The Honourable Justice / L honorable juge G. Normand Glaude

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 Friday, July 0 Vendredi, le juillet 0 (00) -000

2 ii Appearances/Comparutions Ms. Julie Gauthier Ms. Maya Hamou M e Simon Ruel Ms. Reena Lalji Mr. Neil Kozloff Mr. David Rose Mr. Abel Fok Mr. Peter Chisholm Mr. Peter Wardle Mr. Juda Strawczynski Mr. Dallas Lee Mr. David Sherriff-Scott Mr. Mark Ertel Registrar Commission Counsel Cornwall Community Police Service and Cornwall Police Service Board Ontario Provincial Police Ontario Ministry of Community and Correctional Services and Adult Community Corrections Attorney General for Ontario The Children s Aid Society of the United Counties Citizens for Community Renewal Victims Group Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall and Bishop Eugene LaRocque The Estate of Ken Seguin and Doug Seguin and Father Charles MacDonald M e Danielle Robitaille Mr. Jacques Leduc Mr. Mark Wallace Mr. Ian Paul Father Kevin Maloney Ontario Provincial Police Association Coalition for Action Father Kevin Maloney

3 List of Exhibits : iii Table of Contents / Table des matières Page iv FATHER KEVIN, Sworn/Assermenté Examination in-chief by/interrogatoire en-chef par M e Simon Ruel Cross-Examination by/contre-interrogatoire par Mr. Ian Paul Cross-Examination by/contre-interrogatoire par Mr. Dallas Lee Cross-Examination by/contre-interrogatoire par Mr. Peter Chisholm Cross-Examination by/contre-interrogatoire par Mr. David Rose Cross-Examination by/contre-interrogatoire par Mr. David Sherriff-Scott Re-Examination by/ré-interrogatoire par Mr. Simon Ruel

4 iv LIST OF EXHIBITS/LISTE D EXHIBITS NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO P- (0) CAS Report of Father Kevin Maloney P- (0) Interview Report - Father Kevin Maloney w/ MCC Paul Downing dated Sep 00 P- (0) Memo from Pat Hall to Larry Edgar P- (0) CICB - Ready for a Hearing - (Alleged) offender P- (0) Letter from Brian Saunderson to Michelle Babin dated Aug 00 P-0 (0) Response of Father Kevin Maloney to the Complaint of C dated Aug 00 P- (00) Memorandum from Brian Saunderson 0 to File No. - (Maloney) dated Sep 00 P- (00) Letter from Brian Saunderson to Michelle Babin dated Sep 00 P- (00) CICB - Police Questionnaire dated Nov P- (0) Letter from Michelle Babin to Brian Saunderson dated Oct 00 P- (0) Affidavit of Father Kevin Maloney sworn 0 Mar 0 P- (0) Notice of Application for Judicial Review dated 0 Mar 0 P- (0) Memo fr C- to Bryant Greenbaum P- (0) Letter from Bryant Greenbaum to C- dated 0 Apr 0

5 v LIST OF EXHIBITS/LISTE D EXHIBITS NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO P- (0) Letter from C- to Bryant Greenbaum dated 0 Apr 0 P-0 (0) Letter from Bryant Greenbaum to C- dated May 0 P- (00) Order dated 0 Jun 0 0 P- (00) Letter from Bryant Greenbaum to 0 Pat Hall dated Jun 0

6 In-Ch(Ruel) --- 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: Thank you. Good morning, all. Good morning, sir. How are you doing? FATHER : Very good. Thank you. MR. RUEL: Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. --- FATHER KEVIN, Resumed/Sous le même serment: --- EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY/INTERROGATOIRE EN-CHEF PAR MR. RUEL (cont d/suite): MR. RUEL: Good morning, Father Maloney. FATHER : Good morning. THE COMMISSIONER: Go ahead. MR. RUEL: Father, I d like to come back on a point we discussed yesterday. We talked about Mr. Dunlop s legal document which is called Response to Demand for Particulars which was -- you obtained sometime in, and you ve indicated that you and the other priests named in this document provided this document and others to

7 In-Ch(Ruel) the Children s Aid Society? FATHER : That s correct. MR. RUEL: And you mentioned that one of the documents you provided to the CAS was a response to the allegations that were made by Mr. Dunlop in this legal document? FATHER : That s correct. MR. RUEL: So we couldn t find this document yesterday, but I have it -- I believe I have the document now. It s Document 0. So, Madam Clerk, this is in the crossexamination documents. (SHORT PAUSE/COURTE PAUSE) THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit is a document titled in handwriting, CAS Report of Kevin Maloney. I don t see a date on it, so that s the extent of the identification for Exhibit. --- EXHIBIT NO./PIÈCE NO. P-: (0) CAS Report of Father Kevin Maloney MR. RUEL: Father, do you recognize this document? FATHER : Yes, I do. MR. RUEL: And can you explain what this is? FATHER : After our meeting with Children s Aid, they asked us to make a response, and I sat

8 In-Ch(Ruel) down with my lawyer, Mr. Swabey, and we responded to the accusations that were in there and forwarded it to the Children s Aid Society. MR. RUEL: So did you forward that to the CAS? FATHER : Yes, I did. MR. RUEL: Yourself, personally? FATHER : No, Mr. Swabey did. MR. RUEL: Okay. And there s a note at the bottom here, and I believe it s Ontario Provincial Police, August, Received from Bill Carriere. You know Bill Carriere? FATHER : Yes, I do. He is a worker at the Children s Aid Society. MR. RUEL: So it seems that from this note that the document was given to the OPP by the CAS. Is that your understanding? FATHER : That was my understanding, yes, sir. MR. RUEL: Did you know that this would happen? FATHER : Yes, at our first initial meeting with Mr. Swabey, I was informed that the OPP would be given information that we disclosed. MR. RUEL: Okay. So, Mr. Commissioner,

9 In-Ch(Ruel) unless -- I was moving to another --- THE COMMISSIONER: No, go ahead. I m sorry. MR. RUEL: --- subject. Okay. THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry. Thank you. MR. RUEL: We talked yesterday about the website or the websites that came up in 00. Do you recall that? FATHER : Yes, I do. MR. RUEL: And I just wanted to ask you -- we covered that subject in part, but you indicated that you did not remove yourself from the parish? FATHER : That s correct. MR. RUEL: Did any of your parishioners make comments to you about this situation? FATHER : In what way, sir? You mean negative or positive, or whatever? MR. RUEL: Any comment. FATHER : Yes, there were a few people mentioned that they had seen things on the internet. MR. RUEL: Okay. Did you address your parishioners in any way with respect to this matter? FATHER : Yes, I did. At one point I made a declaration at the end of one of our masses, a whole weekend, and declared to them that I was innocent of the accusations that were on the website.

10 In-Ch(Ruel) MR. RUEL: Okay. THE COMMISSIONER: So there was no groundswell of folks asking you to step down? FATHER : No. THE COMMISSIONER: All right. And there s no groundswell of people on the other side supporting all -- you, I guess? FATHER : I had support from the people. THE COMMISSIONER: There you go. So I guess that s what he was getting at. FATHER : Oh, sorry. Yes, I had support from the people. Thank you. MR. RUEL: First of all, during -- we ve established that during that period you were chaplain at the Cornwall Jail; correct? FATHER : That s correct. MR. RUEL: So the jail is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Correctional Services or was under the jurisdiction of that Ministry? FATHER : Yes. MR. RUEL: That s your understanding? You had a meeting with a correctional investigator? FATHER : Yes, I did.

11 In-Ch(Ruel) MR. RUEL: You recall that? FATHER : Yes, I do. MR. RUEL: I d like to show you a document which is already an exhibit. Mr. Commissioner, if you can just give me a second? THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. (SHORT PAUSE/COURTE PAUSE) MR. RUEL: Madam Clerk, the Document Number is 0, but I know this was filed as a -- I believe this was filed as an exhibit because I think I filed it myself in the context of the evidence of the Ministry of Corrections. (SHORT PAUSE/COURTE PAUSE) MR. RUEL: No? So it s 0. THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit Number is an Interview Report of the Ministry of Correctional Services for Father Kevin Maloney, and the date is September th, EXHIBIT NO./PIÈCE NO. P-: (0) Interview Report - Father Kevin Maloney w/mcc Paul Downing, dated September, 00 MR. RUEL: Father, do you recognize this document?

12 In-Ch(Ruel) FATHER : Yes, I do. MR. RUEL: You ve reviewed it before? FATHER : Yes, I have. MR. RUEL: So this is an interview report prepared by Correctional Investigator Paul Downing? FATHER : Correct. MR. RUEL: And it s dated September th, 00? FATHER : Yes. MR. RUEL: So did the meeting with -- did you meet with Mr. Downing? FATHER : Yes, I did. MR. RUEL: So the meeting was on September th? FATHER : Yes. MR. RUEL: And the -- Mr. Downing met you at the parish, St. Columban s? FATHER : Yes, he did. MR. RUEL: So who -- did Mr. Downing call you for this interview? FATHER : Yes, he did. MR. RUEL: And with respect to your position as chaplain, once the allegation came out on the internet, what did you do? FATHER : The Superintendent had hold

13 In-Ch(Ruel) me that they had had word about it and I resigned -- not resigned, took a leave of absence until the issue would be clarified. ` MR. RUEL: So was that on your -- was that your own initiative or you were asked to step down until the matter --- FATHER : I was not asked; it was on my own initiative. MR. RUEL: So what did Mr. Downing -- what was the purpose of meeting? FATHER : To find clarification on the accusations that were made against me because they had appeared on the web. MR. RUEL: So he asked you -- I m not going to go through that, but he asked you questions about the allegations; you responded? FATHER : That s correct. MR. RUEL: And at the third page of the document -- well, before that, the way it happened, I see here some handwritten notes on the document which seems to be corrections. So did you -- were you given the opportunity to review the document before signing it? FATHER : Yes, I was. MR. RUEL: Yes. And you signed it at the last page?

14 In-Ch(Ruel) FATHER : Yes, I did. MR. RUEL: And at page of the interview, you mention after a question from Mr. Downing asking you if you had any further comments, you say: I have found this whole matter to be very trying and unsettling. It has called my reputation in the community and in the jail in question that s compromised my ability to minister to my parish and at the jail. Can you explain here what s the -- what was the issue in terms of compromising your ability to do your work? FATHER : Part of my work as a priest is to be a person with integrity and if my integrity is being challenged, then every time I face people, whether it was in the pulpit or especially in the jail, my integrity, if it was questioned, my effectiveness was zilch. MR. RUEL: So following this interview here on September, 00, what happened with respect to the -- your position at the jail? FATHER : I didn t hear anything for a long period of time and then I was called by the Superintendent and asked me to come in to deal with a case that he wanted me to deal with. I asked if it was okay to

15 In-Ch(Ruel) come back in to the institution and he said yes. MR. RUEL: So how long after was that? FATHER : I can t be certain at this time. MR. RUEL: Okay. Did you hear from Mr. Downing after this interview? FATHER : No, not to my remembrance. MR. RUEL: Do you have any concern with respect to the way this matter was handled by the Ministry of Corrections and the jail authorities? FATHER : No, not so ever. THE COMMISSIONER: Sir, you stepped down or you withdrew from the jail --- FATHER : Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: --- but you didn t withdraw from your parish? FATHER : That s correct. THE COMMISSIONER: Can you explain why you did one and not the other? FATHER : Yes. Because if you re in a jail situation and if you get labelled as a child molester you are not safe in a jail, sir. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, so it was your safety. MR. RUEL: Now, Father, moving to the

16 In-Ch(Ruel) second-to-last subject, we talked about Father Deslauriers? FATHER : Yes. MR. RUEL: We talked a little bit about Charles MacDonald? FATHER : Yes. MR. RUEL: So -- and the allegations that were made against them. Do you know -- or did you know before this came out publicly any other -- did you know of any other allegation of abuse on the part of priests within the Diocese on young people, allegations of abuse or sexual abuse, had you heard about such allegations before? FATHER : No, sir. MR. RUEL: No allegation, no rumours against anyone? FATHER : Certainly no allegations. THE COMMISSIONER: Well, what about rumours? FATHER : Rumours, they were all over town. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay -- no, no, no, I think then we should be more precise. Get away from the website. FATHER : Okay. THE COMMISSIONER: Get away from any -- from the website, from Mr. Dunlop or anything like that.

17 In-Ch(Ruel) FATHER : Okay. THE COMMISSIONER: So before all of that broke --- FATHER : Yes. THE COMMISSIONER: --- were there any rumours circulating --- FATHER : No. THE COMMISSIONER: --- that you re aware of? FATHER : No. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. MR. RUEL: My last area of questioning is very short, is to ask you to describe, if any, the impact on yourself and on your career that those allegations and all the events that followed had on you and your career? FATHER : As you pointed out in that last document, the allegations had affected my integrity and as a result I found myself under a tremendous amount of anxiety and stress. Sometimes it was difficult to perform my ministry, especially in front of large crowds, not knowing who or what they believed. And I think on the positive side it affected me in that it made me become less independent; I had to become more reliance (sic) on prayer. I had to depend upon the support that I received from family, from friends, and from parishioners. So it had the negative and the

18 In-Ch(Ruel) positive. MR. RUEL: Thank you, Father, those are my questions. FATHER : Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have any recommendations you d like to make at this time? FATHER : No. Because we re looking at an institution, I will deal with the bishop and then perhaps he can make the recommendations for the whole institution. THE COMMISSIONER: Fine. FATHER : Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning, sir. MR. WARDLE: Father Maloney, my name is Peter Wardle and I m here for an organization called Citizens for Community Renewal. We have no questions for you today, sir, but my client wanted you to know that we appreciate that -- all you have been through and we thank you for coming forward. FATHER : Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Paul? MR. PAUL: Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning. --- CROSS-EXAMINATION BY/CONTRE-INTERROGATOIRE PAR MR. PAUL:

19 Cr-Ex(Paul) MR. PAUL: Good morning, Father Maloney, my name is Ian Paul. I appear for a citizen s group by the name of the Coalition for Action. FATHER : Okay. MR. PAUL: And I have a few questions for you. I thought I d start with an area that should be fresh in your mind, an area that you just covered this morning which is the area of the announcement at the church where you denied the allegations at the church. FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: I just have a few questions on that issue. I understand that was towards the end of a church ceremony? FATHER : Yes, it was. MR. PAUL: Just first of all, in terms of the denial, I just wanted to ask you, is it just an indication that it s not true or do you go into any level of the details, explaining? Just for example, I think in that matter -- one of the matters was the issue with respect to whether you were ever at Alfred Training Centre. Was that one of the topics that would have been --- FATHER : It was a general declaration that the statements on the websites were not

20 Cr-Ex(Paul) true. MR. PAUL: All right so --- FATHER : I did not go into details. MR. PAUL: So it wouldn t been any details to say why it wasn t true or anything to that effect? FATHER : No. MR. PAUL: Did it ever go any further than that, for example, any other meetings, church council meetings where the issue was raised in more detail? FATHER : No. MR. PAUL: Or was it left at that? FATHER : It was left at that. MR. PAUL: Now, in terms of the approach of announcing it in public, first of all, was that a decision on your own or did you have to consult with a higher authority, such as the bishop, to deal with that issue in a public way? FATHER : We had a meeting of all those who had been accused on the web and we agreed that we would all make an announcement or a declaration on the same Sunday. MR. PAUL: And was it the -- was it the public nature of it being widespread on the internet that sort of precipitated a decision, oh, we better go public as well?

21 Cr-Ex(Paul) FATHER : Definitely. MR. PAUL: And would you agree that perhaps in a situation where a priest is denying the allegation that the public announcement is probably the best way to proceed or would it depend on the circumstances to you? FATHER : I would believe it would depend on the circumstances. MR. PAUL: I want to go back to another area in relation to some evidence you gave yesterday in relation to receiving transfers of priests from other areas. FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: And I believe in the late 0s you were involved in assisting in preparation of a policy in relation to accepting priests from other areas? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: And would understand that that would have been around that that was approved. Would that be --- FATHER : I believe so, yes, sir. MR. PAUL: And would you agree that perhaps one of the reasons of drafting a policy is it was probably believed at the time that the decision to accept a priest was a significant decision? FATHER : Yes, I would agree. MR. PAUL: In the sense that a priest can

22 Cr-Ex(Paul) play an important or significant role in the community? FATHER : Definitely. MR. PAUL: And also in the sense that the Bishop generally makes a decision on accepting a priest, it wouldn t be the local church or the parishioners? FATHER : No. In our tradition it is a bishop who will give jurisdiction to a priest to work in a diocese. MR. PAUL: So the need for the policy was in part because there s a lot of responsibility on the Diocese and the Bishop? FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: And on that issue, I take it that the final word is up to the Bishop whether he accepts or doesn t accept a priest? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: And for example, if a bishop feels that he doesn t have enough information on a priest on his background then he can simply say no, I don t accept the priest? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: And I would understand that the policy looked at factors such as a reference from some higher authority in the other jurisdiction; that was one requirement?

23 Cr-Ex(Paul) FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: And also it suggested that there be an interview of the incoming priest? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: I just wanted to ask you, is it fair to say that the policy didn t specifically say that the personnel file from that priest would come from the other jurisdiction, that that would be a requirement? FATHER : It didn t say that, no, sir. MR. PAUL: It didn t -- the policy didn t specifically deal with situations where the priest from the other area had some form of allegation of sexual abuse? FATHER : It didn t say specifically. It was implied by the letter of recommendation. MR. PAUL: All right. So basically the main factor would be the recommendation from the other jurisdiction --- FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: --- but it didn t necessarily require documentation or a personnel file to come from that area? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: Or, for example, if a priest from another area had been at a treatment facility such as

24 Cr-Ex(Paul) Southdown the policy didn t require that an assessment report be sent to the new jurisdiction? FATHER : It wasn t in the policy and I don t know what the practice was in Diocese for that. MR. PAUL: So you don t know if there was an informal practice to seek those documents? FATHER : That s right, I don t know. MR. PAUL: Now, as far as an incoming priest, if there was some issue with respect to an allegation of sexual abuse, I understand the policy didn t indicate that the parishioners of the parish in this jurisdiction would receive any information on it? FATHER : It wasn t in the policy at that time. MR. PAUL: And, for example, if there was a credible allegation of sexual abuse in relation to a priest coming from another jurisdiction to this area -- and what I mean by credible, as an example I d suggest a priest who had been convicted of an allegation or who had admitted an allegation of sexual abuse, something beyond just rumour or gossip but something credible in that nature -- the policy didn t require that type of information to be told to parishioners in this area; correct? FATHER : That was not part of the policy.

25 Cr-Ex(Paul) MR. PAUL: Do you know if that s still the situation today, if an incoming priest or there is such an issue like that, are the parishioners told today? To your knowledge, is the policy any different? FATHER : I believe the policy is different now from they are trying to apply From Pain to Hope, which was a document put out by the CCCB, Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops. MR. PAUL: Would parishioners be advised today in those circumstances or given any information on the incoming priest? FATHER : I am not aware. To my knowledge it s not happened in my experience so I don t know. MR. PAUL: So that would be an issue perhaps the Bishop would --- FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: That s their position? FATHER : Yes, thank you. MR. PAUL: I have a few questions in relation to Father Deslauriers. Now, I believe there was some documentation shown in relation to, I believe, Senate meetings where the topic of Father Deslauriers may have come up? FATHER : That s correct.

26 Cr-Ex(Paul) MR. PAUL: And you were part of the meetings, the Senate meetings? FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: Now, in terms of the Deslauriers case, you re aware that ultimately there was a conviction in criminal court? FATHER : Yes, I am aware of that. MR. PAUL: And to your knowledge, as the Deslauriers case proceeded was it always -- prior to there being a conviction in criminal court, it was never your impression that the allegations were totally false against Father Deslauriers? FATHER : It was never discussed at any meeting that I was at. MR. PAUL: The strength of the allegations was never discussed? FATHER : That s right. MR. PAUL: Now, would you agree that when an allegation in the nature of, for -- as an example the Deslauriers case, an allegation is being brought forward that perhaps there is -- would you agree there is some obligation on the Diocese to look carefully at balancing the interests of the priest and also the alleged victim who may be a parishioner? There s some --- FATHER : Most definitely.

27 Cr-Ex(Paul) MR. PAUL: So it s a difficult situation because the Diocese won t necessarily want to either abandon the priest or abandon an alleged victim who may be a parishioner? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: Now, I was going to ask you about a document, I believe it s Exhibit. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. What tab, sir? MR. PAUL: I have it as page, Exhibit, and it s 00. Tab I m told. THE COMMISSIONER: Tab. MR. PAUL: I believe it s page. It may be the last page possibly. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. PAUL: Now, the top of page -- do you have the top of page? FATHER : Yes, I do. MR. PAUL: And I think you were asked about this. Am I correct in recalling that when you were asked about this you didn t have a very good recollection of the discussion about the law of privilege? FATHER : No, I knew -- we knew about the law of privilege. I believe the question was asked if I recollected what the conversation was around this and I don t know what the conversation was around that particular

28 Cr-Ex(Paul) thing. One of the disadvantages, the minutes are not clear on what the conversation was, but about the law of privilege I think I m aware of that. MR. PAUL: But do you recall a topic of privilege being discussed in context of Father Deslauriers? FATHER : I do not recall that. MR. PAUL: Do you recall Father Deslauriers case being discussed at the Senate meeting? FATHER : His particular case would not have been discussed because that would have been a personnel matter, but the fallout of his case may have been discussed. MR. PAUL: Okay. Page seems to have a topic L affaire du Père Deslauriers. FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: I mean, is that an error, in that Father Deslauriers wasn t discussed as a topic, because it seems to imply that that s a topic heading? FATHER : It would have been the fallout from that case not the actual details of what went on with that case. MR. PAUL: And you don t recall the issue of privilege at all being discussed? FATHER : We did discuss where privilege lay and one of the things that I remember -- now,

29 Cr-Ex(Paul) that s the problem. Do I remember it from that meeting or other meetings, but we did discuss the question of privilege. MR. PAUL: But was there some discussion suggesting that there was a hesitancy to hold meetings because of the -- somehow the law of privilege might result in the information going to the authorities to the detriment of Father Deslauriers? Is that --- FATHER : No. No, it wasn t to do with that at all, as far as I remember. MR. PAUL: Was there some hesitancy to discuss the topic of Father Deslauriers because of the law of privilege? FATHER : No. MR. PAUL: And can you assist in why the topic of privilege was discussed at all? FATHER : It was to see where our obligations were to report incidents. MR. PAUL: Can you assist in why the minutes would say: According to the Canadian law, we have no privilege. Why that would have been discussed at the meeting? FATHER : It would be along the line

30 Cr-Ex(Paul) of a league -- a lawyer has a client -- you know, call it patients/clients, whatever, privilege, we do not enjoy that. So if someone comes to us and admits that they have something, we have an obligation to report. MR. PAUL: All right. So it s in context of information coming and it being a duty to report? FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: Was that topic of privilege discussed in the context of confessions or was it not in the context of confessions? FATHER : Not in the context of confession. MR. PAUL: So the comment about privilege was not applicable to confessions. Were you still of the view that if a priest gave some admission with respect to sexual misconduct in a confession that there was not a duty to report? FATHER : That wasn t discussed to my knowledge. MR. PAUL: Do you have a view in relation to -- or are there instructions given within the Diocese in relation to whether there s a duty to report if the revelation of sexual abuse comes in the context of a confession? FATHER : It s not a diocesan policy.

31 Cr-Ex(Paul) It is a church policy universal. What happens in confession stays in confession. MR. PAUL: So had there been comments admitting sexual abuse from the context of confession, your position would be there would not be a duty to report? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: I want to go back to another area. The John MacDonald -- you testified in relation to John MacDonald; he is the individual that sent you the letter? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: And I wanted to ask you some questions about Exhibit which is Document. This wouldn t be a document prepared by you, obviously, but it s one you were shown yesterday. It s a police occurrence report about the telephone calls involving Mr. Silmser and Mr. MacDonald? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: Now, I understand from your evidence yesterday that Mr. MacDonald s contact by phone was only phone messages; correct? FATHER : Yes, though Canpage. MR. PAUL: But you indicated that Mr. Silmser -- there was an actual person-to-person

32 Cr-Ex(Paul) communication between him and you? FATHER : Yes, there was. MR. PAUL: And I believe on the occurrence report it seems to indicate: Father Maloney, in the presence of his lawyer, Sean Adams, advised writer that he has received two phones calls through his answering service from a David Silmser as well as one from John MacDonald. It didn t -- the occurrence report doesn t seem to suggest that they were actual person-to-person calls, it seems to suggest they were all calls on an answering service? FATHER : There was one person-toperson call. MR. PAUL: And are there any answer -- are there any messages left by Mr. Silmser? FATHER : I can t remember right now, sir. MR. PAUL: Is it your recollection that Mr. Silmser s contact is only an actual phone call where he talks to you? FATHER : No. It is not my recollection. I don t know whether there was others.

33 Cr-Ex(Paul) MR. PAUL: Well, the only actual messages you remember are messages from John MacDonald? FATHER : John and David Silmser. According to here, there were calls from both. MR. PAUL: Messages? FATHER : Messages. MR. PAUL: All right. FATHER : But I only remember talking to David Silmser. MR. PAUL: Okay. Now, what was the length of the phone call of Mr. Silmser? FATHER : Maybe four-to-five minutes. MR. PAUL: Okay. And the topic, is it Mr. MacDonald s situation? Is that why he s calling? Or is it something unrelated? FATHER : It was the whole allegations. MR. PAUL: Does Mr. MacDonald come up in the phone call or do you remember? FATHER : I do not remember. MR. PAUL: So it s possible -- I mean, it s possible then that Mr. MacDonald is even discussed by Mr. Silmser? Is that --- FATHER : I don t remember what was discussed at that particular time, sir.

34 Cr-Ex(Paul) MR. PAUL: All right. Now, Mr. MacDonald initially sends a letter to you; correct? FATHER : Yes, he did. MR. PAUL: And you didn t take any objection or you don t feel threatened by that letter? FATHER : No. MR. PAUL: And do you feel the letter is appropriate in the sense that you do respond to it with your own letter? FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: Is that -- so you don t have any objection that you d want to take to the police in relation to the letter? There s nothing that you object to in relation to the letter? FATHER : No. MR. PAUL: When you write back -- sorry, just one other question. Mr. MacDonald is someone you never met or knew before that? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: And as far as Mr. MacDonald s familiarity with diocese policies, you had no idea whether he was familiar with the policies or not? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: Then you had to assume that he

35 0 Cr-Ex(Paul) wasn t and for that reason you sent him a copy of the policy? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: Now, you do reply by correspondence to him; correct? FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: I believe that s Exhibit, if I could show the witness that? THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. PAUL: Page -- I believe it s page. FATHER : What tab am I looking at, sir? THE COMMISSIONER: Two-zero-three (). FATHER : Sorry. THE COMMISSIONER: No, that s fine. It s on the screen. It s your letter of --- FATHER : Oh. THE COMMISSIONER: --- to return --- FATHER : Okay. MR. PAUL: Now, you indicate in the correspondence you d be forwarding it to the authorities? FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: And I believe -- is there another part towards the end of that -- towards the bottom of the

36 Cr-Ex(Paul) page? Okay. Now, with this, you attach a copy of the policy; correct? FATHER : That s correct. MR. PAUL: Now, you don t make any specific reference to who Mr. MacDonald might contact if he wants any kind of help or assistance in the Diocese? FATHER : No. MR. PAUL: Are you --- FATHER : Only what I said in the letter, sir. MR. PAUL: Okay. Are you assuming that he ll find that in the policy if he wants to do that? FATHER : It is there in the policy. It s number five in the policy. MR. PAUL: Okay. Perhaps if we could go to the next page; I believe that s the policy? And you re talking about phase five, offering of help? FATHER : Yes, sir. MR. PAUL: Offering to help? FATHER : Yes, sir. MR. PAUL: And it indicates that depending on the circumstances, help and support is offered to the alleged victim and his family taking into consideration the guidelines given by the Children s Aid Society and by the

37 Cr-Ex(Paul) police? FATHER : Yes, sir. MR. PAUL: Now, while phase four above refers to the Bishop, phase five doesn t necessarily make it clear who s responsible for the offering to help? FATHER : It is a document by the Diocese so that the person would then, I would presume, look into the Diocese to find that information. MR. PAUL: Is the person responsible for providing help is, in fact, the Bishop? FATHER : No. That s was the situation that we did not want -- when this policy was developed, we did not want the Bishop to be the determining factor, that it should go through the appropriate investigation forms. MR. PAUL: Okay. So Mr. MacDonald was to contact somebody. Who would be the correct person for him to contact about getting help? FATHER : Getting help? If he applied for the help, then if -- as long as it wasn t deemed as interference with investigations then the help would be provided. MR. PAUL: And that would -- and his point of contact would be who? If he was -- the first person he would contact in the Diocese?

38 Cr-Ex(Paul) FATHER : I really don t know. It s not clearly stipulated in the policy. MR. PAUL: All right. So you read it, the combination of your letter and the policy, might still leave some confusion to somebody like Mr. MacDonald about who he might want to contact? FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: And when you received phone messages from Mr. MacDonald, it was just a phone number, no indication of what the message was? FATHER : Just the phone messages through Canpage. MR. PAUL: So it would be --- FATHER : So there would be no text messages if that s what the term is. There wouldn t be any of that. It would be just John -- Mr. John MacDonald or John MacDonald and the phone number. MR. PAUL: Did you consider before calling the police that perhaps Mr. MacDonald might be trying to contact you to get clarification on where to go? FATHER : No, I did not consider that. MR. PAUL: At this point, the post office had given you a copy of the last page of his letter? THE COMMISSIONER: No.

39 Cr-Ex(Paul) FATHER : First page. MR. PAUL: Sorry, the first page. That was the one that was left in the photocopier? FATHER : That's correct. THE COMMISSIONER: And so it was an original, for what it's worth, not a copy? FATHER : Yes, sir. MR. PAUL: And did Mr. MacDonald ever seek that back from you? FATHER : No. MR. PAUL: And you never tried to contact him to give that back to him? FATHER : No. MR. PAUL: It didn't cross your mind that he might be trying to call you to get that back? FATHER : No. MR. PAUL: Do you think, under the circumstances, the phone message -- do you agree that the letter from Mr. MacDonald wasn't threatening to you? FATHER : It certainly wasn't threatening to me, no. MR. PAUL: And there was nothing about the phone messages -- certainly, there was no actual message other than the name and the phone number, so there was nothing threatening in that?

40 Cr-Ex(Paul) FATHER : That's correct. MR. PAUL: Did you not consider that it might have been appropriate either for you to call back or Sean Adams to call back and just find out what Mr. MacDonald wanted? FATHER : I remember that I did not want to appear to be interfering with the investigation and, therefore, that's why I sought advice whether I should call back. THE COMMISSIONER: And that advice you sought was from Sean Adams? FATHER : That's correct. MR. PAUL: You weren't influenced in any way somehow by being hostile towards Mr. MacDonald because of police said he was connected to Mr. Silmser? FATHER : No. MR. PAUL: I want to ask you a couple of questions in relation to your interaction with the authorities and I understand that you turned over, for example, the Children's Aid -- that you turned over website information as an example? FATHER : Not website, I turned over the disclosure from Perry Dunlop's lawsuit and the documents that were connected to that. MR. PAUL: The civil litigation claim?

41 Cr-Ex(Paul) FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: Right. In relation to the Children's Aid Society, did they ever ask you if you were prepared to give over your personnel file? FATHER : My own personnel file? MR. PAUL: Yes. FATHER : No. MR. PAUL: That wasn't asked by the Children's Aid? FATHER : It wasn't asked to me. MR. PAUL: Okay. Was it ever asked by the OPP; did they ever ask you to turn over your personnel file? FATHER : I don't have a personnel file. The Diocese has a personnel file on me. I'm an employee of the Diocese. MR. PAUL: What I'm asking is were you ever asked by authorities such as OPP or Children's Aid whether you'd consent to the Diocese turning over your personnel file? FATHER : No, I was not; not to my recollection. MR. PAUL: Okay. And you were never asked by the Bishop anything in relation to that? MR. SHERRIFF-SCOTT: Mr. Commissioner, maybe

42 Cr-Ex(Paul) he should be asked if he knows because there's a whole record of inter-relations between the OPP and the Diocese in disclosure of all this kind of things. If the witness may be just asked if he knows about those interactions so we can -- there are going to be OPP witnesses. There will be Diocese witnesses. They'll all talk about this and that might be of assistance. MR. PAUL: Are you, yourself, aware whether any information of your personnel file was turned over or whether it was requested? FATHER : Yes, it was. MR. PAUL: Okay. It was requested by whom? FATHER : It was requested, I know, by the OPP. MR. PAUL: Okay. And at what stage was that? FATHER : I don't know. MR. PAUL: And that would have been a request to the Diocese? FATHER : Yes, it was. MR. PAUL: Now, you were asked by Commission counsel a number of points about your OPP interview and questions that were asked in the OPP interview. And I think you were asked about -- by the OPP about any association with Ken Seguin?

43 Cr-Ex(Paul) FATHER : That's correct. MR. PAUL: And with respect to Ken Seguin, did the OPP -- did you indicate to the OPP that there was some family connection with Ken Seguin? FATHER : There is an interfamily connection, yes. MR. PAUL: And what is that connection? FATHER : Okay. My sister's husband is -- his sister is married to Ken Seguin's brother. MR. PAUL: Right. FATHER : And in St. Andrews, that means we're kissing cousins. There is actually no relationship. MR. PAUL: Yes. FATHER : But there is an interfamily connection. MR. PAUL: Yes, and you were also asked whether there was any connection in the Church, and I think you indicated that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus? FATHER : That's correct. MR. PAUL: And that was -- is that at your parish or another parish? FATHER : No. Council. It's -- at that time, it was a citywide council.

44 Cr-Ex(Paul) MR. PAUL: All right. And you knew him through that? FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: But you indicated to the OPP that you denied attendance at his residence in Summerstown? FATHER : That's correct. MR. PAUL: You were also asked, I believe, by the OPP in relation to Malcolm MacDonald, and I think again you indicated that -- your position was that you denied attending at his residence or cottage? FATHER : Never was near his cottage. MR. PAUL: But he was someone, you indicated, who was known to you all your life? FATHER : That's correct. MR. PAUL: And he was prominent in your church; was he? FATHER : Yes, he was. MR. PAUL: Now, Charles MacDonald, would the two of you at some point share the same parish? FATHER : Yes, we did. MR. PAUL: And what period would that be? FATHER : That would be '-, about ' or '. MR. PAUL: And were you also at some point both responsible for English youth at one point?

45 0 Cr-Ex(Paul) FATHER : Yes, we were. MR. PAUL: And what period of time was that? FATHER : I would have to look at my Curriculum Vitae, but it would be in the late '0s or early '0s, I would believe. MR. PAUL: I want to ask you a couple of points about your contact with Paul Downing involvement at the jail. Now, Paul Downing, when he interviewed you, did he discuss anything other than the allegations at the jail; did he question you about some unrelated incident involving a guard and an inmate? FATHER : Yes, he did. MR. PAUL: And what was the purpose of that coming up? Why would that come up? FATHER : Probably because he was in town and he was killing two birds with one stone. MR. PAUL: And was that a formal investigation, the discussion about the other guard? FATHER : He just asked me to make a statement about it. If that's formal, yes. MR. PAUL: Okay. The reason I'm asking that, I believe in the materials, at one point, there's a suggestion that a guard overheard C- at the jail speaking ---

46 Cr-Ex(Paul) THE COMMISSIONER: Excuse me. Excuse me. MR. PAUL: Oh, sorry. THE COMMISSIONER: We should look at the monikers. MR. SHERRIFF-SCOTT: (off mic) You may not want to now articulate the moniker since --- THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, you're right. For the record, could the record just delete the name and put in the moniker, which we will not name right now but integrate it later I guess. So let's continue on the questioning; the guard and an inmate. FATHER : Yes. MR. PAUL: There was a guard who indicated they overheard an inmate talking about your case? FATHER : That wasn't the -- with the Downing interview. The Downing interview was another subject completely. MR. PAUL: All right. I just want to ask you; the guard who overheard the inmate, is that the same guard that Mr. Downing was talking about? FATHER : No, it wasn't. MR. PAUL: It was totally unrelated? FATHER : That's right. MR. PAUL: Thank you.

47 Cr-Ex(Paul) Those are my questions, Mr. Commissioner. THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much. MR. PAUL: Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Lee? While we are waiting for Mr. Lee, now that we know that you are closely related to Mr. Seguin. So now the serious question though; in family circle -- were you ever in family reunions where he would be there as well? FATHER : No. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Through the family, had you ever heard of anything about Mr. Seguin's sexual activities? FATHER : No. THE COMMISSIONER: No rumours in the family at all about anything suspicious or anything like that about his sexual activities? FATHER : None whatsoever. THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr. Lee. --- CROSS-EXAMINATION BY/CONTRE-INTERROGATOIRE PAR MR. LEE: MR. LEE: Father Maloney, my name is Dallas Lee. I m counsel for the Victims Group. I have a few different areas that I want to touch on with you. I don t expect to be terribly lengthy. If we can start, please, with Exhibit?

48 Cr-Ex(Lee) THE COMMISSIONER: One-eight-five-eight ()? MR. LEE: Yes. These are minutes of a Senate meeting. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. Okay. MR. LEE: Do you have that, sir? FATHER : Yes, I do. MR. LEE: You were asked about this document in-chief by Mr. Ruel, and if you turn to the fourth page briefly, you ll see that we find the criteria for accepting ordained priests to the Diocese. FATHER : Yes. MR. LEE: And you told us that these were the criteria that you drafted, but that you were not specifically involved in the process whereby they were adopted and accepted. Is that correct? FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: And one of the questions Mr. Ruel asked you was whether or not there had been any changes from your draft to this version here which was ultimately adopted, and you told us you didn t know. FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: Can I get you to turn back a couple of pages to the second page of the document, please? And if you look at the second paragraph, it reads:

49 Cr-Ex(Lee) Moved by Kelvin Maloney and seconded by Bernard Guindon that the criteria for accepting ordained priests to the Diocese be accepted as long as the words candidates and be omitted. Do you see that? FATHER : Are you dealing with Number, sir? MR. LEE: Number ; I m sorry. FATHER : Sorry. Okay. MR. LEE: Number, the second paragraph on the page that begins Moved by Kelvin Maloney. FATHER : Okay. MR. LEE: If you can read that to yourself? FATHER : Okay. MR. LEE: And you see beside that is the word carried with an underline. Is that correct? FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: And if you turn back a couple of pages to the criteria -- the criteria document, the title of it is The Criteria for Accepting Ordained Priests to the Diocese. Can I take from what we read on the last page that originally in your draft it may have been Criteria for Accepting Candidates and Ordained Priests to

50 Cr-Ex(Lee) the Diocese? FATHER : I m not sure. I --- MR. LEE: Do you recall in your draft whether or not -- as I understand it, as it s drafted now, this relates to essentially lateral transfers, established priests coming from elsewhere? FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: As opposed to candidates which would be new priests entering the Diocese for the first time? FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: Do you recall whether or not your initial criteria would have dealt with both of those categories? FATHER : I can t recall. MR. LEE: Leaving that question aside, do you know whether or not there is a separate document dealing with new candidates? FATHER : No, I do not know. MR. LEE: It was nothing you drafted anyways? FATHER : No. MR. LEE: And nothing you were involved with at any point? FATHER : No.

51 Cr-Ex(Lee) MR. LEE: Can I have you take a look, please, at Exhibit? It should probably be in that same binder. THE COMMISSIONER: It should be just a few tabs past there. FATHER : Oh, sorry. THE COMMISSIONER: One-eight-six-one (), yes. FATHER : Yes. Thank you. THE COMMISSIONER: M hm. MR. LEE: Do you have that, sir? FATHER : Yes, I do. MR. LEE: And this is your document dated May th, written to Richard Abell. Is that correct? FATHER : Yes. MR. LEE: And you ve set out there the various documents that you sent, and I m concerned with number, being the statement of Gerald Wesley Renshaw, dated at the end, December 0,. Do you see that? FATHER : Yes. MR. LEE: And one of the things that you told Mr. Ruel in-chief yesterday in the context of these documents is that you had turned over a number of them to the CAS and that they all made allegations of a sexual nature against you.

52 Cr-Ex(Lee) Do you recall that evidence? FATHER : That I said they all --- MR. LEE: Yes. FATHER : --- made -- they weren t all about me. MR. LEE: Let me take you to the transcript reference. If we can look at Volume, please, Madam Clerk? That s yesterday s transcript. THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Go ahead. FATHER : So what am I looking at, sir? MR. LEE: Page, please, towards the back. FATHER : One-zero-five (). Okay. MR. LEE: And the context here, Mr. Ruel is asking you about the documents that you sent to the CAS as reflected in this statement, and if you begin reading at line, and if you can read down to line -- through to line just to yourself, please? FATHER : So you re asking me to read from line down? MR. LEE: Yes. FATHER : Okay. MR. LEE: Please. (SHORT PAUSE/COURTE PAUSE)

53 Cr-Ex(Lee) FATHER : Okay. MR. LEE: You have that, sir? FATHER : Yeah. MR. LEE: And so the section that I m referring to is beginning at line where Mr. Ruel asks: In a statement from a person named Gerry Renshaw -- Gerald Renshaw? You agree: That s correct. Mr. Ruel follows up with: All making allegations against you -- - FATHER : Yes. MR. RUEL: --- of a sexual nature? FATHER : Yes. MR. LEE: And I just want to clarify the record. If we can look very briefly at Exhibit, which is the statement referred to by Gerald Renshaw? I don t think you ll have that one in any of your binders. FATHER : Okay. MR. LEE: We ll bring it to you. (SHORT PAUSE/COURTE PAUSE) MR. LEE: Are you there, sir? FATHER : Yes, I am. Thank you. MR. LEE: And I will give you as much time

54 Cr-Ex(Lee) as you would like to read this document, if you choose, but if I can call your attention to page at the very top? We see a reference to you? FATHER : Yes, I do. MR. LEE: I observed Kevin Maloney, a Catholic priest, at Ken Seguin s home at least twice. And if you turn over to page, please, halfway down the page we have a list of names that is titled: I recognize and identify the following people from pictures that Perry Dunlop showed me. And you re one of the people listed there. Is that correct? FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: And I would suggest to you that there are -- the other -- and you have a second reference to a different picture at the very top of page. FATHER : Okay. MR. LEE: It appears that there were two pictures of you. FATHER : Okay. MR. LEE: And you re welcome to review it if you want, but I would suggest to you those are the only

55 0 Cr-Ex(Lee) references to you in this document and that nowhere in this document is it suggested by Mr. Renshaw that you were involved in sexual activities? FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: And you agree with that? FATHER : Yes, sir. MR. LEE: Thank you. Very briefly, turning back to the issue with your leave of absence from the Cornwall Jail as compared to remaining in ministry with the Diocese, one of the things you told us in the context of the policy and some of the rationale behind going to the police and going to the CAS with allegations is that you, meaning, I presume, the Diocese as a whole, didn t want the Bishop to be the determining factor? FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: I have the gist of that right? FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: So in other words, let s take the discretion out of it, put this into the hands of the police and the CAS and remove any doubt from being cast on ourselves. Is that correct? FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: But as I understand it, that doesn t apply to the decision of whether or not the Bishop

56 Cr-Ex(Lee) will remove a priest from ministry or from active duties when an allegation is received. Is that correct? That remains in the Bishop s discretion? FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: When an allegation is received, he decides what s going to be done with the priest? FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: And in certain cases, for example, with Gilles Deslauriers, he s removed from ministry? FATHER : He was what? MR. LEE: Removed from ministry? FATHER : He was. MR. LEE: And in other cases, in your example, for example, you were left in ministry? FATHER : That s correct. MR. LEE: Do you have any concerns with that discretion being vested in the Bishop? FATHER : No, because I think that as long as the police or CAS are doing the investigation, they would then inform the Bishop whether they believe that there were grounds at which this person should be removed. MR. LEE: Have you ever been party to any discussion within the Diocese, whether with the Bishop or as part of a committee, where the benefits of a bettersafe-than-sorry approach in terms of leaving accused