Hobbling right along…

Share Button

A morning of legalese at the Weave Shed yesterday (Thursday 15 June ’06) with lawyers for the commission, the diocese and the Cornwall Police arguing the manner in which documents which fall under the realm of solicitor/client privilege should be handled, how much information must be divulged in identifying the documents, whether or not commission counsel should have the liberty to view those privileged documents which may be deemed relevant, whether or not Justice Glaude has the authority to view documents in question and rule on their admissibility, or whether or not a justice of the superior court should be called in as a third party to rule on the relevance and disclosure of documents which commission lead counsel (Engelmann) has decided after a brief viewing are relevant. 

In light of the fact that all of this fussing circles around efforts to use the law of the land to intentionally or otherwise shield a few lawyers and their respective clients who are understood to be implicated in the Cornwall scandal makes this all a bit too much to take.  And, in fact, sometimes it got to be too ridiculous for words.  For example, Justice Glaude was suddenly expressing concern about public perception; this from the judge who has refused to address the public concerns raised a year ago about his many real and perceived conflicts.  And then Glaude’s lead counsel Peter Engelmann was offering Glaude assurances that the idea of calling in a third party superior court judge to view and rule on the documents should not to be taken as a personal offense.  And then there were discussions over the fact that if indeed the documents were viewed but ruled inadmissible Glaude could not base any finding of misconduct on the content of those documents – no matter the content!

Ridiculous! 

Justice Glaude will issue his ruling on Tuesday 27 June 2006. 

And so, at the end of the day, will all memos, correspondence and letters between and related to, for example, Claude Shaver and Colin McKinnon, and McKinnon and other members of the Cornwall Police Service, be kept under lock and key under the guise of solicitor/client privilege? Or will a superior court colleague of the now superior court justice Colin McKinnon be called in as a third party to determine if documents related to McKinnon are indeed privileged?  I can’t help but wonder if every lawyer enjoys the benefit of this legal shield regardless of the role he may have played in concert with others in orchestrating or condoning a sexual abuse cover-up?  In other words, what I am really pondering is should a suspect paedophile who posibly abused his position of authority and trust to obstruct justice and cover-up for himself and/or his paedophile friends enjoy the privilege simply because he knew how to work the system to “legally” conceal his tracks through claims of solicitor/client privilege? 

Does this make sense to you?  It certainly doesn’t to me – not in Cornwall where lawyers and judges have been integral to the scandal. If there’s nothing to hide then put the documents out into the public domain.

And that raises yet another question:  where does the public’s right to know fit into this legal dance?  Or does it?  Is the “public” in “public inquiry” a throw away to soothe the sometimes savage but always naïve masses?  Are we deluding ourselves completely by believing or hoping for a whiff of the public in a public inquiry?  Is the public dimension in a public inquiry actually akin to scrounging for the biblical crumbs under the table?    

We’ll have to wait and see.  Once again it’s back to the waiting game at Weave Shed.  We’ll find out on the 27th. 

Two more items of note: 

(1) The Cornwall Police Service has engaged the services of a number of law firms over the years:  Beament Green in Ottawa (previously Beament Green Dust, where Colin McKinnon practiced) for “certain discipline and employment related matters,” Jewell, Obradovich in Toronto “for certain labour and discipline matters,” Matthews Dinsdale in Toronto “in connection with labour matters,” Perley-Robertson in Ottawa “in various matters,” Smith Lyons in Toronto “in connection with previous relevant civil suits” and Gowlings

(2) Justice Glaude plans to make up for lost time by scheduling additional hearings in December, specifically the week of 11 December plus the days of 18, 19 and 20 December.   In addition, as of 01 September lunch breaks will be shortened and the daily hours of hearings will extended. 

And we’re hobbling right along. . . .  Barring unforseen events all will be quiet at the Weave Shed until the 27th of June.  In the interim I will fix up problems on the theinquiry.ca,. post new material and blog as I go.

Enough for now,
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Hobbling right along…

  1. Myomy says:

    When I read the police and other public agencies are petitioning Glaude to seal their documents from scrutiny I wonder why the fuss over whether the Church was a public instution or not. It seems that many institutions which are certainly public are able to hide from the “public” inquiry. This inquiry has no more teeth than any private inquiry.

  2. Sylvia says:

    So true. It will be intetesting to see how Glaude rules on this one next Tuesday.

    Will he bite the bullett and rule that ALL documents – including those related to Colin McKinnon – must be disclosed? He should. They’re relevant It’s a “public” inquiry.

    But, will he do it? For that matter, is he ALLOWED to do it? i.e., have Premier McGuinty, Attorney General Bryant and perhaps the enrire Ontario judiciary given him the thumbs down – behind closed doors?

    Sylvia

Leave a Reply