SQLFusion - Tim Smith

Smith's work under scrutiny

CORNWALL PUBLIC INQUIRY

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

27 November 2008

Posted By TREVOR PRITCHARD

Lawyers at the Cornwall Public Inquiry picked apart a former provincial police officer's 1994 investigation into whether a $32,000 payout by the Catholic church to former altar boy David Silmser obstructed justice.

But Det. Insp. Tim Smith maintained that of all the parties involved in the settlement - which kept Silmser from pursuing sexual abuse charges against Rev. Charles MacDonald - only Malcolm MacDonald, the priest's lawyer, knew it was against the law.

Wednesday was the retired officer's fifth day at the inquiry, which is probing how a number of institutions responded to allegations of historical sexual abuse.

In late 1992, Silmser told Cornwall police he'd been sexually abused in the 1960s and 1970s by Charles MacDonald, and later by probation officer Ken Seguin.

Silmser settled for $32,000 with the Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese in September 1993. That deal, however, included an illegal clause preventing Silmser from speaking to the police.

Citizens for Community Renewal lawyer Peter Wardle took Smith to his notebook entry on a conversation he'd had with Nancy Seguin, the wife of Ken Seguin's brother, about the deal.

According to the entry, then-bishop Eugene LaRocque allegedly told Nancy Seguin on Jan. 10, 1994, that Silmser was to "stay quiet and not bring charges against Father Charles," and that it was "not his decision to make" but the decision of the diocese's lawyer, Jacques Leduc.

The conversation was marked with an asterisk.

"I take it that you saw this as potentially some evidence of the bishop's involvement and Leduc's involvement in the obstruction," Wardle said.

At a press conference on Jan. 14, both LaRocque and Leduc told the national media the deal didn't prohibit Silmser from pursuing criminal charges.

Less than two weeks later, they admitted the deal contained the illegal clause but said they didn't know because the diocese hadn't reviewed the final settlement documents.

Wardle then showed Smith his interview with Leduc - in which Smith stayed mostly silent and didn't ask Leduc about Nancy Seguin's remarks. One "obvious question" to ask, Wardle suggested, would have been why the church would strike any deal unless it expected the criminal proceedings would be halted.

Smith said he went easier on Leduc because he saw him as a witness, and Malcolm MacDonald as the suspect.

"(Leduc's) name didn't show up anywhere in the documents," he said.

Only Malcolm MacDonald was ever charged with obstructing justice. He pleaded guilty in 1995 and one month later received an absolute discharge.

Smith told Dallas Lee, attorney for The Victims Group, that he believed Leduc -who worked in civil law - wouldn't have known enough about criminal matters to realize the clause was illegal.

Nor would Sean Adams, the city attorney who gave legal advice to Silmser and signed the final documents, Smith added.

"When I sent (this case) for review with the Crown attorneys, there were some Crown attorneys who felt there was no offense there," said Smith. "What are the chances of two civil lawyers picking that up?"

Had Malcolm MacDonald gone to trial, said Smith, the lawyers involved in the settlement would have been subpoenaed and other criminal acts might have come to light.

But Lee said it was Smith's job to investigate, not wait for information to come out through the courts.

"I was of the belief, sir, that Malcolm MacDonald orchestrated this settlement . . . without the knowledge of the bishop, and without the knowledge of Jacques Leduc," said Smith.

"It was also in the best interests of his client, moreso than the diocese."

Neither Charles MacDonald nor Ken Seguin were convicted on Silmser's allegations. While the Ontario Provincial Police charged Charles MacDonald in 1996 and again in 1998, all charges were stayed in 2002 after a judge ruled his right to a timely trial had been violated.

Ken Seguin committed suicide in November 1993 and was never charged.

Smith was later assigned to Project Truth, the OPP's investigation into allegations a clan of pedophiles was operating in the Cornwall area.

He retired in 1999, two years before the final trial - coincidentally involving sex abuse charges against Leduc - got under way.

Smith admitted Wednesday he was disappointed his career ended on that note.

"This was my last investigation, and when you go out, you try to do your best," Smith said. "You don't like to go out on an investigation like this."

Of the 15 men charged under Project Truth, only one was convicted in Ontario.

The inquiry resumes today.

Article ID# 1317968

Comments

Of course a lawyer that studied law does not know that a bribe to keep your mouth shut is not illegal give me a break. I suggest that all parties knew it was illegal and that includes the bishop and all lawyers involved the whole bunch should have been charged.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #1 By dodger,

the words cover up come to mind anytime this kind of thing happens

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #2 By dodger

Re: “S-F” online article dated Nov. 27, 2008, “Smith’s work under scrutiny.” From the day “The Cornwall Public Inquiries” Mandate was publicly disclosed, some people, among other things, critically analyzed the “Mandate” and the perceived intention of this “Inquiry”. In part, “we” complained that if “dictated” by the current “Mandate”, this “Inquiry” would cause more problems than solving problems and thereafter, result in greater uncertainty and tensions within the community.

After all, wouldn’t you agree; without clear and unambiguous direction, any “venture” is doomed for failure, delay or other costly impediments? Wouldn’t you agree, solutions cannot be resolved unless “the facts” are clearly and unambiguously defined and confronted? Wouldn’t you agree, a solution to a problem can only be “defined, researched, detailed, constructed and implemented”, when the “problem” is clearly defined, unlike the “Mandate”?

Is this “misdirection” an error or deliberate, as a result of a group of narrow-minded, “theory-wise”, arrogant, self-serving, policy-makers/advisors, who designed this “mandate”, influenced by “cronyism” and other “special interests”? One of the very clear and unambiguous criticisms by me and others was that this mandate did not clearly identify the words “sexual abuse” as something this “Inquiry” was going to probe. “Pritchard” writes, “how a number of institutions responded to allegations of “sexual abuse”. The aforementioned is a “misrepresentation” of the “Mandate.”
Incredibly, today November 27, 2008, people are still intentionally or through error, obviously ignorant. The “Inquiries” “Mandate”, with particularity reads, “The Commission shall inquire into and report on the institutional response of the justice system and other public institutions, including the interaction of that response with other public and community sectors, in relation to: (a) allegations of historical ABUSE of young people in the Cornwall area…..”. The word “sexual” in a sexual abuse context is nowhere to be seen. Does anyone recall the several trips to “Divisional Court” regarding related issues? Why does this newspaper continue to “fuel” skepticism by misrepresenting the facts surrounding this point and related points?

I submit that, surrounding this point and related points, this newspaper has been replete with factual error from in or before 1994. Why can’t the newspaper even get the “Mandate” definition correct? THEREIN, lays the “greatest story”, including the hundreds of “settlements”, and associated “confidential, non-disclosure agreements”, between, “payors” and “alleged victims”. “Payors”, what do we call these “people-institutions” who have given money in return for silence? Settlements are all “conditional” on, “no admission of guilt”. Believe me, there is a “GREAT STORY” being overlooked…why?

Amazing isn’t it, that the local, daily newspaper continues to spread this misinformation, consequently forming misinterpretations by readers? Could this kind of perceived misrepresentation of facts be actually defined as, “rumour and innuendo”, which in part, causes frustration with “alleged victims” and other citizens “in-the know”, including their supporters, consequently perpetuating other, so-called “rumour and innuendo”?

OR, as per the “Mandate” are we to “assume” or “vaguely” interpret “abuse” to include every single form of abuse, thus evading or minimizing any “real” confrontation of the actual facts, explored, discovered, investigated, avoided, in the community since 1994 and before? After all, this “Inquiry” was originally, demanded by the likes of Garry Guzzo and Peter Kormos, to look at the allegations of sexual abuse, Project Truth, etc., not “abuse” generally.

What is even more remarkable is the fact that the terminology “alleged victims” is utilized as opposed to “victims”, to protect the “accused”, who have never been “PROVEN” guilty.
“Problem” “solved”, I think not. Additionally, the band-aid will wear thin, very quickly.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #3 By JAMES "SPEAK OUT"

Hang on to this article people. Adams provided his client David Silmser legal advice on matter of which Adams was not was not qualified to do? Here is something that Adams should face Breach of Fiduciary Duty: If an attorney acts in his own best interest instead of yours and your case is adversely affected because of it, your attorney has probably committed malpractice by breaching his fiduciary duty. You can sue your attorney for the damages you suffered.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #4 By itinerant