The perps were Myles Admiraal and Lee Admiraal of Synergi LLC

The 17 year old boy and his father in this Globe and Mail article are Lee Admiraal and his father Myles Admiraal.
They are now directors of the large USA business Synergi LLC who sell architectural hardware, stairs and railings. Lee Admiraal and his wife Tami Admiraal have been recetly touted as the ideal Plymouth Brethren Christian Church couple in a podcast called "Lee and Tami Admiraal - peaceful pathway" The podcast was used to slander and belittle Lee's brother Lane, who left the PBCC after being physically and sexually abused by PBCC members in Montreal.
The podcast DID NOT MENTION that Lee Admiraal and Myles Admiraal were convicted of homophobic hate crimes and ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution to the gay couple they terrorised.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/couple-win-10000-in-homophobia-case/article18141708/#:~:text=The%20boy's%20father%20is%20being,2005%20and%20threatened%20their%20lives.
The text of the Globe and Mail article is below:

COUPLE WIN $10,000 IN HOMOPHOBIA CASE

Theo Wouters and Roger Thibault are arguably the most high-profile homosexual couple in Quebec and, partly as a result, they say their lives in a quiet corner of suburbia have been "sheer hell."

Ever since they went public with complaints of threats and harassment by their neighbours in the bedroom community of Pointe Claire, they say they have been victims of homophobia.

And now, in the latest chapter in their public and acrimonious battle, they have won a victory at the Quebec Human Rights Commission, which has ordered a local youth and his father to pay them $10,000 in damages for violating their rights.

The agency ruled that Mr. Wouters and Mr. Thibault, retirees who have been a couple for more than 30 years, were the victims of harassment by a local teenage boy who threw projectiles onto their lawn and threatened to smash their faces.

The incidents unfolded in 2003, one year after Mr. Wouters and Mr. Thibault boosted their public profile by becoming the first gay couple in Quebec to join in a civil union.

"This is happening because we're an open gay couple," Mr. Wouters said from his home yesterday. "We didn't accept being harassed in the first place, and it all escalated from there. The last 10 years have been sheer hell for Roger and I."

The Quebec commission said, in a ruling issued in June and made public by the couple yesterday, that Mr. Wouters and Mr. Thibault had suffered discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Bolstering their case were video cameras that had been installed outside their home and paid for by Quebec's victim-compensation agency.

Although the couple says a group of teenaged boys in a pickup truck harassed them, the commission did not pursue the case against the other youths because they live in Alberta, commission spokesman Robert Sylvestre said.

But it did uphold the case against a youth from Pointe Claire, aged 17 at the time, who openly admitted his disdain for the couple. He acknowledged to the human-rights agency that he'd thrown a lit fuse and rolls of toilet paper onto the Wouters-Thibault property, and threatened the couple with violence once while they were in their car.

The youth, whose name was not released, also stated about the couple: "I didn't like their lifestyle, found them arrogant and it bothers me that they make their story so public," the commission wrote.

The boy's father is being held accountable for paying moral damages because his son was a minor, Mr. Sylvestre said.

The Montreal civil rights group that fought the couple's case says the pair paid a price for their notoriety and their choice to live in suburbia. "We tend to see Quebec as a very tolerant society, but in practice it all depends on where you live," said Fo Niemi of the Centre for Research-Action for Race Relations. "The suburbs are very conservative and family-oriented and heterosexual, so sometimes [gays]aren't seen as very positive by the neighbours."

In 2002, the Quebec Human Rights Commission ordered two of their neighbours to pay the pair $36,000 in damages. But in a separate, criminal case, a Quebec Court judge in Montreal later that year cleared one of those neighbours of criminal harassment and assault.

And the couple's fight isn't over. Mr. Wouters and Mr. Thibault have another case pending before the human rights commission, this time because they say a neighbourhood father came to their door in 2005 and threatened their lives.

"We have no choice," said Mr. Wouters, a 65-year-old former couturier and milliner. "We have suffered greatly for the last 10 years and I simply don't want this to happen to other people."

https://preview.redd.it/ek1obazxeoug1.png?width=929&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a93156a4a2cd2368f47e87d210b72b45dbe20fd

https://preview.redd.it/za9bexd1foug1.png?width=880&format=png&auto=webp&s=70bf8756de13e87ca72a9bf349b9b9bd7770ab95

https://preview.redd.it/s3o94kl4foug1.png?width=887&format=png&auto=webp&s=da48add99f1c235063cbe7e58a0939911e3a1528

https://preview.redd.it/to5px598foug1.png?width=908&format=png&auto=webp&s=f8dbe0e1ef7b7e712069ce1df8423a4239e49c68

Lee Admiraal is the Executive Vice President of Synergi

The PBCC saw fit today to publish a podcast called "Peaceful Path - Lee and Tammi Admiraal"

In their haste to defame and slander GAL founder Lane Admiraal, they forgot to mention Lee's conviction for a series of terrifying homophobic attacks on a gay couple in their Montreal neighborhood. You can hear the Lee Admiraal story on Get-a-Life Episode 114, from timestamp 42.25, or just click here:

https://youtu.be/3uIunkS_Jfo?t=2545

Here is the transcript:

🧾 BACKGROUND: WHO WAS INVOLVED

So Lee Admiraal is a member of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church in Montreal, Quebec. He was 16 and 17 years old when the attacks took place. And as we know, homophobia is instilled into the PBCC members from a very, very young age.

⚖️ THE CASE: FIRST SAME-SEX UNION TARGETED

So the following slides have been taken from the court transcript, so the present tense is used at times. This is the case. There's two men, Roger and Theo, were two gay men who had lived together as a couple at the residence in Pointe-Claire since 1978. On July 18, 2002, they became the first gay male couple to formalize their union under Quebec civil union law.

🚨 ESCALATION: HARASSMENT BEGINS

The incidents involving the victims and the defendant occurred between April and November 2003, when the defendant was 16 and 17 years old. On April 18, 2003, around 9 p.m., a dark blue pickup truck drove past the victim's residence. One of the passengers threw toilet paper from the truck onto their car and lawn. The couple called the police, filed a report, and gave police a videotape of the incident.

The following day on April 19, 2003, someone was heard screaming "faggots" from the street. When one of the victims looked outside, he saw the same dark blue pickup truck speeding away, tires screeching.

🔥 ATTACK: FIRE THROWN AT THEIR HOME

On November 10, 2003, around 11:30 p.m., so almost midnight, the blue pickup truck drove by again. According to the victims, a flare was thrown from the truck and huge flames and fireballs could be seen on the roof, rolling on the lawn and into the street.

Although there was no damage to their property, the victims claimed to have been very frightened by the attack, rightfully so.

🚗 CONFRONTATION: THREATS AND PURSUIT

On November 21, 2003, as the victims were driving home, they stopped at a convenience store and noticed the same blue pickup truck and a group of young people who had stopped to buy some beer.

When the victims drove away, they were followed to their driveway and insults such as "fucking faggots" were yelled at them from the truck.

Incensed, the victims decided to get back into the car, follow the truck, and finally identify the culprits. The truck turned onto a street called Broadview and drove into the parking lot of a community church.

The victims stopped their car, effectively blocking the truck's way. The defendant got out of the truck and approached the victim's car. When the victim refused to move or open the window, the defendant repeatedly banged on the window, trying to open the car door, and threatened to strike one of the victims with his fist.

The victims heard the defendant say that he would rather break his fucking face than break his fist on the window. Then they dialed 911 from the car and the defendant ran away.

🧠 IMPACT: LASTING TRAUMA

The victims claimed to continue to live in constant fear for their safety. They no longer listen to music, they have trouble sleeping, and are constantly afraid of what might happen next.

The couple has even canceled plans to travel together so as not to leave their home unattended.

More particularly, Roger testified that the events caused him to relive the profound trauma of accepting his homosexuality and that is still something he is trying to deal with with help from his psychologist.

Theo, his partner, added that his once successful artistic career has been destroyed. He is no longer able to paint because of his anxiety.

🛑 DEFENCE: RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION CLAIMED

The defendant explained that he had heard of the victims through the local papers and disapproved of their openly homosexual lifestyle. Although he had never met them personally, his disapproval of homosexuality stems from his religious beliefs as a member of the Brethren church, a conservative Christian church that teaches that homosexuality is a sin.

The defendant only admitted to calling them "fags" on one occasion on April 18, 2003, and he categorically denied ever using the word "fucking" as alleged by the victims.

He also denied throwing a flare at the victim's property and claimed it was merely a firecracker with a small stick. He explained that there was no fire, only sparks, and all it did was go "bang." He explained that it was late at night and that he was probably just trying to show off in front of his friends.

With respect to the threats he added on November 21, 2003, he explained that he merely wanted the victims to move their car so he could leave with his truck and that he would never have stricken either victim.

📚 EDUCATION CLAIM: “COULD NOT RECALL” RIGHTS

Regarding his education, he claimed that although his father had told him that homosexuality is legal in Canada, he could not recall whether he had been told that homosexuals have rights or that discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation are prohibited.

I'm going to reread that again for you listeners.

Regarding his education, he claimed that although his father had told him that homosexuality is legal in Canada, he could not recall whether he had been told that homosexuals have rights or that discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation are prohibited.

This is an outright omission of the truth. The PBCC are taught from a young age that homosexuality is sinful.

⚖️ THE VERDICT

The verdict. There is no doubt, given the facts established, that the damages caused by the defendant's actions were unlawful and intentional within the meaning of Section 49 of the Charter.

On several occasions, he deliberately humiliated, intimidated, and harassed the victims.

Given the gravity of the acts committed and the importance of dissuading others from engaging in similar behavior, yet also considering the defendant's apology and expression of remorse, the tribunal decided the amount of $2,500 to each victim was appropriate for punitive damages and $5,000 to each victim for moral damages.

Rapid Relief Team has announced a NZ$150,000 donation to Ronald McDonald House Charities New Zealand, framed as support for parents staying close to children in hospital. The numbers are there if you want them - nights funded, families helped, partnerships extended - but the image does more work than the text. A physically enormous cheque, stretched across the frame, designed to be seen from a distance and remembered afterwards.

https://preview.redd.it/1mvxki2cn7ug1.png?width=694&format=png&auto=webp&s=6e32c0c42985fbb8445e2ae45e3ec8f426127a19

That detail is not incidental - it is the point.
The cheque is oversized because the message is oversized, the act turned into something staged, something broadcast. What sits behind a two-metre prop like that is not just a donation... it is presentation.

RRT also states plainly that it is an initiative of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church.

That last point matters more than the press release wants you to notice - because the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, formerly known as the Exclusive Brethren, has spent decades facing criticism over the damage its doctrine of separation does to family life. This is the church whose name keeps surfacing in reports about estranged parents and children, broken marriages, severed sibling relationships, and people leaving under a cloud of fear, loss and social exile. So when its public-facing charity wraps itself in the language of “keeping families together,” the problem is not subtle... the slogan collides head-on with the record.

Here’s the core of it.

The PBCC teaches a doctrine of separation that restricts social contact with non-members and has long been linked, by former members and outside investigators, to family division when people leave or fall foul of church discipline. ABC reported in 2024 that former member Tom Grace described a lifelong rift with siblings who remained in the church, saying he never spoke to his eldest sister again. In the same report, another former member, Tam, described secretly leaving the family home with her brothers because they knew any goodbye would be devastating.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-19/leaving-the-plymouth-brethren-christian-church-in-australia/104323648

That is not just a collection of isolated anecdotes from bitter ex-members.

In the UK, the Charity Commission’s review of the Preston Down Trust recorded a substantial body of evidence from ex-members and others about the effects of PBCC doctrine and disciplinary practices on family relationships. The Commission summarised allegations including physical separation of family members during disciplinary processes, “little or no contact” leading to permanent divisions within families, “a complete severing of ties” when members leave, isolation, loss of social network, and fear of repercussions for both those who leave and relatives who remain. After reviewing the material, the Commission concluded there were elements of detriment and harm arising from PBCC doctrine and practice, with negative impact on individuals and the wider community.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74c214e5274a3cb2866f23/preston_down_trust_full_decision.pdf

The same pattern turns up in reporting from New Zealand.

RNZ, republished by the New Zealand Herald, reported in 2021 that former members accused the church of tearing families apart, and described one Christchurch couple who said they had become estranged from eight of their nine children and 25 grandchildren after disciplinary action. The article also reported that the couple and their 14-year-old daughter were turned away from visiting relatives in Australia on the orders of church leadership after being “shut up,” forbidden to communicate with anyone. That is what family separation looks like in real life - not as theology, not as branding, but as lived consequence.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/ex-exclusive-brethren-accuse-church-of-tearing-families-apart/P2I6TRRZIPKEJT3UMZNQ4XO66A/

Go back further and the story does not improve.

In 2003, The Guardian reported that Brethren leaders admitted “hasty” decisions had split British families when members wanted to leave the sect. In 2006, ABC’s Background Briefing described a movement in which marriages had to be approved by leadership and breaking rules risked excommunication. A later ABC report said former members still carry the trauma of life inside a group where people were not allowed to eat with non-Brethren and where family rupture followed departure.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/mar/15/religion.world

Even the church’s defenders end up conceding the central point by the way they answer it.

The PBCC says it does not prevent former members from contacting their families and says it cannot force relatives to maintain contact if they do not want to. That line is revealing - because it does not deny the estrangement, it sidesteps responsibility for the conditions that produce it. Families do not repeatedly fracture around the same doctrine, across countries and across decades, by accident.

That is why the Ronald McDonald House donation lands so badly.

Nobody sensible is going to say accommodation for parents of sick children is a bad thing. The issue is the performance built around it - the plaques at the entrances, the press release, the sentimental language about loved ones needing to be close, and now the visual centrepiece: a cheque so large it becomes the story. It stretches across the photo, commands attention, turns a private act into a staged moment. It says: look at this. Look how much. Look how good.

And that raises the obvious question - what is hiding behind that giant cheque?

RRT says the donation represents its “defining values.” Fine. Then people are entitled to ask why the defining public memory of its parent church is not family unity, but family rupture.

RRT exists as the charitable arm of the PBCC.

The organisation says its charitable work reflects Plymouth Brethren faith. That means the church cannot reasonably expect to collect the reputational benefit of public charity while shrugging off the reputational cost of its own doctrine. You do not get to say the good works count as proof of your values, but the documented harm to families is somebody else’s misunderstanding. It is the same movement, the same belief system, the same public-relations machine - just presented on a larger stage, with a larger cheque.

So yes - Ronald McDonald House will welcome the money, and struggling families may benefit from it.

But the public should not let the photo opportunity do all the talking. When a church with a long, well-documented history of family estrangement funds a campaign about “keeping families together,” the right response is not applause alone. The right response is to look at the gap between the message and the record... and name it for what it is:

performative charity serving as moral cover for an institution whose own practices have torn families apart.