Four women filed civil lawsuits Wednesday against Albert Schultz, accusing the Canadian actor and artistic director of the Soulpepper Theatre Company of sexual battery and harassment of a sexual nature over a 13-year period.
"Albert is a serial sexual predator who…had well-developed methods for targeting actresses and luring them into situations that he considered optimal for sexually harassing and assaulting them," the lawsuits allege, adding that the methods were "facilitated by Soulpepper."
Sexual battery is a term used in civil lawsuits to describe unwanted touching of a sexual nature.
In all, the women in the four statements of claim allege 30 separate incidents, many of them with specific locations and dates.
CBC News has also spoken with some of Schultz's colleagues at Soulpepper, who said they had never witnessed the director behave inappropriately. They said he is passionate and a maverick who "experiments" with actors to get the best performances out of them.
However, two of the theatre company's founding members, Ted Dykstra and Stuart Hughes, along with actor Michelle Monteith, released a statement saying they believe the plaintiffs and hope their support will send "a message to organizations everywhere: sexual harassment in the workplace cannot be tolerated. By anyone."
Michael Joseph Scullion, 45, faces 12 charges of sexual abuse between 2010 and 2016.
The charges include a single count of attempting to rape a child, five counts of sexually assaulting a child, and three each of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
Scullion appeared before Armagh Magistrates’ Court this week where the public prosecution confirmed the case will go before Crown Court in the coming weeks.
The three alleged victims were all under the age of 13 at the time of the reported incidents.
The 45-year-old was remanded on £750 bail and issued with strict conditions, including a ban on contact with any of the alleged victims or witnesses.
£750 bail? Seriously? Good grief! He's not charged with loitering!
He is to reside at his address and is not to have any unsupervised contact with anyone aged under 18.
And we know he will do that because he is such a fine, up-standing, law-abiding citizen; right?
Scullion is back in court on January 23 before his case is transferred to Newry Crown Court for trial at a later date.
Let's hope the Crown Court Judge takes this case more seriously and thinks about the children for a change.
The teenager had travelled to London with former Claydon High School teacher Richard Barton-Wood to watch Danielle Perrett play the harp for guests at a hotel, Ipswich Crown Court heard.
Following the performance the teenager and Barton-Wood, who was engaged to Perrett in the 1980s, went to her flat and the boy was given her bed to sleep in, said William Carter, prosecuting.
“As he lay in that large bed Danielle Perrett came into the bedroom and he watched as she got undressed and got into the bed and cuddled up to him and got on top of him,” alleged Mr Carter.
He claimed that Perrett had sex with the teenager who later described her as “smelling of roses”.
“He found her attractive and he thought she was nice and the sex was nice. They stayed in bed afterwards and fell asleep,” said Mr Carter.
He claimed that Barton-Wood had come into the room and got into bed with them and had started touching the alleged victim but the teenager had turned away.
The next morning the boy was having a shower when Perrett allegedly joined him and performed a sex act on him. Perrett allegedly had sex with the boy on three further occasions, said Mr Carter.
Perrett, 59, of Bridge Street, Alpheton, has denied eight offences of indecent assault.
Barton-Wood, 68, of Church Street, Wymondham, Norfolk, has denied six offences of indecent assault, one of attempted buggery and one of attempted indecent assault.
The allegations date back to the 1980s.
Mr Carter claimed the alleged victim of the offences had been sexually assaulted by Barton-Wood on his boat which he kept at Pin Mill and at a house in Debenham.
Following his arrest Barton-Wood denied having any sexual contact with the alleged victim and Perrett claimed the teenager had pushed her against a wall and rubbed himself against her in her bathroom.
They said that when the alleged victim contacted them following the alleged offences they thought he was going to blackmail them.
The trial continues.
A paedophile jailed for trying to groom a child for sex abuse online tried again after he was released from prison.
Now the 44-year-old, of Hercules Close in Little Stoke, has admitted breaching a Sexual Risk Order by trying to groom another child online. Again, his intended victim was actually a member of the same vigilante group.
Watson has also pleaded guilty to attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child. He now faces a maximum five years’ jail for the breach of the order and a maximum two years’ jail for the new offence.
Watson was due to be sentenced at Bristol Crown Court on Wednesday, January 3, but sentencing was adjourned until the end of this month for the preparation of a pre-sentence report.
The new offence involves Watson chatting online to what he thought were girls aged nine and 13.
After suggesting a cuddle with the nine-year-old, and a massage and protected sex with the 13-year-old, there was talk of a meeting in Weston-super-Mare.
But he then had a knock at his door from the founder of the same paedophile hunter group who had turned up previously.
On that previous occasion Watson admitted sending messages to someone he thought was an 11-year-old girl. But she was in fact a member of the group, who filmed their meeting, published it online and informed police.
Back then, Watson pleaded guilty to one charge of attempting to sexually communicate with a child for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification.
At the time Detective Constable Tony Davey, from Avon and Somerset Police, said officers believed Watson "posed a serious risk" to children.
A police spokesman said revealing the identity of suspected paedophiles can give the suspect a chance to destroy evidence and there is a risk of wrongly accusing someone "in a hugely public way".