Former Hearst priest Fernand Villeneuve found not guilty of sexual assault

Judge Martin Lambert of the Ontario Court of Justice, who heard the case, concluded that all of the evidence [le] leaves with a reasonable doubt.

Portions of the plaintiff’s testimony, he pointed out, called into question its reliability.

Fernand Villeneuve was facing nine charges of a sexual nature, in connection with facts which, according to the prosecution, would have occurred between 1985 and 1992, when Mr. Villeneuve was a priest at the parish of Notre-Dame de l’Assomption in Hearst. .

The complainant was a minor at the time. A publication ban protects his identity.

During the trial, several people were called to testify, including police officers, a long-time parish volunteer, Pierrette McDonald, and the complainant’s father.

“False testimony”, “embellished proof”

In reading his verdict, Judge Lambert clarified that his decision was based on his assessment of both the credibility of the complainant, but also his reliability.

For example, during his testimony at the start of the trial, the plaintiff indicated that he almost threw up, in 2019, after the police asked him to identify his alleged attacker in photos, what the video filed as an exhibit absolutely does not demonstratesaid the judge, therefore concluding that the plaintiff had returned, at least in part, false testimony.

This was tangible proof that [la personne plaignante] embellished when testifying about an event that took place just three years ago, in 2019said the magistrate.

He also mentioned that during his testimony, [la personne plaignante] was often aggressive, combative and evasive, refusing to answer certain questions alleging that the question had already been asked when it had never been asked.

” His fighting spirit during his trial certainly did not add to his credibility. »

Reliability questioned

Judge Lambert also pointed out certain inconsistencies between the testimony of the complainant and that of the other people heard during the trial.

In particular, the complainant alleged that he had been repeatedly assaulted at the presbytery and at the sunday schoola youth mentoring activity organized by the parish.

However, according to the long-time volunteer who also testified, the sunday school unfolded during mass, […] in English and no after mass, […] in French as indicated by the complainant in his testimony.

The volunteer also stated that the sunday school was run by lay people and not priests, contrary to what the complainant had claimed.

I have no reason to reject Ms. McDonald’s testimony. In fact, I accept her completely because she is a credible but also reliable witness, that she would have been able to give important details on the progress of “Sunday school”noted Justice Lambert.

” By accepting Ms. McDonald’s evidence on this point and rejecting the Complainant’s evidence, I conclude that it is the reliability of her evidence that is at the heart of the problem. If his evidence is unreliable on this, what should I do with the rest of his testimony? »

The complainant also refused to accept a fact which is indisputableaccording to the judge, insisting that the hair of his alleged attacker was gray at the time of the alleged facts, while old photos from the time show that clearly, the hair [de Fernand Villeneuve] were not gray.

The judge also said he accepted the defense evidence that between 1983 and 1990, various other people lived in the presbytery including nuns and assistants.

So, it is difficult here to see how 300 to 500 attacks could have taken place without everyone knowing.notes Judge Lambert.

” This kind of trial is always difficult. […] What I cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt is that [la personne plaignante] was sexually assaulted by Fernand Villeneuve during the alleged period. The evidence adduced by the defense including the evidence of the accused and Mrs. McDonald, in addition to the deficiencies of the prosecution’s evidence, including the identification evidence leave me with a reasonable doubt which must be resolved in favor of the accused. »