Justice Delayed Isn't Justice Denied: An Update On The Meeting House Sexual Abuse And Assault Cases

On any journey towards healing from a traumatic event there are bound to be setbacks. Hopefully, they will be minor; but sometimes these setbacks might be so destabilizing that you may be left wondering how you will find the resolve to move forward.

Sadly, far too many survivors of sexual assault are seeing criminal charges against their perpetrator falling apart before they reach trial. In some cases, the Crown prosecutors will make an assessment about the likelihood they will be able to get a conviction by establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - often a high bar to clear.

In other cases, even if the Crown believes they can achieve a guilty verdict, factors beyond their control can pull the rug out from under them. As my colleague Simona Jellienk has written, administrative failings and a lack of resources to support the courts has meant a staggering number of criminal charges are being stayed to the Supreme Court of Canada's Jordan principle - a decision that requires courts to throw out criminal cases which are not brought to trial within a certain period of time.

Last year, two sexual assault survivors who made allegations against Timothy Bruce "Bruxy" Cavey, a former pastor at Hamilton's The Meeting House, learned that he would not stand trial for each of the above reasons. But as crushing as these setbacks were to bear for these survivors and others who have come forward to disclose abuse in the pastoral relationship they had with Cavey, they may yet see this man, and the institutions which facilitated his actions, pay dearly for their failings.

In this blog post, I outline two new civil lawsuits being brought against Cavey and the institutions which facilitated his pastoral position and the work that put him in close proximity with vulnerable people.

Statements of Claim.

On May 7, 2025, Jellinek Ellis Gluckstein Lawyers filed two statements of claims in civil court for clients who allege sexual assault, battery, infliction of mental distress, and breach of fiduciary duty by Bruxy Cavey, called primarily by moniker, "Bruxy", as well and institutional defendants (Be In Christ Church of Canada, Heritage Fellowship Baptist Church, and The Meeting House).

My clients are among a number of former congregants of The Meeting House who have come forward to allege they were harmed by Cavey's actions while he served as a pastor for the Meeting House and provided marital counselling services. Many of these survivors who came forward have since chosen to return to silence, warned off by the disappointing results of the criminal proceedings against Bruxy, which saw two survivors invalidated and ultimately, without recourse.

In their statements of claim, the plaintiffs allege that Bruxy sexually abused them while he was their pastor and they were parishioners at The Meeting House and other Be In Christ Churches where he preached. They allege that The Meeting House knew or ought to have known about Bruxy's tendency to abuse vulnerable young women, but ignored his actions because of the publicity and acclaim he brought to the church.

Both of these survivors have described how they approached Bruxy, as pastor for the religious institution they attended, seeking guidance and counselling for issues in their marital relationships. Both plaintiffs allege that Bruxy engaged in a process of grooming by desensitizing them to sexual contact over a period of time.

The law recognizes that survivors in this sort of position are particularly susceptible to sexual assaults if they are young, isolation, or unworldly. As congregants, these clients looked to Bruxy as a father figure with religious authority over them, meant to guide them towards what was morally and spiritually right. As their pastoral counsellor, he was privy to sensitive private information about their lives and knew times when they were especially emotionally and/or financially vulnerable. Even though neither of these two survivors were minors at the time of Bruxy's harmful actions, the nature of his position of authority over them created a dynamic whereby the sexual violence they experienced can be categorized as abuse as they had no capacity to consent to sexual activity according to law.

These civil claims together seek more than $6 million in special damages, damages for pain and suffering, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

History of The Meeting House Scandal: Investigations and Criminal Charges.

When the first allegations against Bruxy came to light, The Meeting House put him on leave as a third-party investigation took place. He was asked by the church's board to resign on March 3, 2022 after this investigation reported Cavey had a sexual relationship with a woman, in contravention to its own rules.

In a statement days later, on March 8, board chair Maggie John said this relationship lasted "an extended period of time, constituted an abuse of Bruxy's power and authority as a member of the clergy, and amounted to sexual harassment." In a blog post published the same day on his web site, cavey apologized for what he characterized as an "extramarital affair."

A church investigation identified 38 allegations of sexual misconduct (a term used distinctly by the church) against four former pastors, including Bruxy.

Bruxy was ultimately charged with three counts of sexual assault. However, one count was stayed in light of the Jordan principle, while the others were withdrawn by the Crown.

Since the criminal process is no longer an option, the survivors at the heart of those charge who bravely came forward must now not only grapple with the effects of Bruxy's moral and legal failures; but also the failure of the criminal justice system to administer timely justice.

The survivors have been devastated by the result. As one complainant said upon learning of the stay: "I grieve now for not only myself, but all those who dare speak truth to power and are crushed again by the same power that made it impossible for them to consent in the first place."

When learning about the stay of the first charge, Cavey told journalists: "I did fail morally even though I don't believe I failed legally. My primary concern is trying to figure out how to make things right because of my moral failure."

Since the criminal process ended, The Meeting House has had to close its doors. The Meeting House was unable to renew its insurance policies for abuse liability and employment practices liability and had been forced to move its programming online to ensure staff, volunteers, and vulnerable people are protected. On August 28, 2024, it permanently suspended its public operations and reorganized its remaining affiliates as a consortium called the Be In Christ (BIC) Church Collective. While The Meeting House can now no longer expose future congregants to potential abusers, the damage to these survivors has been done, and they deserve justice.

The Reality of Making Things Right - The Last Path to Justice via the Civil Process.

The last path to justice for these survivors is the civil litigation process.

While the criminal justice system is designed to hold individuals accountable to laws of the state that protect society, civil courts are designed to hold individuals (and entities such institutions) accountable to each other.

In the case of institutional sexual abuse and institutional sexual assaults, exploring and understanding the role the institution played in facilitating conditions that led to sexual violence is essential. Through the civil process, survivors will have a chance to hold The Meeting House and Be In Christ Church accountable for their failure to protect them from Bruxy's sexual abuse. Civil courts will assess claims against all the defendants, to pay damages for Bruxy's actions and the institution's negligence.

But by naming The Meeting House and Be In Christ Church in these suits, these claims force the religious institutions to reckon with the policies and procedures in place which put people at risk of harm. Any institution facing a significant financial penalty is likely to take steps to avoid experiencing anything similar again.

As sexual assault lawyers solely working for plaintiffs, my colleagues at Jellinek Ellis and Gluckstein and I see our work on institutional abuse as serving two important goals.

First, we help individual survivors pursue an avenue for justice in which they have more control than criminal proceedings. Moreover, establishing a sexual assault claim on the balance of probabilities is much more likely to be successful than proving guilt in criminal court.

Second, we show institutions why taking preventative measures to protect people from sexual violence is much less costly than failing to uphold their duty of care. This valuable lesson will hopefully spare other people from suffering the kind of harm our clients did at the hands of these institutions.

The two survivors who witnessed criminal charges against Cavey fall apart before a verdict could reasonably think: "Justice was not done." But as the legal representatives for survivors pursuing civil claims against this former pastor and the church institutions associated with him, we believe it's more precise to say "Justice was not done… yet."

To learn more about Jellinek Ellis Gluckstein's work on institutional sexual abuse and assault cases, contact our compassionate team today for a free consultation.