Why the sweet deal?

Share Button

Perry is a political prisoner. He has spent 148 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children, and then daring to say he has lost faith in the justice system. This is the institutional response to allegations of childhood sexual abuse.

****

Perry will 47 on 22 July 2008. If you haven’t done so already there is still time to get a card or note off in the mail:

Perry Dunlop c/o OCDC
Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre
2244 Innes Road
Ottawa ON
K1B 4C4

Monetary gifts can be sent to Helen or deposited at a bank. Perry needs money for his canteen supplies. As we all know only too well Perry can’t work, Helen’s on disability and money doesn’t grow on trees.

****

Perry has still not received his meagre belongings!!!

****

Hearings resumed at 0930 hours (9:30 am)this morning, Thursday, 17 July 2008

They went in camera at 0950 hours (9:50 am) to hear the motion to exclude Ron Wilson, former Cornwall Police Service officer and head of the Cornwall Police Service Board. Back out at 10:30. No report on what transpired.

Cross-examination of Jacques Leduc by Helen Daley (Citizens for Community Renewal) has resumed.

****

A circus in there yesterday. An absolute circus. Steven Skurka must have had other pressing business. He was absent, but Marie Henein did quite nicely single-handedly bouncing up and down like a yo-yo on Leduc’s behalf. Well, not quite single-handedly – the diocese (David Sheriff-Scott) and Cornwall Police (Peter Manderville) did a fair few benevolent bounces on Leduc’s behalf.  Even the Ontario Provincial Police did a pop-up via Neil Kozloff.

Quite a sight to behold.

Interesting – there seems to be a remarkable bond between the diocese and the Cornwall Police Service. When not doing the bounce Sheriff-Scott and Manderville seemed absorbed in good-natured humour and banter – lots of shared chuckles and a fair few smiles and smirks and nods one to the other. I have noticed much the same fraternal bond between David Sheriff-Scott and John Callaghan.

I have lots to say about Leduc’s testimony of yesterday. Read the transcript. For now I will make the following observations:

1) We discovered that, true enough, Leduc will not be testifying in any way shape or form about his own personal sex abuse allegations. Seems that has been deemed irrelevant to the institutional response, and seems that indeed there was a sweet deal brokered which assured Leduc if he testified his status as an “alleged” paedophile would be hands off.

Commission counsel Karen Jones did manage to read into the record that Leduc had been charged and received two stays. That was it!

My issue is this. Why the sweet deal? If Leduc was asked to testify and was reluctant to do so then seems to me the next order of inquiry business is to issue a subpoena. And if Leduc was reluctant to comply with the subpoena and refused to appear, or if took the stand and refused to answer certain questions then seems to me the next order of inquiry business to charge him with contempt of court.

It a charge of contempt was good enough for Perry, why not for lawyer, Church canon lawyer and “alleged” paedophile Jacques Leduc?

So, why the sweet deal?

As for Leduc’s status as an “alleged”paedophile presumably having no relevance to the institutional response, well, really! Let me put it this way: hypothetically speaking, if virtually every major institution in a small community is controlled by paedophiles and their buddies what do you suppose the institutional response will be to sex abuse allegations against a paedophile or one of his buddies?

(2) Straight from the mouth of a lawyer. Billing clients is “an art.” According to the Leduc the hours he lists on his billings mean nothing. He fiddles around and juggles the numbers as he sees fit to get what he’s after in financial remuneration: “I will tell you clearly again not to believe that these numbers referring to hours relate to actual time spent”;

(3) Leduc may or may not have read the David Silmser Full Release and Undertaking not to Disclose with the illegal clause. He probably didn’t, he’s quite certain he didn’t, but, then again he may have;

(4) Diocesan bursar and Church deacon Gord Bryan was integrally involved in the whole business of sex abuse allegations against Father Charles MacDonald. Leduc frequently got his marching orders from Bryan;

(5) Leduc received no less than three sex abuse allegations against clergy. He did nothing about them – solicitor-client privilege! Seems that anything in Leduc’s eyes anything anyone says to a lawyer anywhere falls under the mantle of solicitor-client privilege – even if someone telling a lawyer something at a cocktail party – solicitor-client privilege;

(6) How many times did we hear “in fairness to the witness” or words to those effect from Leduc’s lawyer Marie Heinen? There was no thought of “in fairness to the witness” from Leduc’s ‘dream team’ back in 2001 when Leduc’s “alleged” victims testified;

(7) I found Leduc alternately presented as arrogant, exasperated, condescending and glib;

(8) Leduc is taking the fall for the illegal clause in the document. He insists he didn’t put the clause in and told Malcolm MacDonald to take it out, but he is taking the fall for not picking it up in the final draft, signed or unsigned, because he probably didn’t read it. Bottom line, he accepts full responsibility. This is not news – he took that stand back in early 1994 when word of the illegal pay-off leaked out into the public domain;

(9) Leduc sees the Full release and Undertaking Not to Disclose as David Silmser’s work. Even though Dave did not have a lawyer and would not have two sweet clues about drafting such a statement, Leduc puts it on Dave’s shoulders!

(10) Leduc seemed to be the Garry Derochie of the diocese – when it came to anything or anyone related to clerical sex abuse allegations Leduc was here, there and everywhere .

(11) Even as recently as 2007 Leduc, an “alleged” paedophile, was doing work for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall!

****

Articles posted on New to the Site on the Home page. I shall continue.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

([email protected])

This entry was posted in Alexandria-Cornwall Diocese, Canada, Circling the wagons, Clerical sexual predators, Cornwall, Cornwall Public Inquiry, David Silmser, Scandal and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Why the sweet deal?

  1. RealityChecker says:

    When a lawyer is sued that lawyer is under obligation to put their insurer on notice. Mr. Leduc testified today that he did eventually put his insurer on notice when it became apparent he had made a big whopper of a mistake when it came to the David Silmer’s release.

    I have no idea how many civil suits Mr. Leduc would be involved in related to allegations and charges brought against him related to the Simsler release or the sexual improprities he’s been accused of or even how many where he is named as a third party.

    He’s been crying the financial boo hoos even going far as attempting to have $140,000 in legal expences written off as a buisness expence.

    I can assure you it is NOT Mr. Leduc paying for these civil claims – it’s HIS Insurance from the Law Society that is paying out.

    Just how much have they paid out would be my question and how much has Mr. Leduc tried to swindle from other sources for his own pocket???

  2. RealityChecker says:

    …and he has admitted he made a PROFESSIONAL mistake. Where was the law society??? What kind of discipline did he face for that professional mistake? Why didn’t the law society investigate his conduct??? How did he get away with that?

    He’s also been pointing the finger at Malcolm MacDonald in these proceedings (convenient – Malcolm’s not here to defend himself)
    and yet Jacques Leduc never ever went so far as to report his colleague to the Law Society for the misrepresentation and can’t answer as to why he didn’t report him.

  3. AbsentObserver says:

    Mr. Leduc was awarded funding in the fall of 2005 prior to the start of hearings in February 2006. The commissioner awarded him funding …

    “I will recommend funding for one senior and one junior counsel for the limited interests described above. I will also recommend one counsel attendance fee.”

    So here’s what we can surmise. On days when both Steven Skurka and Marie Henein are at the Weave Shed, somebody’s taking a pay cut. If Skurka is considered the “senior” lawyer, then he’s getting the senior lawyer rate (at legal aid rates) and Henein would get the “junior” rate. But only one of them would get the attendance fee.

    I can’t imagine either Skurka or Henein are acting for Leduc out of the goodness of their hearts. Therefore, somebody somewhere is making up the difference. Is it Leduc? I thought he was broke and that’s why he needed funding to participate in the inquiry in the first place? Is it an insurance company? Is it the church? Skurka and Henein don’t come cheap. Someone’s making the trip to Cornwall worth their while.

  4. Sylvia says:

    Danielle Robitaille is Leduc’s one counsel in attendance at the Weave Shed. She has been in there for the past two days. On Tuesday Leduc’s team comprised Robitaille, Heinen and Skurka. Yesterday it was Robitaille and Heinen. I’ll have to see the transcript but I assume it’s only Robitaille and Heinen today – no sign of Skurka.

    When Skurka and/or Heinen are in the Weave Shed there’s no pay cut – Robitaille is there and still drawing her capped salary as Leduc’s funded legal counsel.

    The question then is who’s paying for Heinen and Skurka? They may well and for unknown reasons be doing this for a dear friend out of the goodness of their hearts. If not, as you say Absent Observer, who’s paying?

  5. RealityChecker says:

    LawPRO

    Pro Bono Services

    http://www.lawpro.ca/insurance/Practice_type/probono.asp

    My bet is the Upper Canada Law Society’s Insurance carrier (LawPRO) is covering their fees!!!

  6. AbsentObserver says:

    I can tell you that nobody (as far as I know) covered Leduc’s legal fees related to the criminal charges laid against him. From my understanding, he was on the hook to his first lawyer, Michael Edelson, for about $100,000. Edelson apparently wanted Leduc to cop a plea and beg for a lenient sentence. No go. So, on to Steven Skurka and Philip Campbell. By the end of the six week trial which resulted in the first stay in the winter of 2001, he had paid Skurka and Campbell about $250,000. Sylvia, you may have documents outlining the initial award for costs Leduc received following that first stay (which was overturned on appeal by the Crown) but I believe Leduc’s legal bills were in the $350,000 range. He swore in an affidavit filed at the final stay hearings the legal fees nearly ruined him and he considered suicide because he was in debt so deep. He said he spent all of his savings, borrowed money from family and friends and would never be able to pay it all back even if he worked until the day he died. So, if that’s the case, then two things must be true: first, Skurka is not likely doing this for free; and second, Leduc must not have a well of cash to dip into. Again I ask … where is the money coming from for Skurka and Henein? And you know what? In reality, Leduc has another lawyer in that room looking out for him … David Sherriff-Scott. As the lawyer for the diocese, he’s watching out for Leduc as well, right?

  7. RealityChecker says:

    I do not doubt for one minute that Mr. Leduc had to pay “some” legal fees to defend himself criminally although I am sure there were many deals worked out behind the scenes to lessen the financial burden on Mr. Leduc. However, in having said that, lawyers have INSURANCE for this stuff! Various insurance carriers. So don’t think he’s that hard done by!

    We caught a glimpse of this morning in the line of questioning from Sherrif-Scott when he was questioning Leduc about the third party claim from the Diosese – and when the Dioscese put Leduc on notice for that third party claim. Did you hear the name “Dennis Power” mentioned??? Leduc retained Dennis Power. I didn’t catch the name of the carrier Mr. Power works for (it wasn’t LawPRO) but obviously another idemity carrier lawyers would use (will check the transctipts when posted.)

    In other words we just found out WHO paid for the third party claim from the Dioscese (will get the name when the transcripts are posted.)

    Leduc was awarded $300,000 from the first trial – obviously appealled and he lost out on that in appeal. He also tried to write off $140,000 with the CCRA in legal expenses. I would take it $140,000 is ALL that Mr. Leduc ever had to pay out of his own pocket – the rest was all insured or sweet deals were made – if not why didn’t he try to write off more $$$ in legal expenses if he was so haed done by???

  8. Sylvia says:

    I have Chadwick’s Reasons for Final Juggment. I just checked again and the costs figure isn’t there – I don’t recall now exactly what it was. I do recall being astounded. I probably have the figure in my notes but just no time to dig them out. I’ll add to my To Do list :). (If anybody rememembers send me a note.)

    Interesting though, what Chadwick did say in part at the close of his higly smpathetic to Leduc decision was the following:

    “The accused is a practising lawyer in a small town. I am sure the continuous publicity has acused him and his family a great deal of grief and hardship.

    “The financial strain is obvious. The accued retained Mr. Edelson for the preliminary. The accused has reatined Mr. Skurka, Mr. Campbell and Ms. Rinzella for the trial. In order to defend a trial of this magnitude, you either have to e poor or rich. There is no in between. I suspect the accused is neither.

    “A mistrial will require the complainants and other witnesses to testify again, a tremendous hardship on them……

    “I am sure the communinty wish to see the various accused brought to justice, and if they’re found guilty, properly punished. However, the same community would want the trial process to be fair. There have been too many innocent people improperly convicted in both Canada and the United States as a result of unfair trial procedures. There will be some in the community who will shate the same views of vigilante justice as Dunlop, that the end justifies the means. However the community will remember that th accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and is entitled to a fair trial and proper trial within a reasonable period of time.”

    “I am satisfied that this cannot be accomplished in this case. Jacques Leduc’s right to a fair trial, within a reasonable period of time, has been irreparably prejudiced and the only remedy available under s. 24 (1) of the Charter is a stay of proceedings and it will be so ordered.”

    AFTER Chadwick ruled he asked if defence was seeking costs. Affirmative. An agreement was made that Leduc would have 20 days to put the request in writing. That was done. Costs awarded. Overturned.

  9. Sylvia says:

    Reality Checker, you posted while I was replying to Absent Observer. Is $300,000 the costs awarded for sure? Sounds about right.

    Re Denis Power. Power was all set to hear an inquiry initiated diocesan motion to stay at Divisional Court.

    On 04 Decmber 2006 I blogged on Power in “Questions of bias” For some reason I can’t copy the link here, nor can I cut and paste the text. Do a google on theinquiry.ca website.

  10. RealityChecker says:

    Question of Bias

    I have to re-visit the issue of Justice Denis Power’s recusal from the diocese’s application for stay one more time.

    Look at this. This is the transcript from Thursday 30 November 2006 where Justice Normand Glaude’s explains why the stay was not heard by Divisional Court that morning as planned:

    That hearing was held this morning and one of the Superior Court Judges sitting as the Divisional Court Judge decided to recuse himself from hearing the stay application on the basis that he may or may not have been involved in matters that were peripheral but affecting some historical parts of the Inquiry. That happens on occasion where judges have to declare a conflict and he did so.

    Five comments

    (1) Why did Justice Glaude not identify Justice Denis Power?

    (2) Just Glaude says the judge (Justice Denis Power) “decided to recuse himself.” That sounds good. However, my understanding is that Justice Power decided to stay put. He was forced to recuse himself. There is a difference.

    (2) Glaude says the judge (Power) “may or may not have been involved in matters that were peripheral.”

    There was no question as to whether or not Power may or may not have been involved. He WAS involved. He represented lawyer Jacques Leduc. That is fact!

    As for “peripheral” there is no such thing as peripheral when it comes to any legal actions undertaken by lawyers or judges pertaining to any element of the Cornwall scandal.

    (3) What does Justice Glaude’s use of the word “historical’ mean? What difference does it make whether it was last year or ten years ago? Power represented Leduc.

    (4) Justice Glaude says it happens on occasion that judges have to declare a conflict and do so.

    I say perhaps – at least when it comes to Cornwall – not often enough, ie.,

    (i) Justice Colin McKinnon failed to do so. Despite his prior long term involvement with the Cornwall Police Service and former Chief of Police Claude Shaver, and despite the fact he had been personally involved in having Perry Dunlop charged under the Polices Services Act for going to the Children’s Aid Society in 1993, McKinnon took the bench at the Project Truth trial of Jacques Leduc.

    By the time McKinnon was confronted with black and white proof of his conflict he had allowed the sexual abuse trial of Jacques Leduc to start to degenerate into the trial of former Constable Perry Dunlop.

    (ii) Justice Glaude has not recused himself.

    And, on the same subject, an excerpt from the Ottawa Citizen’s “Sex probe publication ban remains in place”

    He [lead counsel Peter Engelmann] said witnesses had raised concerns over Judge Power’s involvement, adding any public perception of bias could cause problems for the inquiry…

    Two questions:

    (1) Would it have been fine for Justice Denis Power to take the bench if a witness did NOT express concern?

    (2) What about the public perception of Justice Glaude’s bias?

    ****

    Attorney General Michael Bryant will be keynote speaker at the inaugural Victim Summit at Algonquin College in Ottawa tomorrow (Tuesday 05 December 2006). The summit is organized by the provincial Office for Victims of Crime.

    Can anyone enlighten us on this?
    Enough for now,

    Sylvia
    ([email protected])

    Comments (0

  11. RealityChecker says:

    I don’t know the datailed history of this nor am I going to go back in time. However, I was listening closely this morning and this is what I goy from this morning’s testimony.

    The Diosese put Leduc on notice. In other words the Diosese notified Leduc in writting they were going to sue him. It is a lawyer’s obligation when they receive a notice like this that they MUST notify their Insurance carrier. Mr. Leduc notified his insurance carrier by was of Dennis Power. At that time Dennis Power was an Ottawa lawyer who obviously worked for one of the Idemity Carriers for the Upper Canada Law Society (I didn’t carch the name this morning – but Sherrif- Scott did mention it).

    This is WHERE Power’s conflict arises from!!!

    It is NOT that Power was retained and was representing Leduc in the third party action from the Diosese per se. He was retained as a representative of Mr. Leduc’s insurance carrier to broker an insurance settlement with the Diosese on Mr. Leduc’s behalf.

    …and most certain he would have to recuse himself in any events involving the Diosese – he was in a conflict because of his role with the insurance carrier – nothing else!!!

  12. RealityChecker says:

    FROM CANLII

    1. March 2001 before Chadwick – STAY…

    http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2001/2001canlii28327/2001canlii28327.html

    2. September 2002 before Chadwick – COSTS…

    http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2002/2002canlii14931/2002canlii14931.html

    3. July 2003 before Lakin, Feldman and Gillesie – APPEAL…

    http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2003/2003canlii52161/2003canlii52161.html

    4. February 2005 The Queen Vs Leduc before Lamarre

    http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/2005/2005tcc96/2005tcc96.html

  13. AbsentObserver says:

    Leduc gets record $280,000: Province ordered to pay city lawyer accused under Project Truth
    Standard-Freeholder, Monday, October 14, 2002

    The Ontario government has been ordered to pay $279,200 to a Cornwall lawyer prosecuted for belonging to an alleged pedophile ring, an award that far outstrips any previously made under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    The award will help reimburse Jacques Leduc for legal bills he ran up defending himself against allegations that he belonged to a group of ritualistic molesters who preyed on young boys in Cornwall, Ont

    “This is double or triple the highest award I’m aware of a court making against the Crown for a Charter violation,” constitutional lawyer Morris Manning said of the order issued by Mr. Justice James Chadwick, of the Ontario Superior Court.

    “I would hope that other judges will take heed.”

    Leduc’s charges were stayed last year after defence counsel Steven Skurka and Philip Campbell convinced Chadwick that the Crown had willfully failed to reveal crucial information.

    The information pertained to contact between Leduc’s accuser and a local police officer who was the moving force behind a high-profile campaign to expose the alleged ring.

    Chadwick described the former officer, Perry Dunlop, as a zealot so obsessed with proving the existence of the ring that he denounced his police superiors and set himself up as “judge, jury and executioner.”

    Several years ago, the resulting investigation led to 114 charges being laid against 14 men, including a doctor, a lawyer, a bus driver, an organist and three Roman Catholic priests.

    One person was convicted of sexual offences. Two committed suicide.

    Last year, the Ontario Provincial Police announced that a four-year investigation codenamed Project Truth yielded not a trace of reliable evidence confirming the existence of a pedophile ring.

    Skurka and Campbell declined to talk about the award because the Leduc case is under appeal.

    However, Manning said the award creates a tremendous precedent. He said awards for breaches of the Charter traditionally have been inexplicably modest when they are made.

    “When a Charter right is involved, people’s lives are at stake more than in any civil money claim,” Manning said.

    “It is all the more important that the defendant be compensated,” he added.

    “An award like this recognizes that Charter rights are worth protecting and drives home how important they are.”

    Chadwick found that Leduc’s right to life, liberty and security had been violated. In his ruling last year, he speculated that prosecutor Shelly Hallett must have felt reluctant to let the defence know that Dunlop had contacted the complainant, lest it taint the Leduc prosecution.

    “Too many innocent peple have been convicted because of unfair trial procedures,” Judge Chadwick said at the time.

    In his ruling on costs, Chadwick said the defence’s fees and disbursements are quite reasonable, considering the long hours they worked.

    He noted that a junior lawyer and two students also put in long hours on the case.

    “I accept the proposition that an award of costs should only be made in exceptional circumstances,” the judge said.
    However, he said the misconduct in the Leduc case went beyond mere carelessness to constitute a marked departure from normal practice.

    “The Crown contends that the Charter breach was not willful,” he said. “I do not agree.”

  14. Sylvia says:

    So Chadwick opened the doors to award of costs 01 March 2001 when he issued the stay. On 14 October 2002 the Freeholder reported costs of a whopping $280,000 awarded.

    How much has this man paid out to profess his innocence by smearing Perry Dunlop? And how much has been coughed up by insurance carriers on his behalf? And now legal costs for nigh on three years in the Weave Shed on top of it all!

    So much cheaper I would think had he opted to be a man, let the “trial” run its course and take his chances.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *