Court of King’s Bench notes UK seeks to try him for alleged physical, sexual assaults of minors
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench committed a resident of Wetaskiwin, Alberta – who used to teach at boarding schools operated by the De La Salle Order – into custody for his potential surrender to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The UK requested the extradition of the respondent in United Kingdom v Murray, 2026 ABKB 115, to try him for allegedly physically and/or sexually assaulting 17 minors in Scotland from 1965–72.
In October 2024, Scotland certified the record of the case (ROC), which provided the evidence available to support the respondent’s prosecution.
In the ROC, 17 former students at two schools made the following allegations, among others, stemming from incidents at the schools involving a man called “Brother Peter”:
- anal and oral penetration
- touching of genitals
- watching and touching students while showering
- punching, kicking, pushing, and slapping students
- hitting them with objects
- throwing objects at them
- pulling and dragging them by the hair
- making a student touch an electric fence
- stabbing a student in the stomach with a pencil and a screwdriver
- killing animals in front of students
The allegations also included the following injuries relating to incidents involving “Brother Peter”:
- a broken ankle, wrist, and teeth
- a nose injury due to a thrown tin of food
- cuts on a student’s knees, a bloody nose, and lumps on his head following an alleged assault
In November 2024, Canada’s justice minister issued an authority to proceed (ATP) under s. 15 of the Extradition Act, 1999. The ATP stated that the UK sought the respondent for the prosecution of offences corresponding to offences under ss. 266 and 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada, 1985.
Canada’s attorney general brought the present application on the UK’s behalf.
The defence conceded that the ATP referred to the respondent. However, the defence argued that the evidence in the ROC insufficiently established that he was “Brother Peter.” The defence added that none of the complainants identified the respondent as the perpetrator.
Man committed to custody
Under s. 29(1)(a) of the Extradition Act, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta committed the respondent into custody at the Edmonton Remand Centre, where he would await the justice minister’s determination on whether to surrender him to the UK.
Under s. 38(2) of the Extradition Act, the court informed the respondent of his non-surrender until after the expiration of 30 days. The court noted his right to appeal the committal order and apply for a judicial interim release.
The court ruled that the Crown established a prima facie case that the respondent engaged in conduct that would constitute the offences of assault under s. 266 of the Criminal Code and sexual interference under s. 151 of the Criminal Code.
The court held that the evidence in the ROC met the offence of sexual interference in connection with seven complainants and the offence of assault with respect to all 17 complainants.
The court determined that the respondent was the person the UK sought. The court explained that a reasonably instructed jury, acting reasonably, could infer from sufficient evidence in the ROC that the respondent was the man the complainants called “Brother Peter.”
Even if there were gaps in the evidence, as alleged by the defence, the court said they would not materially undermine its reliability. The court noted that the defence raised issues appropriate for trial, as they dealt with competing inferences and the strength of the case.
