rights of claimants under Schedule to the IRSSA. The failure of Defendant and/or Secretariat initiated remedial review of St. Anne?s IRS IAP cases for possible prejudice should be found. The failure of the Chief Adiudicator to participate in this RFD, and his failure to enforce the Court Order dated January 14, 2014 should be found. The Applicant, as a member of one of the First Nations that comprise Mushkegowuk Council, asks this Honourable Court to remedy the non?disclosure breach of the IRSSA by Canada and the Catholic Church entities that operated St. Anne?s IRS, and consider the Resolution of Mushkegowuk Council dated October 22, 2015 to endure justice is done for survivors of St. Anne?s and To determine a fair and expeditious process for the IAP claims of former students of St. Anne?s IRS decided prior to November 1, 2015, to be reviewed for obtaining legal advice for possible re?hearings, including consideration of the resolution of Mushkegowuk Council dated October 22, 2015; and To direct a speci?c reasonable and fair ?at legal fee (exclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements) that will be paid by Canada, regardless of outcome, to claimant counsel who provide legal services for the re-hearing process to IAP claimants from St. Anne?s IRS, for each of the following steps: 1) to meet the IAP claimant, to review the ?le and documentaiy evidence and to provide independent legal advice whether to seek a re-hearing; 2) if so instructed, to seek a re- hearing Order from the Court; 3) to conduct the re-hearing process; and 10 (xi) To direct the Chief Adjudicator to establish and maintain a short list of experienced claimant counsel who are approved to provide such St. Anne?s re-hearing legal services; and (xii) To direct the Secretariat to fund approved claimant counsel and designated agents of St. Anne?s Survivors Association, to attend a legal education conference for the purpose of representing St. Anne?s claimants in these separate and con?dential IAP hearings and/or re- hearings; and Or alternatively to items (vii) to above, if amendment of the IRSSA is required to provide justice to former students of St. Anne?s IRS due to the disclosure breach of the IRSSA by the Defendants between 2007 and November 1, 2015, for this Honourable Court to exercise its equitable and supervisory powers to mandate Oversight Committee to conduct a review as to how to provide legal advice and representation to St. Anne?s IAP claimants for possible re~hearings, and to mandate Oversight Committee to thereafter make recommendations to National Administration Committee and the Court in that regard; and (xiv) Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just. C. GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST FOR DIRECTIONS 3. The Applicant in IAP claim number H-15019 testified in May 2013, but was denied any compensation by the TAP Hearing adjudicator in September 2014 and also denied any compensation by the Review Adjudicator in April 2015. The Applicant had testi?ed that he had been sexually abused by a Priest over many years when the Applicant was forced as a child to attend St. Anne?s IRS. 4. The Applicant is seeking a re?hearing of IAP claim number on the basis that his legal rights were substantively violated by the Defendants. The Defendants failed to file the correct narrative, POI reports, and source documentation/summaries required for this St. Anne?s ll IAP claim; had the Defendants disclosed and ?led the correct evidence and reports that were actually due, as per Appendix and the Orders of Mr. Justice Perell dated January 14, 2014 and June 23, 2015, the hearing adjudicator and/or review adjudicator would likely have come to a different conclusion and rejected attacks on the credibility of the Applicant. 5. The remedial disclosure of evidence and reports this month detail the abuse of children at St. Anne?s IRS, and proves modus operandi of the in question in this claim, along with widespread abuse of children at St. Anne?s IRS. Under the TAP, evidence that is reliable and trustworthy in the circumstances is admissible to prove the various elements of the IAP Claim and to refute reliability and credibility challenges by the Defendants. 6. The legal justice system in Ontario has been involved for many years in investigating, documenting and addressing the abuse of children at St. Anne?s IRS. Between 1992 and 1997, the OPP conducted a special investigation of St. Anne?s IRS and the OPP obtained documents from the Catholic Church under Court?issued search warrants. The Catholic Church documents provide evidence of names, religious names, date of birth, positions and dates of attendance/employment of adult supervisors at St. Anne?s (?Catholic Church documents?). Those Catholic Church documents were never filed by the Catholic Church for the TAP from 2006 to 2014 and only now appear due to the earlier search warrants obtained by the OPP from the Court in the OPP investigation process. 7. By way of an Order of Justice Trainor of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dated August 1, 2003 in the context of 156 civil actions out of Cochrane, Ontario, DOJ and the lawyers for the Catholic Church were given full access to all the documents from the OPP investigation of St. Anne?s IRS. Around that time, DOJ also gathered transcripts of criminal proceedings prosecuted by the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario (MAG) that resulted from the OPP legal investigation process. Those civil actions were settled by the Defendants following examinations for discovery. The DRP process then followed. 8. Under the IAP, from 2006 to 2014, the pre-2014 POI reports and source documents for many of the supervisors at St. Anne?s stated that certain supervisors were not known and/or details of service, names, etc. were incomplete. The Catholic Church documents came available 12 in the IAP in 2014, only because the OPP investigation records came forward under the Order of Justice Perell dated January 14, 2014. 9. The 2014 POI reports for St. Anne?s IRS are vastly different than the pre?2014 POI reports previously ?led by Canada. The Narrative for St. Anne?s details widespread abuse, corroborated by many sources. Some supervisors previously listed as supposedly unknown in pre?2014 POI reports, are clearly identi?ed in the Catholic Church documents and their modus operandi of abuse of children is fully supported in the new source documents. 10. All or most of the 12,300 additional documents about abuse at St. Anne?s IRS were being held in the possession of the Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers in Toronto and by the lawyers for the Catholic Church entities that operated St. Anne?s IRS, from 2003 until sometime in 2014. Compliance with the disclosure requirements of Appendix was not voluntary from DOJ or the lawyers for the Catholic Church, which came only as the result of the Orders of Justice Perell dated January 14, 2014 and June 23, 2015. A new Narrative has been produced in or around November 2015 . 11. The 2008 Narrative for St. Anne?s was false and many previous POI reports were false from 2006 until 2014, in comparison to the documents that were always in the possession of the DOJ and the lawyers for the Catholic Church. The IAP justice system should not simply ignore this new evidentiary record. No one in authority for the IAP is determining which individual IAP claimants have suffered substantive violation of his/her IAP claim. IAP Claimants cannot be expected to self?identify that his/her rights have been violated. 12. From the time that the IAP hearings started for St. Anne?s IAP claimants until now, DOJ lawyers have appeared at con?dential and private IAP hearings for St. Anne?s IAP claimants. DOJ appear without a client representative. No separate lawyer appears for the Catholic Church entities that operated at St. Anne?s in the con?dential IAP. 13. DOJ lawyers have challenged the credibility of IAP claimants from St. Anne?s IRS (such as the claimant in JET-15019) based upon the previous false Narrative and/or incomplete/false POI reports. In the private and con?dential IAP hearings, DOJ have made legal submissions on behalf of the Defendants for St. Anne?s IRS, to defeat IAP claims such as H-15019, based upon a l3 Narrative and P01 reports that DOJ knew or ought to have been known, to be erroneous and/0r false. Lawyers acting for Canada have special professional obligations to ensure as a democratically elected government, Canada complies with the law. 14. DOJ have receipt of every IAP claim from St. Anne?s, as well as the previous civil actions out of Cochrane Ontario, DR claims and ADR claims. DOJ had access to all the OPP investigation documents and transcripts of the criminal proceedings. However, the adjudicators in the IAP and the IAP claimants did not have full and organized disclosure that complied with the IRS SA, until now. 15. Contrary to the terms and spirit of Schedule to the IRSSA, IAP adjudicators did not have until now, the documents and reports as to the number of supervisors engaging in sexual and physical abuse of residential children at St. Anne?s. Adjudicators did not have that disclosure prior to questioning individual IAP claimants, prior to now. While not every 1AP claim requires corroboration, the remedial evidence and reports corroborate abuse and may change the outcome of IAP claims heard to date. 16. For the IAP claimant in H-15019, his hearing was held on May 30, 2013 alleging prolonged sexual abuse by a particular Priest. He testi?ed that the sexual abuse was facilitated by the Assistant Administrator of St. Anne?s IRS. The pre-2014 POI report filed by the Defendants erroneously stated that this Priest overlapped with the claimant at St. Anne?s only in 1973 and the 1975/76 school year. Before was resolved, the order and decision of Mr. Justice Perell dated January 14, 2014 were released. 17. During ?nal submissions for IAP claim on July 25, 2014, DOJ relied upon the pre?2014 POI report and source documentation for this Priest, and argued that the claimant?s story was improbable and not reliable/credible. DOJ relied upon the pre-2014 POI report, as evidence to prove that Priest overlapped by only two years with the claimant, whereas the testimony of the Applicant was that the Priest was abusing him at the school for many additional years. 18. Ten days before those ?nal submissions, on July 15, 2014, Canada had completed the new 2014 POI report for this Priest but it was not ?led. The new-2014 POI report, based upon an 14 additional 2500 pages of source documents, con?rms that the Priest actually had access to the St. Anne?s IRS children from 1938 until the IRS school closed in 1976. The 2014 POI report also con?rms the Priest was a serial sexual abuser whereas the pre-2014 POI report made no disclosure about any abuse by this Priest. 19. The IAP hearing adjudicator allowed ?nal submissions to proceed on July 25, 2014, without waiting for remedial disclosure as per the Order of Justice Perell dated January 14, 2014. No reason is given for proceeding in the absence of new disclosure. DOJ and the lawyers for the Catholic Church did not ?le the remedial disclosure in 019 at any time. 20. Furthermore, Canada never ?led the correct POI source documentation about the Assistant Administrator identi?ed in testimony by the Applicant, to have aided the Priest in the sexual abuse. The new 2014 POI report and additional source documents for this Assistant Administrator provide trustworthy evidence that many former students gave signed statements they had been sexually abused by this Assistant Administrator. There are also transcripts of a criminal trial wherein the Assistant Administrator was charged and tried for sexual abuse of another St. Anne?s school boy. The trial Judge stated in the trial transcripts that the Judge would have found this Assistant Administrator guilty of sexual abuse, at a lower standard of proof than the criminal onus of proof. 21. None of that evidence was made available to nor sought by the TAP hearing adjudicator for ?nal submissions on July 25, 2014. The TAP hearing adjudicator dismissed the TAP claim of the Applicant in September 2014, agreeing with the submissions of DOJ that the Applicant was not credible, using the pre?2014 POI report for the Priest and without requiring any POI information whatsoever for the Assistant Administrator. 22. The Chief Adjudicator was then requested to allow a review in October/November 2014. The Chief Adjudicator similarly did not require Canada to ?le the new narrative, new 2014 POI reports or remedial source documents relevant to this TAP claim. There was no enforcement of the Order of Justice Perell dated January 14, 2014 with respect to this IAP claimant. 23. In 2015, the review adjudicator assigned by the Chief Adjudicator did not seek the remedial documentation for this IAP claim. The review adjudicator does not appear to have been 15 familiar with St. Anne?s IRS, nor to even be aware there was remedial disclosure arising from the Order of Justice Perell dated January 14, 2014. The Review Adjudicator dismissed the request for review in April 2015, without regard to the new POI source documentation about the Priest or the Assistant Administrator. The Applicant received no compensation and was never sent for a assessment for high levels of harm evident in the mandatory documents. 24. The IAP claim of the Applicant was dismissed in part because DOJ attacked the Applicant?s credibility on the basis that his written application was inconsistent with the oral testimony. The Applicant in previously had other claimant counsel. The Applicant will provide evidence that between 2009 and the TAP hearing date in 2013, he never met privately with any lawyer to discuss the details of the sexual abuse he suffered and/or to receive legal advice about the signing of the written application form (prepared in the absence of the Applicant). That fact was not disclosed to the adjudicator during the TAP hearing, when the adjudicator questioned the Applicant about the written application as compared to the sworn testimony. At the IAP hearing, the Applicant testi?ed that he did not want to disclose by phone, to someone he had never met, the full details of the sexual abuse by the Priest over many years. 25. The Applicant will also provide evidence that he did not provide all the details of the sexual abuse and the role of the Assistant Administrator prior to the IAP hearing because he thought he could wait to tell the whole story at the TAP hearing. The Applicant was ill and under medical treatment at the time he signed the IAP application form in Januaiy 2011. No lawyer was present when the Applicant signed his Application form. 26. Former claimant counsel for this Applicant already had the documentation from the OPP investigation and criminal trials; arising from the Order of Justice Trainor in 2003, in the context of the Cochrane Civil actions. However, former claimant counsel never challenged Canada and/or the Catholic Church for failing to bring forward all that relevant documentation into the IAP. 27. This Applicant was never told by his former claimant counsel that documentation existed from third party sources to support the IAP claim in 019. 16 28. Former claimant counsel made no objections and did not seek the remedial POI report and source documentation for the Priest and Assistant Administrator, for ?nal submissions heard on July 25, 2014, nor for the Review in late 2014 and 2015. 29. Former claimant counsel did not advise the Applicant about his re-hearing options, when the Review decision also denied any compensation in 2015. Instead, mental health support workers providing health services to the Applicant (distraught at not being believed) advised the Applicant to seek advice from new legal counsel. 30. No one in the Secretariat identi?ed this matter for possible re?hearing. 31. The Chief Adiudicator will not participate in this RFD, but he did not enforce the disclosure required in H-15019 under the Order of the Court dated January 14, 2014, neither for ?nal submissions nor for the Review. The Catholic Church entities that operated St. Anne?s IRS will not participate in this RFD. Canada has not ?led any responding position or evidence to oppose this RFD and is thereby withholding material evidence on this RFD. ESTOPPEL AGAINST COUNSEL ARGUING AGAINST ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCE OF ADDITIONAL SOURCE DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTS FOR ST. IRS AND REMOVAL OF DOJ FROM RE-I-IEARING PROCEEDINGS 32. The transcripts of the ?nal submissions by DOJ in on July 25, 2014, and the Review decision, con?rm that DOJ used the pre?2014 POI report and source documents in evidence to prove when the Priest was at St. Anne?s and to argue against the credibility of the Applicant. The pie-2014 POI report was used again by Canada to defeat the Review. 33. After the remedial St. Anne?s disclosure, since August 1, 2014, DOJ now argue the opposite legal position, to object that the new remedial source documentation for St. Anne?s is inadmissible and irrelevant. These are opposite legal positions, being argued in separate IAP hearings to separate adjudicators, in private and con?dential IAP hearings. 34. A substantial wrong and miscarriage of justice has occurred. DOJ and lawyers for the Catholic Church withheld relevant, trustworthy and corroborating evidence from the adjudication 17 of this IAP claim and other St. Anne?s claims from 2007 to date. The remedial disclosure proves that enormous volumes of complex but reliable evidence exists to corroborate some IAP claims that were otherwise defeated or reduced. Each claimant is a person who believes he/she suffered abuse. Each confidential TAP hearing is in effect, the trial. IAP claimants do not know each other?s claims but DOJ know all the IAP claims from St. Anne?s. 35. The private and con?dential nature of the IAP process was not intended to allow DOJ, on behalf of the Defendants, to first hide documents and now take opposing legal positions in separate, non?public judicial proceedings, to defeat the TAP claims of St. Anne?s former students. The administration of justice will be brought into disrepute if DOJ lawyers are allowed to appear again, making opposite arguments and having appeared at the ?rst TAP hearing not having disclosed what ought to have been disclosed since 2007. The reasons for the withholding of the evidence by DOJ have not been investigated. IAP claimants should not be compelled to allow DOJ to participate in any re-hearing process. 36. Abuse of Process principles prevent judicial findings based upon appropriate legal processes from being re?litigated in subsequent judicial proceedings. The terms of the TAP requires previous ?ndings in judicial processes to come forward into the TAP and for adjudicators to be familiar with that documentation, prior to questioning a claimant. Findings from previous criminal and civil proceedings can be accepted by adjudicators. The TAP also allows adjudicators to admit evidence that is reliable and trustworthy in the circumstances, such as the signed statements to the OPP during the special investigation of St. Anne?s IRS. While not all claimants require documentary corroboration to prove the worst compensable incident, the harm suffered and/or aggravating factors some cases may turn on this additional evidence. The failure of the Defendants to ?le this evidence in H-15019 has interfered with his substantive IAP rights. 37. Even after the Order of Justice Perell, DOJ and the TAP hearing adjudicator, the Chief Adjudicator and the review adjudicator ignored this remedial evidence. No one in the Secretariat is enforcing the disclosure Order of Justice Perell for St. Anne?s IRS against the Defendants, in individual IAP claims. Under Appendix IV of Schedule D, after the Order of Justice Perell, on 18 January 14, 2014, the Secretariat should have halted all further St. Anne?s IRS hearings until adjudicators and IAP claimants had the remedial disclosure provided this month. 38. The Chief Adjudicator, as evidenced in is not directing adjudicators to review the remedial documentation nor to apply ?abuse of process? law, in adjudicating IAP claims. The Chief Adjudicator has not implemented any process to review the IAP claims of St. Anne?s IRS students for possible substantive prejudice. There have been no guidelines nor cases determined on review whereby the Chief Adjudicator has established the legal treatment of this remedial evidence in IAP claims. 39. It is not the responsibility of the mental health workers to ?nd the St. Anne?s IAP claimants who deserve a re?hearing. IAP claimants should not have to become gravely ill before injustices suffered from being found not credible in the IAP process are exposed and addressed. 40. DOJ relied upon pie?2014 source documents (and/or narratives and P01 reports derived therefrom) to defeat IAP claims such as H-15019. After January 14, 2014, every DOJ lawyer knew or ought to have known that DOJ had additional documents in its possession in Toronto for St. Anne?s IAP claims. After Januaiy 14, 2014, every DOJ lawyer appearing at an IAP hearing should have become familiar with that evidence and ensured that all evidence that ought to be disclosed to the adjudicator for each IAP hearing was so disclosed. DOJ are in a con?ict to argue the additional documents are inadmissible and/or irrelevant when they erroneously withheld these documents Without judicial authority. D. GROUNDS FOR THIS RFD 41. The disclosure decisions and Orders of Justice Perell for St. Anne?s IRS dated January 14, 2014 and June 23, 2015, plus the remedial disclosure arising therefrom. 42. Sections 96 and 134(6) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, 0 C43, as amended. 43. The decisions of the IAP hearing adjudicator and Review Adjudicator in which are wrong and unreasonable, based upon the evidence contained in the new 2014 POI reports, 2015 narrative, and source documents. There is now reliable and trustworthy evidence that the Priest and Assistant Administrator were known to be engaging in sexual abuse of St. Anne?s 19 students during the time that the Applicant was at St. Anne?s IRS. The new Narrative con?rms widespread sexual abuse of children by various perpetrators at the times that this Applicant was a student at St. Anne?s IRS to give rise to high levels of harm and maximum aggravating factors. 44. Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Canada, and LSUC Special Guidelines for IAP Process. E. EVIDENCE TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE APPLICANTS (subject to prior privacy protection being granted). a) The Af?davit of the Applicant/Claimant in sworn December 4, 2015 and i the Exhibits attached thereto. b) A clerical af?davits of Jennifer Gabriel sworn December 14, 2015 and February 11, 2016 and the Exhibits attached thereto 0) Such further and other evidence as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may deem appropriate. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 11th day of February, 2016. 20th dayLefLNevember?LlGl?Se Fay K. Brunning Barrister and Solicitor Practicing in Association with Williams Litigation Lawyers 169 Gilmour Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0N8 Tel: 613-237?0520 Fax: 613-237-3163 Lawyer for the Applicant TO: AND TO: AND TO: 20 STOCKWOODS LLP TD North Tower 77 King Street West, Suite 4130, PO. Box 140 Toronto?Dominion Centre Toronto, Ontario MSK 1H1 Tel: 416?593-7200 Fax: 416-593-9345 Brian Gover Lawyer for the Administrative Judge on the IRS Settlement Agreement GOWLINGS 2600-160 Elgin Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C3 Tel: 613?233-1781 Fax: 613-563-9869 Pierre Champagne Lawyers for Les Soeurs de la Charit? d?Ottawa, a Catholic entity that operated St. Anne?s IRS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Prairie Region 300 EPCOR Tower, 10423 ?101 Street Edmonton, Alberta TSH 0E7 Tel: 780-495?2975 Fax: 780?495?2964 Catherine A. Coughlan and Brent Thompson Lawyers for the Attorney General of Canada Copy of Amended Request for Directions without evidence and written Submissions will be provided to: T0: ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS 55 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1600 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6L5 Tel: 613?241-6789 Fax: 613-241?5808 Stuart Wuttke Lawyers for the Assembly of First Nations 21 AND TO: MUSHKEGOWUK COUNCIL Box 370 Moose Factory, Ontario POL 1W0 Tel: 705?658-4222 Fax: 705-658-4250 Grand Chief Jonathon Solomon and Former Grand Chief Edmund Metatawabin LARRY PHILIP FONTAINE et all and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Court File No: CANADA et a1. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Proceeding commenced at Toronto AMENDED REQUEST FOR DIRECTIONS AND NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR IAP Claim Number: E5442-10-H-15019 Fay K. Brunning Barrister and Solicitor Practicing in Association with Williams Litigation Lawyers 169 Gilmour Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0N8 Tel: 613-237?0520 Fax: 613-237-3163 Lawyer for the Applicant