Judge allows contested evidence into sex abuse inquiry

Three witnesses' testimony won't be heard at Cornwall probe

The Ottawa Citizen

Friday, February 29, 2008

Neco Cockburn

The head of a public inquiry has ruled that evidence heard from 14 witnesses whose testimony was challenged after a recent court of appeal decision is within his mandate or "reasonably relevant" to the probe.

Justice Normand Glaude said yesterday that allegations raised by the witnesses should be used when the inquiry into the institutional response to allegations of systemic historical sexual abuse makes findings and issues notices of misconduct.

But allegations raised by three witnesses -- two alleged male victims and the mother of one of them -- fell outside the mandate, Judge Glaude said. Although their testimony was "reasonably relevant in a limited way," institutions referred to in their allegations will not have to respond to them, he said.

The inquiry could still use the evidence when determining its recommendations, but André Bissonnette, one of the men whose testimony was deemed to be outside the mandate, said he was frustrated by the process.

"I feel like I did all of this for nothing," said Mr. Bissonnette, adding that it was very difficult to testify about the alleged sexual abuse he experienced.

"I was hoping someone was going to be accountable," said Mr. Bissonnette.

Judge Glaude issued the 36-page ruling after lawyers challenged certain evidence following a court of appeal ruling last month.

Parties that lost challenges, including the Cornwall Police Service and Children's Aid Society, can take the matter to the divisional court -- which could delay portions of upcoming testimony -- but most said yesterday that they were reviewing the decision.

On Jan. 18, the appeal court ruled that Judge Glaude exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding to hear evidence from a woman who was 16 years old when she was allegedly assaulted by two teenage boys in 1993.

Lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann said he hoped that now "we can just continue to move on with the inquiry."

In his ruling, Judge Glaude wrote that allegations investigated by the OPP's Project Truth investigation are part of his mandate. He stated that positions of trust or authority should be determined on a case-by-case basis after examining the circumstances and nature of relationships.

The term "young people" should not be "narrowly construed" to include only children under age 18; other factors such as the age at which a relationship began, the context in which it started, the vulnerability of the alleged victim and the status of the alleged perpetrator should be considered when determining whether allegations fall under the mandate, Judge Glaude wrote.

Sexual abuse, he wrote, should not be viewed in an "overly restrictive fashion," and in the context of the inquiry may include alleged improprieties such as grooming, invitation to sexual touching and some forms of sexual harassment.

Judge Glaude also wrote that he had taken the approach that the inquiry's main focus is historical sexual abuse and that in many cases, "abuse in all its forms, emotional, mental, physical and sexual, is inextricably linked in the victim or the alleged victim's experience."

He looked at each witness separately in his decision, which also took into account whether allegations were "reasonably relevant" to the inquiry.

In the case of Larry Seguin, who was the first alleged victim to testify and told the inquiry that as a young boy he was abducted and abused by a stranger, while at the age of 16 he was physically and sexually assaulted at knifepoint by a man in his early 40s, Judge Glaude said he "reluctantly" found that the testimony did not fit within the mandate because the alleged abuse did not involve a person in a position of trust or authority.

Although Mr. Seguin's evidence was "helpful and informative from many perspectives," it was not "sufficiently relevant" to issue notices of misconduct or make findings of misconduct, Judge Glaude ruled. Testimony from Mr. Seguin's mother, Juliette, was treated the same way.

In the other case, Mr. Bissonnette alleged physical and mental abuse at foster homes. He also testified that at 14, he was sexually abused at a foster home by another Crown ward who was about a year older.

Judge Glaude said Mr. Bissonnette's evidence of sexual abuse did not follow the court of appeal's direction that the alleged perpetrator must be in a position of authority or trust. Again, the commissioner said he came to the conclusion with "great reluctance."

Mr. Bissonnette, now 59, said in an interview that he hoped to find a way to appeal the decision and that he felt he had been in a vulnerable position when the alleged sexual abuse occurred.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

Testimony at Cornwall inquiry will stand: judge

The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008

Neco Cockburn

The head of the Cornwall inquiry has ruled that evidence heard from most witnesses whose testimony was challenged after a recent court of appeal decision is within his mandate or "reasonably relevant" to the probe.

Justice Normand Glaude said Thursday that allegations raised by 14 witnesses should remain on the record to be used when the inquiry makes recommendations and issues findings of misconduct.

Allegations raised by three people fell outside his mandate but were reasonably relevant in a limited way, Judge Glaude said. Institutions referred to in the allegations will not have to respond to those accusations.

Judge Glaude issued the ruling after lawyers for various parties including the Cornwall police and Children's Aid Society challenged certain witnesses' testimony following a court of appeal ruling last month.

The appeal court ruled that Judge Glaude exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding to hear evidence from a woman who was 16 years old when she was allegedly assaulted by two teenage boys in 1993.

The court said the woman's evidence "does not speak to systemic problems that may or may not exist in the way police respond to allegations of sexual abuse of young people by persons in a position of trust or authority."

Some lawyers argued that the ruling left open to interpretation the scope of the mandate, saying testimony should be restricted to concern sexual abuse suffered by people under the age of 18 at the hands of someone in a position of authority or trust. That meant testimony already heard from some witnesses was outside the scope of the inquiry, they argued.

Judge Glaude ruled that allegations looked into by the Project Truth investigation fell under the mandate.

He said the determination of whether someone was in a position of trust or authority should be made on a case-by-case basis and that the definition of "young people" should not be "narrowly construed" to people under the age of 18 and that other factors, such as vulnerability and context in which the alleged abuse arose, should be considered.

Sexual abuse, he said, should not be viewed in an overly restrictive fashion, and could include improprieties as grooming, invitation to sexual touching and some forms of sexual harassment.

He looked at each case separately when making his decision, also looking into whether the allegations were "reasonably relevant" to the inquiry.

He also ruled that an investigation involving Earl Landry, Jr., a park janitor and a former Cornwall police chief's son, fell into the inquiry's mandate. A Cornwall police service lawyer had argued against hearing evidence about investigations concerning Mr. Landry Jr.'s activities.

Lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann has said that Judge Glaude's ruling would affect whether the inquiry takes the witnesses' evidence into account when determining whether the institutional response was appropriate.

If not the evidence is not taken into account, it could still be used for determining recommendations, he said.

Parties who disagree with the decision are able to take their matters to the divisional court.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008