SQLFusion - Notes and observations on Randy Millar testimony

Notes and observations on Randy Millar testimony at the Cornwall Public Inquiry

(1) Re Milton MacDonald

Convicted paedophile Milton MacDonald is Crown attorney Murray MacDonald’s father, and Randy Millar’s father-in-law.

Randy Millar and Milton lived in the small community of Lancaster, population around 600.

A victim with the moniker C-91 and his family apparently had lived behind the Millar home for some years.

Randy Millar’s father Al Millar was also an OPP officer. Al Millar investigated sex abuse allegations against Milton back in the late 60s . At that time, despite number of victims, Milton was charged with one offence against one victim. He plead guilty and received a suspended sentence.

Randy Millar says he recalls as a young boy hearing rumours about Milton, that his father never talked about work, and that he never knew Milton had been charged (“I don't remember him being charged but I do know now that he was.”)

Milton MacDonald was charged again in 1994. He was convicted.

Randy Millar’s brother Tim Millar was (is?) also an OPP officer.

The Millar testimony on Milton relates to Millar's knowledge and/or involvement in events leading to the 1994 charges against Milton MacDonald.

(i) On 15 February 1994 Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald called Randy Millar advising that Murray’s father and Randy’s father-in-law Milton MacDonald had had a phone call the previous day from C-91 alleging Milton had sexually abused him. Murray MacDonald called his OPP brother-in-law Randy Millar.

(ii) According to Randy Millar’s statement at the time:

“I told them that I thought we should get hold of the victim’s father and ask him if he had any knowledge of any wrongdoing by Milton towards C-91. I called C-91’s father and he came to my house. I asked C-91’s father if he was aware of any problems between C-91 and Milton. C-91’s father replied, ‘My wife had a problem with him once’, but that he wasn’t aware of any problems between C-91 and Milton.”

According to Jones, the father then went on to say his wife found Milton in the house – she was suspicious and told him to stay away from her son. The father felt nothing sexual had ever happened between his son and Milton.

Millar’s statement continues:

“I told C-91’s father that I was concerned that maybe something had happened and that I wanted to get to the truth to find out if this was a criminal or moral issue. I told him that it hinged on the age of C-91 at the time; that if they were adults, it would be a moral issue, but if C-91 was younger that perhaps it would be a criminal issue. C-91’s father asked what I wanted him to do. I told him that I wanted to get to the bottom of it so he would know whether it had happened or not. I told him that if it was criminal that I would request that someone from outside come in to conduct the investigation. C-91’s father left.
I was feeling very bad about the situation so I called Superintendent Carson Fougère and advised him what had occurred to date. Carson said it would have to be investigated, but no arrangements were made.”

The statement continues:

“C-91’s father told me that C-91 told him that Milton had molested him when he was 14 years old. I told C-91’s father that I shouldn’t hear any more and that I would arrange for some outside investigators to interview C- 91. I called Superintendent Fougère back to tell him what C-91’s father had told me.”

(iii) In a 16 February 1994 interview Murray MacDonald talked of his reaction when he was told of the allegations against his father. It seems that for whatever reason his mind instantly went to extortion:

“I hung up and tried to make sense of the information that I had received. I wondered if the man may be trying to extort money. I wondered why anyone would say something like this and I was trying to think what motive C-91 would have.”

Murray MacDonald then recounted his perspective of a conversation with Randy Millar:

“I told them there was a previous incident in the late sixties. I asked Randy if he knew about this. Randy replied yes, that he had and that he presumed that everyone in the family knew about it. He said that he remembered a rumour at that time, but he didn’t believe that there had been anything to it. We didn’t think that it had ever progressed past the police investigation.”

Murray M continued:

“Randy tried to calm me down by saying that a complaint may not be made at this point and that it may indeed be an extortion attempt. Randy and I talked about the precarious position that he and I would be in being a police officer and a Crown Attorney, so I told him to be sure to keep his distance.”

And sone further paras of interest:

- “If Randy found there wasn’t a complaint then I told him he should still keep his distance. I told Randy that I had already instructed Dad to stay away from C-91 and not to try to take the law into his own hands.”
- “Randy and I talked about the events.
“Randy felt the matter should be brought to a head and be dealt with. I told him to be careful and not jeopardize his position. He said that he felt he could contact the father of C-91 without compromising his position. I told him to be careful.”
- “Randy indicated that he was going to see the boy’s father. I told him that I trusted his judgment and that was his call.”

(iv) In a 15 February 1994 statement Millar makes reference to a “family” meeting the family had with Milton. Present were Murray, Margaret, Marvin, Moira, Mary. Those are apparently Milton’s children and wife.

Millar is uncertain if all the in-laws were there or not. He obviously was.

The following paras were read into the record. As much as Murray MacDonald is credited with turning his fater in it seems there was no rush to do so at this stage of the game:

- “The feeling I got was that something had happened with C-91 but Milton was [not] questioned specifically about that.”
- "I suggested that we had better go to C-91's father and confront him to see what he was going to do with his complaint, but everyone else seemed to think that since there had been no formal complaint that it might be best to leave it alone for now."

Millar agreed that the above is his statement. He does not recall the meeting.

(v) Initially both Murray MacDonald and Randy Millar were thinking in terms of extortion.

(vi) Milton MacDonald was eventually convicted for that instance of sexual abuse.

(2) Re Jean Luc Leblanc

(i) In August 1998 Vivian Burgess, the mother of two victims of convicted paedophile Jean Luc Leblanc, called Cornwall police to alert that she had seen Leblanc in the company of three young boys between eight and 12 at the Cornwall speedway, at Wal-Mart buying running shoes for some boys, and her daughter had seen Leblanc around town on various occasions – always in the company of young boys

The woman was extremely concerned the boys were being molested.

Apparently for jurisdictional reasons, on 10 September 1998 the case was handed over to Randy Millar with the OPP.

To put it simply, nothing was done. Millar told no one. Alerted no one. Not his superiors. Not his subordinates. No one. Nothing was done!

Millar testified he was overworked, short of staff etc etc and, that, there was no crime committed. To put it succinctly, we heard any number of rationales from both Millar, his lawyer and the CPS lawyer as to why it was alright for a police officer to turn a blind eye to reports that a known paedophile was sashaying about the countryside with young children.

We heard a little of the blame game (“ I mean Cornwall could have been conducting surveillance on him”) and I can’t tell you how many times Millar repeated “There’s no offence.”

Millar recounted that he was busy with “actual offences” such as “murder, attempt murder, sexual assaults, robberies, those types of offences.” He talked of lack of resources, he talked of his lack of suspicion: “I had no suspicion. It was a -- he could have been -- could have been his relatives with him. I don't know.” Millar said he had made repeated requests for further resources, but admitted that never did he specifically request resources to deal with Leblanc.

The long and short of it is that innocent children at known risk were relegated to the bottom of the heap of Millar’s ‘priorities.’ He discussed the matter with no one.

(ii) Asked by Ian Paul if he would agree that if a police officer has legitimate suspicion of an offence, even in the absence of reasonable and probable grounds, he has the right or discretion to investigate, Millar replied: “ Yes. If you have the resources, yeah.

(iii) On 16 December 1998 Project Truth officers Tim Smith and Pat Hall become aware of the information re Jean Luc Leblanc. The Leblanc residence was put under surveillance. Millar found two officers to assist with surveillance.

On 05 January 1999 Leblanc was charged with numerous sexual offences on C-21 and C- 82.

On 11 March 1999 Leblanc was charged with a further 16 sex-related counts involving 6 additional victims.

On 27 June 1999 Leblanc was arrested again and charged on with 13 additional4 sex-related charges involving 4 victims. As Jones noted, 13 victims. 51 charges. At or about the time of the 11 March ’99 arrest Hall wrote that he would no longer be involved in the Leblanc prosecution

“...contacted by Crown Murray MacDonald and advised that his office would no longer be involved in the prosecution of Leblanc. Hall felt this sudden change was because Macdonald became aware of the fact that his brother-in-law, Randy Millar, took no action.”

Millar denied knowledge of this, and denied any conversation with Murray MacDonald on the Leblanc matter

It seems Pat Hall complained about Millar’s handling of the case to several people, and then it seems that well down stream, in 2005, there was an investigation into Millar’s handling of the Leblanc file. I am uncertain if Millar was formally charged under the Police Services Act, and if charged, if he was convicted, but there was a report which reads in part:

“No matter how busy Millar was at the time that he received the information, it cannot possibly preclude him from making a telephone call to his supervisors and reporting this information to them and also sharing the information with his subordinates.”

Millar claimed he knew nothing of Hall’s upset or any concerns regarding his handling of the case until 2005

(iv) In 2005 the OPP Professional Standards Bureau launched an investigation to determine if Millar should be charged with negligence under the Police Services Act. The decision was not to lay charges, but one of the findings was the following:

“No matter how busy Millar was at the time that he received the information, it cannot possibly preclude him from making a telephone call to his supervisors and reporting this information to them and also sharing the information with his subordinates.”

Millar was also apparently advised by his boss, Superintendent Mark Van Zant, that he had a duty report by putting out a zone alert, meaning, according to Millar, making not just his superiors but also his subordinates know that Leblanc was living in the area and “if he’s seen in the company of young boys, identify them.”

Millar agreed with Jones that he could also have put up a notice on the station bulletin board. He did not. Millar says he would do things differently now.

Project Truth officer Pat Hall noted:

"Both Smith and Hall were surprised that we had not heard about Leblanc before, as both Detective Constables Dupuis and Genier were part of the crime unit and under Millar's supervision while at their detachments.
"They were aware that Millar had at least six other detective constables that he could assign to investigate Leblanc."

(v) In an exchange with Dallas Lee Millar seemed to think that because a convicted paedophile has not been reported for re-abusing in 12 years he should be given a fair benefit of doubt when he has been seen in contact with children:

MR. LEE: As a general principle, as a police officer, is it fair to say that a convicted child abuser would not receive the benefit of the doubt relating to contact with kids down the road?
DET. INSP. MILLAR: Twelve years?
MR. LEE: Yes.
DET. INSP. MILLAR: With nothing in between?
MR. LEE: Yes.
DET. INSP. MILLAR: I'd say it's fifty fifty. You're back to no offence but information. We didn't know who the boys were.

Asked by Dallas Lee if the police were pro-active in fighting crime in 1997 this exchange ensued:

MR. LEE: Were the police, and the OPP specifically, in late 1997, prohibited in any way from being proactive in fighting crime, rather than being reactive?
DET. INSP. MILLAR: In 1997?
MR. LEE: Yes.
DET. INSP. MILLAR: I’d have to go through my notes to see what the workload demand was, because that, really, is what dictates whether you can become proactive.
MR. LEE: I take it, where possible, there is recognized value in attempting to stop crime before it occurs ---
MR. LEE: --- as opposed to investigating crime after it occurs?
DET. INSP. MILLAR: Yes.
MR. LEE: And you certainly would have been cognizant of that in 1997?
DET. INSP. MILLAR: Yes.

(vi) CPS officer Tyo took Mrs. Burgess’ complaint on 05 August 1998. He followed up on it on 11 August 1998. He apparently discovered Leblanc’s prior conviction And the fact that Leblanc was living in OPP jurisdiction.

Tyo did not contact Millar until 10 September 2008.

There is no explanation for the four-week delay on Tyo’s part.

(vii) In a 27 August 2007 report prepared by Millar for the OPP preparatory to the inquiry he made reference to Leblanc case and noted:

"My plan of action was to have detectives set up surveillance on the Leblanc residence and observe his activities."

(3) Re the Varley incident

The Varly incident refers to the 1992 shooting and killing of Andrew MacDonald by his cousin, Travis Varley.

The story goes that Travis, Mark Woods ( a probationer), Bob Varley and Andrew MacDonald had been out drinking before the shooting and had spent some time at Ken Seguin’s home.

The fact that there was drinking at Seguin’s and that one of the boys was a probationer raised eyebrows.

Much of what we know has come from Ken Seguin’s account of the visit paid to him on the evening before the early morning shooting.

Randy Millar was involved in the investigation of the shooting.

(i) According to evidence at the inquiry, on 08 January Ken Seguin at 7 pm said he had a phone call from someone who said he wanted to come and talk to Seguin.

At 7:45 pm he said there was another call: “We are on our way”

At 8 pm, according to Seguin: “Four individuals came through my door.”

According to Seguin the four then had a few beer. Seguin discovered that one of the four was on probation

(ii) Ken Seguin told Millar he felt intimidated by the youths.

(iii) Millar concluded Seguin was embarrassed. He repeated that word several times during his testimony.

(iv) Millar denied any prior knowledge of Ken Seguin. He wrote a report of the event for Seguin’s boss Emile Robert based on what Seguin told him and his own observations.

In that report Millar told Robert that “The people involved had been drinking liquor and beer heavily for 17 hours before the shooting.”

The shooting was around 4 am. As Helen Daley (Citizens for Community Renewal) pointed out, that would mean the group had already been drinking for about eight hours when they arrived at Seguin’s home.

When asked by Ian Paul (Coalition) if, given his limited knowledge of the situation, Millar, had considered advising Robert that probation should conduct their own investigation Millar replied:

DET. INSP. MILLAR: That’s -- that was his business. It’s his employee. He can do whatever he wants.

(v) Here’s another angle on the Varley incident. Back in the summer of 2001 Ron Leroux told me what he knew of the Varley incident. A tape recording was running at the time.

Ron’s account is limited to what happened at Ken Seguin’s home in the afternoon when Ron was at Ken Seguin’s home:

- “The boy came to the house in the afternoon and he wanted to borrow 20 dollars. Ken didn’t have it so he looked over at me. That kid offered me the 20 dollars when we were with the lawyer there last year, with Yeggendorf. He pulled the 20 dollars out to give me back. Could you imagine that? After all these years. He wants to give me the 20 dollar loan back cause he recognized me. ... And it just kinda clicked. He said, I know you. I owe you 20 bucks.’’

- “His parents were in Florida. His cousins were there and a few friends and he came up to borrow 20 bucks. He hitchhiked up or something. So, Ken loaned him the car and I gave him 20 bucks and they bought beer with the money and they had a party. “’

- “He come home…when he got back there with the beer and the drugs he found out that his cousin was in bed with….his cousin was in bed with his girlfriend. And he went into the closet and got the rifle but there was a bullet in it. And the point of impact of that weapon is 18 point 5 tons per square inch and you can imagine the mess in that room. And MacLean, a lawyer, what’s his name, took the case and got him off with three years

Copies of the tapes were turned over to the commission.

(v) In a one-page memoranda Roberts wrote:

“Constable Millar and I recommend that no further action be taken.”

Millar denied he would say such a thing.

Asked by Ian Paul if he could have made any such verbal comment to Robert Millar replied:

DET. INSP. MILLAR: The only thing I can see him taking from that is me saying, "He's your man. You discipline him as you see fit." I can't make recommendations as a constable how to discipline him.

(4) Re Ron Leroux seizure of guns and porn

(i) C-8 was on the premises when Millar and McDougald arrived to execute the search warrant. He met them at the door and handed them a gun, one of the guns listed on the search warrant.

Millar believes Section 489 of the Criminal Code authorized police officers to seize materials not listed on a search warrant.

(ii) An interesting exchange with Ian Paul regarding Millar’s conclusion sight unseen that the tapes were criminal in nature

MR. PAUL: Yes. Now, in terms of the tapes, just seeing the labels, I'd suggest, wouldn't necessarily identify it as criminal pornography.
DET. INSP. MILLAR: No, but they were well hidden and there had to be a reason for that.
MR. PAUL: So apart from the issue of being hidden, you would have viewed them as possibly as legal pornography if they were just lying about?
DET. INSP. MILLAR: I thought it was reasonable to believe that they contained evidence of a criminal offence.
MR. PAUL: And that was not based on ---
DET. INSP. MILLAR: Based simply on the fact that they were hidden.
MR. PAUL: Okay. And that was not based on how they appeared ---
DET. INSP. MILLAR: No.
MR. PAUL: --- or the labelling? Okay.
DET. INSP. MILLAR: No.
MR. PAUL: And would you not have considered that coming into a household, that the occupants of that household, as normal reasonable people, might want to hide any form of pornography from visitors coming into the house; that that might be a usual thing to do?
DET. INSP. MILLAR: Well, it's up in the bedroom closet.
MR. PAUL: I'm just suggesting that hiding something like pornography which by its nature whether it’s legal or not could be embarrassing, does not necessarily indicate criminal pornography; the fact that it’s hidden. Would you not agree with that?
DET. INSP. MILLAR: Yes.
MR. PAUL: So in terms of the grounds, do you not agree that the grounds for seizing tapes based on the fact that they’re hidden somewhere is shaky in terms of the plain view doctrine?
DET. INSP. MILLAR: I believed it. If we would have went to trial, it would have been up to the judge to decide.

(iii) Although Millar found the tapes and opened the suitcase he made a point several times of saying that he did not seize the tapes, it was McDougald.

DET. INSP. MILLAR: Steve McDougald seized the. It was his warrant. I never saw the tapes. Millar does not know or recall if McDougald viewed the tapes at the Leroux residence. (McDougald said he did) (iv) C-8, who was not a resident of the house, was at the Leroux home on their arrival. By the time of their arrival C-8 had already found one of the guns. As far as C-8 being present during the search, the following exchange ensued:
MR. PAUL: Was there any concern by you or Constable McDougald at the time about the idea of having a civilian present with evidence during the execution of the search?
DET. INSP. MILLAR: I don’t know about McDougald, but obviously I didn’t pay much attention to it. And certainly if it’s not his house, yeah, there’s reason for concern for a civilian to be in there without being named in the warrant.
MR. PAUL: In terms of continuity of the evidence that it’s found with somebody else who’s perhaps almost in the nature of a complainant; that’s perhaps of concern?
DET. INSP. MILLAR: Yes.
MR. PAUL: And then in terms of execution of the search warrant with someone who is not named in the warrant and ---
DET. INSP. MILLAR: Yes.
MR. PAUL: --- there would be an issue of whether they lived there or not. That might be an issue?
DET. INSP. MILLAR: Or whether they’re a peace officer or not, they’re not.

(iv) In a 03 December 1998 interview conducted by Pat Hall Millar seems uncertain what was in the suitcase “

Q. Describe the contents and number of tapes.
A. I never saw the contents of the suitcase, but believe the suitcase contained videotapes...”
Q. What was recorded on the videotapes?
A. I don’t know.”

Millar explained the contradiction thus:

DET. INSP. MILLAR: The only thing I can see is I didn’t make reference to my notes and it was a cold interview, if you will have that. And in preparing for this Inquiry, there’s no doubt in my mind that I probably popped that lock -- there’s a -- and I obviously knew that they contained tapes because I went out to the car and called Project P.

When pressed Millar could not recall with certainty whether or not he had advance notice for the interview, and whether or not he had his notes. Nor does he recall if Officer McDougald was there when he opened the suitcase, or if C-8 was there

(5) Re Extortion

(i) There is a Malcolm MacDonald statement which apparently recounts David Silmser’s contacts with Ken Seguin starting January 1993. They include I think one January 1993 contact, one in February, another in August, one in September, one on 15 November “he approached me around noon hour.”

Ken Seguin’s notes apparently have the August entry as 21 August with the following note

"David again called me at home at 11:30. He awoke me and I was confronted with anger over the Diocese's lack of response to him regarding a financial settlement, and it was up to him to lay charges or not but he preferred to settle for money.
"He stated, 'Consider this a threat' that if they don't come across that he would say harmful things to the police, my employer and the newspapers."

Millar agreed with Michael Neville’s suggestion that that constitutes extortion.

(ii) Millar concluded that there had been no extortion. After he turned in his findings someone or some persons in “command staff” directed him to go and interview Malcolm MacDonald. Millar apparently got the document with the Ken Seguin statement from Malcolm.

(iii) Greg Bell notes of December 1993 recount a telephone conversation Bell had with Millar. The notes read in part:

“1. That he [Millar] became involved over the death of Ken Seguin, which was clearly suicide, and that the connection to Father Charlie MacDonald came out of this.
"2. That the case has now gone to Ron Wilson at OPP Lancaster."

That raises the question: Did Ron Wilson perhaps have something to do with re-opening the extortion investigation?

(iv) Millar met with the Seguin family 15 December 1993. His recollection is they asked for the meeting to get an update on the investigation.

Millar testified he told them the following:

I told them that Ken Seguin committed suicide and -- now, this is in response to their questions. I told them that I was told that Ken Seguin was gay, or I think the word I used was “homosexual,” and I told them I believed that he committed suicide because David Silmser threatened to sue him for sexually assaulting him a number of years ago and wanted money.

So the Seguin knew as of at least 15 December 1993 that David Silmser had threatened to sue. They would have known that when Hamelink and his team came along.

Did the Seguin family perhaps push to have the extortion investigation re-opened?

(v) In February 1994 Doug Seguin met with Superintendent Fougère and made a complaint about Millar’s comments to them at the 15 December meeting.

In a civil lawsuit Doug Seguin described the December 1993 meet with Millar as follows:

“And then [Millar] gave an atrocious description of what they said my brother and others had been doing to young boys. When questioned, their suspicions turned out to be nothing more than innuendo, with the notion that Ken was homosexual and could not back up any of their accusations, and made some vague references to other investigations going on in the area at the time.”

Millar has no recollection of saying anything about young boys.

Another para reads:

“The Seguin family made a complaint to Superintendent Fougère at Long Sault of the disreputable conduct of his officers. He immediately called the East Regional Headquarters in Orillia and started a formal investigation of Silmser for extortion. Unfortunately, they used Chris McDonell, one of the same officers who we had complained about and who was also involved in Inspector Tim Smith’s investigation of Father Charles MacDonald.”

According to this it would seem that in Doug Seguin’s mind it was the Seguin family complaint which triggered the second extortion investigation.

However, Hamelink was on the job for the second extortion “investigation” 01 February 1994. The Seguins complained sometime in February 1994. It doesn’t add up.

Not only that, but on 21 December 1993, after the first investigation was presumably officially closed with the conclusion that there was no extortion, and under order from someone with “command staff,” Millar interviewed Malcolm MacDonald. It was at this time that Malcolm gave Millar documents listing the various contacts Silmser had allegedly made with Ken Seguin.

Malcolm also gave a statement.

Malcolm’s statement reads in part:

"In the afternoon of November 15th,I telephoned Silmser at a number that Ken had given me. Silmser wanted money and told me if he didn't get any money he was going to the Ministry with a complaint."

This differs from Silmser’s account of the same call. Silmser said he said he would sue.

It was also in this 21 December 1993 statement that Malcolm referenced extortion:

"I was trying to convince Ken to lay charges against Silmser for extortion and if he didn't want to go that far, to tell his boss at work."

Millar did not ask Malcolm why he was talking extortion, nor did he ask for Malcolm’s notes, nor did he recall asking Malcolm why the Ken Seguin notes were not turned over to police sooner.

(vi) On 30 December 2004 Millar received a message on his answering machine from Doug Seguin. Millar has no idea how or where Seguin got his phone number.

Seguin was apparently upset about a Charlie Greenwell news item on TV which mentioned that Ken Seguin had committed suicide and referenced the illegal seizure of tapes.

According to the evidence Millar must have denied there were tapes seized:

He [Doug Seguin] questioned me as to whether there were tapes taken from Ken’s house when we did the death investigation and I couldn’t recall seizing any tapes, and that Ken’s death was a suicide.
Doug wanted me to issue a press release telling the public that there were no tapes in the house.

(6) Re C-92

It seems that perhaps David Silmser was not the only “alleged” victim who was in touch with Ken Seguin prior to Seguin’s suicide.

An individual with the moniker C-92 alleges he was sexually abused twice by Ken Seguin. He also alleges he was in touch with Seguin the day before Seguin committed suicide and told Seguin he was going to go to police.

There has been not a word of this “alleged” victim until Dallas Lee entered a court document into evidence during Millar’s cross-examination.

According to the 20 January 2004 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Examination for Discovery, C-92 said he “confronted” Ken Seguin. The ensuing exchange went like this:

Question: “You confronted Ken?”
Answer: “One time that I was going to go to the police about it.”
Question: “When was that?”
Answer: “That was when I was on parole.”
Question: “What year?”
Answer: “I think in ’92.”
Question: “Okay. And what did you tell him?”
Answer: “He threatened me outside of his office that he’d get my parole revoked.”
Question: “What did you tell him?”
Answer: “I told him that I was going to go to the police from what he did to me because it was coming out that he’d done this to other people. I thought that I was the only one that this was done to at the time, you know.”
Question: “Yes. So you said ‘I’m going to tell the police’, and what did he say to you?”
Answer: “I said I was going to go to the police.”
Question: “And what did he say to you?”
Answer: “He told me that if I do anything about it that he’ll get my parole revoked and I’ll be back in jail.”
Question: “Did you ever report it to the police?”
Answer: “No, I didn’t. He hung himself the next day.”

Millar testified he had heard nothing of this until now.

Michael Neville was quick to imply C-92 had never been abused and was looking for money. came forward point out that C-92 had been interviewed in April 1994 and made no mention that he had ever been abused by Seguin. What he did say at the time which Neville read into the record was:

- “It was rumoured that Ken Seguin was gay, and this was picked up at the marina and the hotel. He never approached myself or did I know anyone else he made advances to.”
- “After we left the house, we talked about Ken being gay, but we all remained friends with Ken. Ken never approached me as a homosexual, or as far as I know, he never made advances to Brian or Robert. He was just a good friend.”
- “I saw Ken about five days before he died, and every time I went in to see my probation officer I would stop and talk to Ken. I was shocked when I heard he hung himself, as I never suspected that of him. I never saw any women around Ken’s house.”

Neville also noted that C-92 said he told his wife about the abuse in 1992.

[I believe it goes without saying that it is not all uncommon for male victims of same-sex sexual abuse to deny the abuse. Until a victim is ready to address it they deny. And it also goes without saying that a victim telling his wife is one thing, and a big step, and telling the whole world is quite another.

I believe it also goes without saying that if C-92 was getting ready to come forward by first confronting Ken Seguin, the Seguin suicide probably set him back.]

(6) Perry Dunlop

Randy Millar and Perry worked together for about a year. Millar would stop by the Dunlop home after work. Perry would play guitar. The pair would have a beer.

(i) In his Will State Perry Dunlop made the following note regarding happenings on the day of Ken Seguin’s death: 30.

On November 25, 1993, I was at a restaurant in Cornwall, eating dinner with a Crown Attorney, an Ontario Provincial Police Officer and a professional Engineer. Two Ontario Provincial Police Officers (Randy Millar & Chris McDonnell) entered the restaurant, came over to me and told me that Ken Seguin had committed suicide. The body had been located at his residence this date.
The officers told me that they had visited my residence in order to locate me. The officers asked me if I had a copy of the D.S. victim statement. I told them that 1 did. The officers wanted to obtain a copy from me as they felt that the Cornwall Police may not be willing to provide the said statement. I agreed to do so, and the following day they came to my residence and I provided them with a copy of the statement.

Millar testified that that never happened. When pressed he admitted he had once worked with Perry and knew him quite well, and then said alternately that “I don't remember going to a restaurant, no,” he didn’t see why he would do that, and he doesn’t recall discussing the suicide with Perry (I don't remember that. I would have no reason to discuss it with him.”)

(ii) Millar testified he started distancing himself from Perry. I would say he spoke with a degree of disdain:

- “I was starting to have some concerns about him.”
- “He was totally -- what's the right word I'm looking for here -- infatuated with this $32,000 settlement, and he was believing there was cover ups and so on and so forth.”
- “I had to start distancing myself from him.”
- “ I didn’t discuss matters with him. We were just -- we would just bump into each other and, I’m telling you, he was8 infatuated with this theory that he had of a cover-up.”
- “I don’t know. I mean, I distanced myself and he just carried on.”

(iii) One portion of CAS Executive Director Greg Bell’s notes of 29 November 1994 reads as follows:

“He [Perry Dunlop] indicated that Randy Millar and Chris McDonell of OPP Lancaster are investigating the matter of Ken Seguin’s suicide and possibly the issue of whether there is an extortion.
4. That Randy Millar will want to speak with Pina and I and he indicated we are investigating this case and that David Silmser has given them a statement which they will give us.
5. That there are other perpetrators involved in a ring and we will be hearing about them. That this includes Malcolm MacDonald.
6. He will still come in to review his notes with us but suggested we wait a couple of weeks until we’ve spoken to Randy Millar, who can tell us more about what we need to know.” Millar denied having heard of Malcolm MacDonald as an alleged perpetrator at that time.

(7) Malcolm MacDonald

Testified he did not know Malcolm MacDonald well – he may have been cross-examined by Malcolm a few times. He doesn’t recall.