Home
Cover-up
Garry Guzzo
Institutions
Leduc Trial
Media
Of Interest
Perry Dunlop
Questions
Red Flags
The AG
The Clan
The Diocese
The Inquiry
The Scandal
The Trials
The Victims
cornwall

the inquiry


Cornwall Public Inquiry

Perry Dunlop

Ontario Divisional Court decision on Perry Dunlop contempt charges with commentary interspersed in red.

  

Cornwall Public Inquiry v. Dunlop, 2008 CanLII 10382 (ON S.C.D.C.)

PDF Format

Date:

2008-03-05

Docket:

515/07

URL:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2008/2008canlii10382/2008canlii10382.html

Reflex Record (noteup and cited decisions)

Related decisions

·         Divisional Court

Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry v. Dunlop, 2007 CanLII 52790 (ON S.C.D.C.)

Noteup

[Search for decisions citing this decision]

Legislation cited (available on CanLII)

Decisions cited

COURT FILE NO.:  515/07

DATE:  20080305

 

 

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

 

FERRIER and SWINTON JJ.

 

 

B E T W E E N:

)

 

 

 

))

 

THE HONOURABLE G. NORMAND GLAUDE, COMMISSIONER OF THE CORNWALL PUBLIC INQUIRY

 

Applicant

)

))

)))

Brian Gover and Patricia M. Latimer for Commissioner Glaude

 

 

David M. Humphrey for Ministry of the Attorney General

 

- and -

 

 

PERRY DUNLOP

))))))

 

 

Perry Dunlop, self-represented

 

Respondent

)

)

 

Heard:  at Toronto February 20, 2008

Note re above:  [Justice Normand Glaude was represented by Brian Gover AND David M. Humphrey. Humprey represented  the Ministry of the Attorney General.  In other words, Glaude sought the aid of the office of the AG to ensure first that Perry was incarcerated, and then to ensure that that incarceration would become a coercive torture tool to pressure Perry to feign faith in a system and an inquiry in which he has no faith.

Conflict of interest?   Real or perceived bias?

Look at this. 

The office of the Ontario AG 

(1)  is heavily implicated in the Cornwall sex abuse scandal and cover-up ‘

(2) has standing at the inquiry to protect its own vested interests;

(3) crafted a mandate for the Cornwall Public Inquiry which avoids mandating any inquiry into persistent allegations of a paedophile ring and cover-up which gave rise to calls for an inquiry, and, equally bizarre completely omits the word “sex” thereby opening the door to any and all forms of the abuse; issues Justice Glaude’s paycheque;

(4) despite calls for a commissioner with no connections to Cornwall, appointed a commissioner with deep family roots in the Cornwall area and other real or perceived conflicts of interests;

(5) signs off Justice Normand Glaude’s paycheque; and

(6) has been funnelling millions of dollars in funding to the Cornwall Police Service through the backdoor to pay it’s exorbitantly expensive legal team to pillory Perry and defend its own vested interests.

This is the institution which did Glaude’s bidding and worked hand-in-glove with both Glaude and lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann to

(1) give Perry the maximum sentence possible for one charge of civil contempt;  

(2) turn a single charge of civil contempt into one of civil contempt and another of criminal contempt;

(3) utilise the sentence on the first civil contempt conviction as a weapon to coerce Perry to betray his conscience, violate his Charter right to freedom of speech, and give a false display of faith in a public inquiry in which he has no faith; and

(4) withhold sentencing on the conviction of criminal contempt as a vindictive and coercive method of mental and emotional torture.On top of that Mr. Humphreys works with Jill Makepeace.  Makepeace  represented Jacques Leduc -  lawyer, Church canon lawyer and “alleged” paedophile -  at the Cornwall Public Inquiry

If this isn’t outright and very real conflict of interest it is certainly perceived as such by the general public whose faith in the administration of justice has been virtually shattered over the legal fiascos which have transpired in the name of justice in Cornwall over the past 15 years .]

 

 

BY THE COURT:

 

[1]                     This proceeding was first initiated by the Honourable G. Normand Glaude, Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry, by way of an application for a stated case in reference to the refusal of Perry Dunlop to testify before the Commission.

[True. It was indeed Justice Glaude who set out to punish Perry. It was also Justice Glaude who publicly proclaimed that no one would be forced to testify at the inquiry against his/her will.  He also publicly stated on 12 December 2006: “It is essential for the success of this Inquiry that people come forward, free from any undue influence, promise or threat.” 

Seems judges have the power and are entitled to do and say as they wish, including making false promises which inevitably cause the unwashed masses to lose what faltering faith they may have left in the administration of justice.]  

 [2]                     The panel of this Court hearing the stated case in the proceedings referable thereto was comprised of Hoilett J., Ferrier J. and Swinton J. Hoilett J. retired on February 5, 2008, while the proceeding had not yet been completed.

[Question:  Why did the case proceed with two judges?  Had there been a split decision what would have happened?]

[3]                     Pursuant to s. 123(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43, where a judge has commenced a hearing together with other judges and is for any reason unable to participate in the giving of the decision of the Court, the remaining judges may complete the hearing and give the decision of the Court, unless the remaining judges are equally divided.

[Does this mean Justices Swinton and Ferrier had colluded before they took the bench on 05 February 2008?  Seems to me there is no other way to read this:  “the remaining judges may complete the hearing …unless the remaining judges are equally divided.”  If indeed that’s the case, why then the charade of a hearing if the judges had already determined in advance that they are in agreement on the outcome?]

[4]                     We are not divided, and we are unanimous in this decision.

[Yet again, did the two justices discover they were unanimous in the decision before or after the hearing?  

Finally, and again, had they perchance been divided, one for and one against, what would have happened? With no means of a majority decision, what would have happened?]

 [5]                     The accused Perry Dunlop has refused to testify before the Cornwall Public Inquiry. At the hearing held February 20, 2008, this Court was asked to sentence him for civil contempt arising from his failure to testify at the Cornwall Public Inquiry, and to make a finding of criminal contempt because of his failure to obey a court order to testify.

[Note that it was Justice Normand Glaude, his lawyer Brian Gover, and Mr. Humphrey for the AG’s office who collectively agitated to have Perry convicted and punished to the hilt on the serious offence of criminal contempt]

Background

[6]                     The mandate of the Cornwall Public Inquiry (the "Commission") is set out in ss. 2 and 3 of the Order in Council establishing the Commission:

2. The Commission shall inquire into and report on the institutional response of the justice system and other public institutions, including the interaction of that response with other public and community sectors, in relation to: 

a) allegations of historical abuse of young people in the Cornwall area, including the policies and practices then in place to respond to such allegations, and 

b) the creation and development of policies and practices that were designed to improve the response to allegations of abuse 

in order to make recommendations directed to the further improvement of the response in similar circumstances. 

3. The Commission shall inquire into and report on processes, services or programs that would encourage community healing and reconciliation in Cornwall.

[Note no mention of sex or sexual abuse.  Not a boo about male sex abuse victims.  Not a whimper about allegations of a paedophile ring or cover-up.  That’s the stuff which gave rise to calls for an inquiry in the first place. Why the omissions?] 

[7]                     Mr. Dunlop played a central role in the subject-matter of the Commission in that he:

[If Perry played a central role in the subject matter of the Commission why no reference to him or his activities in the mandate?]

•        was the initial "whistleblower" who exposed an alleged cover-up of child sexual abuse allegations; 

[It was not an “alleged” cover-up of child sexual abuse allegations which Perry initially and inadvertently exposed.  It was a cover-up.  The victim was paid off, gagged and illegally bound not to pursue criminal charges.  That’s a cover-up.]

•        Interviewed alleged victims and investigated many of their claims of alleged child sexual abuse; 

[True. In as much as his limited resources and dwindling finances would permit.]

•        obtained information about an alleged clan of pedophiles in the Cornwall area; 

[True.  From a number of sources.]

•        collected information on a conspiracy to obstruct justice in late summer 1993 by prominent members of the Cornwall community with regard to the original investigation by the Cornwall Police Service ("CPS");

[Lawyer and former Crown attorney (an employee of the AG’s office) Malcolm MacDonald was eventually charged with and pleaded guilty to a charge of obstruction of justice.  Of the three lawyers involved in negotiating the $32,000 pay-off with its illegal clause he was the only one charged.  He received an absolute discharge from Justice Brian W Lennox. 

Lennox moved on to become Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice.  He retired 03 May 2007.  On 24 March 2008 he was appointed Executive Director of the National Judicial Institute (NJI).] 

•        delivered his findings to the Chief of the London Police Service, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Policing, the Attorney General and eventually to the Ontario Provincial Police ("OPP"); and

[There are serious discrepancies in testimony and evidence regarding timing and what happened to the files which were delivered to Chief Julian Fantino.   Indeed both the contents of a 1999 Garry Guzzo letter regarding his dealings with Wayne Frechette (then Deputy Commissioner of the OPP) and Mr. Guzzo's statments in parliament don't seem to quite marry up with Fantino's testimony.   Something seems to be seriously amiss somewhere.

Regardless, those materials delivered by Perry to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Policing were taken there after the office of the Solicitor General refused to accept them.

Perry “eventually” delivered the material to the OPP? 

My understanding is that the materials Perry sent to Julian Fantino (then Chief of Police in London, Ontario) were turned over to the OPP.  In fact, according to Perry’s Will State, OPP Inspector Tim Smith told Perry  in June 1997 that he, Smith, was in possession of the material Perry sent to Fantino (then Chief of Police in London, Ontario)  in December 1996. 

Perry did indeed at a later time 'deliver' files to the OPP Project Truth probe which was launched August 1997.  That 'delivery' transpired because nearly one full year after Project Truth was launched he became aware that the OPP had not, for whatever reason, received all the files he had delivered to the various parties!  Perry readily provided whatever files were believed missing.  It is erroneous and misleading to say that Perry “eventually” - and thereby imply belatedly - delivered his “findings” to the OPP. Perry put the files in the hands of those in positions of authority.  He trusted action would be taken.  That someone in authority failed, by accident or design, to turn over all the files to the OPP was not his doing. ] 

•        prepared a Will State in anticipation of prosecutions arising out of Project Truth, the OPP investigation into allegations of child sexual abuse.

[Yes.  Perry was ordered to prepare a Will State] 

[8]                     This Court has determined, in its reasons for judgment released December 6, 2007, that Mr. Dunlop has knowledge and information that goes to the very heart of the mandate of the Commission and the questions to be asked of him are clearly relevant. The areas which Commission Counsel intends to canvas with Mr. Dunlop include, inter alia, the following:

[Yet again, if indeed it is the case that Perry has information which goes to the very heart of the mandate, why is there no reference whatever, direct or indirect, to this in the mandate? And why did commission say this is not Project Truth inquiry/]

(a)               Mr. Dunlop's employment background with the CPS;

[The CPS has a record of Perry’s employment background with the CPS]

(b)               Mr. Dunlop's involvement with allegations made by David Silmser against Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin;

[I question the wording here. Perry had no involvement per se with the allegations made by David Silmser against Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin.  Perry did see Dave’s victims statement well after the fact, was concerned that the police were no longer investigating sex abuse allegations against a priest and a probation officer, knew that the latter suspect paedophiles were very much alive with unfettered access to potential victims, and was deeply concerned that children were therefore at risk.  The rest is history.  It’s all in Perry’s Will State. ]

(c)               the investigation of Mr. Dunlop pursuant to the Police Services Act;

[Much of that is in Perry’s Will State.  Aside from the Will State there are ample documents from the board hearings which without doubt are filed at the Weave Shed.  Finally, S/Sgt Garry Derochie has filled in details regarding the seemingly relentless attempts by CPS to nail Perry with something]

(d)               Mr. Dunlop's investigation of allegations of sexual abuse of young people; and

[Those victims with who wished to/agreed to testify and with whom Perry had any dealings, direct or indirect, have done so.  They have told their “story.” They have related for the commission their accounts of the ‘institutional response’ to their respective sex abuse allegations. As for Perry’s dealings with various institutions and their response to him, it’s in his Will State. (Perry offered and wanted to read his 110-page Will State into the record when he took the stand at the Weave Shed.  Offer declined.)]

(e)               Mr. Dunlop's contacts with the CPS, the OPP and the Crown during Project Truth and the criminal prosecutions;

[Most of this is covered in Perry’s Will State.  The rest is readily available in the transcripts of the court proceedings.  I believe the transcripts speak for themselves as to the trial and lynching of Perry Dunlop, all under the watchful eye of federally-appointed judges.  The transcripts I am sure also speak for themselves when it comes to the abysmal failure of Crowns to attempt to set the record straight.]

[9]                     Mr. Dunlop refused to testify before the Commission on October 9, 2007, and was found guilty of civil contempt in this Court's reasons delivered on December 6, 2007.

[Yes, indeed he was.  At the behest of Justice Normand Glaude via Peter Engelmann and Brian Gover, indeed he was]

[10]               The record of the proceedings before the Commission shows that Mr. Dunlop was given ample opportunity to obtain legal advice and to consider and reconsider his position. As well he was given the opportunity to testify on several occasions prior to October 9, 2007, but consistently refused to do so.

[Simple questions: (1) Where does Perry turn to obtain sound legal advice?   (2) Does anyone know a “ damn good” fearless lawyer who would take Perry’s best interests to heart, and who is not connected in any way shape or form – directly or indirectly - to “Cornwall” ?  And yes.  Perry consistently said “no.” He has no faith in the inquiry or the justice system. It’s gone.]

[11]               He has refused to answer questions because he has said that he has no faith in the Ontario justice system or the mandate of the inquiry; he is a "scapegoat"; the process is a cover-up; he was forced to appear against his will; and he could add nothing to his "will state".

[Yes.  He has said the same on many an occasion.]

[12]               As held by this Court on December 6, 2007, Mr. Dunlop has provided no lawful excuse for his failure to testify. By order of this Court on that date, he was ordered to appear before the Commission on January 14, 2008 to give evidence, and to appear before this Court for sentencing on a date to be fixed.

[Is it therefore unlawful for an individual to lose faith in the justice system?  What if Perry’s loss of faith is well-grounded? 

What if there really is a paedophile ring and cover-up?  What if the cover-up extends right into the AG’s office and up into the judiciary? 

Would, for example, it be lawful for Perry to say he believes the inquiry is a cover-up if there is evidence of the same? Would it be lawful for Perry to say he has lost faith in the system if there is proof of abuse and misuse of authority by judges and lawyers and others to spare the “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall?

Why is it the operative assumption of the Divisional Court justices that Perry is talking through his hat?]  

Criminal Contempt

[13]               Mr. Dunlop failed to appear before the Commission on January 14, 2008, despite offers of assistance from Commission counsel in making travel arrangements for Mr. Dunlop, who lives in British Columbia, and despite offers from said counsel to meet with him in preparation for his testimony.

[How many times can ‘the system’ attempt to force a man to betray his conscience and convictions? Perry said “No.” He meant “No.” How many contempt charges and convictions can flow from the same “No”?]

 [14]               Mr. Dunlop's failure to comply with this Court's order that he appear to give testimony on January 14, 2008 forms the basis for the position advanced by Commission counsel and the Attorney General, that Mr. Dunlop be found guilty of criminal contempt of court.

[Thanks to Justices Swindon and Ferrier, at the behest of Justice Glaude who sought and received the able assistance of the office of the AG, that “No”  from Perry morphed from one charge and conviction of civil contempt into one charge and conviction of civil contempt AND a second charge and conviction of criminal contempt.]

[15]               Following the order of December 6, 2007, Mr. Dunlop spoke to the media, repeating his reasons for refusing to testify and discussing some of the very things about which he had been summoned to testify.

[What did Perry say to the media that wasn’t in his Will State or wasn’t said when he testified at the Weave Shed?]

[16]               Mr. Dunlop's disobedience of the order was open, continuous and flagrant. Not only did Mr. Dunlop fail to appear as ordered, he publicized his intention to disobey the order and attacked the integrity of the Commission, bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. On January 10, 2008, a Canadian Press article, "Dunlop refuses to testify: He's lost faith in justice system" reported Mr. Dunlop's position as follows:

[“open, continuous and flagrant”?!!!  Because he talked to the media?!!!  Because he reiterated what he said mid September 2007 on the stand at the Weave Shed - in a very public forum broadcast around the world on the webcast AND reported by the media?!!!!]

A former police officer credited with bringing to light explosive allegations of widespread child sexual abuse in eastern Ontario says he is convinced the dark stories that have divided the community are true – but he says he won't testify before a public inquiry because he says the justice system hasn't listened to him for 15 years. 

Perry Dunlop, a decorated former officer from Cornwall, Ont., has been scheduled to testify but he told The Canadian Press in an exclusive interview he won't be there because he's lost faith in the justice system. … 

'I don't have much of a choice, really, so I'll face whatever … I have a lot of reasons, but I'm not going to testify,' he said. 

'I'm saying our judicial system is broken and they haven't listened to me for 15 years, and I have no faith. Absolutely no faith, none.' 

[I repeat.  What is new here? Perry said he’s lost faith in the justice system.  In September 2007 Perry said he has lost faith in the justice system.  What’s new? ]  

[17]               In an interview with CBC Radio One, on January 11, 2008, Mr. Dunlop made the following statements about why he would not testify as ordered:

… Perry Dunlop: The reason I'm not testifying is that I believe that the commissioner's in a conflict of interest in that he's a current sitting judge and he works of [sic] the AG's office and the A.G. is under question in this … on this file and I feel that he's in conflict there and he's also…He won't admit to being in conflict but I think considering the church is really heavily involved in this inquiry, it should be obvious that we should have had somebody that wasn't perhaps so tied in with the church or on that side of it. 

And I don't think the mandate is right. It's just…It's not set up and I've sort of been on the outside since day one, if you look at my involvement, you know, 15 years ago, they came down hard on me and it seems that that's been their attitude and it continues to this day. It's not to look at the pedophile and what they did. It's to hammer the policeman that came forward and I just have no faith. I feel it is very toxic. … 

And, you know, you walk away from the system and just with your head down saying what's it all about? So I have no faith is a big one and we've been through so much as a family and just to put my girls through this and again, and also the fact that the commission lied to get us there. They said you won't be forced to testify and that. 

It's just really toxic for me. … 

Adrian Harewood: But do you not think that your input, because you've expressed a lack of faith in Commissioner Normand Glaude, do you not think that your input could be helpful to this inquiry, that perhaps you could push them in another direction? 

Perry Dunlop: Yes, well, I don't think this is…I don't think this is the vehicle. I've really lost faith as I watch how they rip apart the victims and people coming forward and they're not asking the right questions. They seem to be skirting the issue of the truth and of the bad guys and it's sort of set up in a way sequentially that they should have brought the institutions at the first and said what did you do? And then sort of blended it backwards. 

And I will tell my story and Helen will tell her story and we'll perhaps write a book. … 

I just feel that this is not the venue, that I just have no faith in this whole…this whole inquiry. And I am sad that I can't tell my story, but rest assured we will tell our story and we will tell Canadians. …

 [Since the justices saw fit to quote media sources ad nauseam did they also see fit to pay heed to Perry’s stated concerns about Justice Glaude’s real or perceived conflicts of interest?

Did the justices wonder for moment what was going when there before them - working on Justice Glaude’s behalf to have Perry punished ++ -  was Mr. Humphrey ….. representing the AG’s office?!!  

Did they not see fit to question why a lawyer representing the AG’s office was at Divisional Court doing Justice Glaude’s dirty work?  

Did the justices see fit to pay heed to Perry’s concerns about the mandate?  Or to his assertion that Justice Glaude “lied” to Perry and Helen?  Or to his expressed concerns about the treatment of victims on the stand?

Did they pause to consider what Perry meant when he said the attitude over the past nearly fifteen years wasn’t “to look at the pedophile and what they did” but “to hammer the policeman that came forward”?

In short, did the justices ever for a moment consider that there may well be good reason that Perry says he has lost faith in the inquiry and the justice system?]

 [18]               The Commissioner and the Attorney General take the position that Mr. Dunlop knew, or at least was reckless as to the fact that these comments would deprecate the authority of both this Court and the Commission and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

[Perry said the same thing in mid September 2007. Why were Justice Glaude and the Attorney General not jumping up and down then accusing Perry of deprecating the authority of the Commission and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute?]

[19]               Upon Mr. Dunlop's failure to appear on January 14, 2008, this Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Dunlop to have him brought before the Court to deal with the question of penalty for his contempt in refusing to testify on October 9, 2007 before the Commission, and to determine the issue of criminal contempt for failing to comply with the order of this Court, dated December 6, 2007, that he appear on January 14, 2008 before the Commission to give evidence.

[Perry did not appear 14 January 2008.   The costs to travel from British Columbia to appear at Divisional Court in Toronto alone were not pittance for a couple who had already suffered significant emotional strain and loss of income because of the inquiry.  Ditto costs of finding and retaining an impartial lawyer qualified to practise in Ontario.  Regardless the Dunlops did try to find a way to make things work.  Helen asked that she be permitted to represent Perry.  Denied.  She asked for an extension to give more time.  Denied (she was in fact told that this was an “emergency” hearing.) 

In addition, and very disturbing, Perry was not specifically advised in advance that Justice Glaude had upped the ante and was now seeking an additional and much more serious charge of criminal contempt.]

[20]               This Court issued the warrant for Mr. Dunlop's arrest on January 28, 2008 and made an order requesting the Attorney General's assistance in making submissions to the Court.

[Yes indeed.  Requesting the Attorney General’s assistance. That was done at the request of Justice Glaude. At Glaude’s behest the justices ordered legal assistance from the office of the AG to have Perry incarcerated.  The office of the Attorney General, an institution mired in allegations of cover-up and granted standing by at Justice Glaude’s inquiry to protect its own vested interests, was called in to aid and abet Justice Glaude’s cause.

Where does independence and impartiality fit into this scenario?]

[21]               On February 20, 2008, the Court convened again. Mr. Dunlop was present in police custody.

[Yes indeed.  He certainly was!]

[22]               Following submissions on the two questions, i.e. the issue of criminal contempt and the penalty for the civil contempt in failing to testify on October 9, 2007, the Court reserved judgment to this date.

[Yes indeed.  They reserved judgement. While the justices contemplated Perry was tossed back in jail .  No bail.   Jail.  

While the justice pondered their decision Perry sat in jail. Day after day in the same dirty underwear. Barely a shower for the duration. Not one trip outdoors.  While the justices  pondering his sentence, Perry languished in jail.  For two weeks.

There was no recognition of the time served pending sentencing.  None. 

Finally, a question here.  On hindsight I am puzzled. Should Perry not have been entitled to a trial by jury on the criminal contempt charge? Or, is there no such thing as trial by jury when a case is heard by Divisional Court?]

Civil and Criminal Contempt

[23]               The distinction between civil and criminal contempt was stated by Kellock J. in Poje v. Attorney General, British Columbia, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516:

And, generally, the distinction between contempts criminal and not criminal seems to be that contempts which tend to bring the administration of justice into scorn, or which tend to interfere with the due course of justice, are criminal in their nature; but that contempts in disregarding orders or judgments of a Civil Court, or in not doing something ordered to be done in a cause, is not criminal in its nature. In other words, where contempt involves a public injury or offence, it is criminal in its nature, and the proper remedy is committal – but where the contempt involves a private injury only it is not criminal in its nature.

[Note “seems to be.”  “SEEMS to be.”  Not IS, but “seems to be.”  The whole area of civil vs criminal contempt is fuzzy and what distinguishes one from the other amazingly and disturbingly vague.  However, in order to be found guilty of criminal contempt there must be proof that Perry wilfully, knowingly, or intentionally brought the administr

ation of justice into disrepute and scorn and thereby caused serious public injury.Was that Perry’s intent?  When he said he will not testify because he has no faith in the inquiry or the justice system, was it Perry’s intent to bring the administration of justice into disrepute? Or was he simply explaining why he personally can not in good conscience testify?

Perry said what he believes.  He said what is in his heart and thoughts and on his conscience.  I believe it is both an outrage and a mind boggling stretch of the imagination to either say or imply that he wilfully/knowingly/intentionally set out to bring the administration of justice into disrepute by saying he has no faith in the justice system. To twist his words to deduce otherwise is the stuff which brings, and over the past years in Cornwall has brought, the administration of justice into scorn.

And, finally, in a nation which prides itself on its Charter of Human Rights, what about Perry’s Charter rights to freedom of conscience, thought, belief, opinion and expression?  When it comes to a layman’s ability to question the integrity of the justice system do Charter rights get tossed out the judicial window? Can judges trample our Charter rights on a judicial whim of the hat? 

Is this perhaps proof that indeed “if you hurt one judge you hurt them all”?  ] 

Finding on Criminal Contempt

[24]               On December 6, 2007, this Court ordered that Mr. Dunlop attend before the Commission on January 14, 2008 to give evidence. He refused to appear, but as noted above, he did speak to the media and discussed matters that would be part of his testimony before the Commission.

[As noted above, there were several issues which factored into Perry’s failure to appear.  And, as noted above, yes, he did indeed speak to the media.  I have no idea what he discussed with media which might be construed as “part of his testimony” before the Commission and which is not in his Will State.]

[25]               Despite his apparent intention to "tell his story" to the public, he continues to refuse to testify at the inquiry. On February 20 in the hearing before this Court, he was given another opportunity to testify, on Monday, February 25, but he refused the opportunity.

[Perry has declined repeatedly.  For the same reasons.  Why the constant badgering and bullying and intimidation? Why not simply understand that, unlike some, his “No” means “No.” All the ‘opportunities’ in world were not going to sway what he had in good conscience decided he must do.]

[26]               Mr. Dunlop was aware of the fact that a warrant had been issued for his arrest. The police gave him the opportunity to travel to Ontario voluntarily for the court appearance on February 20, but he refused the opportunity, insisting that he be arrested. On February 17, 2008, he was arrested before a large crowd assembled in front of his residence in Duncan, B.C.

[Why would Perry turn himself in?  After the fiasco whereby Justice Glaude and Peter Engelmann first promised the Dunlops they would not be forced to testify and then quietly and behind closed doors resorted to half-truths and deception to secure an interprovincial summons to force them to testify, small wonder he chose not to.  In the latter instance the Dunlops discovered after the fact that they should not have gone to Cornwall. The legality and validity of the summons was in question and could/should have been challenged.  But, too late – legal or no once they arrived at the Weave Shed they had presumably given credence to the summons and the whole matter somehow became moot. After that debacle, why would they have faith and accept at face value an interprovincial anything stemming from the inquiry?]

[27]               On Saturday, February 16, and Sunday, February 17, 2008, local police officers were in touch with Mr. Dunlop and members of the Dunlop household in Duncan, B.C. concerning the arrest warrant.

[Yes.  The RCMP wanted the arrest to be conducted quietly – away from the public eye.]

[28]               In due course, Mr. Dunlop communicated with the local police and he purported to give the officers a one-hour window for his arrest on Sunday, February 17, 2008.

[Yes.  Let’s get this over with.]

[29]               The following is an extract from affidavit evidence filed on behalf of the Commission:

(c) At 1:48 p.m. Sunday afternoon, Mr. Dunlop phoned Cst. Nguyen. He said that he was at home and wanted to be arrested. Cst. Nguyen explained to Mr. Dunlop the proposed arrangement for him to voluntarily travel to Toronto. He indicated that he did not want to proceed in that manner and would not return to Ontario unless he was arrested. Further, he would only be at his home for the next hour and if not arrested before then, he would be 'somewhere else in Canada'. 

[Indeed. In the days prior to the 17 February 2008  Sunday rally one of the officers told Helen he wasn’t getting warm fuzzy feelings from her.  There were invitations to “talk.”  Invitations for Perry to turn himself in.  The RCMP it seems wanted it all done quietly and out of the public eye.  (The spin had already gone out from Peter Engelmann that Perry had said he would turn himself.  Engelmann said he read that somewhere in the media.  To my knowledge Perry never ever told anyone he would turn himself in.]

(d) At 2:20 p.m. Sunday afternoon, Cst.s Nguyen and Power attended Mr. Dunlop's residence to arrest him. They were met by approximately 120 people and local news reporters. The crowd was booing the constables and questioning why they were arresting Mr. Dunlop. The constables met with Mr. Dunlop and Helen Dunlop, surrounded by the crowd. Cst. Nguyen attempted to arrest Mr. Dunlop but did not have a copy of the Warrant in hand. Mr. Dunlop challenged Cst. Nguyen's authority to arrest him. The constables retreated. They returned about 20 minutes later with a copy of the warrant. The crowd was still present and Helen Dunlop was making loud statements to the crowd to the effect of, 'We want to know why you are arresting an innocent person,' and, 'It's all a cover up.' They arrested Mr. Dunlop.

[Yes.  People wanted to do so something to show their support hence the rally, called if recall correctly the previous day. There were actually over 200 persons in all who attended.  As I understand it various persons in attendance, victims included, addressed the crowd.  I don’t recall any mention of that in the media.Reports from those present and a review of the video shows an orderly crowd when the RCMP arrived to execute the arrest - without the arrest warrant.. Many of those present were upset, yes (rightly so I’d say). Tearful, yes.  But, orderly.

A goodly number of the crowd was still present when the officers returned and Perry was arrested. They were witness to the fact that, when asked, the officers said the original warrant was in the police cruiser at the head of the driveway.  It apparently was not. Perry has yet to see the original.] 

[30]               It is apparent from this evidence that Mr. Dunlop orchestrated the time and place of his arrest so that there could be a large public gathering of his supporters and the media to witness his arrest and for his supporters to publicly express their disapproval thereof.

[Perry’s arrest was in the hands of the RCMP.   The RCMP presumably had a warrant for his arrest. He could have been arrested at any time prior to the rally.  For whatever reason the RCMP seemed intent on both enticing Perry to turn himself in and taking him into custody out of the public eye.

Did Perry “orchestrate” the time of his arrest?  I don’t believe he did.  Not in the sense implied.  The family did I think want to get it over with. They had questions regarding the validity of the warrant. The appearances and contact by the RCMP with invitations to turn himself in were wearing on the family and, after previous negative dealing with the interprovincial summons, did nothing to quell nagging questions regarding the validity of warrant.  Perry and Helen had been duped in the past with an interprovincial summons secured by deception and were understandably wary of being duped again.  

The rally was called.  To say or imply that it was called as a backdrop for the arrest is a stretch.  I believe it was however undoubtedly seen as opportunity to ensure that if there was anything untoward about the warrant and/or the arrest there would be witnesses to the event.   That there were! 

Not to be overlooked but probably not understood by Justice Glaude and all responsible for this travesty of justice is the fact that Perry was taken into custody in the presence of loving family and friends.  They had a chance to say goodbye.  No one knew when they would see him again.

In addition friends were there to comfort Helen, the three girls and Perry’s mother after Perry was arrested.  That made a difficult situation a little easier to bear for all.Finally on this point, the Dunlops and all those in attendance at the rally are presumably entitled to their Charter rights to freedom of peaceful association and assembly.   All are presumably entitled to freedom of expression.

As for the media, the media arrived for the rally.  It was there for the arrest. The public has a right to know the fate of the man who stepped up to the plate for children 15 years ago and has since lost faith in the justice system.]

 [31]               On February 20 he refused once again to testify. This took place in court, in the presence of a full public gallery.

[Yes.  The gallery was packed.  And yes, once again Perry said “No.”]

[32]               Mr. Dunlop has not only refused to comply with this Court's order; he has done so deliberately and with full intent. He has done so flagrantly and publicly, and he has done so in a manner that has invited and attracted much public attention. Despite refusing to testify, he has discussed matters with the media and has indicated that although he will not testify, he may well write a book and that he "will tell Canadians his story."

[Yes, in mid September 2007 Perry said he would not testify.  He said so publicly at the Weave Shed.  He said so deliberately and with full intent.  Flagrantly?  No.  I wouldn’t say there was anything flagrant in either his conduct or his manner of speech.

The media was there.  The media reported.

It’s one thing however to say that Perry publicly, deliberately and with full intent refused to testify and gave his reasons.  It’s quite another to morph that into saying - or even implying - that in so doing Perry was intent on bringing the administration of justice into disrepute - publicly, deliberately, with full intent ….and flagrantly!  Perry did not intend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.  He did what he was lawfully obliged to do. He said he would not testify and he explained why:  he has no faith in the inquiry or the justice system.

That somehow constitutes bringing the administration of justice into disrepute?

Unbelievable!!!  Absolutely unbelievable that things can be so twisted and bent and skewered, and absolutely unbelievable that in a so-called democracy free speech is at premium when it comes to the justice system!!!. ]   

[33]               He has indicated publicly and to the Court directly that he will go to jail rather than testify – whether that be three months or six months (which was the range submitted by the Commission and the Crown) for the civil contempt.

[Yes.  Perry was prepared to face the consequences for not testifying. Without doubt he had not a clue that the courts would or could mysteriously morph one civil contempt charge into two charges and convictions; one civil and one criminal.  Nor could he have understood that he was about to embark on yet another round of judicial coercion, bullying and intimidation. Who from the ranks of the unwashed laymen could?

But, yes, Perry was prepared to take his stand, abide by his conscience and convictions, and suffer the consequences. He is man of principle.]

[34]               One must not lose sight of the mandate of the Commission – to determine what happened in Cornwall, including how institutions responded – as well as its ultimate purpose, which is surely the protection of children from sexual abuse. Despite this, Mr. Dunlop continues to refuse to testify.

[Where do the justices get the notion that the ultimate purpose of the inquiry is the protection of children from sexual abuse? I have yet to see a shred of evidence to substantiate that and it certainly is nowhere to be seen in the mandate.  To the contrary, the “ alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall have not been ordered or coerced to testify and are footloose and fancy-free.  Perry Dunlop, who stood up to protect children from known suspect molesters, is in jail. How does that factor into protecting children from sexual abuse?

Furthermore, to date Phase 2 of the inquiry is doing nothing concrete to protect children by getting paedophiles off the streets.  If the object of the exercise is protecting children from sexual abuse it could if it so chose demand and/or create a lobby for such things as: stiffer sentencing for molesters, no bail pending trial, no recourse to claims that an  accused offender’s Charter rights to a speedy trial have been violated, criminal penalties for Crowns who fail to avert a stay on such Charter grounds, a public sex offender registry readily available and easily accessible within the community, amendments to the criminal code of Canada to address the issue of man/boy sexual abuse, educating the judiciary on the issues unique to dealing with men who are victims of man/boy sexual abuse, criminal sanctions for those who fail to report evidence of child sexual abuse, and severe penalties for judges who take the bench despite a serious conflict of interest.

Furthermore, Justice Glaude has continually reminded one and all that this inquiry is not a trial and is not a criminal process.  He has stated repeatedly he has no interest in the determining the veracity of the allegations of “ alleged” victims.”  How then do the justices think Perry’s testimony would or could protect one child, let alone children, from sexual abuse? 

Finally, Perry’s efforts to protect children from sexual abuse are in his Will State. They fell on deaf ears. For his efforts he has been depicted and denounced as akin to the devil incarnate – by lawyers and members of the judiciary alike.]

[35]               The Supreme Court of Canada has said this about criminal contempt of court:

     The offence of criminal contempt of court is made out where it has been established, through proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused 'defied or disobeyed a court order in a public way (the actus reus), with intent, knowledge or recklessness as to the fact that the public disobedience will tend to deprecate the authority of the court (the mens rea).'

…

     The mens rea can be inferred from the circumstances of the case. In particular, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that 'when it is clear the accused must have known his or her act of defiance will be public, it may be inferred that he or she was at least reckless as to whether the authority of the court would be brought into contempt.' 

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General) 1992 CanLII 99 (S.C.C.), (1992), 71 C.C.C. (3d) 225 (S.C.C.)

[Yes, as previously stated, Perry disobeyed a court order in a public way:  at the Weave Shed. He said he was not testifying.  He explained why.  That testimony was broadcast live in mid September 2007 on local TV, around the world by live webcast.  Furthermore it was reported after the fact by media who were there during Perry’s testimony.  Indeed it was and is – or should be - available to this day in the publicly available transcripts. That’s the actus reus.

There was no thought here Perry should be charged with criminal contempt because he disobeyed “with intent, knowledge or recklessness as to the fact that the public disobedience will tend to deprecate the authority of the court” (mens rea). 

Perry had no intent then or ever of wilfully trying to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.  He was doing what he was obliged to do under the circumstances - explaining why he would not testify. 

In January 2008 he essentially repeated what he had said in September:  he would not testify and he has no faith in the inquiry or the justice system.

Nothing new.

Why then the accusations of sinister motives on Perry’s behalf in January?  Why were Perry’s words of January 2008 deemed criminal when they were essentially the same as those spoken September 2007?  Perry’s statements were as public in September, if not more so, than the later media reports touted by the justices.  Why the rush to up the ante from one charge of civil contempt for not testifying to one of civil contempt for not testifying PLUS a further charge of criminal contempt for presumably wilfully, intentionally recklessly or whatever bringing the administration of justice into disrepute?] 

[36]               Here, it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, indeed beyond any doubt, that Perry Dunlop is guilty of criminal contempt of this Court and we so find.

[Beyond ANY doubt????!!!  Not beyond a reasonable doubt.  Beyond any doubt!!!

These two justices boldly proclaim that they are 100% certain that Perry intended to bring the administration of justice into disrepute:  that he wilfully, knowingly and recklessly planned to bring the administration of justice into disrepute!

This is astounding.  Simply and utterly astounding!!

“It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, indeed beyond any doubt”!  How?  How did the justices arrive at this profound conclusion? 

How?

Perry explained honestly why he personally will not and can not testify:  he has no faith in the inquiry or the justice system. 

Look what happens!

Where do Perry’s Charter rights fit into the justices’ thought processes?  Or, do they?  Are Perry’s Charter rights inconsequential?  Can judges unilaterally abrogate Perry’s  rights? Seems to me that’s what this is all about. Perry was unilaterally stripped of his solicitor-client privilege by Justice Glaude. Now at the behest of Justice Glaude - with the support of the AG’s office – and with the compliance of the Ontario Divisional Court,  he’s unilaterally stripped of his fundamental and constitutional rights.

If this isn’t vindictive I don’t know what is.]

Penalty for Contempt Generally

[37]               The power of a court to punish for contempt is essential to the due administration of justice. The rule of law is the bedrock of a democratic and free society. These concepts go far beyond the pragmatic need for a court to be able to enforce its orders per se. Rather, without such powers, individuals would be free to pick and choose which court orders they would obey and which ones they would not, surely with resultant disorder and chaos in the community.

[Both the administration of justice and the rule of law have been violated time and time again in Cornwall, from, for example, the day a bishop, a lawyer and former Crown attorney decided to let an “alleged” clerical paedophile roam the sanctuaries of Cornwall by gagging David Silmser with a $32,000 pay-off, to the day Malcolm MacDonald received an absolute discharge for obstructing justice, to the day Colin McKinnon took the bench at the sex abuse trial of Jacques Leduc, to the day Perry Dunlop discovered he had been sandbagged at the Leduc trial #2 and the judge curtly denied him time to find and retain a lawyer, to the day the mandate and commissioner for the Cornwall Public inquiry were unveiled, to the day Justice Normand Glaude unilaterally decided Perry had waived his solicitor-client privilege, to the day the AG and justices of the Ontario Divisional Court abetted Justice Glaude in his tireless quest to have Perry Dunlop punished.  

It is all of the latter and more which have brought and continue to bring disorder and chaos into the community of Cornwall.  It is not Perry.  It is lawyers and judges who  have brought and continue to bring the administration of justice in Cornwall into disrepute.]

[38]               The power of the court to punish for contempt is considered necessary to assert the court's authority and prevent undue interference with the proper administration of justice. As the Supreme Court of Canada stated per McLachlin J. in United Nurses, supra.:

Both civil and criminal contempt of court rest on the power of the court to uphold its dignity and process. The rule of law is at the heart of our society; without it there can be neither peace, nor order nor good government. The rule of law is directly dependent on the ability of the courts to enforce their process and maintain their dignity and respect. To maintain their process and respect, courts since the 12th century have exercised the power to punish for contempt of court. (at p. 21)

[The rule of law essentially means that no one is above the law.  As mentioned previously, the rule of law has been broken countless times in Cornwall.  Who for example decided that Charlie and Ken Seguin were above the law?

Those following Cornwall for the past 15 years would question the applicability of the rule of law when it comes to paedophiles and cover-ups. 

Dignity and respect?  There is no dignity in putting children at risk by allowing “alleged” paedophiles to walk.  There is no dignity in trumping the rights of “alleged” victims with those of their “alleged” molesters.  There is no dignity in allowing defence lawyers to run amok defending real or “alleged”  paedophiles with hypothetical scenarios which have no grounding in fact.  There is no dignity in watching naïve “alleged” victims get pulverized on the stand and painted as drunken liars and money grubbers. There is no dignity in abrogating the Charter rights of a whistleblower. There is no dignity in being soft on paedophilia. There is no dignity in judicial bullying.

As for respect, it is earned. 

I have no question about the power of the court.  That, witness Perry’s plight, is a given.  When it comes to Cornwall I do however question what exactly it is that the courts are so diligently upholding?]

 [39]               Justice Blair, now a Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal, put it succinctly when he was a trial judge:

No society which believes in a system of even-handed justice can permit its members to ignore, disobey, or defy its law and its courts' orders at their whim because in their own particular view it is right to do so. A society which countenances such conduct is a society tottering on the precipice of disorder and injustice. 

Surgeoner v. Surgeoner (1992), 6 C.P.C. (3d) 318 at 319, [1992] O.J. No.299 (Gen. Div.)

[Justice.  That’s the operative word.  Justice.  There has been little in Cornwall.

As for society ignoring, disobeying or defying court orders “at their whim,” it was no whim which compelled Perry in September 2007 to say he will not testify because he has no faith in the inquiry or the justice system.  It was no whim.  It is, I believe, a matter of conscience.  Were it otherwise, Perry would, I would guess, by now have taken the ‘easy’ way out, compromised his conscience, and made a mad dash for the Weave Shed.  Barring that he could I am sure have found a psychiatrist or psychologist willing to file a letter with the Commission advising that Perry is no shape mentally or physically to testify.

That’s not Perry’s way.  Both would be a lies. 

The truth is that it was no more a whim which caused him to say he will not testify than it is a whim which keeps him locked in virtual solitary confinement 24/7, apart from his beloved family and deprived of the many simple pleasures of life.

As for society tottering on the precipice of disorder and injustice, we are there.  Who put us there?  It most certainly was not Perry Dunlop.] 

[40]               That Mr. Dunlop refused to testify before a commission of inquiry rather than a court does not reduce the seriousness of his disobedience. Public inquiries have a long history in Canada and are an important part of our legal and political fabric. In Phillips v. Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy), 1995 CanLII 86 (S.C.C.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97, Cory J. described the history and role of commissions of inquiry in these terms:

[Justice Glaude tells us that the inquiry is not a trial and it is not a court.  However, in order to secure an interprovincial summons to force Perry to testify a judge had to rule and indeed obligingly did that the inquiry is a court.  So, is the inquiry a court or is it not? Seems to me it can be whatever suits a judge’s fancy at any given point in time.  The power to do so lies with them.]

One of the primary functions of public inquiries is fact-finding. They are often convened, in the wake of public shock, horror, disillusionment, or scepticism, in order to uncover 'the truth'. Inquiries are, like the judiciary, independent; unlike the judiciary, they are often endowed with wide-ranging investigative powers. In following their mandates, commissions of inquiry are, ideally, free from partisan loyalties and better able than Parliament or the legislatures to take a long-term view of the problem presented. Cynics decry public inquiries as a means used by the government to postpone acting in circumstances which often call for speedy action. Yet, these inquiries can and do fulfil an important function in Canadian society. In times of public questioning, stress and concern they provide the means for Canadians to be apprised of the conditions pertaining to a worrisome community problem and to be a part of the recommendations that are aimed at resolving the problem. Both the status and high public respect for the commissioner and the open and public nature of the hearing help to restore public confidence not only in the institution or situation investigated but also in the process of government as a whole.

 [Need it be said that this multi-million-dollar inquiry commissioned by an institution which is implicated in a sex abuse scandal and cover-up and which has standing at the inquiry has done nothing to restore public confidence in anything?  To the contrary.] 

They are an excellent means of informing and educating concerned members of the public. … 

The investigative, educational and informative aspects of inquiries clearly benefit society as a whole. 

[41]               The "status and high public respect for the commissioner" is an integral aspect of commissions of inquiry and is necessary for an inquiry to achieve its mandate of restoring public confidence in the institution or process under review. Mr. Dunlop's blatant disregard for the work of the Commission and refusal to participate diminishes public confidence in the work of the Commission and should be punished accordingly.

[Are judges now beyond reproach simply because they’re judges?   Are they no longer classified as human beings - capable of error, capable of sin, capable of breaking the law?

And, yet again, where does Perry’s freedom of speech fit into this? 

There were and are serious issues concerning Justice Glaude’s appointment as commissioner. Despite his real and perceived conflicts of interests Justice Glaude and the AG refused to answer questions regarding his appointment as commissioner . But, the bottom line here is this: Perry must and will be punished because he questioned the impartiality of the commissioner! 

God help us!!!]

[42]               The penalty for contempt must take into account all aggravating and mitigating circumstances and be governed by the circumstances of each individual case. The range of penalty in the cases referred to by the Commission counsel and counsel for the Attorney General is 15 days to 15 months incarceration.

Niagara (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board v. Curran 2002 CanLII 49405 (ON S.C.), (2002), 57 O.R. (3d) 631 (S.C.J.)

 

R. v. Rai, [1995] O.J. No. 4391 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.)

 

R. v. Lamer (1973), 17 C.C.C. (2d) 411 (Que. C.A.)

 

Re Royal Commission on Certain Sectors of the Building Industry (1974), 1 O.R. (2d) 699 (Div. Ct.)

 

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpsons, 1995 CanLII 57 (S.C.C.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725

 

Ontario (Royal Commission into Niagara Regional Police Force) v. DeMarco, [1990] O.J. No. 161 (Div. Ct.)

 

[Where/when did anyone take into account the circumstances of Perry’s case?]   

[43]               Mr. Dunlop, in his submissions, did not refer to any circumstances which one could consider to be mitigating. However, this Court takes note of the fact that Mr. Dunlop, on the record before us, appears to have otherwise been a law abiding citizen.

[He was and is certainly a more law-abiding citizen than, say, former Crown attorney Malcolm MacDonald.  MacDonald, a lawyer and former Crown attorney, got an absolute discharge for obstructing justice.  What’s good for the lawyer goose obviously isn’t good for the non-lawyer gander.]

[44]               The Crown submits that the following circumstances ought to be considered in arriving at an appropriate sentence for Mr. Dunlop:

(i)         The Inquiry serves an important public purpose;

 [What important public purpose is this multi-million-dollar inquiry serving?]

 

(ii)        Mr. Dunlop is a significant witness in the Inquiry;

 [Why?]

 

(iii)      Mr. Dunlop has repeatedly refused to testify;

 [True.  Why?]

 

(iv)      The need to give effect to the principles of deterrence and denunciation; and

 [What of the principle of reformation and rehabilitation?  If Perry is indeed such a hard core criminal and danger to society, why no consideration for his reform and/or rehabilitation?] 

 (v)        The impact of Mr. Dunlop's failure to testify on the Inquiry's mandate to inquire into issues of public concern openly.

 [What issues of public concern?  The institutional response to historic allegations of abuse?  As for openly, well, that’s another matter.]

 

[45]               We agree.

[Indeed]

[46]               As noted by Quinn J. in Niagara Police Services Board, supra, the range of penalty for contempt can be no penalty (usually where the contempt has been purged), a suspended sentence perhaps conditional on some act or event occurring, a fine or incarceration. We add another possibility – both a fine and incarceration.

[Heaven forbid it would no penalty.  Or a suspended sentence. Justice Glaude, Peter Engelmann and those working on their behalf ( Brian Gover and Derek Humphrey for the AG’s office) want Perry punished to the maximum.  Justices Swinton and Ferrier unanimously obliged.] 

[47]               Quinn J. also had this to say in Niagara Police Services Board:

[28] It is trite of me to observe that a sentence, to be fit, must be proportionate to the gravity of the wrongdoing. Although the mere finding of contempt carries with it the recognition that the conduct of the contemnor was deliberate and wilful, nevertheless, contempt can reflect degrees of wrongdoing. In other words, not every instance of contempt is equally blameworthy: all are serious, but some are more serious than others. Here, it must be remembered that the defendant has, repeatedly, thumbed his nose at the Licensing By-law and the Judgment. 

[It seems that the justices concluded that Perry should be ranked as the most serious of contemnors.  Did they somehow conclude he “thumbed his nose” at the system or the commissioner?  If yes, how?  When?

Yes. When did Perry thumb his nose?   In mid September 2007 at the Weave Shed when he said he would not testify because he has no faith in the inquiry or the justice system? 

In what way was that thumbing his nose? ]

[48]               Deterrence, both specific and general, is the most important aspect of a contempt penalty. Nevertheless, proportionality must be considered and applied when imposing a penalty.

[Deterrence is the most important aspect?  From Perry’s sentencing I’d say the justices decided judicial coercion is the most important.]  

[49]               A contemnor who has been incarcerated for civil contempt may be released before the end of the period upon the purging of the contempt. See r. 60.11(8).

[In Perry’s case, straight judicial coercion]

[50]               On the other hand, a penalty for criminal contempt cannot be alleviated despite the contemnor having purged his contempt. If a period of incarceration is ordered, it must be served in its entirety. Once ordered, the court is functus officio: Attorney General v. James et al., [1962] 1 All E.R. 255 (Q.B.). See also Pereira and Minister of Manpower and Immigration (1978), 33 C.C.C. (2d) 435 (Ont. C.A.).

[True.  Draw out the agony.  Rather than, let’s say, two charges and convictions of civil contempt which could run concurrently, make it one for civil and one for criminal. That way the civil and criminal can be used as torture tools.   Judicial coercion.

For that matter, rather than one charge and conviction of criminal contempt which would be over and done with without coercion to purge, make sure there is one civil contempt conviction.  Apply the judicial pressure.  Perry must recant.   No chance to purge with a criminal contempt conviction.   He must be charged and convicted with civil contempt.  That gives occasion to pressure him to purge. A chance to coerce him to appear at the Weave Shed as a public show of faith in the inquiry, the commissioner and the justice system. 

It’s quite unsettling what they’ve done here. Profoundly disturbing.]

[51]               For the civil contempt as found in this Court's ruling of December 6, 2007, we order that Mr. Dunlop be imprisoned for a period of 6 months. If, prior to the end of that period Mr. Dunlop purges his contempt by testifying at the Commission and answering all proper questions, then, upon conclusion of such testimony, he may apply to this Court for an order for immediate release from custody, pursuant to r.60.11(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon completion of this sentence, Mr. Dunlop shall be brought before this Court to be sentenced for criminal contempt of Court.

[The maximum sentence!

Again, judicial coercion.

Six months to coerce and torture.  Hard not to think yet again of Justice Glaude’s words of December 2006:  “It is essential for the success of this Inquiry that people come forward, free from any undue influence, promise or threat.” Guess that went by the bye.  I can think of no more undue influence than Perry’s incarceration and the manner in which the two justices rendered sentencing.]

[52]               The committal warrant shall be endorsed that this sentence is not subject to remissions of any kind unless further ordered by this Court. Counsel for the Commission shall forthwith forward a copy of these reasons to the Superintendent of the Correctional Facility where Mr. Dunlop is being held.

[I gather that means ensure that there are no allowances given Perry for time served, and no time off for good behaviour?   That’s the case.  This must be where that came from. 

Why?  Why this judicial compulsion to penalize and punish Perry to the maximum?  Because he questioned the commissioner’s integrity? Because he stood up to the plate to protect children from paedophiles?  Because he has lost faith in justice system?

Why?]

[53]               Mr. Dunlop shall be held in segregated, protective custody.

[Essential for Perry’s survival.  A goodly portion of the prison populace hates police.  Another goodly portion are paedopholes who wouldn’t take kindly to Perry either.  It was Perry who asked for such protection.]

[54]               Approval of this Court's order as to form and content by Mr. Dunlop is dispensed with.

[Why?  Because he was self-represented?]

[55]               For Mr. Dunlop's criminal contempt, the Court defers imposition of penalty until the completion of the aforesaid term of imprisonment for civil contempt.

[Why the deferral?  A torture tool?   Or, just a secret?]

[56]               The Warrant of Committal shall be endorsed that upon completion of the aforesaid term of imprisonment he shall remain in custody until he is brought before this Court to be sentenced for criminal contempt of Court.

 

 

 

_________________________________

                                                                                                            Ferrier J.

 

 

 

_________________________________

                                                                                                            Swinton J.

 

 

 

 

 

Released: March 5, 2008

 

 

COURT FILE NO.:  515/07

DATE:  200800305

 

 

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

 

FERRIER and SWINTON JJ.

 

 

 

 

B E T W E E N:

 

THE HONOURABLE G. NORMAND GLAUDE, COMMISSIONER OF THE CORNWALL PUBLIC INQUIRY

 

Applicant

- and -

 

 

PERRY DUNLOP

 

Respondent

 

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

 

 

 

BY THE COURT

 

 

 

 

 

 

Released:      March 5, 2008