I 20-Jun-19 I . I I SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH SEAL Vunc ouve REGISTRY I I I Court File No. VL C-S-S- 197065 NO.: VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ALLISON PLAINTIFF AND: ALPINE CANADA DEFEN DANTS Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50 NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM This action has been started by the Plaintiff for the relief set out in Part 2 below. If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must: File a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below; and, Serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the Plaintiff. If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must: File a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below; and, Serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the Plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim. JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to ?le the response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below. TIME FOR RESPONSE TO CIVIL CLAIM A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the Plaintiff: If you reside anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you; If you reside in the United States of America, within 35 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you; If you reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy ofthe filed notice of civil claim was served on you; or, If the time for reSponse to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time. CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF PART 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS The Parties 1. The Plaintiff, Allison is a consultant and has an address for delivery at #1900 570 Granville Street, Vancouver, BC, V6C 3P1. The Defendant, Alpine Canada, is the national governing organization for alpine, para?alpine and ski cross racing in Canada with a head office located at Suite 302, 151 Canada Olympic Road SW, Canada Olympic Park, Calgary, Alberta, T38 637. The Plaintiff brings this claim on her own behalf and seeks to become the representative Plaintiff of a certified class of former elite ski racers who were physically and sexually assaulted, harassed and abused by their coach Bertrand Charest while he was employed by Alpine Canada (the ?National Team Athletes?). Overview 4. This action concerns the physical and sexual assault, harassment and abuse of 6. female members ofthe Canadian National Junior Ski Team (the ?National Team?) from 1996 to 1998. The Plaintiff alleges that she and the National Team Athletes were subject to systemic abuse, harassment and assault by their coach Charest and that Alpine Canada is vicariously liable for his tortious sexual misconduct. The Plaintiff further alleges that Alpine Canada breached its fiduciary obligations to the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes in failing to supervise Charest and/or ensure that procedures, policies and protocols were observed to ensure the physical and safety of the National Team Athletes was protected. Alpine Canada failed to investigate 3 Charest?s actions and used coercion and threats, such as the loss of sponsors and success in the sport, to intimidate the National Team Athletes into silence. Bertrand Charest 7. Charest was a professionally licensed ski coach who coached at the club level in Quebec with the Mt. Tremblant ski team, Team Laurentians and Team Quebec from approximately 1990- 1995. 8. Team Quebec is the Quebec women?s provincial ski team and is governed by Ski Quebec Alpin SQA is sanctioned by Alpine Canada. 9. Alpine Canada employed Charest to coach the National Team from 1996 to February 1998. 10. Prior to being hired as the National Team Coach, Alpine Canada knew, or ought to have known as it was common knowledge in the ski racing community, that Charest had engaged in inappropriate sexualized behaviour with minor female athletes while coaching in Quebec. The Plaintiff 11. The Plaintiff was born on October 14, 1978 in Nanaimo, British Columbia. 12. At the age of six, the Plaintiff began ski racing for the Mt. Washington Ski Club located in Comox, British Columbia. She competed with the Mt. Washington Ski Club from 1984 to 1993. 13. The Plaintiff achieved a high level of success and was passionate about ski racing. She continued her training and development with the Whistler Ski Team for the 1993-1994 season. 14. The Plaintiff raced with the B.C. Provincial Team for the 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 seasons. She achieved a high level of success and was driven to achieve her dream of being a world- class ski racer. 15. At 17 years old, the Plaintiff made the National Team. The Plaintiff raced with the National Team, coached by Charest, for the 1996?1997 and 1997-1998 seasons. 16. The Plaintiff was aware that Charest had a reputation of inappropriate interactions with female athletes. In addition to his reputation, she witnessed Charest coaching female athletes at ski races and events. She recalls noticing that he touched the female athletes in an inappropriately intimate manner while he was coaching. 17. In the summer of 1996 the Plaintiff attended summer training camp in Whistler, British Columbia. This was her first exposure to Charest coaching her. He frequently slapped her 18buttocks while commenting on her body and the way she looked. His actions and his overtly flirtatious demeanor took her aback. Throughout the 1996 -1997 ski season, the Plaintiff became aware that Charest paid undue attention to particular athletes while ignoring others. Charest commented on the athletes? bodies, including the shape of their breasts and buttocks. He provided private training and video sessions to certain athletes. He prioritized his time to praise some athletes while ignoring others. There were rumours that Charest was in a relationship with his favoured athlete, who was a minor (?Athlete In the summer of 1997, the National Team travelled to New Zealand for summer training. The Plaintiff confronted Charest about his inappropriate relationship with Athlete The Plaintiff was aware that Charest was providing Athlete #1 with individualized private coaching. Charest admitted the relationship but said that he wanted to end it and a relationship with the Plaintiff would help him. Immediately, Charest began favouring the Plaintiff, providing her with extra coaching and attention and touching her in an intimate manner. Charest told the Plaintiff that he could develop her into a great athlete and that she needed him to succeed in ski racing. The Plaintiff believed that in order to receive the best coaching, she would have to accede to Charest?s pressure to have sexual interactions with him. She was passionate about her sport and had an intense competitive desire to succeed: she wanted to be the best. She was 18 years old and Charest held the power to control her success on the National Team. In August 1997 while on a team trip, Charest began winking at the Plaintiff and repeatedly touching her. She recalls him placing his hand between her legs when other athletes weren?t looking. The Plaintiff asked Charest to stop touching and flirting with her. When the Plaintiff tried to distance herselffrom Charest, he became ever more insistent and found ways to have private sessions alone with the Plaintiff. At this point Charest was ignoring and speaking poorly of Athlete When the Plaintiff questioned his behaviour, Charest told her that his feelings for her were different than his feelings for Athlete #1 and that he could see himself married to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff felt trapped and confused; the sexualized attention from Charest was unwanted but she believed that she needed his attention to receive the best coaching and have a preferred position on the National Team. Charest convinced the Plaintiff being in a relationship with him would give her a competitive edge over the other athletes. She felt pressured to accept a sexual relationship to succeed in her sport. The Plaintiff was unaware that Charest was also having private sexual relationships with other athletes on the team. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Charest wielded his power by prioritizing certain athletes while ignoring others. He used various means to demonstrate his power including selectively providing private sessions with certain athletes and driving the team van erratically by swerving into oncoming traf?c. The message was clear: I control your lives and your success in the sport. In the fall of 1997 in Piancavallo Italy, after a race, Charest was alone with the Plaintiff in the team van. Charest grabbed the Plaintiff and kissed her without warning. Also in the fall of 1997 at training camp in Austria, the Plaintiff was in a public women?s bathroom in a hotel when Charest came in and knocked on her stall. The Plaintiff asked him to leave. He refused, pushed into the stall, forced her up against the wall and sexually assaulted her. Following the assault, the Plaintiff stayed in the bathroom crying. She was worried about pregnancy. She knew she did not have any control over her interactions with Charest. She knew that his control was complete and that she would be required to continue with the sexual interactions if she wanted to succeed on the National Team. Over the next few months, Charest continued to manipulate and coerce the Plaintiff in an overtly sexual manner. He demanded sexual interactions, using her success or failure as a ski racer as leverage to force her compliance. He told her to keep their relationship private. He manipulated situations to be alone with the Plaintiff. He isolated her from her teammates. He repeatedly told her that he loved her and that she needed him to succeed in ski racing. There were multiple sexual interactions, including intercourse and oral sexual relations. The Plaintiff experienced a high level of anxiety that manifested in an eating disorder and an unhealthy focus on exercise and training. For Christmas 1997, Charest gave the Plaintiff a gift with a card that said he would marry her. In January 1998, the Plaintiff told Charest that their sexual interactions would stop and that she no longer wanted his sexualized attention. Charest told the Plaintiffthat her skiing career was over. He proceeded to prioritize other athletes in training and ignored the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff knew that Charest had stopped coaching her as a punishment. She worried that she would not be able to succeed as a ski racer without his coaching and attention. She felt powerless to refuse sexual interactions with Charest. Her anxiety was intensifying. That same month Charest arranged for the Plaintiff to travel with him to Val ?lsere France to watch the World Cup. Charest and the Plaintiff travelled alone. Alpine Canada paid for the trip. Charest was responsible for travel and accommodation arrangements. Charest booked adjoining hotel rooms. The Plaintiff was in the bath when Charest, uninvited, pushed into the bathroom. The Plaintiff felt physically threatened and extremely vulnerable. Charest told her that she did not have a future in ski racing unless she was in a relationship with him. The Plaintiff relented and agreed to sexual relations. The Plaintiff slept in Charest?s hotel room with him for the remainder of their time in France. Charest and the Plaintiff engaged in a sexual relationship. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. The World Juniors took place in Megeve France in February 1998 (the ?Megeve World Juniors?). At a team training camp immediately prior to the Megeve World Juniors, Charest was alone with the Plaintiff in the team van. He demanded that she perform oral sex and she complied. The Plaintiff recalls feeling physically and broken after that interaction. She was not eating or sleeping and was suffering with severe anxiety. She was extremely anxious that her performance at the Megeve World Juniors would be compromised. It was the biggest race of her career and she was physically and devastated. The National Team Athletes, coaches and other Alpine Canada staff were lodged together in a team house for the Megeve World Juniors. The Plaintiff told a female physical therapist about her sexual interactions with Charest. The physical therapist told the Plaintiff that another athlete ("Athlete had confessed similar sexual interactions with Charest. Athlete #2 met with the Plaintiff and the physical therapist. Both the Plaintiff and Athlete #2 were experiencing the same sexual abuse and manipulation by Charest. The Plaintiff recalls vomiting when she learned that Charest had sexual intercourse with both of them on the same day. They questioned Charest?s relationship with Athlete Athlete #1 refused to participate in the meeting and ran from the team house. The Plaintiff left the meeting to confront Charest directly. Charest grabbed the Plaintiff and told her Alpine Canada had been advised about the Plaintiff and Athlete #25 reports regarding Charest?s sexual impropriety. Charest forced the Plaintiff into the team van drove away from the team house. Charest attempted to convince her not to tell Alpine Canada about their sexual interactions. Charest threatened suicide and used other forms of manipulation in an apparent attempt to convince the Plaintiff to recent her reports of their sexual interactions. The Plaintiff met with Charest and another team coach. The coaches told the Plaintiff that team Sponsors would be threatened ifshe reported her sexual interactions with Charest. The Plaintiff was unable to sleep that night knowing that her skiing career was in jeopardy and that Charest remained in the team house. The next morning Joze Sparovec, the President of Alpine Canada met with Charest and the other coach in the team house. The Plaintiff overheard the three Alpine Canada employees discussing how they would address the situation without publicity to avoid losing sponsors. Sparovec then met privately with the Plaintiff and told her that she would have to be careful or the team would lose sponsors. The Plaintiff felt hopeless, guilty, embarrassed and abandoned. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Sparovec met with all the athletes and confirmed that Charest was involved in sexual interactions with three National Team athletes. Sparovec named the athletes. The Plaintiff was humiliated and embarrassed. She felt physically ill. Sparovec advised that Charest would be removed from the team house and that he would not interact with the athletes. The Megeve World Juniors were the next day. On the way to the race in the team van, athletes yelled at the Plaintiff and accused her of creating problems for the team. She had not slept due to overwhelming anxiety. She felt isolated, humiliated and fragile. The athletes Splintered as a group. The Plaintiff raced in the slalom event. She began sobbing as she crossed the finish line. The physical therapist skied over and told her to stop crying as she did not want Charest to see her cry. She looked over and Charest was hiding in the woods beside the course staring at her. The Plaintiff had a panic attack. Travelling from the Megeve World Juniors, the Plaintiff saw Charest at the airport. He boarded a flight with two of the National Team athletes, including Athlete The Plaintiff was upset and confused. She lost all confidence that Alpine Canada would protect the athletes from Charest. Upon her return from the Megeve World Juniors, the Plaintiff told her parents about her sexual interactions with Charest. Her mother repeatedly contacted Alpine Canada. Alpine Canada representatives told her mother to consider the Plaintiff?s future as a National Team athlete. They told her mother that if the sexual abuse was publicized, the National Team would lose its Sponsors and, without sponsors, the National Team would not continue. Alpine Canada implied that speaking publicly would threaten the Plaintiff?s ski racing career. A week after the Megeve World Juniors, Alpine Canada sent the National Team Athletes on a trip. The Plaintiff was ostracized by the team. The other athletes blamed the Plaintiff for her interactions with Charest. There was an extremely high level oftension amongst the athletes. The Plaintiff was suffering with anxiety and her mental health was fragile. Desperate, the Plaintiff contacted a lawyer employed by Alpine Canada. The lawyer advised the Plaintiff that he could not speak with her as he represented Alpine Canada, not her. The Plaintiff was 19 years old. After the Megeve World Juniors, Alpine Canada did not interview the Plaintiff about her interactions with Charest. Alpine Canada told the National Team Athletes not to discuss Charest as any publicity could jeopardize sponsorships and the viability to the National Team program. In 1998 the Plaintiff began racing with the Canadian National Ski Team. Despite her outward success as an Olympic and World Cup athlete, the Plaintiff?s sexual abuse by Charest and 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. abhorrent treatment by Alpine Canada continued to impact her and physical health, which impacted her ability to compete. She retired from ski racing in 2008. The Plaintiff continues to suffer loss including physical, emotional and trauma as a result of Charest?s sexual abuse and Alpine Canada?s breach offiduciary obligations. Alpine Canada?s Actions and Failures to Act in Response to the Plaintiff Following the events in Megeve World Juniors, Alpine Canada permitted Charest to resign as National Team coach and as an employee ofAlpine Canada. Alpine Canada did not revoke Charest?s coaching license. Alpine Canada did not conduct an investigation or report the sexual assault and abuse to law enforcement. Alpine Canada did not issue a public statement regarding Charest?s sexual abuse of athletes. Alpine Canada announced Charest?s departure as National Team coach as a routine coaching change. Alpine Canada did not issue a public advisory to local ski clubs and/or provincial ski teams to warn or advise that Charest had sexually assaulted and abused female athletes. Charest and 2017 Criminal Convictions In 2014?2015, one ofthe National Team Athletes learned that Charest was coaching ski racing at the Mount~Blanc Ski Club in Quebec. She was shocked to learn that Charest was coaching female minor athletes. She contacted the police in Quebec and filed a report. The police began an investigation. Charest was arrested in Quebec on March 11, 2015 for crimes of a sexual nature committed between 1991 and 1998 involving female athletes between the ages of 12-18 years old. The indictments charged Charest with 57 counts of va rious sexual offences committed against female elite ski racers. The charges included: a) Sexual contact with a minor under the age of 14; b) 32 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor while in a position of authority or trust; c) 23 counts of sexual assault; and d) Sexual assault causing injury. 54. On June 22 2017, Charest was convicted by the Superior Court of Quebec of 37 criminal charges. On December 8, 2017, he received a 12?year sentence. Charest has filed an Appeal of his conviction with the Quebec Court of Appeal. 55. The Judgment of Lepine JCQ in R. c. Charest, 2017 QCCQ 7017 was issued on June 22, 2017 (the "Judgment?). 56. When the Judgment was issued, the Plaintiff discovered the extent of Charest?s sexual abuse both prior to and while employed as the National Team coach. 57. During the criminal trial and in the information that surfaced after the Judgment was released, the Plaintiff and the other National Team Athletes also learned that Alpine Canada had been warned about Charest?s inappropriate sexual behaviour prior to hiring him as National Team coach and their failure to take appropriate and immediate actions once they learned of his sexual abuse and harassment of the National Team Athletes and that this extended beyond the Plaintiff?s experience as outlined in these pleadings. Alpine Canada?s Systemic Breaches 58. Following the Judgment being issued, the Plaintiff and the other National Team Athletes learned new information regarding Alpine Canada?s systemic breaches including: a) Failure to properly investigate Charest?s coaching history and/or heed the rumours regarding his sexual propensities and inappropriate sexual conduct with female athletes; b) Failure to monitor and review employee performance, including failure to address suspicion of sexual interference with the athletes; c) Failure to ensure the physical and safety and security of the female athletes; d) Failure to respond immediately and appropriately to awareness of sexual misconduct; and e) Failure to warn individuals and ski clubs ofthe risk of sexual misconduct including the failure to warn subsequent employers. 10 59. Further, Alpine Canada failed to enact, implement and/or adhere to the following policies and procedures: a) Code of Conduct; b) Coaching Code of Conduct; c) Harassment and Discrimination Policy; cl) Whistle Blower Policy; and e) Safe Sport for Children. PART 2: RELIEF SOUGHT - 60. The Plaintiff claims, on her own behalf, and on behalf of the National Team Athletes as follows: a) An Order certifying this proceeding as a class proceeding and appointing the Plaintiff as the representative Plaintiff under the Class Proceedings Act, RSBC 1996, c.50; b) General damages for: Pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life; (ii) Loss of past and prospective earnings; Loss of income earning capacity; (iv) Loss of opportunity to earn income; Loss of past and future housekeeping capacity; (vi) Cost of future care; and, (vii) Further particulars of general damages to be determined. c) Special Damages; d) Punitive Damages; e) Aggravated Damages; 11 f) Restitution in the form of disgorgement of the monetary value of the bene?ts that Alpine Canada has accrued, including from sponsorships and other benefits derived from Alpine Canada?s failure to publicly acknowledge and investigate Charest sexual abuse and harassment; g) Interest pursuant to the Court Order InterestAct R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 79; h) Costs ofthis action; and, i) Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and meet. PART 3: LEGAL BASIS 61. 62. The Plaintiff pleads and relies on the Class Proceedings Act, RSBC 1996, c.50. and amendments thereto The Plaintiff pleads and relies on the Negligence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 333 and amendments thereto. Alpine Canada?s Breach of Fiduciary Duty 63. 64. 65. 66. Alpine Canada owed a special, elevated duty the female athletes in the National Team program, pursuant to which it was obligated to take all reasonable steps to safeguard their welfare, safety and well-being. As such, at all material times, Alpine Canada owed the Plaintiff and the other members of the National Team Athletes a duty of care and a fiduciary duty to protect them from Charest?s wrongful conduct. By employing Charest without due or any attention to the well-known rumours of his sexual impropriety and abuse while coaching in Quebec, Alpine Canada failed to properly protect the National Team Athletes. By employing Charest and permitting him to implement individualized training programs, have one-on-one interactions, and make travel arrangements including transport and hotel room allocations, Alpine Canada vested Charest with power and authority over the Plaintiff and the other National Team Athletes. As such, Alpine Canada placed Charest in a position that enabled him to engender the trust and compel the obedience of the athletes, including the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes. Charest?s wrongful conduct was sufficiently connected to conduct authorized and/or condoned by Alpine Canada, Alpine Canada is vicariously liable for Charest?s breach of fiduciary duty towards the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes as well as for Charest?s sexual assaults and other tortious conduct. 67. 68. 69. 70. 12 Alpine Canada is directly liable to the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes in negligence and breach of ?duciary duty. It was an explicit and/or implied term of their agreement to ski on the National Team that Alpine Canada would take all reasonable steps to safeguard their safety, security and well-being. As athletes on the National Team pursuing their dreams of success in sport, the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes were vulnerable to Charest?s abuse of power and authority and his coercion and sexual abuse. As a result of complaints and reports made by other coaches and staff, broadly circulated rumours that came to the attention of Alpine Canada and Charest?s own flagrant conduct, Alpine Canada knew or ought to have known that Charest was abusing his power and authority for his own sexual gratification. Once Alpine Canada knew directly about Charest?s conduct and sexual abuse, Alpine Canada failed to take reasonable or any steps to investigate Charest?s conduct, report Charest?s sexual abuse to the police or revoke his coaching license. As a result of Alpine Canada?s failure to act, Charest was permitted to continue to coach female athletes after being terminated by the National Team, thus aggravating the Plaintiffs and the National Team Athletes? historic harms and causing they fresh harm, including emotional and physical injury. Alpine Canada owed the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes a duty of care and a fiduciary duty to protect them from foreseeable harm and injury caused by personnel employed by Alpine Canada, harassing, bullying, abusing or assaulting the athletes. Further, Alpine Canada had a duty to act with loyalty to the athletes in not putting its own interests ahead of the interests of the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes. By employing Charest and continuing to employ Charest when they knew or ought to have known or were willfully blind to his wrongful acts, Alpine Canada breached these duties and is therefore liable to the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes. Particulars of these breaches include: a) Failing to make any, or adequate, inquiries or investigations into Charest?s coaching history at the club and provincial level in Quebec; b) Failing to heed or adequately consider reports that Charest had been involved in sexual interactions with minor female athletes at the club or provincial level in Quebec; c) Failing to implement any, or adequate screening systems in the hiring process such as contacting professional and personal references to evaluate the employee?s propensities and appropriateness for the role; d) Failing to ensure that all coaches, including Charest, were accredited, licensed and passed a background and criminal record check; e} f) k) 13 Failing to adequately train, supervise and counsel its employees, including Charest; Failing to implement safeguards and policies to ensure that coaching was delivered to the athletes in a reasonable and fair manner such that athletes were not prioritized or ostracized based on factors unrelated to their performance as athletes; Failing to implement any, or adequate, guidelines or directives about the importance of maintaining proper boundaries between athletes and coaches, including the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes; Failing to ensure the physical and safety of female athletes; Failing to investigate and monitor on an ongoing basis the suitability of its employees, including Charest, and to take necessary or sufficient steps to detect, prevent or stop all inappropriate conduct by Charest towards the athletes, including the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes; Failing to implement any, or adequate mechanisms to enable the athletes, including the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes, to come forward with complaints relating to the conduct of its employees, including Charest; Failing to respond immediately and appropriately when suspicion and/or actual knowledge of sexual impropriety was first known; Failing to report Charest?s sexual assault, abuse and harassment to law enforcement authorities; Failing to report Charest?s sexual assault, abuse and harassment to the athletes? legal guardians or parents; Failing to warn individuals of the risk of sexual misconduct including the failure to warn subsequent employers; Failing to implement any, or adequate, support for the athletes, including the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes; and Using sponsorships and success on the National Team as levers to silence the athletes, including the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes, from reporting Charest?s sexual assault, abuse and harassment to law enforcement authorities. 14 71. At all material times, Alpine Canada was responsible for the physical and safety and well?being of the National Team Athletes including ensuring that employees who came in contact with the athletes were properly qualified and suited to coach young female athletes. Alpine Canada had an affirmative duty to ensure the safety and security of the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes. By failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety and security of the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes, Alpine Canada breached its fiduciary duty to the National Team Athletes. Consequently, Alpine Canada is liable to the Plaintiff and to the National Team Athletes for any harms and injuries arising from Charest?s misconduct while employed by Alpine Canada. Damages 72. As a result of Charest and Alpine Canada?s wrongful conduct pleaded herein, the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes have suffered and/or continue to suffer the following harms and injuries, which have caused or materially contributed to their ongoing pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life: a) Emotional, physical and harm; b) impairment of mental and emotional health and well?being; c) Intense anguish, humiliation, shame and self-blame; d) Chronic anxiety, as well as profound and occasionally overwhelming depression; e) Suicidal ideation and other self-injuring behaviours; f) Post-traumatic stress disorder or analogous to post-traumatic stress disorder, including panic attacks; g) Profound issues with trust and authority figures, which have created difficulty in their interpersonal relationships and employment; h) Alcohol and substance abuse; i) Dif?culties engaging in intimate sexual relationships; j) Dif?culties with emotional regulation; k) Eating disorders, and difficulties with body-image; l) Recurrent nightmares and sleep disturbance; 73. 74. 75. 15 m) Dif?culties with memory, concentration and clear thinking; n) Intense flashbacks; 0) General loss of enjoyment of life; and p) Such further and other harms and injuries as shall be discovered and/or particularized. As a result of these harms and injuries, the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes have required and/or will require ongoing therapy, counselling and treatment. They claim the cost of both past and future therapy, counselling and treatment, as well as any other expenses arising from Charest and/or Alpine Canada?s wrongful conduct. As result of Charest and/or Alpine Canada?s wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes never reached their true athletic or vocational potential, and/or experienced a delay of entry into the workforce and/or have further experienced a disrupted and unstable employment history. The Plaintiff and National Team Athletes have therefore suffered economic loss in the form of loss of income, lost economic opportunity, and loss of competitive advantage. Alpine Canada is vicariously liable for the damages Charest caused or materially contributed to. Punitive and Aggravated Damages 75. 77. 78. The selfish, high-handed and callous conduct ofAlpine Canada warrants condemnation ofthe court through awards of both aggravated and punitive damages. The prolonged, intrusive and exploitative nature of the mistreatment to which the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes were subject at the hands of Charest, who showed no regard for their physical or emotional well-being, represented a willful betrayal of their trust and vulnerabilities and was ofsuch a serious nature as to justify an award of both aggravated and punitive damages. in addition to being vicariously liable for the aggravated damages caused by Charest, an award of aggravated and punitive damages is justified against Alpine Canada in its own right, given its actual or constructive knowledge of the risk and harm which Charest presented to the Plaintiff and the National Team Athletes, its complicity and/or willful blindness towards Charest?s ongoing wrongdoing, and its failure to prevent an/or mitigate the effects of his wrongdoing through appropriate and timely investigations, interventions, and/or support. 16 79. Alpine Canada is liable for its own wrongdoings and is vicariously liable for Charest?s wrongdoings. The prolonged and abhorrent nature of their collective actions, including their callous disregard for the personal physical autonomy safety, mental health and well?being of the National Team Athletes, putting their own interests ahead of those of the athletes. Restitutionary Disgorgement 80. Alpine Canada derived financial benefit, including retaining and attracting sponsorships, in silencing the National Team Athletes and failing to take adequate, or any steps, to openly and publicly investigate Charest?s sexual abuse and assault. 81. Resitutionary disgorgement of the profits derived as a result of Alpine Canada?s breach of fiduciary duty will ensure that Alpine Canada does not derive a profit as a result ofthe breach. Plaintiff?s address for service: KazLaw Injury Lawyers #1900 570 Granville Street Vancouver, BC V6C 3P1 Place of trial: Vancouver, British Columbia The address ofthe registry is: 800 Smithe Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2E1 Dated: AOUE CDC), QOlq . L. Martin Rule 7-1(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states: (1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period, prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists all documents that are or have been in the party?s possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and, 17 (ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and serve the list on all parties of record. APPENDIX PART 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM This action concerns the sexual harassment, discrimination and assault offemale members ofthe Canadian National Junior Ski Team while being coached by Bertrand Charest, an employee of Alpine Canada. The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant for damages as particularized, costs and interest arising from sexual abuse and harassment that occurred from 1996-1998. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damage, loss and expense due to the Defendant?s negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. PART 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING A personal injury arising out of: A motor vehicle accident Amedicalmalpractice Anothercause A dispute concerning: Contaminated sites Construction defects Real property (real estate) Personal property The provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters Investment losses The lending of money An employment relationship A will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate A matter not listed here PART 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES t?F-Il?ll?ll?ll?l A class action Maritime law Aboriginal law Constitutional law Conflict of laws None of the above Do not know 18 PART 4: ENACTMENTS RELIED ON 1. Class Proceedings Act, RSBC 1996, (2.50 2. Negligence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 333; 3. Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 79.