Handle witnesses carefully: parties

Terri Saunders

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 10:00

Local News - Emotionally fragile witnesses should not be subjected to undue harm in order for the Cornwall Public Inquiry to get to the bottom of historic and systemic child sexual abuse, commission officials heard Monday.

A number of parties at the inquiry suggested victims and alleged victims of child sexual abuse should be questioned by lawyers who represent not only their abusers but also public institutions with whom the witnesses had some form of contact.

At the same time, parties suggested, witnesses should not be further victimized by the process.

"What works in a criminal courtroom may not be successful at this inquiry," said David Bennett, an attorney representing The Men's Project.

Bennett pointed to the fact under cross-examination in a criminal court, lawyers will often put questions to witnesses in order to test their credibility and memory surrounding events such as allegations of sexual abuse.

"But the public will not be well served if erroneous evidence is left unchallenged," he said.

On Monday, Comm. Normand Glaude asked for submissions from parties as to how cross-examinations could continue in order to ensure the inquiry hears as much evidence as possible from as many witnesses as possible.

In the past few weeks, at least two witnesses who have testified at the inquiry have suggested the process of cross-examination left them feeling as they've been revictimized.

David Silmser, a man who received a $32,000 settlement from the Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese in relation to allegations of abuse he made against Rev. Charles MacDonald, once walked out of the hearings room and on another occasion refused to continue his testimony after it was determined the process was taking an emotional toll on him.

David Petepiece, who said he was the victim of an attempted sexual assault at the hands of an Anglican minister in the 1950s, wrote a letter to the inquiry after his testimony was completed, suggesting the process of cross-examination was a form of revictimization.

During testimony Feb. 8, Petepiece was being cross-examined about a meeting he had with two Ontario Provincial Police officers in 2001 after he told them he would be filing an official complaint about what he considered to be their failure to properly investigate his allegations.

For years, Petepiece has believed he met with Det. Const. Steve Seguin and Insp. Pat Hall on that date, but documentation maintained by the OPP show Seguin was accompanied by Det. Const. Joe Dupuis and Hall was not in attendance.

Petepiece suggested Dupuis' demeanour was meant to intimidate him.

"He (Dupuis) was the muscle," said Petepiece.

"Excuse me?" asked William Carroll, an attorney for the Ontario Provincial Police Association.

"He was the muscle, you know?" asked Petepiece.

"Just a minute, just a minute," said Carroll. "What do you mean by that?"

"Well, I've already explained earlier and testified earlier that the second person in the meeting, who I had originally believed and now accept wasn't Inspector Hall, was doing his very best to intimidate and bully me, not by words but by body language; by looks.

"So I characterize that as being the muscle in the meeting. You may take exception to that. That's my (characterization) of it."

Carroll went on to put several questions to Petepiece about why he felt he was being intimidated by Dupuis. Petepiece admitted at no time did any of the officers come towards him in a threatening manner or raise their voices.

"When you use a term like 'muscle' then I feel it's my responsibility to my client to determine the factual basis for that," Carroll said.

"Well, I withdraw the remark," said Petepiece.

Neil Kozloff, an attorney for the OPP, said Monday when witnesses are permitted to testify about how they felt during their journey within the justice it opens up the possibility they may say disparaging things which parties have the right to refute.

"Witnesses are invited to criticize the actions of those (agencies and individuals) with whom they dealt," said Kozloff. "Counsel who represent (these agencies and individuals) should be permitted to challenge witnesses on those opinions and feelings."

David Sherriff-Scott, an attorney representing the Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese, said the proper administration of justice would be negatively impacted by any sweeping restrictions on both the content and quality of cross-examination.

"All counsel are being fair and respectful in asking questions in a most difficult situation," said Sherriff-Scott.

"But the process only works when it is full and complete."

Documents taking their toll

Tens of thousands of documents filed with the Cornwall Public Inquiry are beginning to put a strain on the legal resources of some parties, including the Catholic church.

David Sherriff-Scott, an attorney who represents the Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese, confirmed Monday his client will be seeking additional funding in order to continue sifting through a large pile of disclosure they've received over the past eight months as well as documents they've yet to receive.

"To date, we've received something like 65,000 documents," said Sherriff-Scott. "In order to participate in this inquiry, it's important we review each document and we're trying to do that in the most economical way possible."

Sherriff-Scott said 400 hours of paralegal time paid for by the commission has been exhausted by the diocese and they need more time - and more money to pay for it.

"There are potentially thousands more documents to be disclosed to the parties," he said. "We have a whole year ahead of us and it will be essential to continue to examine each of these documents as we receive them."

Sherriff-Scott also said Monday no decision has been made regarding whether his client will try to protect the names of priests who were investigated by police in relation to abuse allegations but never charged.

"We are still considering whether to seek a publication ban," he said.