The Lawsuit

Cameron et al vs. Bateman et al

(Bishop Eugene Larocque and several diocesan clergy sue )


On 19 September 2000 Bishop Eugene Larocque and Fathers Bernard Cameron, Rejean Lebrun, Ranald Roderick MacDonald, Kevin Joseph Maloney, Donald Bernard McDougald and Gary Ostler launched a lawsuit against James Bateman, NBC Internet Inc., Paul Likoudis, Alphonse J. Matt Jr., the Wanderer Printing Company, Dick Nadeau, Alta Vista Company and Tera-Byte Dot Com Inc.

Shortly thereafter I was contacted by Mr. Graydon Sheppard who was at that time representing James Bateman.  Mr. Sheppard then sent me a copy of the statement of claim for my perusal.

The statement of claim is a public document which can be obtained by anyone – Court File No. 00-cv-015075.

My copy totals approximately 136 pages.  Of those several are numbered but blank, and page 46 of Schedule “A” is missing.  I have checked with Mr. Bateman and his copy has the same blank and missing pages.  I have scanned the document as I received it.  The redactions (blacked out names and information) are present in my original copy.

Because the document is so large I had to break it down to post.  I attempted to do so in a manner which would make it easier to read, therefore I broke the document down into eight files, some large and some small, but each dealing with what I see as a distinct component of the lawsuit.  Because I decided to deal with the document in this manner the last page of some files overlap with the first page of the next.  In those instances I have duplicated that page.

I believe it is essential that people know the outcome of this legal action.  I therefore asked James Bateman if he would be kind enough to compile a report which I could post.  He did so, and provided documents to accompany his commentary.

Mr. Bateman’s comments and the relevant documents are posted after the recent news item on Fathers Cameron and Garry Ostler.

The Lawsuit

(1) Part One of The Lawsuit:  The Claim Cameron et al vs Bateman et al

(2) Part 2 of The Lawsuit:  the claim against James Bateman in Cameron et al vs Bateman et al

(3) Part 3 of the Lawsuit:  the claim against the Wanderer in Cameron et al vs Bateman et al

(4)  Part 4 of the Lawsuit:  the claim against Dick Nadeau in Cameron et al vs Bateman et al lawsuit

(5)  Schedule A Part I in The Lawsuit:   Miscellaneous posts from Dick Nadeau’s Project Truth website (filed as part of Cameron et al vs Bateman et al lawsuit)

(6) Schedule A Part II in The Lawsuit:  Testimonials posted on Dick Nadeau’s Project Truth website (filed as part of Cameron et al vs Bateman et al lawsuit)

(7) Schedule A Part III in The Lawsuit:  articles and comments posted on Dick Nadeau’s Project Truth website (filed as part of Cameron et al vs Bateman et al lawsuit)

(8)  Lawsuit Appendix B Wanderer article Cameron et al vs Bateman et al

(Click for text version of latter:  “Storm-Tossed house….:  Pending arrest of Pedophiles Expected to Implicate Bishop“)

James Bateman  explains the lawsuit from his perspective as a defendent 

May 11, 2006.

In Re: Cameron et al v Bateman et al, Court File No: 00-CV -015075 (filed Sep. 19, 2000)

Superior Court of Justice

Court House, 161 Elgin Street,

Ottawa, Ontario. CANADA

K2P 2K1

(A defamation/libel, civil litigation-Ottawa Cases) 

Hi Sylvia:

Thanks for your query regarding information surrounding the above-captioned litigation. 

I believe the best way to explain what happened is to forward to you, actual court documentations, which were provided to me at my request, from the Court Records Clerk and they are already in the public domain.

As a side note:  I stated above, “which were provided to me at my request, from the Court Records Clerk…”. I do this  because, the other Defendant Lawyers and Plaintiffs Lawyers never kept me appraised of the on goings, in contradiction to the Rules of Court. To the contrary, during this time of self-representation, I was sent very misleading information.  In addition, information I had provided to the Court File was altered, removed or otherwise tampered with subsequent to my submitting the same. In addition, it is my belief that the Court is immune from prosecution if “parties” have complaints that files are missing, lost and or other. I will offer you a comment with each pdf transmission, in my attempt, to explain the information. 

Just to cut to the chase, according to the court case history report and the lawyers, there were 07 Plaintiffs and 08 Defendants.

The litigation was never prosecuted.

As of the Case History Report, of the above-captioned matter, dated November 26, 2002 at 11:05am, the status of the defendants, as documents under a separate e-mail will demonstrate, are as follows;

1) Likoudis, Paul, Defendant: Disposed: Discontinued on Nov 12, 2002

2) Matt Jr., Alphonse J., Defendant. Disposed: Discontinued on Nov. 12, 2002

3) Wanderer Printing Company, Defendant: Disposed: Discontinued on Nov. 12, 2002

4) Tera-Byte Dot Com Inc., Defendant: Disposed: Discontinued on Dec. 6, 2001

5) NBC Internet Inc., Defendant: Disposed: Discontinued on Dec. 6, 2001

6) Alta-Vista Company, Defendant: Disposed: Discontinued on Dec 6, 2001

7) Dick Nadeau, Defendant: Disposed: Discontinued on Dec 6, 2001

8) James Bateman, Defendant: Dismissed With Costs/Disbursements Assessed. 


i) A discontinuance is usually NOT a “settlement out of court for cash.”  In the context of this litigation, a discontinuance means, among other things, “I will discontinue the litigation against you if you agree to do something for me, like sign a release of all claims, confidentiality, non-disclosure agreement, promise never to repeat what you said, etc., for me.” It also means, that if you “breach” the agreement, you will most definitely be sued.

 Defendants who agreed to a Discontinuance, had to pay ALL costs and disbursements related to their participation in the litigation.

ii) In my case, a dismissal with costs to be assessed, is all I would accept in the place of being prosecuted. A dismissal with costs assessed is a win for me and is similar to the United States version, “Dismissed With Prejudice.” I didn’t have any restrictions imposed on me and I agreed to nothing. In addition, approximately 65-75% of my entire costs/disbursements were returned to me by the Plaintiffs. They can never sue me again for this matter.

iii) VERY IMPORTANTLY is the fact Defendant Nadeau communicated with me several times, stating how stressed he was because one or more Lawyers and one or more Members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) were harassing him, trying to make deals with him, to delete some information on his website,, and add other information to the website. Mr. Nadeau conveyed to me via e-mails I had once retained, whereas, one or more Lawyers vigorously harassed Mr. Nadeau, eventually coercing Mr. Nadeau to agree to the Discontinuance in the litigation referred to herein as Cameron et al v Bateman et al. Mr. Nadeau stated to me, more than once, he was sick and very afraid because one or more Lawyers told him to delete information and accept the discontinuance or Mr. Nadeau would lose other benefits he currently enjoyed or anticipated enjoying in the future. Mr. Nadeau said, it was making him very sick.

iv) In addition, I learned other Defendants became very ill and distressed with the litigation.

v) In my opinion and as the facts disclose, this litigation, referred to as,  Cameron et al v Bateman et al  was a miscarriage of justice and filed soley against the Defendants to suppress the facts from being disclosed, suppress freedom of expression, suppress free speech, and, to, maliciously intimidate, harass and coerce the Defendants into complying  to the Will of the Plaintiffs.  

The pdf file sent herewith is: Cameron et al v Bateman et al

a) my 2 page affidavit supporting my Motion to the Court, To Dismiss the litigation against me,

b) 2 pages case management motion form, which is a document that must be filed with the court and my supporting papers; (at the bottom page 2, you see “GROUNDS RELIED ON BY THIS PARTY”),

c) page 2 at the bottom, page 3 (schedule A), page 4 (schedule A), page 5 (schedule A), depict the “life” of the litigation, as represented to me by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, referenced herein,  

d) page 6 (schedule A) is where Master Beaudoin ordered the dismissal of this litigation against me dated Jan. 13, 2002. It is written, “action to be dismissed with costs to be assessed by the assessment officer.”

So, before the Order by Master Beaudoin, to dismiss the litigation, the Lawyer for the Plaintiffs, David Sherriff-Scott, representing co-counsel, David W. Scott, Q.C. and I argued the merits of the litigation, from our perspectives. Mostly, David Sherriff-Scott loudly condemned the websites and for publishing lies about Priests, but, especially about such a highly regarded Bishop LaRocque. Lawyer David Sherriff-Scott also engaged in belittling the Defendants.

Based on my observations in this closed door, unrecorded, out-of-camera hearing, I concluded, Master Beaudoin was very impressed with Lawyer David Sherriff-Scott and it was my opinion that Master Beaudoin appeared to follow David Sherriff-Scott’s wishes. (see following d.)

d) 1 page, Notification of Appointment For Assessment of Costs, dated at Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday, April 17, 2003,

e) 1 page notification dated Tuesday April 22, 2003 Among other issues at the Assessment of Costs/Disbursements to be awarded to me, was that the presiding Officer of the Court was about to toss the matter back to Master Beaudoin, because Master Beaudoin had made critical omissions in the hearing mentioned in (d) above.  I’ll send another pdf under separate cover. 

James Bateman comments on case history of the lawsuit 

Hi Sylvia:

The attachments here are also court documents. (Bateman Case History Report)

One page has information on Alan Sobel, who was the assigned Mediator. All cases must go to a Mediator first to see if issues can be resolved. This must be completed within a short time period after the litigation is filed with the Court.

Nearly two years after the case was filed, I tracked Mr. Sobel down and asked him….”what’s going on?” Mr. Sobel replied that he thought this case was a strange one at the beginning but, less than two months after the case was filed in September, 2000, he was advised the case would not be prosecuted. Incredible, since the Defendants were then led along by the Court and Officers of the Court, let alone their/my own Lawyers, up to November 2002 and beyond, in some cases.   

Further to the previous e-mail with pdf attachments; I telephoned Mr. Matt in the Spring or Summer of 2002. He was pleased to hear from me. He was very upset and knew nothing about what was going on. Don’t forget, this is now close to two years since the Mediator was advised the case would NOT be progressing. Yet, we Defendants are left, being lied to, causing unnecessary pain, and suffering, until a major catastrophe occurs or the litigant or Defendant in our case, cries, “I give up.” I told Mr. Matt, I believed the litigation was filed to suppress the facts and I said I would fight for a dismissal, with prejudice or the Canadian equivalent, dismissal with costs/disbursements assessed.  

In fact, the litigation against me went into 2003, over two years after the Mediator was told, the case would not proceed, yet, the Court allowed the file to remain on the docket and I believe that, I/we, the Defendants were harassed and lied to….until….what?

What do most people do, under this kind of stress…resulting from malicious/intentionally caused and constructed events…declare bankruptcy, start drinking, commit suicide, die from an illness.

Also, in these case history pages, you will see where it is recorded for Paul Likoudis, Alphonse J. Matt, Jr., Wanderer Printing Company,  “Disposed: Discontinued on 12 Nov, 2002.”  However, on one copy of an official court document it is written, Nov 12, 2002 “Notice of Discontinuance (wholly) regarding the aforementioned Defendants,” however, it further states that on, “ Nov. 26, 2002 a Motion to Dismiss Action was heard and the Plaintiffs and the moving party consent to an order discontinuing the action, with costs to be assessed,” which is similar to what I filed. This could also mean, The Wanderer, Paul Likoudis, Mr. Matt, won as I did and received costs/disbursements.

I am uncertain about the conclusion for the Wanderer, Matt and Likoudis, as the documents offer conflicting interpretations.

James Bateman: Various Coercive Communications

Hi again: 

In this e-mail you will see;  (Bateman files various coercive communications)

1) My lawyers’ attempts and David Sherriff-Scott’s attempts to coerce me into accepting the terms the plaintiffs want.

2) Where in a November 30, 2000 correspondence, it is quoted that David Sherriff-Scott, for the plaintiffs, considered the mandatory mediation with Mr. Sobel, to be “a waste of time since he believes the matter should go to trial as directly as possible.” Incredibly, shortly thereafter, Mr. Sobel was advised and therefore, ALL Lawyers knew, that the litigation would not proceed. The litigation could not proceed as the Rules of Civil Procedure would have been violated..YET.. Master Beaudoin and other Court Officers permitted the file to remain on the docket and refused to enforce the Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby facilitating the impression, that the litigation was valid. This, in my opinion, enabled the Plaintiffs in continuing their miscarriage of justice.

YET, in correspondences dated in late 2002, the Plaintiffs, through their Lawyer David Sherriff-Scott, had the unmitigated-gall, to continue the masquerade, convinced the Defendants were ignorant of Ontario Civil Procedure or had retained sub-standard legal representation, when the Plaintiffs constructed correspondences which would lead any reasonable person to conclude that the litigation was valid.

Again, the laymen-Defendants were trusting their legal representatives – almost two years after the Lawyers knew the Plaintiffs would not be proceeding in the litigation. The Plaintiffs via David Sherriff-Scott and therewith his co-counsel, David W. Scott, Q.C. and therewith the Law Firm of Borden, Ladner and Gervais, constructed correspondences that would lead any reasonable person to conclude otherwise.

3) The Nadeau Agreement was sent to me and an offer for me to sign a similar one. I refused as discussed in the September 05, 2001 e-mail. Again, this was close to one year after ALL lawyers knew, this litigation would not move forward and after Mr. Nadeau had been continuously harassed by one or more Lawyers and one or more Members of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). It is obvious, the litigation was “dead” as early as January 2001.

4) See correspondences dated May 6, 2002 and May 9, 2002 from the Plaintiffs via Borden, Ladner and Gervais where it is my opinion they are continuing the misrepresentations, now almost two complete years after ALL lawyers knew this litigation would not proceed. YET the Court permitted it.  

Ottawa, Ontario lawyer David Sheriff-Scott represented the plaintiffs (Bishop Larocque and clergy) in the lawsuit.  Sheriff-Scott also represented the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.03 January 2003:  LAWSUIT James Bateman LAWSUIT Case Management Motion Form to Dismiss with Costs03 January 2003:  LAWSUIT James Bateman (self-represented) affidavit for dismissal 200302 January 2003:  LAWSUIT James Bateman trying to find out re what is happening with lawsuit in which he is a defendant (with response from mediation coordinator)16 November 2002:  LAWSUIT James Bateman LAWSUIT – Case History Report

10 March 2003:  LAWSUIT action against Wanderer, Paul Likoudis and Alphonse Matt Jr dismissed and diocese to pay costs of $11,500. (scroll down)

12 November 2001:  LAWSUIT – action by Bishop Larocque at al against The Wanderer, Paul Likoudis and Alphone J Matt Jr, discontinued – costs to be assessed  (scroll down)

24 August 2001:  LAWSUIT James Bateman email re diocese offer to discontinue if Bateman agrees not to republish  same allegations

23 August 2001:  LAWSUIT letter and enclosures to Dick Nadeua re Dick’s agreement not to publish again in exchange for discontinuance of lawsuit against him  (see below “Dick Nadeau Silences” for further info)

29 May 2001:  LAWSUIT Case Conference Form requesting extension to mediate and fact that Dick Nadeau refuses to apologize  (see below “Dick Nadeau Silences” for further info)

Dick Nadeau silenced

Questions re consent

The Consent

Dick apparently agreed to a discontinuance of the lawsuit without costs. To that end two documents were signed on his behalf by lawyer for the plaintiffs, David Sheriff-Scott (Dick had not retained a lawyer). The package of documents was couriered to Dick with a cover letter on the same day.  That package can be accessed in the first link below.

Why Dick was unable to sign in person is unknown.

When a party in an action agrees to discontinue there is an obligation to send copies of the signed agreement to all parties involved in the legal action.

Compare the first two documents linked below. The signature in the signature block is that of David Sheriff-Scott who signed on Dick’s behalf.  Note that the copy received by James Bateman is different than the copy received by Dick, both in text and the signature.

Also of interest is the fact that the Consent to discontinue was signed 23 August 2001, however a 2002 Court History Report indicates it was discontinued 06 December 2001.

23 August 2003:   LAWSUIT Copy of Dick Nadeau;s consent to dismissal received by James Bateman

23 August 2001:  LAWSUIT  David Sheriff Scott  letter and enclosures to Dick re Consent to Discontinuance  (note the paper is signed by David-Sheriff-Scott for Dick Nadeau)

23 August 2001:  LAWSUIT letter and enclosures to Dick Nadeua re Dick’s agreement not to publish again in exchange for discontinuance e of lawsuit against him

29 May 2001:  LAWSUIT Case Conference Form requesting extension to mediate and fact that Dick Nadeau refuses to apologize