Staff Sergeant G. Derochie’s Report 

on Constable Dunlop’s Involvement with the David Silmser Investigation 08 January 1994

(this is the canned text of Part 1 of Derochie’s Report to A/Chief Carl Johnston.  Derochie refers to himself throughout in the third person)   

On January 13, 1993, Constable Heidi Sebalj, of the Cornwall Police Service, ,was assigned to investigate a complaint of sexual assault. This incident was alleged to have occurred some twenty (20) years ago, when the victim, Mr. David Silmser, was an alter boy at St. Columban Church. The suspect was identified as being Father Charles MacDonald, a Roman Catholic priest, who was assigned to the church at that time.

Mr. Silmser had also identified Mr. Ken Seguin, an employee of Probation Services, of having sexually assaulted him as well. The victim did not wish to pursue a complaint against Mr. Seguin, but did want Father MacDonald charged.

The investigation was conducted over a period of several months. Constable Sebalj completed her investigation towards the middle of August 1993. She was making final arrangements to meet with a Crown Attorney, in order to determine what charges could be laid. On August 24th, 1993, Mr. Silmser called Cst. Sebalj and told her that she should take her time in concluding the investigation.

On or about September 3, 1993, Staff Sergeant Brunet spoke to Mr. A. M. Malcolm MacDonald, Solicitor for Father MacDonald, and Mr. Sean Adams, solicitor for Mr. Silmser. Staff Sergeant Brunet was informed that Mr. Silmser had reached a civil settlement and wished to withdraw his complaint of sexual assault.

Arrangements were made with Mr. Adams to have Mr. Silmser attend the Police Station and speak with Constable Sebalj in person.

Word of the settlement and the termination of the investigation became common knowledge within the police station. Constable Perry Dunlop, who had no involvement with this investigation, approached Constable Sebalj and asked her if he could read Mr. Sihnser's statement. Constable Sebalj gave Constable Dunlop her original copy of the statement and he went off to read it in private. The original document was returned to Constable Sebalj and she thought no more of it.

It is believed that Constable Dunlop made at Ieast one copy of Mr. Silmser's statement. Constable Dunlop was troubled with the results of the investigation, and the fact that charges were not going to be laid.

On September 25th, 1993, Constable Dunlop discussed the particulars of this investigation with Mr. Richard Abell, of the Children's Aid Society. This conversation took place in the parking lot at Quinn's Inn in St. Andrews. Constable Dunlop and Mr. Abell are friends and the discussion was not official. On September 26th, 1993, Constable Dunlop went over to Mr. Abell's residence and brought with him a copy of Mr. Silmser's statement. Mr. Abell read the statement and the Incident was discussed.

It is apparent that Constable Dunlop was having great difficulty accepting that Father MacDonald and Mr. Seguin were going to escape prosecution. Constable Dunlop appears to have been unsure of what he should do with the information he had. During or about this same time, Constable Dunlop also went to two supervisors of the Cornwall Police Service. He spoke to Sergeant Claude Lortie and Staff Sergeant D'Arcy Dupuis. He expressed concern to both officers and was told by both officers that they would look into the matter.

On September 29th, 1993, Mr. Silmser attended the Cornwall Police Service to speak with Constable Sebalj, as previously arranged by his lawyer, Mr. Adams. Constable Sebalj confirmed that Mr. Silmser wanted to withdraw his complaint and had him provide a note in his own handwriting to that effect

During this September 29th meeting, Mr. Silmser mentioned to Constable Sebalj that a woman had been looking for him in Bourget, where he lived. He had subsequently spoken to her over the telephone. She wanted to meet with him in order to discuss his decision not to proceed with charges against Father MacDonald.

Constable Sebalj asked Mr. Silmser who this woman was. Mr. Silmser produced a piece of paper with the name Helen Dunlop. The piece of paper also contained Constable Dunlop's telephone number. Helen Dunlop is the wife of Constable Dunlop.

Constable Sebalj became alarmed when she saw the name on the piece of paper. She did not tell Mr. Silmser who Helen Dunlop was.

Constable Sebalj became suspicious of Constable Dunlop's interest in the investigation and his request to read Mr. Silmser's statement She was concerned that copies of the statement had been made and removed from the Station.

Constable Sebalj went to Staff Sergeant Brunet and informed him of what she had just learned. Staff Sergeant Brunet summonsed Constable Dunlop to his office and confronted him with the information he had. Constable Dunlop told Staff Sergeant Brunet that he had concerns for the welfare of the children of the community and did not want to see Father MacDonald and Mr. Seguin remain in positions that would expose others to abuse.

Staff Sergeant Brunet advised Constable Dunlop that his actions constituted a serious breach of trust, which could jeopardize his career. After some considerable discussion, Constable Dunlop agreed to have his wife refrain from meeting with Mr. Silmser.

Staff Sergeant Brunet instructed Constable Dunlop that if he was in possession of any statements or other documentation relative to the 'Silmser' investigation, that he should turn them over forthwith. In turn, Staff Sergeant Brunet promised Constable Dunlop that he would speak to the Deputy Chief and to Chief Shaver and explore the possibility of approaching Father MacDonald and Mr. Seguin's superiors, with the intent of removing the possible threat that these two men posed to the community.

Constable Dunlop left this meeting with Staff Sergeant Brunet apparently unconvinced that the issues would be dealt with. He contacted Staff Sergeant Dupuis and told him not to become involved, but that he (Constable Dunlop) would handle it his way.

On September 30th, Constable Dunlop turned over a copy of Mr. Silmser's statement to Mr. Abell, apparently in the hopes that a Children's Aid Society investigation would accomplish what the police investigation could not.

On October 1, 1993, Chief Shaver was informed by the Children's Aid Society that they had a copy of Mr. Silmser's statement and were beginning an official investigation. Chief Shaver met with Mr. Abell and Mr. A,.Towndale that same day and he was informed that Constable Dunlop had supplied the document.

On October 7, 1993, Staff Sergeant G. Derochie was detailed to look into Constable Dunlop's actions in this matter and to determine if disciplinary action should be taken against Constable Dunlop.

On October 12, 1993, Staff Sergeant Derochie advised Constable Dunlop that he was conducting an inquiry into his conduct in this matter. On this same date, Staff Sergeant Derochie also advised members of the Cornwall Police Association Executive (Constables D. O'Reilly and M. Quinn), of the investigation.

On October 14, 1993, Staff Sergeant Derochie met with Deputy Chief J. St. Denis and Chief Shaver. All of the facts surrounding this issue were discussed and it was resolved at this time, that Police Act Charges against Constable Dunlop did not appear warranted, but that some other form of discipline would be employed.

At approximately 9:00 p.m. on October 14th, Staff Sergeant Derochie received a telephone call at his residence from a very shaken Chief Shaver. The Chief advised that Mrs. H. Dunlop had come to his home and had been very aggressive in her defence of her husband. She accused Chief Shaver of going after Constable Dunlop's job. Chief Shaver instructed Staff Sergeant Derochie to meet him in his office the next morning.

On October 15th, 1993, Staff Sergeant Derochie met with Chief Shaver and Deputy Chief St. Denis. Chief Shaver was still very upset as a result of his confrontation with Mrs. Dunlop the night before. He had obviously been struggling with the matter for at least part of the night because he had a plan of action developed to deal with Constable Dunlop.

Chief Shaver wanted Constable Dunlop formally counselled for his actions. He had an outline of what should be covered in this counselling session and what strategy should be used. Chief Shaver provided a document which contained those subjects he wanted raised (see APPENDIX A). The counselling session would be formally documented and that documentation would be added to Constable Dunlop's personnel file.

Staff Sergeant Derochie prepared a document which was to be used in the counselling session with Constable Dunlop (see APPENDIX B).

Staff Sergeant Derochie was further tasked with reviewing the investigation into Mr. Silmser's complaint of being sexually assaulted. It was determined that because Constable Dunlop's actions were motivated by the outcome of the criminal investigation, that this second assignment should be dealt with before Constable Dunlop was disciplined. (All agreed that Constable Dunlop's actions were inexcusable and that he should have gone through proper in-house channels. However, the remedy should be tempered with Constable Dunlop's motives in mind. Unless evidence of exceptional incompetency on Constable Sebalj's part or malice on Constable Dunlop's part were uncovered, Staff Sergeant Derochie would follow Chief Shaver's strategy in resolving Constable Dunlop's role in this matter).

Staff Sergeant Derochie's review of this whole matter was completed on January 5, 1994. At that time, no information had been uncovered that would require a different remedy than that desired by former Chief Shaver.