Lord have mercy!
It's a good thing the OCA quickly retired him, but I believe he should be laicized, as well.
Assuming that he's guilty, absolutely. In addition, until his appeals in the secular courts are finished and an ecclesiastical court is convened and does its work, I believe that he should be prevented from having access to children. Fortunately with his conviction in civil court, that should be taken care of.
However, I don't think that the OCA hierarchy is wrong to wait for the secular court process to be completed before it acts to defrock an Archbishop, or any cleric. I also don't think that the hierarchy is wrong when it refuses to consider a conviction in secular court to be proof of guilt before investigating the circumstances themselves. Anybody who has been following the work of the innocence Project in the U.S. knows that the U.S. legal system has incorrectly convicted a large number of innocent people and put them on death row. The problem is endemic, and systemic -- the courts (judges and juries both) accept as valid "evidence" that is either false or does not prove what they believe it proves. I do not for one minute think that the rate of incorrect convictions in my own country is less for people who are accused of crimes that do not carry a death penalty; the system is *more* careful with death penalty cases than others.
Unfortunately there is good reason to believe that a number of other countries have the same problem. The UK is one of them -- there are several groups of legal authorities and concerned citizens that have documented numerous similar miscarriages of justice to the Innocence Project cases in the U.S. I haven't heard of an "Innocence Project" in Canada, but Canada's legal system is similar to the UK legal system and -- to a lesser but real extent -- to the legal system in the U.S.
As I understand the facts of Archbishop Seraphim Storheim's case, it rests on accusations made by two brothers. A priest in his diocese also testified that the brothers had made statements to him years ago accusing the Archbishop of molesting them. Despite extensive efforts, however, nobody could find another victim. It is quite unusual, although not unprecedented, for a pedophile not to leave a string of broken lives behind him. And, due to the decades that have passed since the alleged molestations took place, there's no physical or circumstantial evidence, just the witnesses.
I'm not entirely convinced that he's guilty. I really hope that *something* comes up in the appellate process to establish his innocence or guilt more firmly. I bet that the Holy Synod feels the same.