Karen Derochie

Testimony at the Cornwall Public Inquiry, Friday 14 December 2007

The office environment

Karen Derochie is a legal assistant. From late 1992 or early 1993 to 1997 she worked for now deceased Cornwall lawyer Duncan MacDonald (Duncan).   Duncan’s office was located on Sydney Street – possibly 126 Sydney St. Derochie presently works for Cornwall lawyer Tilton Donihee. 

Bonnie Chisholm was Duncan MacDonald’s assistant. She did estates and wills.  

Heather Alguire did the accounting for Duncan. Her office was located upstairs in the building. (The offices “upstairs” were accessed through the main entry to the building, not via Duncan’s office). 

Bonnie Chisholm usually answered the phone.  If Chisholm wasn’t there, Derochie took the calls. When both Derochie and Chisholm were occupied or absent Alguire answered the phone. 

There was a lawyer by the name of Barry Desrosiers who initially occupied an upstairs office in the building and then shared office space with Duncan and had an office at the back.  At some point Desrosiers became a partner with Duncan MacDonald.  Derochie is uncertain where Desrosiers' office was located at the time of these incidents. Desrosiers eventually bought Duncan’s practice.

 At the time Derochie worked for Duncan MacDonald he was elderly, perhaps in his early 70s, and his practice was comprised mostly of real estate and estates.  It seems that he may have practiced criminal law when he was younger. He was known to be a practicing Roman Catholic. 

Duncan did legal work with Cornwall lawyer and former Crown attorney Malcolm MacDonald (Malcolm).  According to Derochie Malcolm and Duncan lunched together on a regular basis – every Friday or ever other Friday. 

Duncan also did legal work with Cornwall lawyers Jacques Leduc and Sean Adams.  Leduc was also a canon lawyer and did canonical work for the diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall. Derochie does not know if the latter two lawyers socialized with Duncan.  She has no recollection or personal knowledge of Duncan meeting either man for lunch. 

Background

To understand the import of the Derochie testimony it must be situated and put in context of the infamous $32,000 "church" pay-off.

The $32,000 pay-off of David Silmser was executed 02 or 03 September 1993.   

Silmser had gone to the Cornwall Police in December 1992 alleging he had been sexually abused as a boy by local priest Father Charles MacDonald and local probation officer and ex-seminarian Ken Seguin. 

Silmser said he agreed to the settlement because he had been told in the summer of 1993 by police that charges would not be laid against Charlie. According to Ron Leroux’ affidavits and oft repeated statements Malcolm MacDonald assured Ken Seguin and Father Charlie that nothing would come of the allegations:

From March, 1993 to end of August, 1993, I am privy and present during several conversations between Malcolm, Ken Seguin and Father Charles MacDonald. Malcolm advises to Ken Seguin not to worry as he was going to take care of the allegations against him and Father Charles MacDonald. I remember a heated discussion between Malcolm and Ken Seguin on or about May, 1993 in which Malcolm stated that he had the connections to take care of the allegations and that he was the person to do it. He also stated that he was going to talk to the Chief [Claude Shaver] and would settle things. He told Ken to stop being so paranoid about things. 

25. On or about June or July, 1993, Ken Seguin advised me that "Heidi" was in charge of the case and that it wasn’t going to go anywhere.

Leroux also stated in his affidavit and conversations that around late August or early September there was a VIP meeting at Malcolm MacDonald’s cottage on Stanley Island. After the meeting Seguin said the allegations against him were settled and he could get on with his life.

When Leroux took the stand at the inquiry his testimony turned into a muddled mess of recantations, recantations of recantations and Leroux testifying he could no longer recall what had happened.  It was determined that Leroux was unfit to return to be cross-examined.

The monies for the $32,000 pay-off came from the diocese and Father Charles MacDonald.  The three lawyers involved in the deal were (1) Malcolm MacDonald, who represented Father Charlie; (2) Jacques Leduc, who represented the diocese; and (3) Sean Adams, who represented David Silmser. 

Adams was called in because the nature of the deal apparently required that Silmser, who did not have a lawyer during discussion, have legal representation in signing off the deal.  There seems to be some dispute as to whether Silmser contacted Adams on his own or whether Adam's name was proposed to him by Malcolm.

The deal was illegal.  It compelled Silmser to tell police he no longer wished to pursue criminal charges against Charlie.

Malcolm MacDonald was eventually charged with obstruction of justice for his role in the deal.  He was the only one charged.  He received an absolute discharge.

There is dispute as to what happened to the allegations against Ken Seguin.  They were not investigated by police.  At some point Silmser told police he could only handle allegations against one of his "alleged" abusers at a time.  In theory after the settlement police should have started investigating the allegations against Seguin. 

 Some time around or after the $32,000 pay-off was made Seguin was negotiating a $100,000 settlement with Silmser.  On 30 September 1993 Perry Dunlop gave Silmser's victim statement to the Children's Aid Society.  On 25 November 1993 Ken Seguin committed suicide.

The first incident at Duncan MacDonald’s office 

Derochie testified that shortly after she began to work for Duncan she recalls a particular incident at Duncan’s office involving Jacques Leduc and Malcolm.Leduc and Malcolm had apparently had a meeting with Duncan in his office. The meeting was not long.  When it concluded Leduc and Malcolm left and Duncan was visibly upset. He was red in the face, shaking his head and saying something about how things shake a person’s faith:

MS. DEROCHIE: ...after they had left he said to us just kind of to himself I think in the air really, not to anyone in particular, about some things shake your faith in institutions or what you believe in, and we weren’t sure what -- I had no idea what he was referring to, but he -- and he was upset, and we asked if he was okay, and he went in his office.

......

He just -- he was red in the face and upset. You could tell. He shook his head and just his mannerisms.......He may have said something to the effect that as a practicing Catholic it shakes your faith in your institutions that you’ve believed in all your life; something to that effect.

Derochie recalls the incident specifically because it was unusual for Duncan to get upset.Duncan also told the staff (Derochie and/or Bonnie Chisholm) that if Sean Adams called he did not want to take the calls.

MS. DEROCHIE: He had said that – he  referred to Sean Adams, who wasn’t there, but he had said if Sean Adams were to call he didn’t want to take the calls.

Derochie recalls personally taking several calls from Adams commencing that or the following day. She has no recall of the number of call she fielded but in each instance told Adams that Duncan was not available.  She has no idea if Chisholm took any such calls.

 The Second Incident

Some time later Malcolm, Leduc, Sean Adams and another man arrived at the office.   Derochie testified it was not days later and thinks it may have been a couple of weeks. Derochie believes the foursome arrived unannounced.  Duncan MacDonald was not in the office at the time.  The four sat down and waited. The identity of the fourth male is a mystery.  Derochie recalls only that he was an adult male younger than Duncan and Malcolm. 

When Duncan walked into the office area and saw the group he turned around, went back out the door, went to an upstairs office and from there called down and said he didn’t want to the see the men:

MS. DEROCHIE: ... he came in, and he saw them and he turned around, and he went upstairs, and he had -- he phoned down and said he didn’t want to see them.

Derochie told the men Duncan MacDonald was not available.  They departed.

According to Derochie this was unusual behaviour for Duncan MacDonald.  He generally greeted people in the office. She has no recollection of him ever responding in this manner to anyone else.

She does not recall Malcolm and Duncan meeting for Friday lunches after these incidents.

At some point some time downstream business relations between Sean Adams and Duncan resumed. 

(Sean Adams apparently denies ever being at Duncan's office)

 Cross examination 

Gordon Cameron (Adam’s lawyer) had Derochie agree the two incidents may have transpired in the Fall of 1993. 

MR. CAMERON: ... Is it fair to say then that it could have been in September, October or maybe even November of 1993?

Derochie said it could have been.

Cameron also tried to say Derochie had had no prior dealings with Sean Adams and therefore wouldn’t have known what he looked like.  Derochie said she had definitely dealt with Adams during her previous employ with another lawyer.  She knew Adams to see him.

Danielle Robitaille (Leduc’s lawyer) was also keen on timelines and in fact tried to to move the whole scenario right out of 1993. In that she failed. Derochie is uncertain of the month, but she knows it was 1993.

 The phone pads 

Both Chisholm and Derochie logged phone calls in phone log books.  According to Derochie if someone called and didn’t leave a message it was not necessarily logged into the book. 

Derochie’s phone log books have not been found.  Chisholm’s have and relevant pages were entered into evidence. Here is what we know of those entries:

Bonnie Chisholm's Phone Message Book dated January 14th, 1993 to May 11th,1993

A “couple” of logs referencing calls from Sean Adams.

Bonnie Chisholm's Phone Message Book Phone dated 18 May 1993 to 22 September 1993.

09 August1993, 3:15 p.m. call from Sean Adams

10 August 1993 9:30 a.m. call from Sean Adams

10 August 1993 2:30 pm call from Sean Adams

11 August 1993 10:20 am call from Sean Adams 

It seems that according to the log Adams indicated that this sequence of calls were pertaining to real estate transactions. 

Bonnie Chisholm’s Phone Message Book dated 23 September 1993 through 07 March 1994.

Reference to Sean Adams phone calls starting 23 December 1993.

Bonnie Chisholm apparently has no recollection of these incidents involving Adams, Malcolm and Leduc. 

 Reluctant witness 

Derochie was summonsed to testify.  It was obvious that she was not at all happy to be there.  She said she has paid little attention to the inquiry because it doesn’t affect her or her family. She did not want to testify because   

...this doesn’t involve me. This is – you know, I have to work in this community and I work for lawyers here. It’s just – I don’t want my name associated with this at all. This is something that happened years ago and I have no idea what happened at that time or what was going on. So ---

 It is unknown if Derochie is Roman Catholic. The question was not put to her.    Asked what her concern was in working with lawyers Derochie replied:  

My concern is just that it’s a small community and you work with lawyers and, you know, if you’re saying something about another lawyer and, you know, say something happens with my current employment and I’m with a lawyer, I’ll never be able to work for another lawyer because they’ll think, “Oh, she said something about so and so.” It’s just a small town, how that works......I just don’t understand. I don’t understand the whole ------ what this has to do with anything, really.

Under cross-examination by her own lawyer Derochie was asked about commission counsel’s contacts with her:

They told me they just wanted to speak with me and I wouldn’t have to testify, and they just wanted to ask me some questions. And here I sit.

In thanking her for testifying Justice Glaude said:....

 Ms. Derochie, I want to thank you for coming. I know that it’s not pleasant. Sometimes public duty has to be called in and I certainly don’t want you to feel any adverse effect from all of this. And I guess I can tell you that if anyone didn’t want to hire you because of what you came and said here today then I don’t think you should work for him.