Diocese bursar knew the score

REV. GORDON BRYAN TELLS INQUIRY HE BELIEVED PAYOUT WAS TO PROTECT PRIEST'S REPUTATION

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

25 July 2008

Posted By TREVOR PRITCHARD, STANDARD-FREEHOLDER

The former bursar for the Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese knew his superiors were protecting one of their priests' reputation when he issued a $27,000 cheque in 1993, the Cornwall Public Inquiry heard yesterday.

From 1982 to 2005 Rev. Gordon Bryan managed many of the church's financial affairs.

In September 1993, he signed off on the diocese's share of a $32,000 settlement with David Silmser.

Silmser had accused Rev. Charles MacDonald of sexually abusing him when he was an altar boy decades earlier at St. Columban's Church in Cornwall. Bryan testified that before issuing the payment to Jacques Leduc, the diocese's lawyer in the negotiations, he went to see then-bishop Eugene LaRocque. LaRocque, said Bryan, told him he'd "reluctantly" agreed to the payout. Bryan gleaned the matter was serious. "You understood, I suggest, that

the confidentiality around this transaction was aimed at protecting Father MacDonald," said attorney Peter Wardle.

"Protecting his integrity, yes," said Bryan.

Wardle suggested it was "unusual" for the diocese to issue such a large cheque without having any supporting documents.

"Yes. But of course the occasion was unusual, very unusual too," replied Bryan.

A few days after signing the cheque -Bryan couldn't say when -Leduc returned with an envelope containing the signed version of the settlement.

Bryan said he filed the settlement with other documents of historical interest to the diocese -and not in LaRocque's office, where personnel records were kept.

"Not even the bishop knew it was there," said Wardle.

"No -one of those historical mistakes," said Bryan. "I should have given it to him."

Wardle suggested that as "a prudent bursar" Bryan would have been concerned about the lack of paperwork, but since he wasn't making the decisions, he deferred to his superiors.

"You were satisfied it was being handled by others, the diocesan lawyer, and of course, the bishop," said Wardle. "Is that fair?"

"Yes, that's fair," said Bryan.

When the media began reporting on the deal in January 1994, LaRocque and Leduc initially told reporters the settlement didn't prohibit Silmser from pressing charges against MacDonald.

But neither had looked inside the sealed envelope. They were forced to publicly retract their comments after learning MacDonald's lawyer had inserted a clause that kept Silmser from going to police.

MacDonald would be charged by the Ontario Provincial Police in 1996 with a number of sex-related crimes involving young men. His charges were stayed six years later.

Coalition for Action lawyer Ian Paul asked Bryan if he thought to ask Leduc if he'd seen the settlement documents, since the envelope clearly came from MacDonald's lawyer's office.

"Would you not have wanted to actually see the release forms and documentation yourself, as part of your duty as the bursar?" asked Paul.

"I actually assumed that Mr. Leduc had reviewed it," said Bryan. "I depended on his say-so."

Bryan told Dallas Lee, an attorney for The Victims Group, that the diocese had a financial committee and he would normally bring any transaction over $10,000 to their attention.

During Silmser's 1995 civil suit against the diocese, LaRocque testified he told Bryan the committee would have likely been able to talk him out of settling, and that Bryan should have advised him to go that route.

Bryan said yesterday he couldn't remember any such conversation.

"He may have thought it happened, but it didn't to the best of my knowledge," he said.

* * * *

After Bryan left the stand, commission staff read into evidence a nine-page document summing up the eight years Adolph Proulx spent as bishop of the local diocese.

Proulx was bishop from 1967 until 1974. He died in 1987 at the age of 59 after an accidental drowning.

The document outlined Proulx's relationship with convicted abuser Gilles Deslauriers, as well as correspondence he had with a number of other suspected predators, including MacDonald.

One entry revealed that in 1998, the diocese agreed to a second $20,000 settlement with a man known only as C- 3.

C-3 was also alleging abuse at MacDonald's hands, and had launched a civil suit against the diocese. Bryan testified briefly about the settlement Wednesday, saying it was for legal fees after the negotiations were at an "impasse" when the deal was struck. The inquiry resumes today with a new witness.

Article ID# 1129270

So they tried to pay off other victims do you still think that David silmser is lying? (Mister Former Altar Boy that nothing ever happened to AKA Itinerant). Seems to be a habit of paying off anyone that complains about a priest. Not real concern for the victim but concern for the priests reputation.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #1 By dodger,

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #2 By jacksback4good

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #3 By jacksback4good

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #4 By jacksback4good

In 1998 and 1999 I was discussing leaving Cornwall and Area for what I perceived to be “greener pastures”, so-to-speak. A few people encouraged me to stay in Cornwall.

They suggested a couple of small businesses; I could buy and earn a good living.

They said they would help.

During this time, someone else suggested to me that I should go to Jacques Leduc for money, if I needed any. I was told Mr. Leduc invests all kinds of money on behalf of the Diocese and many, many parishioners. I was told parishioners trust Mr. Leduc implicity, with their investment dollars. This individual was certain I could get Mr. Leduc to help, if needed.

This individual obviously had no idea about my previous real estate interactions with Mr. Leduc, the subsequent transfer of my “file” out of his office to another law firm, or, of my unfavourable opinion of Mr. Leduc.

In any event, I wanted to “learn” more.

I engaged a contact from out of the province to join me and meet with Mr. Leduc in his office in Cornwall, to discuss my interest in borrowing money for commercial, real estate reasons. We met.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #6 By 2 sides 2 a story, 

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #7 By James "SPEAK OUT",

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #8 By dodger,

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #9 By dodger

yes "Dodger". I read where many people comment that previous posts, have been deleted or modified. Some of mine disappeared or didn't appear at all. At least one comment was posted by someone else, using my name, or, at least one that I know of. For me, it's been "par for the course" since the 1990's. In "letters to the editor" they would put a title giving the complete opposite impression to what I was attempting to write about.

It's brutally "shameful", the whole sordid affair..from "day one".

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #10 By James "SPEAK OUT"