The Marcel Lalonde Investigation

Share Button

The Marcel Lalonde Investigation

 

Excerpts from

Report of the Cornwall Public Inquiry Volume I

Phase 1:  Facts & Findings

The Honourable G. Normand Glaude

Commissioner

14 December 2009

 

Pp 293 -316

…….

 

The Marcel Lalonde Investigation

Constable Kevin Malloy had been assigned to the Youth Bureau of the Cornwall Police Service (CPS) for only about five days when he became responsible for the Marcel Lalonde investigation. When Constable Malloy contacted C-60, one of the alleged sexual assault victims, on January 9, 1989, this was the officer’s first sexual assault investigation. He was assigned this file by Staff Sergeant Brendon Wells. Constable Malloy had never received any training in sexual assault investigations when he was transferred to the Youth Bureau in January 1989.

When Constable Malloy spoke to C-60 on January 9, 1989, this alleged victim of Marcel Lalonde stated that he had been “lured to culprit’s house by alcohol—woke up—culprit performing copulation on him.” He told the CPS officer that he had been fifteen years old at that time. C-60 made it clear to Constable Malloy that he did not want to testify at Mr. Lalonde’s trial in the event that the teacher was criminally prosecuted.

C-57, another alleged victim, asserted that he had been sexually assaulted by Marcel Lalonde, whom he had met at a community theatre group. He told Constable Malloy in an interview on January 10, 1989, that Mr. Lalonde had fondled and performed fellatio on him at a crew party at Mr. Lalonde’s home after the play. C-57 said that he had consumed a significant amount of alcohol when Mr. Lalonde asked him to take off his trousers, that he had protested, but  that he ultimately did comply with the perpetrator’s request.

Marcel Lalonde was a teacher at Bishop Macdonell School. C-57 was sixteen years old and in grade 10 when he was allegedly sexually assaulted by Mr. Lalonde. In this January 1989 interview, Constable Malloy learned that C-57 came from a unfortunate family situation and that Mr. Lalonde was sympathetic and offered assistance to help this teenager resolve his problems. C-57 looked up to and trusted this adult figure. As Constable Malloy inscribed in his notes:

Problems with family life—parents fighting constantly. Father is an alcoholic. Went to culprits house to “escape.” Suspect looked up to as an adult he could trust & help him with problems. Impressed by the fact an adult would treat him as an equal.

Mr. Lalonde, a teacher, had provided alcohol to a sixteen-year-old, a minor. This violated the Liquor Licence Act.  . Constable Malloy acknowledged that this raised questions for him at that time.

C-57 told the CPS Constable that a similar situation had occurred two weeks later. Again, after C-57 had consumed a large amount of alcohol, Mr. Lalonde fondled him and engaged in sexual acts with the teenager. Mr. Lalonde instructed C-57 not to disclose any of these encounters to anyone.

During the course of the police interview, C-57 mentioned that C-60 had been at Mr. Lalonde’s house as well as another person (C-59), who was a busboy at Jack Lee’s Bar at the time. This person told C-57 that he had also been intoxicated and fallen asleep at Mr. Lalonde’s house. The busboy woke up to find Marcel Lalonde grabbing him. C-57 also said that Mr. Lalonde wanted to take pictures of him and that there was an album at Mr. Lalonde’s house with photos of nude males.

C-57 believed he could identify some of the other young men at Marcel Lalonde’s home at that time. He was asked to look at yearbooks at the police station and identified two young boys, whom Constable Malloy testified were probably C-65 and C-63. Constable Malloy’s interview notes of January 10, 1989, state:

Culprit had moved to Millville Ave—victim attended by invitation and saw 2 males—in his backyard—told victim they were two of his students. They were enjoying themselves, calling him Marcel, drinking beer.

Mr. Lalonde was an elementary school teacher. If these were two of his students, they were young boys. It was unusual to call a teacher by his first name, and these two boys were certainly under the legal age to drink alcohol. Despite learning this, it did not enter Constable Malloy’s mind that perhaps he should contact the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) to report a reasonable suspicion of abuse.

C-57 stated that the perpetrator had moved to Millville Avenue, and he named the community theatre group. C-57 told Constable Malloy that he wanted the Cornwall police to conduct an investigation and that he was prepared to proceed with the complaint.

Constable Malloy came to the conclusion that based on C-57’s interview, there were not reasonable and probable grounds to criminally charge Marcel Lalonde. In the Constable’s view, C-57 had consented to the sexual acts:

… [I]n my mind, it was a consent issue. It was a seduction with alcohol and a consent to act.

… [H]e voluntarily did the things that Lalonde asked him to do. And I don’t—it was my personal opinion that he wasn’t that intoxicated to allow that to happen.

C-57 explained to Constable Malloy that he had not reported the abuse to the police for the past eight years because he had difficult life circumstances, which involved both alcohol and drug problems. He had sought treatment and was now prepared to deal with his childhood trauma. Constable Malloy agreed at the hearings that this was a sound reason for waiting this number of years before disclosing the abuse to the police.

Constable Malloy also learned in this interview that the prime motivation for the disclosure by C-57 was his concern for the vulnerability of other children or youth who came into contact with Marcel Lalonde. C-57 was worried that they, too, could become victims of sexual abuse. The document in the CPS file stated:

Although the victim is perfectly willing to testify in court against the culprit, and to relate this incident, his prime motivation is to prevent the culprit from preying upon other confused youths, and using his position of authority to gain their trust. (Emphasis added)

Constable Malloy followed up with C-58, another alleged victim of child-hood sexual abuse, who provided a statement to the Cornwall police officer. It was clear to the Constable that there were similarities in the sexual assault allegations of C-57 and C-58. C-58 also stated that he was intoxicated at the time he was sexually abused. He said that he had passed out at Mr. Lalonde’s home and when he woke up, his pants had been removed. Mr. Lalonde told him that he had performed fellatio.

Constable Malloy also tried to contact C-61. He called his home and spoke to C-61’s mother, who informed the officer that her son was away at university and was writing exams.

C-65 was another person who was interviewed by Constable Malloy in January 1989 in connection with the Marcel Lalonde investigation. C-65 was aware of the alleged perpetrator’s sexual preferences. However, C-65 claimed that he had not been sexually assaulted by Mr. Lalonde. It was evident to Constable Malloy that C-65 was highly anxious during the interview and was very uncomfortable discussing these matters with the Cornwall police officer.

On January 13, 1989, Constable Malloy sought permission from his supervising officer, Staff Sergeant Wells, to extend his report date on the Lalonde occurrence. In correspondence, Constable Malloy wrote that the “case involved possibly four victims of sexual assault”; in addition to C-57, other potential victims were C-60, C-61, C-58, and C-65. Constable Malloy said that he needed to investigate the matter further.

 

Constable Kevin Malloy Contacts the Crown

It was not Constable Malloy’s practice to consult the Crown before deciding whether to lay criminal charges against an individual. Staff Sergeant Wells confirmed in his testimony that this was not a typical practice at the Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB) at the time. Nevertheless, Constable Malloy con- tended that he needed legal direction from a Crown attorney in the Lalonde case. The Constable did not have experience in historical sexual assault cases. Although in his opinion there were no probable and reasonable grounds, he wanted confirmation from Crown Attorney Don Johnson. It is noteworthy that Constable Malloy did not consult his colleagues or supervisor at the Cornwall Police Service on this issue. Constable Malloy had no recollection of meeting with either Staff Sergeant Wells or Inspector Richard Trew.

Constable Malloy contacted Don Johnson and met him at the Crown office. According to Constable Malloy, Mr. Johnson shared the view that this was a consensual act and that there were no reasonable and probable grounds to lay a criminal charges against Marcel Lalonde. Constable Malloy also said that he discussed with the Crown the prospect of obtaining a search warrant of Mr. Lalonde’s home to retrieve photographs the teacher had of young unclothed persons. According to Constable Malloy, the Crown attorney told him that there were no grounds to obtain a search warrant. Don Johnson testified that he has no recollection of this meeting or of such discussions with Constable Malloy. The involvement of the Crown in the Marcel Lalonde case is further discussed in Chapter 11, on the institutional response of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

It seems that Constable Malloy met with the Crown before he had completed his interviews with the alleged victims. According to the officer’s notes, he met with Mr. Johnson on January 10, 1989. Constable Malloy claimed that he had a second meeting but there is no record of this second meeting.

Constable Malloy testified that he did not prepare a Crown brief for Mr. Johnson, he did not take any notes at the meeting, and the Crown did not send him any written correspondence regarding these discussions. Yet he claimed that he spoke to Don Johnson more than one time. Mr. Johnson again could recall no such discussion with Constable Malloy.

When he testified, Constable Malloy agreed that there is no issue of consent when young persons are sexually molested when they are asleep. The Cornwall police officer also agreed that it was his, not the Crown’s decision, whether reasonable and probable grounds existed to lay a criminal charge against Mr. Lalonde for sexually abusing young persons.

After Constable Malloy interviewed the alleged victims and witnesses mentioned above, he did not contact the CAS or the school at which Marcel Lalonde was a teacher in order to protect children who might be at risk of sexual abuse. Nor did he contact the community theatre at which Mr. Lalonde was involved with these youths.

 

The Lalonde File Is Placed in Abeyance

On June 22, 1989, Constable Malloy asked his supervisor, Staff Sergeant Wells, if the Lalonde file could be placed in abeyance for a short time as he wished to interview the “suspect.” 17 Staff Sergeant Wells gave the officer permission to place the file in abeyance. Constable Malloy testified that he was hoping word would get out that people in the community were making these allegations about Marcel Lalonde and that more victims and witnesses would come forward. As Constable Malloy said at the hearings, “It’s Cornwall, a small city; word travels fairly quickly.” The CPS Constable was hopeful that new evidence would emerge in the Lalonde case regarding these historical allegations of sexual abuse of young persons. This file, for which Constable Malloy was responsible, remained in abeyance when he went on sick leave almost four years later, in March 1993.

Constable Malloy remained on sick leave until May 1996. It seems obvious that when officers are away on such extended sick leave, their files should be reviewed and reassigned to other officers. The Ontario Municipal and Provincial Police Automation Cooperative (OMPPAC) had been operational for a number of years and this file should have come to the attention of Cornwall Police Service officers

The alleged perpetrator, Marcel Lalonde, was never interviewed by Constable Malloy. As I discuss in this chapter, Constable Malloy also did not interview the alleged perpetrator in another sexual abuse investigation, the Antoine case. This officer, with no training in sexual assault investigations, who had been in the Youth Bureau for a very short time before he was assigned these complex cases of historical sexual abuse, made the decision not to interview the suspect and not to pursue the investigation in the hope that over time more victims would contact the Cornwall police. Clearly his lack of training, experience, and super-vision are reasons why this file simply sat in a box in Constable Malloy’s office for years. Marcel Lalonde continued to teach and had contact with young children at Bishop Macdonell School. Yet Constable Malloy did not contact the elementary school or the Children’s Aid Society. Although he was unclear about his obligation to inform other agencies or employers about this case, he did not discuss this issue with his supervisors in the Youth Bureau.

As I discuss in the following pages, Marcel Lalonde was charged in 1997 and subsequently convicted years later for committing sexual offences against young persons. A search warrant was conducted and pictures of nude young people were found in Mr. Lalonde’s home. Marcel Lalonde was criminally charged eight years after Constable Malloy had been assigned the Lalonde file in 1989. C-58 was one of the victims/complainants in the 2000 criminal prosecution.

It is clear that Constable Malloy failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations of sexual abuse made against Marcel Lalonde. Constable Malloy was never sanctioned or disciplined by the Cornwall Police Service for his 298

______________________________ Footnote

17. A file placed in abeyance was not closed, but no further work was pursued on the case.

_______________________________

inadequate investigation of allegations of childhood sexual abuse committed by Mr. Lalonde.

In 1989, Constable Malloy had information on the alleged sexual assaults from C-57, who was prepared to proceed with the case. He also had a statement from C-58 and information from C-60. There were several potential victims of abuse known to Constable Malloy in April 1989, who included C-57, C-58, C-59, C-60, C-65, and a boy identified in the yearbook. Constable Malloy agreed that in historical sexual assault cases, it is important for the investigating officer to develop a rapport and a trust relationship with the victim. The more the victim feels comfortable with the officer, the more likely he or she will provide details of the alleged criminal offence and agree to testify if criminal charges are laid.

Constable Malloy acknowledged that there were common elements in the stories of these victims, for example, alcohol consumption by the young males, some of whom were sexually assaulted when they were asleep. Yet Constable Malloy decided to put the file in “abeyance until further evidence comes in.” He stated:

… I was asking that the file be placed in abeyance in the hopes that evidence would be forthcoming, people would … the word would get out or somebody would come forward and say I want to file a complaint and I’m willing to take part in the process.

Staff Sergeant Wells testified that June 22, 1989, appears to be the last time he was involved in the Lalonde investigation. He was unaware that Constable Malloy had not interviewed “the suspect,” Marcel Lalonde. Nor did the CPS supervisor know that Constable Malloy did not undertake any further investigation after filing the June 22, 1989, supplementary occurrence report asking that the file be placed in abeyance for a short period. Staff Sergeant Wells testified that this should have come either to his attention or to that of Inspector Trew, who shared supervision duties: “Inspector Trew or myself were together the check and balance system.” They had equal responsibility to ensure that incidents like this were followed up. Yet it is evident that the “check and balance system” did not operate as it should have in the Marcel Lalonde case.

Staff Sergeant Wells agreed that because this was Constable Malloy’s first case in the CIB and his first historical sexual assault investigation, the Constable should have received guidance and been actively supervised during this police investigation. For example, follow-up with potential witnesses and victims, contact with members of the theatre group, and an interview with the alleged perpetrator are some of the issues that could have been discussed with Constable Malloy in the context of this investigation. Staff Sergeant Wells agreed that perhaps the fact that he and Inspector Trew had shared responsibilities had complicated the supervision of Constable Malloy in the Lalonde investigation.

Staff Sergeant Wells also agreed that if Constable Malloy did not take further action on this file after it was placed in abeyance, this was not proper police file management. It is possible, he testified, that this file fell through the cracks.

As discussed, the Lalonde investigation for which Constable Malloy was responsible in 1989 remained in abeyance when he went on sick leave in March 1993. Staff Sergeant Wells agreed that it was the responsibility of Constable Malloy’s supervisors, of which he was one, to keep abreast of the Lalonde and other files of Constable Malloy when the officer went on sick leave and when he left the Youth Bureau.

Marcel Lalonde continued to teach and have contact with young children until he was arrested in 1997.

In my view, the Cornwall Police Service failed to conduct a thorough investigation in 1989 into the allegations of sexual abuse made against Marcel Lalonde. Moreover, Staff Sergeant Wells and Inspector Trew failed to properly supervise Constable Malloy in the investigation of the allegations of historical sexual abuse against Marcel Lalonde. Because of the inattention to the file and the failure to contact the CAS and the school, children continued to be at risk of abuse by Mr. Lalonde.

 

CPS Learns of Allegations of Historical Sexual Abuse of David Silmser by His Teacher, Marcel Lalonde

On August 9, 1994, Staff Sergeant Luc Brunet received information from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) that in the course of the Project Blue CAS investigation, 18  David Silmser had alleged that his former teacher at Bishop Macdonell School had sexually abused him. Detective Inspector Tim Smith of the OPP wrote a letter to Acting Chief Carl Johnston with this information, which was then conveyed to Staff Sergeant Brunet. The CPS Staff Sergeant learned that Mr. Silmser had disclosed this information to CAS staff Greg Bell and Pina DeBellis several months earlier, on November 2, 1993. David Silmser testified that he had been abused by his teacher, Marcel Lalonde, at Bishop Macdonell School when he was thirteen or fourteen years old. He stated that Mr. Lalonde took him to his home in Cornwall and sexually abused him on two occasions.

Staff Sergeant Brunet was not aware that the Cornwall Police Service had previously investigated allegations of sexual abuse of other victims by Marcel Lalonde. It was Staff Sergeant Brunet’s practice to check OMPPAC and the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) in such circumstances. Although he did not

___________________________Footnote

18. The Project Blue investigation will be discussed in Chapter 9, on the institutional response of the Children’s Aid Society.

____________________________

record this, the Staff Sergeant believes that he accessed both OMPPAC and CPIC to see if Marcel Lalonde’s name appeared. He testified that he could not find any information on the suspect. Mr. Lalonde remained a teacher in Cornwall at that time

Staff Sergeant Brunet contacted the CAS on August 9, 1994. He spoke to Mr. Lorenzo Murphy the following day and asked him to send the CAS interview of David Silmser to the Cornwall police. Staff Sergeant Brunet followed up on this request by sending a letter to Mr. Murphy. On August 24, 1994, Staff Sergeant Brunet again contacted the CAS and spoke to Executive Director Richard Abell.

The Staff Sergeant received a cassette and transcript of the interview two days later, which had been dropped off by Mr. Abell at the CPS front desk. Staff Sergeant Brunet was the liaison person with the CAS. At no time had he been advised by the Children’s Aid Society of the November 1993 Silmser allegations of abuse by his former teacher, Marcel Lalonde. As he said in his evidence, “The first time I was made aware of this is when Chief Johnston sent me the letter from [OPP] Inspector Smith in August” 1994.

Staff Sergeant Brunet testified that he did not contact the school or School Board at that time because Detective Inspector Smith stated in his correspondence with Acting Chief Johnston that the OPP had suggested to the CAS that it advise the School Board of these allegations against the teacher. But Mr. Bell of the CAS did not provide assurance that the agency would contact the School Board. According to the July 1994 correspondence, Mr. Bell told the OPP he would consult his superiors on this issue. Detective Inspector Smith wrote: “Mr. Bell advised me he would consult with his Supervisors and pass on my comments before any decision would be made to contact the School Board.”

On September 12, 1994, Staff Sergeant Brunet sent David Silmser a letter asking him to meet. Mr. Silmser had called Acting Chief Johnston a few days earlier to let him know that he did not intend to provide a statement  regarding

Marcel Lalonde as he was worried it would end up in the media. This had been Mr. Silmser’s previous experience, after his disclosure to the CPS of his allegation of sexual abuse by Father Charles MacDonald and probation officer Ken Seguin. The letter sent by Staff Sergeant Brunet asked whether Mr. Silmser would consider “providing full disclosure of the allegation against Mr. Marcel Lalonde to another police agency that could independently investigate the complaint.” Mr. Silmser did not respond to this letter.

After a couple of months had passed, Staff Sergeant Brunet decided to close the file. He considered David Silmser uncooperative for failing to pursue the allegations of abuse and for failing to provide further particulars to the police. This is unfortunate because in February 1994, David Silmser provided a statement to the OPP regarding his allegation of abuse against Marcel Lalonde. Staff Sergeant Brunet was not aware of this.

In my view, it is important that officers investigating such cases receive training in order to fully comprehend the impact of historical child sexual abuse and the impediments to disclosing details of such abuse to the police. Moreover, Mr. Silmser had contact with the Cornwall police in 1992 and 1993 regarding his allegations of sexual abuse by Father MacDonald and Ken Seguin, which had been difficult for him. He was also very upset that his statement to the police had been divulged to the media.

On December 13, 1994, Staff Sergeant Brunet advised Bill Carriere of the CAS that the CPS was “closing the file until Mr. Silmser was ready to discuss the case.” Staff Sergeant Brunet wrote the following in the general occurrence report:

At this time, it is obvious that Mr. Silmser made a general allegation of being sexually assaulted by Mr. Marcel Lalonde. He did not give any details that would allow our service to pursue the matter any further.

Mr. Silmser has refused to cooperate with C.A.S. & the Cornwall Police Service. He was provided the opportunity to deal with another agency and has failed to pursue that avenue.

S/Sgt. Brunet feels that everything possible has been done to pursue this complaint but without cooperation of the victim, no further action can be taken.

After discussions with Acting Chief Johnston, Staff Sergeant Brunet placed the general occurrence report of the Silmser allegation of abuse by Marcel Lalonde in a project file. This prevented other members of the Cornwall Police Service as well as other police forces from accessing this information on allegations of child sexual abuse by Mr. Lalonde.

 

Further Allegations of Abuse Made by Victims of Marcel Lalonde

In October 1996, Constable René Desrosiers was asked by his supervisor, Sergeant Brian Snyder, to follow up on a disclosure of abuse made by C-68 to probation officer Sue Lariviere. At that time, C-68 was in custody at the Cornwall jail.

Constable Desrosiers was not aware that the Cornwall police had received complaints of abuse in the past and had conducted a previous investigation of allegations of sexual assaults of youth by Marcel Lalonde.

When they investigated the Lalonde allegations in 1996 and 1997, neither Constable Desrosiers nor his supervisor, Sergeant Snyder, knew that Constable Malloy had investigated this matter in 1989. Constable Desrosiers testified that he had checked the CPS cards but saw no record pertaining to Marcel Lalonde.  The CPS officer did not know that Constable Malloy had documents relating to alleged victims of Lalonde in a box at the Cornwall Police Service. Clearly, it was of great importance that Constable Desrosiers, Sergeant Snyder, and other officers  involved in the Lalonde investigation, including other police forces, had knowledge of and access to documents and material relating to the allegations of abuse by this perpetrator. As is evident in my review of other CPS investigations, this was a serious problem.

Constable Desrosiers met with Ms Lariviere, who stated that C-68 had disclosed that he had been sexually abused when he was twelve years old and in grade 7 at Bishop Macdonell School in the late 1960s, by his teacher, Marcel Lalonde. He alleged that the sexual abuse by Mr. Lalonde had occurred repeatedly.

Constable Desrosiers went to the Cornwall jail to discuss these allegations with C-68. The alleged victim disclosed that the abuse had taken place on camping trips. Because the alleged acts had occurred outside the City of Cornwall and within the jurisdiction of the OPP, Constable Desrosiers contacted the OPP at the Lancaster Detachment and spoke to Constable Joe Dupuis. He also spoke to Mr. Kevin Linden at the Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Ms Lariviere had previously contacted the School Board to alert Mr. Linden to the allegations of sexual abuse. Constable Desrosiers explained to Mr. Linden that the OPP would investigate this matter. Constable Desrosiers subsequently learned that the OPP laid charges against Marcel Lalonde in 1997 for the alleged abuse of C-68.

On January 31, 1997, Constable Desrosiers received a call from C-45 and his brother, who lived in the Ottawa area. C-45 disclosed that both he and his sibling had been sexually assaulted by Marcel Lalonde. The two brothers met with Constable Desrosiers on February 3, 1997.

C-45’s brother told Constable Desrosiers that Marcel Lalonde had been his teacher in grade 8 at Bishop Macdonell School. He alleged that Mr. Lalonde had fondled and performed fellatio on him at the teacher’s home. He had been given alcohol. Mr. Lalonde, he stated, took pictures of him with a Polaroid camera and had a box of pictures. He also mentioned “Father Charles,” but Constable Desrosiers made it clear that this interview was confined to allegations against

Marcel Lalonde and that another police officer or police force would investigate the allegations against the priest. Unfortunately, the victim’s allegations against the priest were not recorded in Constable Desrosiers notes. When C-45’s brother subsequently testified at Father MacDonald’s preliminary inquiry, he was challenged for not disclosing this information to the Cornwall Police Service. This is discussed in further detail in the following chapters of this Report. Constable Desrosiers claimed that he briefed his supervisor about the allegations regarding Father Charles MacDonald but could not recall if it was Sergeant Snyder.

Constable Desrosiers also interviewed C-45 on February 3, 1997, and took a statement regarding his allegations of sexual abuse by Mr. Lalonde. Marcel Lalonde was also his former teacher. Similar to the other alleged victims,

Mr. Lalonde had invited C-45 to his home and had offered him alcohol. C-45 became intoxicated, passed out, and woke up to find Mr. Lalonde performing oral sex on him. This alleged molestation was repeated. C-45 said that he also saw Polaroid photos of Mr. Lalonde’s former students, nude. C-45 recognized some of the students in the pictures. C-45 took the photo of himself from Mr. Lalonde’s home.

In the interview with Constable Desrosiers, C-45 also mentioned probation officers Nelson Barque and Ken Seguin. C-45 alleged that when he was in the Cornwall Probation Office for a pre-sentence report, Mr. Ken Seguin and Mr. Nelson Barque had engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour. Constable Desrosiers told C-45 that the CPS or another force would investigate the allegations against Nelson Barque. This did not, however, occur. He also told the complainant that probation officer Ken Seguin was dead and that as a result, the police would not pursue this matter. When this disclosure was made, Constable Desrosiers did not know that Mr. Barque had been criminally charged and had pleaded guilty in 1995 to sexual acts involving Albert Roy. Again, Constable Desrosiers claimed that he advised his supervisor about the allegations against Mr. Barque. However, the Constable did not follow up with other officers in the Cornwall Police Service or the OPP regarding the allegations that had been made against these probation officers. Once again, this is unfortunate because C-45’s allegations connected Nelson Barque, Ken Seguin, and Marcel Lalonde. This information was clearly significant and important to include in a linkages analysis.

 

Sergeant Brian Snyder’s Involvement in the Lalonde File

On January 28, 1997, Detective Constable Don Genier of the OPP informed CPS Staff Sergeant Brunet that other victims had come forward after learning that Marcel Lalonde had been charged with sexual assault. One of the alleged victims was C-8. Staff Sergeant Brunet assigned the matter to Sergeant Snyder, who was briefed on February 4, 1997, regarding the complaints. Sergeant Snyder learned that the OPP had a video of Marcel Lalonde with C-8, which Detective Constable Genier brought to Sergeant Snyder on March 13, 1997. Sergeant Snyder was aware that Marcel Lalonde had a connection with David Silmser, another alleged victim.

Sergeant Snyder informed Constable Desrosiers at that time that he was also working on an investigation of Marcel Lalonde. He asked Constable Desrosiers to assist him. Sergeant Snyder gave Constable Desrosiers four or five names of other alleged victims and asked the Constable to follow up with these individuals. The OPP was also investigating allegations of sexual abuse by Marcel Lalonde.

This is further discussed in Chapter 7, on the institutional response of the Ontario Provincial Police.

Constable Desrosiers pursued his investigation with respect to C-45 and his brother in 1997. He held a photographic line-up to ensure that the former teacher could be identified. He asked the complainants to identify the different homes of Marcel Lalonde at which they had been abused. Constable Desrosiers also went to City Hall to identify the owner of the home in which Mr. Lalonde was living. The Constable was trying to establish grounds for a search warrant of Mr. Lalonde’s residence.

Sergeant Snyder tried to contact David Silmser through his wife, Pam Silmser, on February 18, 1997. Mr. Silmser made it clear, through his spouse, that “he does not believe he can deal with it right now,” he had “too much on his plate,” and was “having a hard time and wants to get through the MacDonald case first.” After his call with Pam Silmser on February 19, 1997, Sergeant Snyder did not follow up with David Silmser regarding his allegations against Marcel Lalonde.

C-8 informed Sergeant Snyder in an interview on March 3, 1997, that he had given a statement to Perry Dunlop in January 1997.  19   C-8 told Sergeant Snyder that Perry Dunlop had typed his statement for him.20  Sergeant Snyder contacted  Perry Dunlop at his home to request C-8’s original statement. Problems with disclosure of Perry Dunlop’s notes and other material are discussed later in this section, as well as in the chapters on the institutional response of the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Sergeant Snyder also made contact with alleged victim C-66 in early March.C-66 provided a statement on March 17, 1997. He stated that Mr. Lalonde, a teacher at his school, had sexually assaulted him. C-66 said that Mr. Lalonde had encouraged him to come to a specific location by asking him if he was interested in a bicycle. C-66 alleged that the assault took place in a garage.

It is very clear that Sergeant Snyder did not record his notes in a proper manner. The CPS officer left blank lines between his notations and blank lines at the end of the page. He used a loose-leaf notebook. Sergeant Snyder should have been inscribing his notes on each line and should have ensured that there were no blank lines on each page of his notes. Sergeant Snyder agreed that his practice of missing lines was not acceptable. He could not provide an explanation for such note taking and acknowledged in his evidence that this was not the “best practice” because other people “can fill in blanks.”

__________________________ Footnotes

19. Perry Dunlop was a CPS Constable but was absent from the force from January 1994 to May 1997.

20. C-8 was a former student of Marcel Lalonde.

_____________________________________

C-58 was another alleged victim with whom Sergeant Snyder spoke in the last two weeks of March 1997. It is clear that Sergeant Snyder did not have information from Constable Kevin Malloy’s 1989 investigation. When he testified, Sergeant Snyder said he couldn’t recall if he had checked the card catalogue to obtain information on Constable Malloy’s investigation of Mr. Lalonde several years earlier. Sergeant Snyder did not know that C-57 and C-58 had disclosed to Constable Malloy that they had been abused by Mr. Lalonde. C-58 was a victim whom Sergeant Snyder had in fact interviewed. Yet the CPS officer was not aware that C-57 and C-58 had both alleged that they had been given alcohol and that C-57 had asserted that Mr. Lalonde had a photograph album.

Sergeant Snyder agreed that it would have been useful to have this information about Constable Malloy’s 1989 investigation of Marcel Lalonde in his investigation of the same alleged perpetrator in 1997.

Marcel Lalonde Is Arrested

It was on April 29, 1997, that Marcel Lalonde was arrested by Constable René Desrosiers and Sergeant Snyder. On the previous day, Constable Desrosiers had obtained a search warrant of Mr. Lalonde’s home, which he executed the same day as the arrest.

Constable Desrosiers and Constable George Tyo found five photo albums in the bedroom of Mr. Lalonde’s home. Many of the pictures from a Polaroid camera were of teenagers who appeared to be between the ages of fifteen and seventeen. They were drinking alcohol in Marcel Lalonde’s home but they were clothed. There were photographs of both C-45 and C-48. Five photos of nude young persons were found, three of which were of the same male posing on a couch. CPS Constable Desrosiers thought that this nude male was over eighteen years old.

Constable Desrosiers notified the OPP of the arrest and of the seizure of the photo albums in Mr. Lalonde’s home. OPP officers also examined the photos. The OPP had charged Mr. Lalonde with indecent assault a few months earlier, in January 1997. This is discussed in Chapter 7, on the institutional response of the Ontario Provincial Police. Constable Desrosiers prepared a list of the young people identified in the photographs and tried to contact them. Some of these individuals did not want to participate in criminal proceedings against Mr. Lalonde. No additional charges were laid.

After the arrest, Constable Desrosiers and the Crown assigned to the case began to receive disclosure requests from Marcel Lalonde’s defence counsel. At this time, Sergeant Snyder delegated the entire file to Constable Desrosiers. Sergeant Snyder was Constable Desrosiers’ supervisor.

The preliminary inquiry was held in January 1998. It dealt with both the CPS and the OPP charges against Marcel Lalonde. Constable Desrosiers was called as a witness at the preliminary inquiry.

Constable Perry Dunlop was called by the defence to give evidence. Several months earlier, Sergeant Snyder had asked Constable Dunlop to give him relevant material in his possession. Sergeant Snyder had given Constable Desrosiers on April 29, 1997, a statement from Constable Dunlop of the information he had, which had been placed on OMPPAC. Constable Desrosiers assumed Perry Dunlop had provided all relevant information.

It became evident at the preliminary inquiry that Constable Perry Dunlop had not disclosed all the documents in his possession, including those pertaining to C-8. Crown Attorney Claudette Wilhelm asked Constable Desrosiers to obtain from Perry Dunlop all notes, newspaper clippings, and relevant documents. This is discussed further in Chapter 11, on the institutional response of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

 

Adjournment of the Lalonde Trial

The Lalonde trial, originally scheduled for February 1999, was adjourned to October 4, 1999. The matter was further adjourned in October due to disclosure issues. A few days before the scheduled trial, Mr. Lalonde’s lawyer, William Markle, sought disclosure of the notes of two meetings that Perry Dunlop may have had with C-8 on September 11 and December 12, 1996.  21

Staff Sergeant Garry Derochie, who was in the Professional Standards Bureau, was alerted to this on September 30, 1999. He considered this an urgent matter. He instructed Constable Desrosiers and Staff Sergeant Brunet to follow the chain of command and to obtain disclosure from Constable Dunlop. At that time,Sergeant Garry Lefebvre was Constable Dunlop’s immediate supervisor.

Staff Sergeant Derochie understood that “disclosure had been a continuous problem”:

… [A]t the end of the day, I wasn’t confident that we had or we knew all of what Perry had; he, from time to time, mentioned that he had a wall of documents or boxes of documents at home and I thought it was—it was well now the time to find out exactly—what he had in these boxes.

On October 4, 1999, the date scheduled for the Lalonde trial, Constable Desrosiers learned that the defence was seeking a further adjournment because it had not

___________________________Footnote

21. It is important to note that in October 1997, Constable Dunlop gave material to the OPP. Included in this were notes made by Constable Dunlop of contact with C-8. However, the CPS did not receive from the OPP the notes it had received from Constable Dunlop. During the Lalonde investigation, the OPP and CPS made separate disclosures to the Crown. Constable Desrosiers testified that he was not aware of the contents of the documents the OPP disclosed to the Crown in the Marcel Lalonde investigation.

_______________________________

received complete disclosure of documents in the possession of Constable Dunlop. The adjournment was granted and a new trial date was set for September 11, 2000.

Such delays were of great concern to Staff Sergeant Derochie. As he said in his testimony, “[T]his is an unnecessary delay”; the accused has a “right to a speedy trial” and the Staff Sergeant was worried that a “Charter argument” by defence counsel might be successful when the matter was again before the courts.

On October 4, 1999, Staff Sergeant Derochie met with CPS Staff Sergeant Carter and Crown Attorney Claudette Wilhelm at the Project Truth offices. Ms Wilhelm expressed her frustration regarding disclosure of the Lalonde material. She had no confidence that the Crown had received all the documents from Perry Dunlop. She told Staff Sergeant Derochie that she could not say to the defence with any certainty that she had made full disclosure. Garry Derochie wrote the following in his October 4, 1999, notes: “There is concern by all involved in this particular prosecution as well as others that Dunlop’s past and continued involvement in these matters may have severe consequences.”

Constable Dunlop was “speaking with other witnesses” and “taking statements” from them. Staff Sergeant Derochie considered this highly “improper.” He was very concerned that Perry Dunlop’s conduct could be fatal to the prosecutions against Marcel Lalonde.

Staff Sergeant Derochie told the Crown prosecutor that he would issue specific orders to Constable Dunlop to comply with the disclosure requests. Staff Sergeant Derochie’s notes state:

… [H]e [Dunlop] will be further instructed that Crown alone will determine what materials are relevant, not himself … [H]e will also be told that he must stop investigating, privately, these criminal allegations …

Staff Sergeant Derochie had never before encountered an officer who was conducting such investigations off duty and who refused to fully disclose his interview notes and documents. Constable Dunlop’s behaviour in conducting such off-duty investigations without the authority of his supervisors at the CPS is discussed in fuller detail in this Report.

On October 5, 1999, Constable Desrosiers learned that a CPS investigation of Mr. Lalonde had taken place in 1989. Constable Desrosiers understood that this material was also subject to disclosure. While it is evident that Constable Dunlop’s lack of disclosure may have caused some disruption in this case, once Constable Malloy’s investigation finally came to light it was subject to immediate disclosure and would have been a primary reason for the request to adjourn the trial.

Staff Sergeant Derochie had read the transcript of the preliminary hearing at which Constable Dunlop had testified and the defence counsel’s disclosure request, and he thought there might be perjury. As Staff Sergeant Derochie inscribed in his notes of October 6, 1999, “I believe that he may have committed perjury and that he was obstructing justice by not making full and complete disclosure of notes and other evidence.”

Staff Sergeant Derochie decided to seek the opinion of a Crown lawyer regarding Perry Dunlop’s conduct. He was concerned about the “optics” of the Cornwall Police Service rather than an external police force conducting an investigation of Constable Dunlop in these historical sexual assault cases. As Staff Sergeant Derochie said at the hearings:

I wanted to get the opinion of a Crown on how I should proceed. These were, as we both agreed, unusual circumstances.

There had also been some concerns expressed to us that whatever we did, if we decided to go down this route, that it may—we should not investigate it ourselves, that we should seek a referral to another police department to do that. That it would be viewed—the optics of it wouldn’t be good if we were doing the investigation on Perry Dunlop given our history with him.

Staff Sergeant Derochie contacted Mr. Marc Garson, Director of Crown Operations, West Region. In his notes, Staff Sergeant Derochie wrote, “reason for meeting is to get his opinion on how we, CPS, should begin the invest. Into Dunlop’s involvement with the Lalonde matter, and to express our concerns about the impact Dunlop is having on Project Truth.”

Staff Sergeant Derochie met with Mr. Garson on October 29, 1999, and in a letter on November 19, 1999, the Crown lawyer set out his legal opinion. He made it clear that Constable Perry Dunlop was not part of the investigation team responsible for the prosecution of Marcel Lalonde. Despite repeated instruction by the CPS, Constable Dunlop continued to communicate with complainants and to speak publicly about the Lalonde investigation. Mr. Garson also discussed the testimony of Perry Dunlop at the preliminary inquiry of Marcel Lalonde in January 1998, in which Constable Dunlop under oath told the court that he had turned over all his notes in his investigation to the police. Yet this was not the case.

Mr. Garson discussed the constitutional obligation of the Crown to make full disclosure and the accused’s right to make full answer and defence under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   He advised the officer responsible for the Lalonde investigation to meet with Perry Dunlop and to instruct him to hand over all his material connected to the Lalonde matter. If he failed to comply, judicial review before a judge should follow. Mr. Garson was clearly concerned about the impact of Mr. Dunlop’s behaviour:

As Constable Dunlop is neither an investigating officer nor a witness to this proceeding, it is our view that his continued involvement in interviewing witnesses, seeking out additional information and discussing the case in a public forum while it remains pending before the courts, may result in undue harm to the due and proper administration of justice.

Mr. Garson also made it clear that an external police agency, not the Cornwall Police Service, should conduct a criminal investigation into the Dunlop matter regarding the “apparent inconsistency” between Perry Dunlop’s evidence at the preliminary inquiry and the “subsequent disclosed materials”: 22

You have also brought to our attention the apparent inconsistency between the testimony of Constable Dunlop at the preliminary hearing in January 1998 and the subsequent disclosed materials provided from the request. Our preliminary observation in this matter is that it would be a potential conflict for your police service to commence any form of criminal investigation into this matter given the history of events that have occurred. Accordingly, should you decide that this issue merits such investigation, we would recommend that you contact an external policing agency to conduct same.

 

Staff Sergeant Garry Derochie Meets With Cornwall Police Chief and the OPP: Ottawa Police Contacted

After receiving the Crown’s letter, Staff Sergeant Derochie had a meeting with Chief Anthony Repa on November 26, 1999.

Staff Sergeant Derochie told Chief Repa that, in his view, Constable Dunlop may have misled the court and given perjured evidence at the Lalonde preliminary inquiry. In the officer’s view, this warranted an investigation. Furthermore,

_____________________Footnote

22. Note that Mr. Garson said that it was not within the Crown’s mandate to give advice regarding the action to be taken by the police service in dealing with Constable Dunlop: “You have requested our advice on the action that should be taken by the police service in dealing with the conduct of Constable Dunlop. It is not within our mandate to advise the police on issuing orders or directives to officers nor is it appropriate for us to comment on the applicability of the Police Services Act to the specific conduct of an individual officer. Our opinions are limited to legal advice on issues pertaining to the criminal investigations and prosecution of persons charged with an offence.”

_____________________________

there was also evidence to suggest that Constable Dunlop “may have conducted himself in a similar manner during the Charles MacDonald preliminary hearing in Ottawa.” Staff Sergeant Derochie recommended that an external police force investigate the possible criminal conduct of Constable Dunlop. He stated that Constable Dunlop had named as defendants in a civil action the Cornwall Police Service and several senior police officers. He was concerned there could be a potential conflict of interest if the CPS conducted the criminal investigation. Chief Repa agreed with the recommendations of Staff Sergeant Derochie.

In a meeting with Chief Repa, OPP Inspector Pat Hall, and Staff Sergeant Derochie, the purported concerns of Crown Attorney Robert Pelletier regarding Constable Dunlop’s testimony in the Father Charles MacDonald preliminary inquiry in late 1997 were also discussed. The charges and criminal prosecution involving Father Charles MacDonald are described in the following chapters in this Report.

In discussions with Chief Repa, Staff Sergeant Derochie raised the misconduct of Constable Dunlop in breach of the Police Services Act.  . Constable Dunlop was disobeying Inspector Trew’s 1997 order 23 and he continued to meddle in criminal investigations in which he had no official role.

In December 1999, Chief Repa asked Chief Brian Ford of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service to investigate Constable Dunlop on the following two issues:

1. The first matter involves the apparent inconsistency between the testimony of P.C. Dunlop at a preliminary hearing held in Cornwall in January 1998 and written material which was subsequently disclosed to the Crown Attorney.

2. The second matter relates to information received from OPP Detective Inspector Pat Hall, lead investigator for Project Truth. It is his information that Ottawa Crown Attorney Robert Pelletier has concerns relative to P.C. Dunlop’s conduct at a preliminary hearing which was held in Ottawa late in 1997 or early 1998.  24

In July 2000, Chief Repa received a letter from Sergeant Rolland Lalonde of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service. After the investigation of Constable Dunlop had been completed, it was concluded that there was no reasonable

23. Inspector Trew had ordered Perry Dunlop to disclose to the OPP his notes, tapes, statements, and other information on the alleged victims of sexual assaults. This is discussed further in this Report.

24. Crown Attorney Pelletier’s concerns about Constable Dunlop will be discussed in the chapter on the institutional response of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

prospect of conviction of Constable Perry Dunlop for perjury. Sergeant Lalonde indicated in the letter that Crown Marc Garson had said that “to prove perjury would be extremely difficult due to recent case laws on corroboration and we would have to prove Dunlop’s intention to mislead the court. It is Mr. Garson’s opinion that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.” Criminal charges, therefore, were not laid against Perry Dunlop.

 

Staff Sergeant Derochie’s Orders to Constable Perry Dunlop in January 2000

On January 10, 2000, Staff Sergeant Derochie, after consulting the Crown and CPS legal counsel, issued orders to Constable Dunlop on disclosure of all evidence in his possession related to the Marcel Lalonde investigation conducted by OPP Project Truth, the CPS, or other police agencies. There were prohibitions on communicating with any victim or witness in the Lalonde criminal proceedings, as well as with the media and the public:

1. You shall disclose to Assistant Crown Attorney Claudette Wilhelm any and all evidence in your possession that in any way relates to the Marcel Lalonde investigation, including but not limited to any notes, documents, statements, reports, photographs, video/audiotapes that you have made or received and computer printouts of all information recorded on computer hard drive or disc that you have access to or may have used. Your disclosure will include a will say statement detailing all meetings with complainants, witnesses and any other involvement you may have had in this prosecution.

2. You shall disclose to OPP Project Truth or any other investigating police agency, including the Cornwall Police Service, any and all evidence in your possession that in any way relates to allegations of sexual abuse that is or may be investigated by such police agency. Evidence referred to in this order includes but is not limited to any notes, documents, statements, reports, photographs, and/or video/audio tapes you may have made or received and computer printouts of all information recorded on computer hard drive or disc that you have access to or may have used. Your disclosure will include a detailed will say statement describing all meetings with complainants, witnesses and any other involvement you may have had in those investigations.

3. You shall not communicate directly or indirectly with any victim or witness to the Marcel Lalonde criminal proceeding, any Project Truth or other similar criminal proceeding to which you are or may be named as a witness. If you are contacted by any victim or witness in any of the above prosecutions, you will not discuss the case, you will make detailed notes of such contacts in your duty notebook and you will forthwith disclose, to the officers in charge of the case in question, any such contacts. For the purpose of these orders, the officers in charge are, for Project Truth—Detective Inspector Pat Hall of the Ontario Provincial Police and for all others, Acting Inspector Richard Carter of the Cornwall Police Service.

4. You shall not communicate directly or indirectly with any member of the public or the media regarding the subject matter of this order or your involvement in any criminal proceedings. You remain subject to the provision contained in Cornwall Police Service Directive Number 59, Media Release and News Release Policy

5. You shall cease and desist from investigating any criminal activity that may be the subject matter of the OPP Project Truth investigation while on or off-duty. Any complaints brought by an individual to your attention shall be transferred forthwith to OPP Project Truth. Where the jurisdiction of Project Truth is inapplicable, an OMPPAC incident shall be created, a report submitted to the Cornwall Police Service and direction sought from your supervisor regarding your continued involvement. You shall make detailed notes, of all such contacts and referrals, in your duty notebook.

6. Effective on the issuance of these new orders, all previous orders issued to you relative to these matters are hereby rescinded and you will be subject to these new orders until advised otherwise. Constable Dunlop was required to sign this document, which he did on January 17, 2000.

This was the first and only time in his police career that Staff Sergeant Derochie had issued orders of this nature.

Everything was unique about this. The whole—I’ve never run into anything like this in my entire career, starting from 1993 onwards. This was a—this is a unique, unique situation. You shouldn’t have to order police officers to provide disclosure. You certainly shouldn’t have to order them in writing to provide disclosure; that’s part of their basic duties.

After this order, Constable Dunlop began to provide disclosure of documents to Staff Sergeant Derochie. Material of relevance to the Lalonde investigation was sent to Constable Desrosiers. Constable Dunlop also told Staff Sergeant Derochie that his lawyer at that time, Charles Bourgeois, had tapes and other material. Staff Sergeant Derochie’s notes of February 29, 2000, say: “Bourgeois may well have evidence relative to this matter. Bourgeois would also have been involved with [C-8].”

Constable Desrosiers tried to obtain the videotape of C-8’s interview with Perry Dunlop from his lawyer, Charles Bourgeois. He spoke with Mr. Bourgeois in mid-May 2000 and asked him to notify the CPS Constable if he had the tapes. Constable Desrosiers never heard from Mr. Bourgeois. Constable Desrosiers called Mr. Dunlop’s home in July 2000 and asked his wife, Helen, if Perry Dunlop would meet him to discuss the videotape. Ms Dunlop asked the Constable to wait on the phone while she discussed this issue with Perry. She then told the CPS Constable that any inquiries should be directed to Mr. Dunlop’s lawyer Howard Yegendorf.

 

C-8 Discloses Before Lalonde Trial That Abuse on School Trip Never Happened

Shortly before the Lalonde trial, Constable Desrosiers and Crown Attorney Claudette Wilhelm met with C-8 to prepare him for trial, scheduled for September 11, 2000. C-8 was visibly distraught when he appeared for the September 7, 2000, meeting. Richard Nadeau had contacted C-8 as he wanted to put C-8’s statement on his website. Mr. Nadeau had also asked C-8 if he would participate in a class action lawsuit. C-8 made it clear that he did not want his statement on the website. The Crown agreed to conduct some research on this issue.

And then, to their surprise, C-8 informed Constable Desrosiers and the Crown attorney that alleged abuse on a school trip in Toronto had never happened. In a statement to the police, C-8 had alleged that Mr. Lalonde had sexually abused him on a trip to Toronto and he had given this evidence at the Lalonde preliminary inquiry. The Crown instructed Constable Desrosiers to take a statement of this new information, and she left the room.

When Constable Desrosiers took the statement, he asked C-8 whether Constable Dunlop had influenced him when C-8 filed his 1997 statement with the police. C-8 replied that Perry Dunlop had typed out his statement. He also said that the story had been concocted in order “to add fuel to the fire”:

… Marcel wanted me to just be a shaperone [sic] for the trip, and nothing happened at the school trip with Marcel, things only happened on the boat and when it first started at the house. Perry had told me that if anything happened at the school, they had a lot of money and that I could sue them. (Emphasis added)

Constable Desrosiers asked the complainant whether he had fabricated any of the other allegations. C-8 assured the officer that all the other incidents with Marcel Lalonde had taken place. Constable Desrosiers met with the Crown, and the statement was disclosed to the defence. He then briefed Sergeant Garry Lefebvre about the disclosure, and perjury charges against C-8 were contemplated but not pursued.

When the Crown and Constable Desrosiers subsequently met with C-8, the complainant told them that he wanted to take the stand, tell his story, and speak the truth. C-8 also mentioned that Perry Dunlop had contacted him from British Columbia and had left a message with a phone number. Perry Dunlop had left the Cornwall Police Service in June 2000 and had moved with his family to British Columbia. Constable Desrosiers was concerned that Mr. Dunlop was contacting a complainant.

When Constable Desrosiers spoke to C-8 on the telephone later that day, C-8 was very upset as Mr. Nadeau had threatened to place on his website, within the hour, information about C-8’s smuggling operation on his boat. C-8 said he wanted to make an official complaint to the police concerning the Nadeau call. The CPS contacted the OPP.

 

The Conviction of Marcel Lalonde

The Lalonde trial took place in September 2000. C-57 testified at the trial. Constable Desrosiers also gave evidence. Marcel Lalonde was convicted on November 17, 2000, on charges regarding four complainants—C-45, C-8, C-66, and another individual—and was acquitted of charges in relation to three complainants. It is noteworthy that despite C-8’s recantation of a past complaint, the trial judge accepted C-8’s evidence regarding the abuse by Mr. Lalonde. Madam Justice Métivier held that C-8’s “testimony at trial [was] internally coherent and supported by the evidence of Mr. Lalonde himself.” She further stated that she accepted C-8’s “evidence at trial notwithstanding his additional, but now, withdrawn, evidence at the preliminary and that given in earlier statements. I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the charges in count seven and eight, and I find Mr. Lalonde guilty as charged.”

The Lalonde investigation by Project Truth and the trial are discussed in the chapters on the institutional response of the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ministry of the Attorney General.

It is clear from my review of the investigation of Marcel Lalonde that Cornwall police officers in this and several other investigations did not have information on earlier work that the police force had conducted on the case, such as previous interviews with witnesses and alleged victims of the perpetrator. Either the information was not properly recorded or it was not placed onto systems from which it would have been retrievable by other officers. Moreover, officers failed to access OMPPAC when it was introduced in 1989, or other electronic databases such as CPIC, to determine whether other police forces had information on the alleged perpetrator of historical child sexual abuse. It is critical that the Cornwall Police Service institute measures to ensure that police officers record their notes of these cases on electronic systems such as OMPPAC to ensure that other officers who become involved with a case have easy access to the history of the investigation.

Another serious problem in the Lalonde investigation was that there was a failure to share information and failure to notify other institutions such as the Children’s Aid Society and the School Board in order to protect other children and students at risk of abuse by the alleged perpetrator.

It is also evident that Constable Kevin Malloy was not adequately supervised by Staff Sergeant Brendon Wells and the Cornwall Police Service during the Lalonde investigation. Moreover, the Cornwall Police Service did not properly train officers such as Constable Malloy on the conduct of investigations into sexual abuse, and in particular historical child sexual abuse. As mentioned, the Cornwall Police Service also failed to institute and apply proper practices to ensure cooperation with and notification to other public institutions, including the School Board and Children’s Aid Society in the context of this historical sexual abuse investigation of teacher Marcel Lalonde. The Cornwall Police Service also did not enforce practices and procedures that would have ensured that notes and records were properly kept and stored and that they were retrievable by other officers involved in the Lalonde investigation.

I discuss in further detail the failure of the Cornwall Police Service to ensure that Perry Dunlop complied with his obligations and duties as a police officer and as a member of the Cornwall Police Service, which included the duty to disclose information relevant to criminal investigations, the duty to provide truthful evidence in criminal proceedings, and the duty not to conduct unauthorized criminal investigations.

……

Page 586

 

The Decision Not to Include the Marcel Lalonde Case in Project Truth

On April 1, 1997, Detective Constable Genier met with Crown Attorney Guy Simard. Mr. Simard explained that the Marcel Lalonde case would be reassigned because there was a conflict of interest in the Cornwall Crown Attorney’s Office.  The prosecution was eventually assigned to the Brockville Crown Attorney’s Office. Detective Inspector Smith asked Detective Constable Genier to attend a meeting at the regional Crown’s office on April 24, 1997.

On April 24, Detective Constable Genier attended this meeting with Detective Inspector Smith, Detective Sergeant Pat Hall, Detective Constable Fagan, Peter Griffiths, Director of Crown Operations, Eastern Region, Crown Attorney Murray MacDonald, and Crown Attorney Robert Pelletier. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a brief of materials that had been provided by Constable Dunlop’s counsel, Charles Bourgeois, to Chief Julian Fantino, of the London Police Service. The “Fantino Brief” contained statements from alleged victims, including C-8 and David Silmser, alleging abuse by Mr. Lalonde. It was that the OPP would investigate all of the allegations in the Fantino Brief. This meeting is discussed in detail in the section “Project Truth: Initial Meetings Between OPP and Crowns.”

Despite several references to Mr. Lalonde in the Fantino brief, the allegations against him did not become part of Project Truth. It is not clear whether the decision to exclude the Marcel Lalonde allegations was made at this meeting or some time later. Detective Constable Genier became a member of the Project Truth team and remained responsible for the OPP’s investigation into Marcel Lalonde. It was expected that he would be able to deal with any over-lapping issues that arose between the Marcel Lalonde case and the Project Truth investigation.

______________________________

Volume I of the report can be accessed in it’s entirety here:

14 December 2009:  Report of the Cornwall Public Inquiry:  Volume 1, Phase 1, Facts & Findings

It is a searchable pdf file.

The transcripts of Constable Kevin Malloy’s testimony a the inquiry can be accessed here:

 

23 April 2008: TRANSCRIPT of Kevin Malloy testimony at Cornwall Public Inquiry

22 April 2008:  TRANSCRIPT of Kevin Malloy testimony at the Cornwall Public Inquiry

 

 

23 April 2008: TRANSCRIPT of Kevin Malloy testimony at the Cornwall Public Inquiry

2 Responses to The Marcel Lalonde Investigation

  1. Sylvia says:

    And above is just a small taste of why the new charges against Marcel Lalonde are of particular interest, along with a small glimpse of how Lalonde was central to the inquiry.

    It all brings back bad memories of what happened in that Weave Shed. A few years ago I referred to the inquiry as the $60 million cover-up. I will call it that again.

  2. Mike Fitzgerald says:

    Sylvia;
    Upon reflecting on the contents of the above, I am left with renewed cynicism and the overwhelming stench of corruption.
    None of the above makes sense, unless you inject a dose of meddling, back-room deals, and manipulation.
    I see what you mean! Mike.

Leave a Reply

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