Contempt of Court? 

The Cornwall Public Inquiry’s

Response to Perry Dunlop 

On 09 October 2007 Justice Normand Glaude decided to wash his hands of Perry Dunlop and turn him over to the proper authorities, that being the Ontario Divisional Court, to determine if Perry Dunlop was in contempt of court. 

Dunlop had refused to testify 17 September 2007.  On 21 September 2007 he said he would like to seek legal advice before proceeding. He was told his legal fees would be covered. He was ordered back to the Cornwall Weave Shed 09 October 2007.

At the end of the short proceedings Justice Glaude chose to turn to the Ontario Divisional Court to determine if Perry was in contempt of court.   

The following is the transcript of 09 October 2007.  Perry Dunlops testimony is in blue.  Theinquiry.ca comments in red. 

  THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning. 

MR. ENGELMANN: I have not spoken to Mr. Dunlop, but I understand from one of my colleagues that he is present. I’m not sure if he’s in the hearing room. 

THE COMMISSIONER: I don’t know. I don’t see him. Can the name be called then, please? 

MR. ENGELMANN: Yes. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

(SHORT PAUSE/COURTE PAUSE) 

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning, Mr. Dunlop.

 ---EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. PETER ENGELMANN : 

MR. DUNLOP: Good morning. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Have a seat. 

MR. ENGELMANN: Good morning, Mr. Dunlop. 

MR. DUNLOP: Good morning. 

MR. ENGELMANN: Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning. 

MR. ENGELMANN: Start again. 

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. 

MR. ENGELMANN: Sir, when we left off on September 21st with Mr. Dunlop, he was ordered to come back here today. You asked him to seek some legal advice with respect to the position he had taken the last time he was here. And, Mr. Dunlop, at that time you agreed to do that before coming back.  Did you have an opportunity to seek some legal advice, sir? 

MR. DUNLOP: I did so. 

MR. ENGELMANN: All right. And, sir, having had an opportunity to seek such advice, the last time you were here you refused to answer questions from me and I’m wondering if your position has changed with respect to that? 

MR. DUNLOP: I have a statement to read I’d like to read for the record, and then continue from there. 

MR. ENGELMANN: All right. 

MR. DUNLOP: Can I also get some water, please? 

MR. ENGELMANN: Absolutely. 

MR. DUNLOP: Thank you. 

MR. ENGELMANN: I think water seems to be missing all around. 

THE COMMISSIONER: It’s okay. 

MR. DUNLOP: Thank you. In the spring of the year 2000, I was ordered by the Cornwall Police Service to compile a will state and a summary of my evidence concerning all my activities from September, 1993 until the year 2000.

It took me four months to complete this task. 

The will-state consisted of an 110-page statement along with approximately 300 pages of supporting documents.

That will-state represents my best recollection of the events during that time. All of those matters were much fresher in my memory then. 

I turned the copies of my will-state and the supporting documents over to the Cornwall Police Service, the Attorney General’s office and the Solicitor General’s office. 

I have spent the last seven years of my life trying my best to forget those events. It has taken a serious toll on my health and the health of my family. The turmoil of those years between 1993 and 2000 caused my family and the victims unbearable stress and pain. It continues to this very day. 

Whatever I might recall now would pale in comparison to my will-state. Any shortcomings, memory lapses or differences would be exploited by those parties implicated in the horrific sexual abuse of victims and by the institutions which failed those same victims so tragically. I believe that the individuals and institutions represented here today would take full advantage of any of my faulty memories and use them against me in an attempt to cover-up, deny and minimize their actions and the events before this Inquiry. 

Since Day One the focus of this Inquiry has been to aim the blame at me. These same institutions and individuals would work together to try and find one small crack, however insignificant, to absolve their clients of any wrongdoing. This attack on me would compound the abuse on the victims and their families 100-fold. It will only serve to exacerbate not heal the wounds inflicted by those abusers and the institutions that failed to protect our children. I will not be party to such a process. 

I do not hold this Inquiry in contempt, though I have serious doubts that anything positive will be achieved at the end of the day. I have provided in my will-state the very best evidence that I could possibly provide, four months of work, 110 pages of my recollection with 300 pages of documents. 

I have been forced here against my will. This was not supposed to be a trial. I’ve been forced again here to leave my family, my home, my business and my community. I will testify by reading my will-state intoevidence here today. I can do no more and I will do no more. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that everything, sir? 

MR. DUNLOP: Yes. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Very well. 

MR. ENGELMANN: Well, if I could have a minute. Mr. Dunlop, you didn’t indicate this to me before you read your statement this morning. Is that fair? 

MR. DUNLOP: That’s fair. 

MR. ENGELMANN: And I take it then you’re going to refuse to answer any questions I might want to put to you, other than to read your will-state. Is that what you’re saying? 

MR. DUNLOP: I would like to read my will state for the record. 

MR. ENGELMANN: No. 

[Why not?] 

THE COMMISSIONER: No, that’s not what I’m interested in, sir. What I’m interested in finding out is whether or not you will answer questions from counsel. 

[ Witnesses have been urged to take the stand to tell their “story.” Perry Dunlop’s will state is his “story.”  Justice Glaude has no interest in hearing Perry’s story.]  

MR. ENGELMANN: That’s it. That’s all, Mr. Dunlop. Are you prepared to answer questions from counsel; yes or no?  

MR. DUNLOP: I would like to have a break and speak to my counsel for a second. 

[Perry’s “counsel” is his wife Helen] 

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. No, that’s fine. I can tell you, sir, that I’ve listened to your comments and I respect the fact that those are your heartfelt belief. I can tell you that I’m disappointed. 

Let’s take a break. 

THE REGISTRAR: Order. All rise.  

THE REGISTRAR: This hearing is now resumed. Please be seated. Veuillez vous asseoir. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr. Engelmann. 

MR. ENGELMANN: Mr. Dunlop, you asked for a few minutes to seek counsel, I understand to seek advice. Can you tell us now whether you’re prepared to answer questions of Commission counsel and other counsel and fully participate as a witness in this Inquiry? 

MR. DUNLOP: I would like to read my will state in.  

MR. ENGELMANN: Sir, I just want a yes or a no answer. We have your will-state. We can put it into evidence. We will put it into evidence. Are you prepared to answer questions of Commission counsel and other counsel and fully participate as a witness in this Inquiry?  

MR. DUNLOP: No, I'm not. I want to read my statement into evidence. 

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. That will be fine. Thank you. You may step down, sir. 

[That’s it.  Perry is not permitted to read his will state.  He is dismissed. ] 

All right, well, let me just say that I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the continuing work of the Cornwall Public Inquiry. 

This Inquiry summoned two individuals, Helen and Perry Dunlop, to give testimony. They were asked to give an account of their involvement in relation to allegations of historical abuse of young people in this community and to make recommendations to me on how to improve institutional response to allegations of sexual abuse of children and youth. 

On September 17th, 2007, Mr. Dunlop and Mrs. Dunlop affirmed that they would tell the truth. Mrs. Dunlop has come on to give her testimony and made thoughtful recommendations, and I thank her for her contribution to this public process. Mr. Perry Dunlop, however, has continued to indicate that he will not respond to questions of Commission counsel. I have listened carefully to his reasons. Both Commission counsel and I have made repeated efforts to ascertain if there was anything that could be done to increase Mr. Dunlop's comfort level in testifying. We have also engaged witness support services. I understand that Mr. Engelmann has explained the neutral role of Commission counsel and offered to go to British Columbia to make preparations convenient for him. 

I have explained, perhaps not well enough, that this is not a trial. [???] There is no finding of civil or criminal liability [that’s true enough when to comes to the “alleged” paedophiles of Cornwall] . Our intent, my intent, is to understand the past and in doing so to make recommendations for the future. The opportunity to make suggestions for the future and to better protect children is one constructively taken by many who have already testified before this Inquiry. Many survivors or alleged victims of sexual abuse as children or youth gave their accounts to this Inquiry regarding the institutional response to their particular circumstances. Their personal accounts added to the extensive documentary record and enhanced understanding of the lifelong impact of such childhood experiences. 

[How in the name of goodness can supposedly unproven sex abuse allegations from a host of “alleged” victims who various institutions have treated as liars enhance anyone’s understanding of the lifelong impact of childhood sexual abuse?]  

Many individuals made a point of telling me that although talking at the Inquiry brought back painful memories, they also saw the value of telling their story. 

[This was not about Perry Dunlop telling his “story.” Perry wanted to tell it.  Glaude said no.] 

Several told us that testifying helped them turn a page in their lives and to look to the future. 

I believe that these points about giving oral testimony have been made to Mr. Perry Dunlop. Today, it appears that Mr. Perry Dunlop has decided to continue his refusal to respond to questions of Commission counsel and has not augmented his reasons or explanation for refusal. I view this decision as unfortunate and a disappointment, particularly given the unnecessary expenditure of public funds in travel and in bringing everyone here today.  

[!!!  Who decided to deceive the Dunlops with promises that no one would be forced to testify?  Who decided to coerce the Dunlops to testify?  Who deceived the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to get an Inter-provincial subpoena?   

Mr. Dunlop was prepared to testify and publicly read his “story” into the record.  The commission denied that request. 

And, for me, the burning question is: What would the commission’s response have been had Perry said he wasn’t coming? And from whence comes the sudden atypical concern about $$$$s?]  

We proceeded to make arrangements and payment in good faith and without indication that we would not be going ahead, and I want to note that I would have welcomed having Mr. Dunlop's perspective and views as, I would believe, many others. 

[The Dunlops took in good faith the commissioner’s promises that all witness testimony would be voluntary. 

They took in good faith the repeated assurances they could not be compelled to testify. 

That aside, Justice Glaude was well aware that in the past two short weeks the Dunlops had, as promised, been seeking legal advice and trying to bring lawyers up to speed on their situation.    

Only days ago the Dunlops’ lawyer was prepared to argue the legality of the inter-provincial summons.  There are apparently recognized legal issues with the manner in which the summons was procured via Justice Lederer (Ontario Superior Court of Justice). 

Justice Glaude, however, flatly refused the time required to have this matter properly addressed and argued before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In consequence an emergency meeting was held with Justice Smart of the BC Supreme Court. 

Smart allegedly concurred that there were jurisdictional issues with the summons; however, he also said that not much could now because the Dunlops had complied with the summons (that after receiving legal advice). 

In the end Smart decided to uphold his own ruling.  He offered his sympathies to the Dunlops and their plight and said something to the effect that he hoped this situation would not cause them to see the judiciary in a negative light. 

For all its promises of covering the Dunlops’ legal costs the commission is flatly refusing to pick up the tab.  That particular legal excursion cost the Dunlops $3,400 out of pocket. 

At the end of the day, Perry came prepared to testify.  He was prepared to read his will-state which, as he testified, “represents my best recollection of the events during that time. All of those matters were much fresher in my memory then.”] 

I will now turn to explaining how we will proceed to accomplish our work in completing the mandate of this Inquiry. Prior to the Dunlop's indication to us that they would attend personally at this Inquiry, Commission counsel had been working on presenting evidence related to Mr. Perry Dunlop. The evidence was logically part of what we term “community context evidence". I understand that Commission counsel had already been well advanced in terms of the process of drafting a summary of evidence about Mr.Perry Dunlop through the mechanism of an overview of documentary evidence, which we called as an ODE. 

This involves a comprehensive oral review by Commission counsel of the written, oral and visual record and the various relevant events over time. It is my understanding that very shortly Commission counsel will be prepared to lead this evidence. At the conclusion of my remarks today, I will ask Mr. Engelmann to give us some specifics on scheduling and a high-level summary of the areas that he is likely to cover in this overview of documentary evidence in respect to Mr. Perry Dunlop. 

We will be proceeding to implement our plans to move into the community context evidence starting tomorrow and to call expert media testimony as part of that chapter of evidence. We will follow the plans I laid out on September 17th, 2007, and we will reach testimony of the institutional parties later this year, completing our plans in an orderly fashion. 

I have set out what I think is the most important focus, the work that we will do to fulfil our mandate, to carry out our duty in the public interest and to move to constructive recommendations for the future. 

In terms of Mr. Perry Dunlop, I will now turn to the independent process set out for situations in which individuals choose not to respond to the lawful requests of a public authority. The Public Inquiries Act, an Ontario law that binds all provincial inquiries, says  that a Commissioner can provide the Divisional Court of Ontario with the facts about a witness's refusal to testify. 

In this case, the facts would include the summons, the transcript of what was said, and all relevant documents. We intend to have the Divisional Court, as a matter of public interest, inquire into the situation, and we will be bound by the decision of that higher court.  

The Divisional Court will consider whether Mr. Perry Dunlop should answer for his refusal to give testimony. I will instruct Commission counsel to seek the parties' advice on how to proceed in that court. The process that we will follow respects both the rights of individuals and the rights of the public to see respect for the law of this Province. We intend to follow the process available, to get the independent guidance available on this matter and to move forward. This is a measured response that will take some time to proceed. 

In terms of next steps here, we intend to proceed as we have planned and now I will call upon Mr. Engelmann to give some specifics on scheduling and a summary of the directions he intends to take in an overview of the documentary evidence related to Mr. Perry Dunlop as part of the community context evidence. 

Thank you. 

MR. ENGELMANN: Mr. Commissioner, I can advise that work on an overview of the documentary evidence is well underway. We will provide a draft to all counsel for the parties no later than tomorrow seeking their input. 

It is my hope that the overview can be submitted into evidence the week of October 22nd, so that we can deal with this in the context of this stage of Phase I, the communitycontext stage. 

The areas that we would cover in the overview of documentary evidence would include the following: the personal and professional background of Perry Dunlop; circumstances surrounding Mr. Dunlop's disclosure of Mr. Silmser's statement to the Children's Aid Society; subsequent investigations into Mr. Dunlop's conduct, including charges brought against Mr. Dunlop under the Police Services Act that were later stayed and, in onecase, dismissed; Mr. Dunlop's interactions with the media throughout this process; Mr. Dunlop's civil action against a number of institutions and individuals; Mr. Dunlop'scontacts with victims and alleged victims and potential witnesses and the response Mr. Dunlop received from the Cornwall Police Service regarding these contacts; Mr.Dunlop's provision of documentations to others, including Mr. Fantino who then was the Chief of the London Police Force, the Ministry of the Attorney General and otherMinistries; the disclosure of materials compiled by Mr. Dunlop to the Cornwall Police Service and to Project Truth; Mr. Dunlop's involvement and participation in criminalproceedings and criminal trials and processes and to some extent -- and I say some extent because it is documentary evidence -- some of what we know to be the impact of theabove events on Mr. Dunlop personally and professionally. 

So the overview of documentary evidence, sir, would touch upon all of those areas. They also touch upon a few others. It will, of course, include his will state and many, many other documents that he had some involvement in. 

I'm hopeful that we can get it out to the parties for their comments. We can read it in with some documents the week of the 22nd. 

What I would propose, sir, is we adjourn until tomorrow. Tomorrow afternoon, we had scheduled the Coalition’s Application for Supplementary Funding for two o’clock. I would propose that we also start the evidence of Mr. Carson Chisholm at that time. 

I know there's been some issue about documents and short notice and because of the uncertainty about whether Mr. Dunlop would be proceeding, we asked all counsel to be prepared to proceed with Mr. Chisholm. So my suggestion is that that evidence start tomorrow afternoon at two, together with the supplementary funding application. 

We will conclude the chief and cross this week, and then the week of the 22nd go with the overview of documentary evidence; perhaps the evidence of Mr. Guzzo, Mr. Bourgeois. We have a number of witnesses that are lined up in this community context stage and I would ask that counsel stay behind a few minutes today so that I can explain some of that to them in a brief meeting. 

THE COMMISSIONER: M’hm. 

MR. ENGELMANN: That's our present intention, Mr. Commissioner, unless you have some questions. 

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Any comments with respect to the schedule at this point? No, great. So we have Mr. Chisholm who is under subpoena to be here today. 

MR. ENGELMANN: That's correct. 

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr. Chisholm, you understand you are to return here at two o'clock tomorrow afternoon for testifying? 

MR. CHISHOLM: Yes, sir.