up by a designated social worker acting as a
delegate to the director of youth protection
services (DPJ). The general aim of the voluntary
measures that were agreed upon by most of the
BCW parents was to help them modify their
disciplinary approaches, learn better parenting
skills, and succeed in reintegrating their children
into mainline society. In the case of some of the
children, psychological services were also
recomended because the children presented
important problems with adaptation,
developmental difficulties, or both that were
deemed unlikely to be corrected through the
social and family measures being taken.
Although the OSGE had closed its file in 1985
in the belief that the BCW’s day-care facility
had ceased its operation, the facility was in fact
still open. Upon learning this, OSGE inspectors
were faced with the responsibility of taking
action, considering the disciplinary practices the
center favored and the lack of training of its
personnel. The OSGE proceded to close the day
care center officially in January 1986 under
Section 3 of the Child Day Care Act. In light of
the previous refusal of the child-care facility to
cooperate, and in anticipation of difficulties in
closing the center, the OSGE had asked
assistance from the Windsor municipal police
and from the provincial police, known as the
Sûreté du Québec. The DPJE also sent social
workers to take care of the infants and toddlers
in case some parents might not be reached.
However, the operation went smoothly as
parents picked up their children without
protesting the OSGE intervention, and the day-
care staff left the building without protest.
As noted, many BCW members were greatly
affected by the perception of themselves
reflected through the negatively tinted media
coverage (Bouchard, 2001 Leblanc, 2001). This
impact resulted in a number of departures from
the church, and many more left the group
following the DPJE’s intervention. The second
intervention of the OSGE at the church’s day-
care facility also seems to have had a
determining effect on many of the remaining
members who left after this last intervention.
The presence of a police contingent
accompanying the inspectors, since it constituted
a show of force at a point of the trajectory of the
BCW when few members were left, and at a
time when their pastor had all but abandoned
them, seems to have constitued a major blow to
the church. By the time of that latter
intervention, the BCW leader had indeed
distanced himself from his church, having
moved to a farm in another region, from where
he sought to manage his congregation. His move
was perceived as an abandonment by the
followers who were still loyal to him and who
felt strongly that they needed their pastor more
than ever in these times of turmoil. Whereas it
can be argued that the interventions of the social
agents described in the preceding pages
considerably reduced the pastor’s authority over
his followers, it can conversely be suggested that
his moving from Windsor and leaving his
followers to their own devices had the effect of
facilitating the social agents’ interventions, if
only by loosening his hold over the followers.
Pastor X, having left Windsor for good, put the
Church property, which was in his name, up for
sale. Members left the BCW all throughout 1986
and, by the end of that year, only a few
followers were left.
Aftermath
After having examined the evidence gathered by
the police and by the DPJE, the province’s
Attorney General granted immunity from
criminal prosecution to all the members of the
BCW. Criminal charges of assault concerning
six BCW children7 were, however, issued
against Pastor X, who additionally faced a
number of civil suits contesting his ownership of
church property. In March 1990, he was
sentenced to 90 days in prison for the assault
charges and 2 years’ probation, during which he
was prohibited from occupying any position in a
religious congregation. The civil charges were
resolved in various fashions, with the pastor
reimbursing former members at the end. In a
case concerning one teen who was a victim of
physical and sexual abuse, and whose parents
had not accepted the voluntary measures
7 The arrest warrant for Pastor X, issued on October 8, 1987,
contained eight charges under Section 245 of the Criminal Code,
RSC 1985, c C-14, (Canada, 1987, p. 224). At the time, this section
dealt with assault leaving bodily injury. Convictions were
punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
92 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015

proposed, Judge André Fauteux established a
precedent in regard to provisions of religious
freedom contained in the Canadian Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms as it relates to the
Youth Protection Act. He concluded that the
provisions contained in the Youth Protection Act
prevail, notwithstanding sections 1 and 2 of the
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, as this
exerpt from his ruling shows:
Freedom of religion is not absolute. It
does not authorize anyone to refuse a
child's right to protection, life, human
decency, mental and emotional
development, and safety. Neither does
freedom of religion authorize anyone to
violate the rules of law that ensure the
free exercise of basic rights to each
child. (Recueils de jurisprudence du
Québec, 1986, p. 2712)8
The precedent Judge Fauteux established by this
ruling sends an important message to religious
groups who follow exteme perspectives in the
way they practice their religion. It clearly states
that religious practices that violate the law are
not beyond the reach of the law. This precedent
also proved useful for Child Protection Services,
which henceforward had legal guidelines to
better identify punishments that violate the
rights of a child. Although Pastor X had been
confident that Child Protection Services held no
power to regulate the practices that went on in
his church because these practices were
religiously motivated, the rule of law prevailed.
By the time the pastor received his sentence in
1990, the BCW had already terminated its
activities, and he had left the region and sought
anonymity. As for the followers, most of them
had left the church by December 1986 and had
reintegrated with society, sending their children
to regular schools or day-care centers they also
had resumed communication with friends,
8 Original judgment rendered in French: “La liberté de religion
n’est pas absolue. Elle n’autorise personne à refuser à l’enfant le
libre exercice de son droit à la protection, à la vie, au respect de sa
personne, à son développement mental et affectif et à sa sécurité.
La liberté de religion n’autorise non plus personne à enfreindre les
règles de droit qui assurent à l’enfant le libre exercice de ses
propres droits fondamentaux.” (Recueils de jurisprudence du
Québec, 1986, p. 2712)
family, and neigbors. However, the parents of
seven families did not accept the option to
collaborate with the voluntary measures the
DPJE’s social workers had proposed to them.
Their files were thus referred to the Youth
Court, which ordered various measures to ensure
that their children’s safety and development
were safeguarded. These parents were probably
amongst those who remained the most loyal to
the BCW’s teachings. Despite their attachment
to these teachings, their church no longer held
activities or services as of 1986.
Discussion
The review of the literature presented in the first
part of this article is useful in helping us better
understand the peaceful “denouement,” to use
Bromley’s (2002) term, of the severe child-
abuse situation that occurred in the BCW. Here
we will attempt to analyze the behavior and
attitude of the church’s leader and to examine
the trajectory the BCW took, with the intention
of identifying the dimensions that were
instrumental in its final stages, and in its
dissolution. This analysis will lead to the
concluding remarks, in which we will present an
overview of the main observations.
During the first phases of the police and DPJE
investigations, the leader was confident that
social-control agencies held no power to
regulate the practices in his church since those
practices were religiously motivated. At that
point in time, he acted as a plenipotentiary
leader and was in a position to order his
followers to do and say what he deemed best.
Their loyalty to him had been tested in previous
times, and those who had stayed with him were
devoted followers who believed his word was
the truth and the only truth, as many authors
have noted of leaders who claim to be emissaries
of God (Casoni, 2000 Dawson, 2010 Kernberg,
2003a, 2003b Lane &Kent, 2008 Michel,
1999).
In this belief, both Pastor X and most of his
followers, were wrong. We will argue that the
combined and complementary interventions by
the police, child-protection services, and child
day-care authorities were successful in assuring
the safety of the BCW’s children because of
their particular strategy of intervention. Their
International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015 93