SQLFusion - Justice Normand Glaude decision on Supplementary funding at the Cornwall Public Inquiry 30 June 2006

SUPPLEMENTARY RULING ON FUNDING

INTRODUCTION

The following parties have requested that I amend my earlier funding recommendations: the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, the Citizens for Community Renewal, Father Charles MacDonald, the Victim’s Group and the Men’s Project. On June 27, 2006, each of these parties presented oral submissions in support of their request. Written submissions were also provided.

I would like to begin with some general comments. I heard from the applicants that they require additional resources to enable them to participate in the Inquiry as fully and efficiently as they would like, and as is required to allow them to fulfill their obligations, as they see them. A number of the applicants expressed particular concern about the volume of documents that will be produced over the course of the Inquiry, and that more resources will be required for the effective management, organization, and review of these documents. The volume of documents to be produced by the Commission is likely greater than was expected, and the technical aspects of managing such volume may well prove to be challenging for all parties involved. This is true for both the Commission and the parties, and I am mindful of these concerns.

In making my funding recommendations, I must also be mindful that the funding recommendations that I make, if approved by the Attorney General, amount to the expenditure of public funds. Given what I have noted above, and the manner in which the course of the Inquiry and the circumstances of some of the applicants has evolved, I am of the view that some additional resources are justified.

The funding recommendations set out in this ruling are not retroactive, but are applicable from the date of this ruling.

A number of applicants indicated that there was a need for some clarity in respect of my previous recommendations, particularly with regard to the issue of funding for the attendance of “substitute” counsel at the Inquiry when regular counsel is not available to attend. As I understand it, the accounts assessor has interpreted my previous recommendation so as only to fund regular counsel. I appreciate the assessor’s diligence in guarding the public purse, however, I am of the view that substitute counsel should be funded when they appear in place of regular counsel. Thus, for the sake of clarity, I am directing that all parties receiving funding prepare a list of all counsel, including possible substitute counsel, who may appear from time to time before the Inquiry on behalf of their clients. This list should include the year of call of each counsel. I will forward this list to the accounts assessor, and I am hopeful that it will assist him in ensuring that substitute counsel is funded appropriately.

The following are my rulings in respect of each applicant:

Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall (the “Diocese”)

On December 6, 2006, I recommended funding for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall for up to one senior counsel, one intermediate counsel, and one junior counsel, limited to one counsel attendance fee.

The Diocese is now requesting that its complement be one senior counsel, one intermediate counsel, one junior counsel, two paralegals, an extra senior counsel to act as a substitute, and a dual counsel attendance fee in certain circumstances.

In addition to its submission that additional resources would be required in light of the volume of anticipated documentary disclosure, in making my recommendation in respect of the Diocese, I have also considered its expanded role in the Inquiry given my finding that it is a “public institution” within the Order in Council.

At this time, based on the submissions of the Diocese, I will recommend additional funding for one paralegal, but limited to a maximum of 400 hours. Should more hours be required, the Diocese may reapply for a further amendment.

Funding for an extra senior counsel to act as a substitute counsel will be resolved by way of the list of counsel and their respective rates, which will be provided to the accounts assessor, as discussed earlier. As a result, it is not necessary to make a specific recommendation for an extra senior counsel. Substitute counsel will be funded in accordance with the list.

Counsel for the Diocese indicated that there will be occasions when he would need to have the assistance of a second counsel during the hearing. Such occasions would be when Diocesan witnesses are giving evidence, or when evidence about the Diocese’s response is being led. I am prepared to recommend a dual counsel attendance fee, but limited to a maximum of 30 days, at a 75% recovery of the junior or intermediate rate when junior or intermediate counsel attends with senior counsel.

Citizens for Community Renewal (the “CCR”)

On November 17, 2005, I recommended funding for two senior counsel and one clerk, limited to one counsel attendance fee. After considering a later request by the CCR for an amendment to my November 17th funding recommendation, on December 6, 2005, I amended my recommendation to provide funding for one senior, one intermediate and one junior lawyer.

The CCR is asking that I again amend my funding recommendation, this time to provide for a law clerk for up to a maximum of 750 hours, and on occasion, two counsel attendance fees. The CCR has assured me that this dual attendance fee would be limited to days when a lengthy or detailed cross-examination is required, or possibly in exigent circumstances to provide continuity when co-counsel are required to split a week.

In making my recommendation, in addition to the CCR’s submission that it needs assistance in respect of document management issues, I am also mindful of the active role that the CCR has played in the day to day proceedings at the Inquiry.

Accordingly, I will recommend additional funding for one clerk to assist in document management, limited to a maximum of 400 hours. As with the Diocese, I will review this with counsel at a later date if necessary.

In addition, I will recommend funding for a second counsel attendance fee, but limited to a maximum of 30 days. The second counsel’s fee will be limited to 75% recovery.

Father MacDonald

On November 17, 2006, I recommended funding for one counsel for Father MacDonald. Father MacDonald has now requested that I amend his funding recommendation to include funding for one junior and one senior counsel. He shares the views of the other applicants that an additional counsel would assist with respect to issues surrounding document disclosure and review, for example.

I will grant this request, and amend his funding recommendation to provide for one junior counsel and one senior counsel, limited to one counsel attendance fee.

Victim’s Group

In respect of the Victim’s Group, on November 17, 2005, I recommended funding for up to one senior counsel, one intermediate counsel, and one junior counsel. The counsel attendance fee was limited to two counsel, or one counsel and one clerk.

The Victim’s group has asked that I amend my earlier funding recommendation to provide funding for one senior counsel and two junior counsel to reflect the proper composition of their legal team. I will grant this request.

The Victim’s group has also requested that I recommend funding for an additional clerk to assist with document management. The Victim’s Group is presently funded for one clerk. In his submissions, counsel for the Victim’s Group acknowledged that the request for an additional clerk may be premature. At this time, I will deny this request, subject to review at a later date if required.

The Victim’s group has also requested that I recommend funding for two additional junior lawyers for the sole purpose of document review and summary. I note the submission of counsel for the Victim’s Group that his clients may be affected by many of the institutions who are parties in the Inquiry, and as a result, their review of documents may need to be broader in scope. Accordingly, I am prepared to recommend funding for one additional junior lawyer to perform document review and summary, limited to a maximum of 320 hours, also subject to review at a later date if required.

Men’s Project:

In my November 17, 2005 ruling, I recommended funding for one senior and one junior counsel.

With respect to funding, the Men’s Project has requested only a minor amendment to the wording of my previous recommendation to allow counsel for the Men’s Project to use a law student or legal researcher to assist him instead of a junior lawyer.

I will amend the Men’s Project recommendation to provide for funding for one senior counsel and one junior counsel (or at senior counsel’s discretion a law student, legal researcher, or law clerk), limited to one counsel attendance fee. Counsel for the Men’s Project advised that there appears to be no listed category of “legal researcher” in the funding guidelines. I would suggest that a legal researcher be paid at the rate of an articling student.

The Men’s Project also requested that I amend my ruling in respect of the nature of its standing before this inquiry. I originally granted the Men’s Project special standing, as opposed to full standing. The Men’s Project is now asking that it be granted the additional rights of a seat at a counsel table and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in circumstances limited to what support services for male survivors of abuse were available or accessed. It should be noted that during the course of the context evidence to date, counsel for the Men’s Project requested and was granted the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on this topic.

Given the special interest of this group, I am prepared to grant the Men’s Project a seat at a counsel table limited to those days when evidence from context witnesses is called. On those days, counsel for the Men’s Project will be permitted to cross-examine the context witnesses with respect to areas of interest to it, such as what support services for male survivors of abuse were available or accessed. With respect to the remainder of the evidence, counsel for the Men’s Project may communicate with Commission counsel regarding areas that it would like to see covered over the course of the testimony.

Released: June 30, 2006