The Honourable Justice / L honorable juge G. Normand Glaude VOLUME 173

Transcription

1 THE CORNWALL PUBLIC INQUIRY L ENQUÊTE PUBLIQUE SUR CORNWALL Public Hearing Audience publique Commissioner The Honourable Justice / L honorable juge G. Normand Glaude Commissaire VOLUME Held at : Hearings Room 0 Cotton Mill Street Cornwall, Ontario KH K Tenue à: Salle des audiences 0, rue de la Fabrique Cornwall, Ontario KH K Thursday, December 0 Jeudi, le décembre 0 (00) -000

2 ii Appearances/Comparutions Mr. Peter Engelmann Ms. Julie Gauthier Ms. Dierdre Harrignton Mr. Ian Stauffer Mr. Peter Manderville Ms. Suzanne Costom Lead Commission Counsel Registrar Commission Counsel Cornwall Police Service Board Ontario Provincial Police Mr. David Rose Ontario Ministry of Community Mr. Joe Neuberger and Correctional Services and M e Claude Rouleau Adult Community Corrections Mr. Emtiaz Bala Mr. Peter Chisholm Mr. Allan Manson Mr. Steven Canto Mr. Dallas Lee Mr. Michael Neville Mr. William Carroll Mr. Mark Wallace Mr. Ronald G. McClelland Attorney General for Ontario The Children s Aid Society of the United Counties Citizens for Community Renewal Victims Group The Estate of Ken Seguin and Scott Seguin and Father Charles MacDonald Ontario Provincial Police Association Sean Adams

3 iii List of Exhibits : Table of Contents / Table des matières Page iv Housekeeping matters by/matière administrative par Mr. Peter Engelmann Application for limited standing by/application pour Participation limitée par Mr. Ronald McClelland Ruling on funding matters by the Commissioner Décision concernant les matières de financement par Le Commissaire MARCELLE, Sworn/Assermentée Examination in-chief by/interrogatoire en-chef par Mr. Ian Stauffer Cross-Examination by/contre-interrogatoire par Mr. Allan Manson Cross-Examination by/contre-interrogatoire par Mr. Dallas Lee Cross-Examination by/contre-interrogatoire par Mr. Michael Neville LOUISE QUINN, Sworn/Assermentée Examination in-chief by/interrogatoire en-chef par Mr. Ian Stauffer Cross-Examination by/contre-interrogatoire par Mr. Allan Manson Cross-Examination by/contre-interrogatoire par Mr. Dallas Lee Cross-Examination by/contre-interrogatoire par Mr. Michael Neville

4 iv LIST OF EXHIBITS/LISTE D EXHIBITS NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO P- Notice of application for limited standing - Sean Adams P-A () Interview report - Emile Robert with OPP D.C. Genier and C. McDonnell dated February th, P-B () Handwritten interview report - Emile Robert with OPP D.C. Genier and C. McDonnell dated February th, P-A () Interview report - Marcelle Leger with OPP D.C. Genier and C. McDonnell dated February th, P-B () Handwritten interview report - Marcelle Leger with OPP D.C. Genier and C. McDonnell dated February th, P-00 ( -) Notes of Don Genier dated February th, to February th, P-0A () Interview report - Louise Quinn with OPP D.C. Genier and C. McDonnell dated February th, P-0B (0) Handwritten interview report - Louise Quinn with OPP D.C. Genier and C. McDonnell dated February th,

5 --- Upon commencing at : a.m./ L audience débute à h THE REGISTRAR: Order; all rise. À l ordre; veuillez vous lever. This hearing of the Cornwall Public Inquiry is now in session. The Honourable Mr. Justice Normand Glaude, Commissioner, presiding. Please be seated. Veuillez vous asseoir. THE COMMISSIONER: It s okay. Have a seat. We ll have a few matters to discuss before we start, but good morning. MS. : Good morning. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Engelmann. MR. ENGELMANN: Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, good morning. MR. ENGELMANN: Good morning, Ms. Léger. MS. : Good morning. MR. ENGELMANN: I m just here for a few minutes to deal with other matters, not with your evidence in any way. MS. : Okay. MR. ENGELMANN: All right? Mr. Commissioner, there were a couple matters, just housekeeping matters, and a motion ---

6 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR. ENGELMANN: Sorry, an application. THE COMMISSIONER: Right. MR. ENGELMANN: So Mr. McClelland is back and he s in the back row and he will speak to an application for limited standing for Mr. Adams. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR. ENGELMANN: And, sir, you had a decision on a supplementary application for funding by the Diocese. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR. ENGELMANN: So we could perhaps deal with those this morning. The Notice of Application for Limited Standing, Madam Clerk should have a copy. I understand our next exhibit is. This is, as I said, an application for limited standing and Mr. McClelland is here to address it. I will just turn the floor over to him, if I may? THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Good morning, sir. --- EXHIBIT NO./PIÈCE NO. P-: Notice of application for limited standing Sean Adams --- APPLICATION FOR LIMITED STANDING BY/APPLICATION POUR PARTICIPATION LIMITÉE PAR MR. McClelland: MR. McClelland: Good morning, Mr.

7 APPLICATION (McClelland) Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR. McClelland: Should I wait for a moment while you read the application? THE COMMISSIONER: I ve read it. MR. McClelland: Thank you. The only documents I seek to rely upon are the application for limited standing. I did refer to the website. There was a ruling by you, sir, with respect to standing, and I may refer to a passage of a letter I wrote yesterday to Commission counsel. As I understand it, Commission counsel is not taking a position one way or another on this application at the present time. What is of concern is that I do not know what Commission counsel s intent is with respect to further evidence, if any, that is to be led with respect to the issues that were raised in the examination of Mr. Adams when he was here in November. To be of assistance, so that you are aware of my limited knowledge with respect to this issue, I understand that the test is that there has to be a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the Inquiry connected to Mr. Adams. In this respect, I submit that Mr. Adams has

8 APPLICATION (McClelland) testified. He has further testimony to give. He was directly involved in one incident that was the subject matter of questioning in this Inquiry, which is the independent legal advice and attendances given with respect to Mr. Silmser. To the moment, and of more concern to Mr. Adams, is the evidence or the questioning with respect to the alleged attendance by Mr. Adams at the office of Duncan MacDonald in the summer of. I also submit that Mr. Adams testimony has not been completed. Further questioning --- THE COMMISSIONER: What do you mean it hasn t been completed? MR. McClelland: I understood that there were counsel that had reserved questioning and, in fact, I had reserved, indicating that I wished to finish my questioning after the witness who was unnamed was to testify. And so to that extent, I understood that there was still some attendance further required by Mr. Adams. THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, no, just a second now. From what I understand, and we ll make sure we get this clear, is that people reserve the right to requestion Mr. Adams if necessary and if -- with my -- well, with my approval -- if the witness was produced, had said

9 APPLICATION (McClelland) that yes, she saw the people there and if there were any questions arising out of that. MR. McClelland: That was my understanding. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. So Mr. Adams testimony, as far as I m concerned, is completed subject to whatever happens with these witnesses. MR. McClelland: Subject to that reservation. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. So to say that that testimony has not been completed is -- may lead to some ambiguity there. MR. McClelland: Well, I wish to be clear in that respect and I accept what you ve said. That was too my understanding. Maybe I didn t state it correctly. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. McClelland: But my understanding is -- and that is yet to be confirmed -- but my understanding is that I m awaiting a date for that witness to testify. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes. MR. McClelland: And there -- I can also indicate to you, sir, that I provided the names of four other individuals --- THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. McClelland: --- in connection with that alleged incident to Commission counsel. I haven t heard

10 APPLICATION (McClelland) yet -- I know one of them has been interviewed by Commission counsel, but I don t know of the others. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. McClelland: So there may be additional evidence, and that s part of the circumstance that has led to this application. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. McClelland: In paragraph of the application, the concern is with respect to not only what is presently alleged, but Mr. Adams doesn t know where that might go. There s been no indication of what that s about or the significance or the import of that evidence. Obviously, it was of sufficient import that that evidence was at least examined in questioning of Mr. Adams so that there s some import. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. McClelland: Right now, Mr. Adams doesn t know what that import is. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. McClelland: I submit to you, sir, that if all that was involved with Mr. Adams was providing the independent legal advice to Mr. Silmser on the nd or rd of September, and that was concluded, I wouldn t be standing before you at this time. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm.

11 APPLICATION (McClelland) MR. McClelland: The import is that there was other questions related to an alleged incident. We don t know whether it was before or after at this point or when, but it seemed to be separate from that involvement with Mr. Adams and Mr. Silmser. It may be, may not be, don t know yet. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. McClelland: It also did, though, place or seek to place Mr. Adams in juxtaposition or in circumstances where they were together where he was with Mr. Leduc and Mr. Malcolm MacDonald. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. McClelland: There may be inferences or there may be innuendo taken from that that Mr. Adams doesn t know, but he wishes to be able to defend against. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, there won t be any innuendo. That s -- we deal with facts here. MR. McClelland: The difficulty I have is that I have an Anticipated Evidence Statement, but I don t have those facts yet. I have the statement. That s all I have. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. McClelland: I can indicate that from the information I ve received from at least two of the other four names that I provided to Commission counsel,

12 APPLICATION (McClelland) that there may well be evidence at variance with that anticipated evidence. So there s an issue there, in my submission. I have no indication yet whether Commission counsel will call those witnesses. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. McClelland: So the concern certainly is that there is a -- a concern on Mr. Adams part that this evidence may impact adversely upon him, as mentioned in the application, and upon his reputation in this community; one, as a lawyer; two, as a person in this community because the intent so far that we can glean -- it may be the wrong intent; we don t know yet -- may be to put him in conjunction or in contemporanity with these two people, which would be adversely impacted upon him. If it was all innocent and no problem with it, then I would expect the evidence probably wouldn t have been called. So the fear or the concern is that it would be -- it will impact adversely upon him. I submit that he requires an opportunity to defend himself against these allegations. I submit that it s required by procedural fairness, and I did note one passage in the ruling previously on page which reads that:

13 APPLICATION (McClelland) Standing will be in accordance with the Public Inquiries Act. No problem there. But on page --- THE COMMISSIONER: What are you referring to, sir? MR. McClelland: I m sorry, Mr. Commissioner, it s the ruling on standing and funding that I believe was on the website. THE COMMISSIONER: For whom? MR. McClelland: I m sorry? I didn t hear you. I m sorry. THE COMMISSIONER: For whom? MR. McClelland: Oh, it was just back -- the early rulings. I didn t have a date on it, but I believe it was a ruling back in September of 0. If I may just have a moment, sir? It wasn t with respect to any one particular person. I believe this was the early ruling with respect to all standings. MR. ENGELMANN: Sir, it was your initial ruling on general standing. I think it was from November th, 0. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. MR. McClelland: Thank you. It s on page of that ruling, Mr. Commissioner, when it says that:

14 APPLICATION (McClelland) Generally speaking, the interest of the applicant may be the protection of a legal interest in a sense that the outcome of the inquiry may affect the legal status or property interests of the applicant. I m not submitting that would be the case in Mr. Adams, but it does go on to say that: Such an interest would likely form the basis of a substantial and direct interest. An applicant s sense of well-being or fear of an adverse effect upon his or her reputation, even if the fear proves to be unfounded, could be serious and objectively reasonable enough to warrant full or intervenor standing in the inquiry. I m not asking for full standing on behalf of Mr. Adams, but I am asking for limited standing so that he has an opportunity to address what he perceives may be evidence that may impact adversely upon his reputation in this community and as a lawyer. And I m asking the Commission, therefore, for the relief set out in the application which is only to deal with those issues that directly impact or may impact

15 APPLICATION (McClelland) upon Mr. Adams, to be given notice of witnesses that may be called with respect to those issues, to be able to arrive and hear that evidence and if necessary ask questions. Because as I understand it, under the rules, I may be able to ask -- and I m entitled to ask Mr. Adams questions as my client, but without your permission I m not allowed to ask anyone else any questions. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. McClelland: So that since this has been brought forward, since Mr. Adams has had to respond to it, since there may be other witnesses who may testify in that respect -- I noticed that Mr. Leduc -- I didn t see his name on witnesses who have been called so I assume that he has not yet been called. His name was mentioned as one of the persons being there. Two other parties that were mentioned there, Duncan MacDonald and Malcolm MacDonald, as you know, are both deceased. So it s important, therefore, that these matters be addressed. If there is no import to this meeting and there s nothing about it then I probably won t be needed further, but to date I don t know that. So I ask out of a sense of fairness and completeness and to the extent I may be able to assist you, sir, with those issues. I ask for limited standing on the part of Mr. Adams as requested in the application.

16 RULING/DÉCISION (Commissioner) THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Does anybody wish to make any comments with respect to this matter from the parties? Very well. Thank you. --- RULING BY THE COMMISSIONER/DÉCISION PAR LE COMMISSAIRE: You, Mr. McClelland, I can advise you that you will be given some limited standing. What I ll do is I ll take a few days to write up and to word that properly so that there is no confusion. And you can rest assured that you will have some limited standing. MR. McClelland: Thank you very much, sir. THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. On the issue of funding -- Mr. Engelmann? MR. ENGELMANN: May I just make just a brief comment --- THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. MR. ENGELMANN: --- about comments Mr. McClelland made. The witness will be called on December th. The parties have been advised of that, witness he s concerned about. THE COMMISSIONER: Has Mr. McClelland been advised of that? MR. ENGELMANN: He was advised it would be one of two dates and the th was the principal date. So

17 RULING/DÉCISION (Commissioner) that will be the date at :0. Yesterday afternoon, he provided us with a list of four names as potential witnesses, one of whom was known to us, and we will be investigating to see if any of them have anything that they can add. THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. MR. ENGELMANN: So I ll have someone speak with them or attempt to speak with them. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So, Mr. McClelland, the reason why I advise you that you would have limited standing is so that you can be made aware of these things. So December th is one witness and Mr. Engelmann will certainly be in contact with you to make sure that you re kept apprised of the other ones. MR. McClelland: Thank you very much. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. MR. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Engelmann. THE COMMISSIONER: So, Mr. Engelmann? MR. ENGELMANN: Sir, there was the Diocese supplementary funding application that Mr. Sherriff-Scott had asked me to read orally to you the other day. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. On that matter I ve decided to recommend funding for paralegal -- no, it wasn t paralegal, it was --

18 RULING/DÉCISION (Commissioner) it was paralegal, in the amount of hours retroactive to November th, which I believe is the date that the request was put in. As we get towards the end of the Inquiry or the Phase of the evidentiary hearings, I m going -- if there is a request for more hours from the Diocese I will - - and I m putting them on notice now, that I will want to have some indication of how those hours have been used so that we can get a -- and I know that Mr. -- that all of the accounts are reviewed by an independent assessor that has been agreed upon by myself and the Ministry of the Attorney General s office as a checks and balance to make sure that all of the matters are accurate. However, for purposes of further funding from the Diocese, given that this is their third time that they come back for research and paralegal, I will want further details with respect to how those funds have been spent. Now, with the issue of funding I see Mr. Neville is here and I don t want to -- there s some discussion about whether or not Mr. Neville has obtained a recommendation for me from funding with respect to his participation on his being granted limited standing for the, I ve said, the memory of Ken Seguin. I have not made an order for funding. While

19 RULING/DÉCISION (Commissioner) there was an order made in the -- while there was some mention of it in the application, there was no request made to me and I want to make sure that Mr. Neville knows that, that I haven t made any matters -- determinations with respect to recommendation of funding. As well, I note that you may want to have some discussion with the Ministry of Corrections because there is some issue as to who -- that they represent all past and retired -- present and past employees, and I note that other folks have had lawyers -- members of Corrections employee and staff or past staff, have had legal representation. They have not asked for funding and as I suppose gatekeeper of the public purse here, at some point I would think that it would be incumbent on anyone who is asking for funding here to seek out other alternatives to funding, which in this case would be through Corrections as their past employee. So Mr. Neville s here -- oh, okay, Mr. Engelmann. MR. ENGELMANN: Oh, sorry. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR. ENGELMANN: I ll speak to something else. MR. NEVILLE: Perhaps it was my misunderstanding then, sir, because when I sought the

20 standing, which you granted, I took it for granted it included funding. THE COMMISSIONER: No. MR. NEVILLE: Well --- THE COMMISSIONER: It s a two stage -- no, well, just a second now. MR. NEVILLE: All right. THE COMMISSIONER: It s a two stage process whereby if you re going to apply for funding you have to show me -- there s a test, and one of which is if we re looking at -- we know the estate does not exist and we talked about the memory of Ken Seguin, and we know that there are nine -- or a bunch of siblings in any event. So you know, if you re going to go through funding for me before I can recommend to the Attorney General that there s funding, there s two things that have to happen. First of all, that you ve exhausted all other avenues for funding and hence why I say, well, I thought Corrections were representing everyone and why wouldn t they pay if they re paying others, if they are paying others, I don t know. Second of all, you d have to show me that those folks whom you represent, presumably Mr. Doug Seguin and the others, don t have the capacity to pay. And so I believe in my decision all I talked

21 about was I m going to grant standing as requested for the purpose of cross-examination only. MR. NEVILLE: So --- THE COMMISSIONER: I didn t -- and in fact I have to generate a letter to the Attorney General to recommend that funding, and that clearly was not broached. So what I m doing is I m leaving the door open to you. MR. NEVILLE: Right. THE COMMISSIONER: I m putting you on notice that I m not and that I haven t done anything yet because I don t have enough information from you on that issue. MR. NEVILLE: All right. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. Mr. Engelmann. MR. ENGELMANN: Sir, just one other matter briefly. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR. ENGELMANN: There were some publication ban issues that have been dealt with, with Mr. Sirrs --- THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. ENGELMANN: --- with Mr. Downing. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. ENGELMANN: Perhaps if we have an opportunity later in the day, I can come back in on an in

22 camera and we can deal with those issues and some of those names. THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much. MR. ENGELMANN: Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: We ll try to do that after we finish with the witnesses today. All right. Thank you. Mr. Stauffer, welcome back. MR. STAUFFER: Yes, good morning, Mr. Commissioner. So we are ready with Marcelle Léger, who is presently in the witness-box. THE COMMISSIONER: Madam Clerk, could you proceed. MARCELLE : Sworn/Assermentée THE COMMISSIONER: Madame Léger, you will be asked questions today. What I want you to do is just try to relax as much as possible, answer the questions to the best of your abilities. If there's something you don't understand about the question, just tell me, I don't know. And if you feel uncomfortable or if you wish a break at any time just look over and let me know and I'll try to help you out. Now you have some water in the jug. MS. : M'hm.

23 THE COMMISSIONER: There's a speaker right in front of you so you can either increase the volume or decrease the volume and if we look at documents, we will probably give you what they call a hard copy, which is a real copy, and you'll be able to see it on the screen. Do you understand that? MS. : M'hm, I do. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Now, the other thing is you have to vocalize your answers so that we can pick them up on the microphone, so you have to say "yes" or "no" and no "m'hm s". And if you can bend the microphone down to you, just grab it and push it down; there you go. All right? MS. : M'hm. THE COMMISSIONER: Are you okay with that? MS. : Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. And I catch that you are probably bilingual? MS. : Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: If you wish to express yourself in French, we can do that, as well. MS. : Okay. THE COMMISSIONER: All right? MS. : Fine, thank you.

24 In-Ch(Stauffer) THE COMMISSIONER: All right. MR. STAUFFER: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. --- EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY/CONTRE-INTERROGATOIRE PAR MR. STAUFFER: MR. STAUFFER: Madame, thank you for coming in. I'm going to have a few questions for you. As the Commissioner says, if you don't follow anything, let us know at any time, whether it's me asking you questions or one of the other counsel here. So we're going to go through this and I'm going to start by asking you your date of birth? MS. : Oh shucks. MR. STAUFFER: Always the hard question. THE COMMISSIONER: Very insensitive on his part, don't you think? MS. : May nd,. MR. STAUFFER: All right. So you're now years of age? MS. : Yes. MR. STAUFFER: And you are retired from the Ministry of Corrections; I'll call it the "Ministry of Corrections", if that's all right with you? MS. : That's correct. MR. STAUFFER: All right. You worked for the Ministry, as I understand it, from June of until

25 In-Ch(Stauffer) August of. Is that correct? MS. : That's correct. MR. STAUFFER: And could you help us out, did you have different positions with the Ministry during those years or did you have just one title, if you will? MS. : I had two different positions. I started in ' as a secretary and in when we had a -- an on-site manager, Mr. Sirrs, I became his admin clerk. And --- MR. STAUFFER: The admin clerk? MS. : Yes. MR. STAUFFER: All right. And did you remain, then, as an administrative clerk form until, when you retired? MS. : That's correct. MR. STAUFFER: All right. And I understand you worked at least physically at two different sites in Cornwall. Is that correct? MS. : Yes. Well more than that, but during the earlier years, we -- there was third site. MR. STAUFFER: All right. But could --- MS. : But where I started. MR. STAUFFER: Could you give us the municipal addresses of the buildings where you worked then? MS. : The first address was at

26 In-Ch(Stauffer) Pitt Street and we had an on-site manager there; it's the person who hired me. Later on, we had another office at 0 Pitt Street. Then we had another office at 0 Pitt, and we had another office at 0 Pitt Street. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. So did you work physically at all four of those offices over the years? MS. : Yes, yes. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Now, as I understand it, the -- excuse me -- you've mentioned Mr. Sirrs as one of your managers. Would he have been the first on-site manager or was there somebody that predated him? MS. : Someone predated him. My first manager was Mr. Michael Marks. MR. STAUFFER: All right. MS. : In. MR. STAUFFER: All right. And did anyone succeed him before Mr. Sirrs? MS. : Before Mr. Sirrs? MR. STAUFFER: Yeah. Yes. MS. : There were several managers, not on-site --- MR. STAUFFER: Right. MS. : --- though. MR. STAUFFER: No, that's what I'm talking

27 In-Ch(Stauffer) about; in terms of being in the building? MS. : Oh, no. MR. STAUFFER: Whichever building you were --- MS. : Yeah. MR. STAUFFER: --- in at the time, the only gentleman is the one you've mentioned before --- MS. : Yes. MR. STAUFFER: --- Mr. Sirrs? MS. : That's right. MR. STAUFFER: All right. And I understand Mr. Sirrs comes in in. Does that sound right to you? MS. : No. MR. STAUFFER: Or sorry, sorry, Mr. Sirrs comes in in nineteen --- MS. : Eighty-one. MR. STAUFFER: Eighty-one and then he leaves in? MS. : Something like that. MR. STAUFFER: That's right. Now, and just to finish off with respect to the various managers you had, Mr. Robert came in -- Emile Robert came in after Mr. Sirrs? MS. : There was someone in between --- MR. STAUFFER: Mr. White ---

28 In-Ch(Stauffer) MS. : Mr. White after that for six months. MR. STAUFFER: --- Mr. White briefly -- briefly came in in. MS. : Yeah, and then Mr. Robert. MR. STAUFFER: So from January of to July of, Mr. Leo White was the manager -- interim manager replaced by Mr. Robert? MS. : That's right. MR. STAUFFER: All right. And after Mr. Robert, was there anyone before you retired? MS. : No. MR. STAUFFER: All right. Now, with respect to the probation officers in the various offices you worked in, we're going to deal with at least a couple of people; one of them is Nelson Barque and the other is Mr. Ken Seguin. Now, as I understand it, Mr. Seguin was the gentleman who preceded Mr. Barque in time and that he came in in? MS. : That's right. MR. STAUFFER: And then Mr. Barque followed him at some point in? MS. : That's right. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Now, with respect to

29 In-Ch(Stauffer) Mr. Barque, if I can take you to him. Did you do any work specifically for Mr. Barque? MS. : No, none other than just the general routine office work, you know, and that we were first at 0 Pitt Street; I worked for all three officers. MR. STAUFFER: So you were not assigned to one particular officer? MS. : No, no. MR. STAUFFER: And the work that you would have done for Mr. Barque, can you describe that for us? MS. : Well, mostly pre-sentence reports, recording his notes -- at one time they used to be all typed out -- taking telephone calls and that's about it. MR. STAUFFER: All right. Did you work particular hours during the years; did they vary? MS. : Yes, well, usually :0 to :. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. So as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, normally daytime hours would be :0 a.m. to : p.m., except in the summer when you would work from :00 until :0 p.m.? MS. : Yes. Yeah, something like that. MR. STAUFFER: There were then some night shifts, if I can put it that way, I don't know if that's the right word, but you would work at night or various

30 In-Ch(Stauffer) people would work at night, and I understand this was on a Thursday evening. Is that correct? MS. : That's correct. MR. STAUFFER: Would this be every Thursday of every month? MS. : I think it's one Thursday out of the month. I'm not sure but --- MR. STAUFFER: You're not sure about that because --- MS. : Yeah. It's one Thursday. MR. STAUFFER: All right. But it's one Thursday at least every month? MS. : Yes, yeah. MR. STAUFFER: It may have been more than one Thursday? MS. : It may, yeah. MR. STAUFFER: All right. And how long would those hours go on that Thursday? MS. : I'd probably say a couple of hours. MR. STAUFFER: Sorry? MS. : I'd say probably a couple of hours. MR. STAUFFER: You mean until like :0 or so at night?

31 In-Ch(Stauffer) MS. : No, usually we'd, you know, go out for a bite to eat and come back around -- to the office about :0, seven o'clock. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. How late do you recollect staying in the office on Thursdays? MS. : Probably :0, nine o'clock. MR. STAUFFER: I see, all right. What would you be doing when you were on the night shift? MS. : We'd probably continue the -- the work that you were doing during the daytime, a lot of your office work, your typing, whatever you were doing during the day. MR. STAUFFER: All right. But I gather when you were a receptionist, you would be greeting probationers --- MS. : Yes, that's right. MR. STAUFFER: --- who would be coming in for appointments? MS. : M'hm. MR. STAUFFER: Did everyone come in by appointment or --- MS. : I'm pretty sure. MR. STAUFFER: --- or were there drop-ins? MS. : I'm pretty sure. MR. STAUFFER: Okay.

32 In-Ch(Stauffer) THE COMMISSIONER: Pretty sure they were by appointment? MS. : Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. MR. STAUFFER: All right. And when you changed to being admin clerk, in, did you continue to come in on the Thursday evenings? MS. : No. MR. STAUFFER: So you would have stopped --- MS. : Yeah. MR. STAUFFER: --- around :0 or : --- MS. : Yes. MR. STAUFFER: --- something like that? MS. : Yeah. MR. STAUFFER: For those, I don't know, roughly years or so from then to when you were still a receptionist, that's what you would have been doing then, you would have been coming in on Thursday evenings from time-to-time? MS. : M'hm, yes. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Now, when you did come in in evening hours, would Mr. Barque be working from timeto-time during the Thursday shift? Did he work Thursday shifts in the evening? MS. : Yes, I believe he did, yeah.

33 In-Ch(Stauffer) MR. STAUFFER: Okay. There is information we have but we want your recollection, that Mr. Barque had installed a lock on his office door. MS. : Well --- MR. STAUFFER: What can you tell us about that? MS. : I don t know if he installed the lock but at some point in time we found out that there was a lock on that door. But when it came about or who installed it, I don t know. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. THE COMMISSIONER: Is it possible -- I m sorry -- just -- MR. STAUFFER: Yes, sir. MS. : Is it possible that it was there all along? MS. : It could be, I don t know. The other offices I don t think had any locks. MR. STAUFFER: Yeah, so just to follow along that, if I understand you correctly in the various physical offices that you have mentioned before, the locations, which location is this where Mr. Barque has a lock on the door? MS. : That would be at the last location at 0 Pitt.

34 0 In-Ch(Stauffer) MR. STAUFFER: Five-zero-two (0) Pitt. All right. So during the time -- your offices moved into 0 Pitt. Do you remember roughly when that was, that move took place? MS. : Let me see. I can t remember. THE COMMISSIONER: Can you think about who the manager was or --- MS. : Was it Mr. Sirrs? Oops, sorry. THE COMMISSIONER: Oh, yeah, and you re not supposed to hit the microphone. (LAUGHTER/RIRES) MS. : It was after, I think Mr. Sirrs, that s it. It must have been around -. I think Mr. Sirrs arrived in Cornwall in and I think he was only at 0 Pitt for one month and I think then we moved to 0. So it would be. MR. STAUFFER: Five-zero-two (0) around. Okay. MS. : Yes. MR. STAUFFER: So as the Commissioner had asked earlier about the lock, it may have been on the door or it may not have been on the door --- MS. : It may not have --- MR. STAUFFER: --- when the offices moved in

35 In-Ch(Stauffer) to 0 Pitt. MS. : Yeah. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let s -- can we talk about that a little bit? MR. STAUFFER: Yes, sir. THE COMMISSIONER: Did you just walk in and all the offices were there or did they have to do any renovations so that it would fit your needs? MS. : Well, all the offices were there but at some point in time they did make renovations, but not to the offices. I believe they made renovations with respect to the boardroom, the supply room, that side, but not to the offices. They were there. THE COMMISSIONER: And were the doors there already to the offices? MS. : Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. MR. STAUFFER: When you were at 0 Pitt, do you have an office per se or do you have a work area? How would you describe it? MS. : For myself? MR. STAUFFER: Yes. MS. : Yes, I had my own office. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. And in relation to where Mr. Barque s office was, can you describe that for

36 In-Ch(Stauffer) the Commissioner and the distance between the two offices? MS. : Mr. Barque s office was the furthest away from me. MR. STAUFFER: And how far would that be as best you can recollect, either in terms of feet or metres or number of office doors --- MS. : Oh, maybe one-two -- five office doors, roughly. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. In terms of the other offices then at 0 Pitt, did any of those other office doors have locks on them? MS. : Not to my knowledge. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Was there any policy that you were aware of in that particular office as to whether doors should be open or closed at any time? MS. LEGER: No, I don t think we had a policy on that. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Was there any policy with respect to whether doors should be locked or unlocked? MS. : I don t think there was a policy there. MR. STAUFFER: And, again, I guess, there wouldn t be any policy if there s only the one door that has a lock but -- so that s your clear recollection --- MS. : Yes.

37 In-Ch(Stauffer) MR. STAUFFER: --- there s only Mr. Barque s door that has a lock. MS. : M'hm. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Did Mr. Seguin s door have a lock at any time? MS. : Not to my knowledge. MR. STAUFFER: And, again, to be fair, this would have been at other locations as well, not just at 0 Pitt, because I m assuming you re at an earlier location when Mr. Seguin starts up in? MS. : Right. MR. STAUFFER: So is there any lock on his door at any location during the time he worked for Corrections? MS. : I wouldn t know. No. MR. STAUFFER: I m sorry? MS. : I wouldn t know. MR. STAUFFER: You wouldn t know? MS. : No. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. There s also information that we have, and I ll refer you to it if necessary, that Mr. Barque had installed, or someone had installed at his request, some soft lighting in his office. Can you tell us about that? MS. : I don t know anything about

38 In-Ch(Stauffer) that. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Again, Madame, I appreciate this is awhile ago, but where I m getting that information from is an interview apparently conducted by the Ontario Provincial Police with respect to yourself back in. And I m just wondering if we can have Madame referred to Document Number. It s a series of police officer s notes and the officer, and I hope I am pronouncing his name correctly, is Zebruck, Z-E-B-R-U-C-K, a detective with the Long Sault Detachment of the OPP, and specifically Mr. Commissioner and counsel I am referring to Bates page -- oh, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Lee. So we re looking at Exhibit, it s December th, and the Bates page is 0 and then the second page following. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So, Mrs. Léger, just to situate you, what Mr. Stauffer is saying is that in do you remember meeting with the police officer, a Mr. Zebruck? MR. STAUFFER: Zebruck. THE COMMISSIONER: Do you remember that? MS. : I ve never been interviewed by a Mr. Zebruck. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Well --- MS. : Not to my recollection. I ve

39 In-Ch(Stauffer) only been interviewed by two other officers but that wasn t one of them. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. MR. STAUFFER: And we will go through that as well, Mr. Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. MR. STAUFFER: But if -- Madame if you could just look at the document --- THE COMMISSIONER: All right. MR. STAUFFER: --- and I ll just -- it s not very long. I ll go through this with you but essentially this -- yes, it s at Bates page 0. THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. So to help you, this is police officer -- Madame Léger, this is a police officer s notebook. All right? So these are notes that he would have taken and --- MS. : M hm. THE COMMISSIONER: --- and Mr. Stauffer s going to go through with them to see if it helps you jog your memory a little bit. All right? MS. : Okay. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. So, Madame, if you see about a third of the way down the notebook page, there is a number 0 which I assume is :0 hours, okay, so it s

40 In-Ch(Stauffer) about :0 in the afternoon on December th, which the officer earlier on in his notes had said it s a Thursday. And he gives your name and he gives an address and the date of birth which you told us earlier, May nd,, a phone number --- THE COMMISSIONER: Do you see that, Mrs. Leger. MS. : Yes I do. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. MR. STAUFFER: And, again, I will try to do this as quickly as possible but just so you know what I m reading and we re all on the same page, the officer has noted that you started working for Probation and Parole in, Nelson Barque started in, Nelson seemed to get too involved with his probationers and so on. And we ll go through some of this in just a minute, but where I d like to take you to with respect to the lighting issue in his office is on the next page. So at Bates page 00. Again, I appreciate that this is not your handwriting, Madame, but the way I read it -- I m about lines down where it says: Nelson had a lock put on his door. And underneath this it says: Installed soft lighting in his office claiming that it was more relaxing to

41 In-Ch(Stauffer) interview clients at night. So do you see that? MS. : What page are we on? MR. STAUFFER: Okay. THE COMMISSIONER: Madame Clerk, could you please help? MR. STAUFFER: I m sorry, I m going to fast for you am I Madame? MS. : No, I m trying to read this writing here. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay? MS. : Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: So this is what the police officer says he would have written down when he was talking to you. All right? So where would you like us to start reading with you? MR. STAUFFER: Madame, do you see where I had read out about the lighting? THE COMMISSIONER: It says: Nelson had a lock put on his door. Do you see that on the --- MS. : Yes, I do. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. So:

42 In-Ch(Stauffer) Nelson had a lock put on his door, installed soft lighting in his office, claiming that it was more relaxing to interview clients at night. So does that help you refresh your memory? MS. : No. The only thing I remember about the lighting is that he had a lamp on his desk. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. MS. : But as far as installing soft lights, no. But I don t remember this interview at all, at all. I don t remember -- recall the name of the officer. MR. STAUFFER: No, and I appreciate that -- - MS. : I don t remember this. MR. STAUFFER: --- but we ll have to go through it because, again, you know, we ve not called the officer. I don t know if we will call the officer, but, you know, the reality is what we have to rely upon, Madame, is what others have written in the past. MS. : Yes. MR. STAUFFER: And we need your assistance as to what you can recollect, and we re trying to refresh your memory with these notes. So just dealing with the lighting in the office of Mr. Barque, what type of overhead lighting, if

43 In-Ch(Stauffer) you can recollect, was in his office? MS. : I don t know. Just general lighting, something like this, I guess. I m not sure. MR. STAUFFER: Like fluorescent bulbs or were there pot lights, or what kind? MS. : No, I think probably fluorescent. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. And you recollect the lamp on his desk. MS. : I remember there was a lamp on his desk. That s all. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Would this have been his own private lamp? MS. : I would think so. MR. STAUFFER: Because he s in a government office, so --- MS. : Yeah. I would think so. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. With respect -- does this help you -- going back to the lock for a moment -- because the way the officer has written it is Nelson had a lock put on his door, and my reading of that, but I want your understanding in a moment, my reading of it is it sounds like he said, Please put a lock on my door, you know, to whoever does the handyman work in the office or he did it himself.

44 0 In-Ch(Stauffer) Does that help you at all as to what happened? MS. : No. MR. STAUFFER: Who did the handyman work in that office where Mr. Barque was working and all the offices? MS. : I don t know. MR. STAUFFER: Who actually would you go to when you wanted to have something done, you know, the blinds or the lighting or whatever in your office? MS. : Well, we had a janitor or someone who cleaned the offices. MR. STAUFFER: Right. MS. : I imagine you would go to him or if you wanted something, perhaps the owner of the building. I m not sure. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. MS. : But the janitor most likely. MR. STAUFFER: But if I were a probation officer there and I wanted to have something done, whatever it might be, my lighting, lock on the door, whatever, to whom would I speak? MS. : Well, first I think you would go to your area manager to see if that was feasible. MR. STAUFFER: Okay.

45 In-Ch(Stauffer) MS. : But after that, I don t know. It s probably the janitor or the owner of the building that s --- MR. STAUFFER: But again -- and maybe I m just basing this on my own experience -- as the receptionist, would you not be the one who would be asked to pass on this message? MS. : Not necessarily. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Did you ever get any kind of requests for some kind of changes to offices? MS. : Not to my recollection, no. It was possible but, you know, it was such a long time ago that I can t --- MR. STAUFFER: Right. MS. : You know, not really. MR. STAUFFER: But again, to be fair here, in that timeframe when Mr. Barque is working for the Ministry, is it yourself and then Louise Quinn who are essentially the two people in the office who are support staff? MS. : Yes. We ve had others as well, other secretaries as well. MR. STAUFFER: Sorry? MS. : There have been other secretaries as well, but basically Mrs. Quinn and myself.

46 In-Ch(Stauffer) MR. STAUFFER: Right. Okay. So again -- and correct me if I m wrong -- I would have thought that you, either as a receptionist or an admin clerk, would deal with this type of issue; that is, something to do with somebody s office. MS. : No, not really. MR. STAUFFER: All right. I do want to go through a bit more of this statement, but before I do that, let me just ask you, in terms of Mr. Barque and his probationers, the ones he was overseeing, did he ever make any requests either to you or others in his office to have a certain type of probationer? MS. : No, not to my knowledge. MR. STAUFFER: And to be more specific, would he have asked for any younger probationers? MS. : No. MR. STAUFFER: Or would he have asked for probationers who had been charged and convicted of sexual offences? MS. : No. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Again, if I can refer you to the note that Constable or Detective Zebruck had written? MS. : M hm. MR. STAUFFER: Now we re going back to the

47 In-Ch(Stauffer) beginning, roughly, of the note. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. STAUFFER: If you look -- I m going to help you out as much as I can -- near the bottom of the first page of notes -- this is at Bates page 0 -- you will see -- are we --- THE COMMISSIONER: No, not yet. MR. STAUFFER: Yes, there we are. THE COMMISSIONER: Just a second. She ll blow it up there. The clerk will come and help you. MR. STAUFFER: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Commissioner, one of my friends has pointed out to me quite accurately that it would appear that these notes are actually January th of. I don t think it really changes anything drastically in Madame s recollection, but does that -- now we are after Christmas, a little bit further after Christmas, and now into the new year of. Does that --- MS. : No. MR. STAUFFER: No? MS. : I just can t remember that person at all. MR. STAUFFER: No. Fair enough. So, Madame, in any event, we re now at that

48 In-Ch(Stauffer) page that I was referring you to. MS. : M hm. MR. STAUFFER: And the officer has written: Liked to have younger clients. Wanted the ones charged with sexual offences. THE COMMISSIONER: Do you see that, Madam? MS. : Yes, I do. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Now, Madame, having read that and thinking over this, did you say that to the constable? MS. : Not to my recollection, no. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Do you have any idea how the constable would have come to write that in the book --- MS. : No, I don t. MR. STAUFFER: --- if you didn t say it to him? MS. : I don t know. MR. STAUFFER: All right. I may as well continue with these notes here. You ll see the next sentence: Some of his probationers would come more often than would be required. So we re going to the bottom of that first page and then up into the second page.

49 In-Ch(Stauffer) Do you see that? MS. : M hm. Yes, I do. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Do you remember saying that to Constable Zebruck? MS. : No. MR. STAUFFER: All right. THE COMMISSIONER: Do you recall ever saying that to anyone? MS. : Not really. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. MS. : Sometimes the probationers just walked off the street without an appointment. You know, that s possible, when they weren t required. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. And just following along, Madame, it says: Nelson would keep his clients in his office after hours, tell staff to lock the door as they left; don t want to be disturbed. So do you see what I ve read there? MS. : That s possible, if he was interviewing someone and we left. We would leave as soon as the last person had reported. So we would go and lock the door behind us. MR. STAUFFER: All right.

50 In-Ch(Stauffer) But, again, in fairness, having looked at these notes now, you may not recollect speaking with the detective. Okay. MS. : No. MR. STAUFFER: But in terms of your own memory now of what was going on during the time Mr. Barque worked in that office, does any of this that I ve read to you ring true? So we ve got the lock on the door as being an established fact as you remember it. MS. : M hm. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. There is an issue about the lighting because you recollect a lamp and nothing other than that in terms of soft lighting. Is that correct? MS. : Yes. MR. STAUFFER: And in terms of the other statements, I think you ve basically already answered this, but I want you to be very clear with us. You have no recollection of Mr. Barque ever requesting younger offenders? MS. : Not really. MR. STAUFFER: And you have no recollection of him requesting offenders who had been convicted of sexual offences? MS. : No.

51 In-Ch(Stauffer) MR. STAUFFER: And in terms of this last thing, that some offenders would come more than -- more often than would be required? MS. : That s possible, yes. MR. STAUFFER: Well, how -- what do you mean by that? Forget about what s written here now. What do you mean by them coming more often? MS. : Well, they would just show up at the office without an appointment, you know, walk off the street and say I want to see Mr. Barque. MR. STAUFFER: All right. Well, again, maybe I m reading something too sinister into this, but it gives me the impression that Mr. Barque is requesting these probationers to come. Am I wrong in that? MS. : I wouldn t know. He would request them to come to the office? MR. STAUFFER: Yes. The impression I have is that he is asking them to come in as compared to them just dropping in unannounced. MS. : Well, I wouldn t know that. MR. STAUFFER: All right. THE COMMISSIONER: What do you remember of Mr. Barque? MS. : What do I remember of Mr.

52 In-Ch(Stauffer) Barque? THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. MS. : Well, not very much because it s such a long time ago. THE COMMISSIONER: Right. MS. : But I remember him as a hard worker. He was a good worker. And he was always to take on extra work. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MS. : And I always thought that he s - - not always, but I thought he spent maybe too much time with his probationers for whatever reason. You know, I don t know. Not very much really. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MS. : I didn t work with him for very long. THE COMMISSIONER: Well --- MS. : I think eight years, but nevertheless, as I say, it s such a long time. THE COMMISSIONER: But he did leave under difficult circumstances. MS. : Yes, yes, he did. It was a shock to me. It was a real shock to me. THE COMMISSIONER: So thinking back that the reason why he left, can you see any patterns or anything

53 In-Ch(Stauffer) that would have shown you --- MS. : Not really, no. MR. STAUFFER: Madam, you are married, are you? MS. : Yes. MR. STAUFFER: And I understand at the time Mr. Barque was married? MS. : Yes. MR. STAUFFER: Okay. Did you and your husband and Mr. Barque and his wife, did the four of you socialize? MS. : Oh, on occasion we went out for dinner but not very often. MR. STAUFFER: All right. Is there any concern we should have because of that relationship you had in terms of what you re telling us now? MS. : No. No. MR. STAUFFER: When Mr. Barque was still in the office I understand you took a call at one point from an individual, a Mr. St. Louis, who was complaining about Mr. Barque. Am I right about that? MS. : That s right. I don t recall who the person was, but there was a complaint that came in to our office.