Witness allegations tossed out

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

29 February 2008

Posted By Trevor Pritchard

The sexual abuse allegations made by three witnesses at the Cornwall Public Inquiry will not be used to form the basis for any findings of misconduct, the inquiry's commissioner ruled yesterday.

Normand Glaude delivered a 36-page decision Thursday that declared the testimony of Andre Bissonnette, Larry Seguin, and Juliette Seguin fell outside the scope of the inquiry's mandate.

For two years, the inquiry has been looking into how a variety of public institutions responded to allegations of historical sexual abuse, some dating as far back as the 1950s.

That mandate, however, has come under close scrutiny in recent weeks. In January, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that Glaude exceeded his jurisdiction when he tried to hear testimony from a witness who was allegedly raped by two teens in 1993.

The Cornwall police, the Children's Aid Society, and a lawyer representing two alleged abusers - Father Charles MacDonald and probation officer Ken Seguin - subsequently argued the appeal court's ruling meant parts of the testimony of 17 witnesses no longer fit under the inquiry's mandate.

Cases where the alleged victim was under 18, was abused by someone not in a position of trust or authority, or only experienced physical or emotional abuse should be tossed out, the parties claimed.

Despite those arguments, Glaude ruled yesterday that the allegations made by 14 of those witnesses could still be part of any disciplinary findings, and that all 17 raised issues that were "reasonably relevant."

He "reluctantly" concluded that the testimony of Bissonnette and the Seguins fell outside the mandate because the people they accused of abuse were not in positions of trust or authority - an argument he felt should be decided on a "case-by-case" basis.

At least one of the affected witnesses reacted strongly to that news.

"I just feel like they're turning their back on me again," said Bissonnette, who told the inquiry last May that he was sexually assaulted while under foster care.

Bissonnette testified that he was just shy of his 15th birthday when he was abused by a 16-year-old living with his foster family.

He said Wednesday that he would never have taken the stand if he knew the CAS wouldn't be forced to respond to his allegations.

"I feel victimized all over again," said Bissonnette, who had battled alcoholism but has now been sober for seven years.

"I feel like going out and getting drunk. That's how I feel - but I wouldn't do that."

Larry Seguin, the first victim to appear at the inquiry, testified in October 2006 about two separate sexual assaults he survived - one when he was a young boy, and the other when he was 16.

He and his mother Juliette criticized the Cornwall police's response to those allegations during their time on the stand.

Glaude's decision was a mixed blessing for Dallas Lee, an attorney representing Seguin and other members of The Victims Group.

Eight of his clients had their testimony reaffirmed yesterday, but the ruling on Seguin was "the real disappointment of the day for us," said Lee.

"It's hard to focus on the positives when I know the conversation I'm going to have with Larry," Lee said.

While the police and the CAS no longer have to respond to the allegations made by Bissonnette and the Seguins, their testimony still has value, said lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann.

"I would hope that the commissioner would consider that evidence when he's looking at recommendations for how we can make things better for the future," said Engelmann.

"The evidence is on the record. The evidence is not expunged."

In his finding, Glaude also rejected arguments made by the Cornwall police that its investigation into Earl Landry Jr. - the son of former police chief Earl Landry Sr. - fell outside the scope of the inquiry.

In 1999, Landry Jr. pleaded guilty to abusing five boys between the years of 1979 and 1990, and was sentenced to five years in prison.

The force's attorneys had argued that Landry Jr. was never in a position of trust or authority over the boys. But Landry Jr. was the uncle of one of his victims, and either knew the other boys through his work as a park custodian or a minor hockey coach, said Glaude.

Not hearing the Landry Jr. investigation would amount to "abdicating my responsibility to conduct a thorough inquiry," Glaude wrote.

Yesterday's ruling, however, could send lawyers scurrying to the Ontario Divisional Court for an appeal.

In June 2007, lawyers for the Ontario Provincial Police went to the divisional court to argue the testimony of the alleged rape victim - known only as C-12 - fell outside the mandate because she complained to police the day after the incident.

While the court ruled two-to-one in favour of letting her testify, that decision was later thrown out by the province's appeal court.

John Callaghan, an attorney for the Cornwall police, said he would decide about launching an appeal by early next week, when it's expected the Landry Jr. investigation will come under the microscope.

"We obviously had a different view, and we respect Judge Glaude's views but we have to look at it seriously from our client's perspective," said Callaghan. "And that's what we're going to do."

"I've got nothing better to do on the weekend than consider this issue," he added.

CAS lawyer Peter Chisholm declined to comment on Glaude's ruling.

The inquiry is expected to resume this morning with testimony from Cornwall police officer Garry Derochie.

The arguments

Lawyers representing the Cornwall police, the Children's Aid Society, and two alleged abusers had made four main arguments to Comm. Normand Glaude as to why they felt the testimony of 17 witnesses no longer fit within the mandate of the Cornwall Public Inquiry.

Their arguments were based on a recent appeal court decision that prevented the inquiry from hearing the testimony of two witnesses.

#1: The alleged abuser was not in a position of trust or authority. Glaude: "The determination of whether an alleged perpetrator is a 'person in authority or trust' must be based on a specific review of the evidence."

#2: The witness was not a "young person" (that is, under the age of 18) at the time of the alleged abuse.

Glaude: "Neither the (inquiry's mandate), nor the Court of Appeal, precisely defined the term 'young people' nor placed any age limit on it for general application. In my view, the term 'young people' should not be narrowly construed to include only children under the age of 18."

#3: There was no allegation of abuse, sexual or otherwise.

Glaude: "Historical abuse is not limited to allegations of sexual assault and may include allegations of broader sexual improprieties, such as grooming, invitation to sexual touching, (or) some forms of sexual harassment."

#4: Historical abuse means historical sexual abuse only, not physical or emotional abuse.

Glaude: "In many cases, abuse in all its forms - emotional, mental, physical and sexual - is inextricably linked . . . it would be impossible for me to properly evaluate and assess the institutional response to the sexual component of the alleged abuse taken in isolation."