Lidia Narozniak is the Crown attorney who took the second Project Truth sex abuse trial of Jacques Leduc. (Leduc “walked”)
Lidia Narozniak received her law degree from the University of Manitoba in 1981. She was called to the Ontario Bar in 1983. Lidia Narozniak has worked as a Crown or assistant Crown in Hamilton and Kitchener Ontario.
Lidia Narozniak testified at the Cornwall Public Inquiry 22 January 2009
26 January 2009: BLOG What is truth?
24 January 2014: BLOG Cheap shot!
23 January 2009: BLOG It works
[Please Note: Note an error in the following article. The judge at Leduc trial #2 was Terrence A. PLATANA, not Plantana. It is not an uncommon error. I have made it myself .]
Prosecutor tells inquiry Dunlop questioning was done fairly
Cornwall Standard Freeholder
24 January 2009
Posted By Trevor Pritchard
Former city police officer Perry Dunlop was not treated unfairly during the 2004 sex abuse trial of lawyer Jacques Leduc, the case’s prosecutor told the Cornwall Public Inquiry Friday.
Lidia Narozniak said she had seen “much more aggressive” questioning of investigating officers during her 26 years as a Crown attorney than what Dunlop endured during his four days of testimony.
“Investigating officers these days are now grilled on the stand for days,” said Narozniak, who completed her second and final day of testimony yesterday.
“I have seen officers grilled about how they investigated, about tunnel vision. Some have even been accused of lying on the stand, of forgery, of fabricating evidence.”
In 2004, Narozniak, then an assistant Crown attorney in the Hamilton area, was assigned to prosecute the case against Leduc.
Leduc was one of 15 men charged with sex crimes during Project Truth, the Ontario Provincial Police’s four-year investigation into allegations a ring of pedophiles had preyed on children in the Cornwall area.
Three years earlier, Leduc’s charges had been stayed after it unexpectedly came out during his trial that the mother of one of his alleged victims – known at the inquiry as C-16 – had spoken twice with Dunlop about her son’s story.
Dunlop, by that time, had become well-known in the community for his off-hours investigations into sexual abuse allegations.
The ruling was successfully appealed, and in 2004, Narozniak called Dunlop as a witness at Leduc’s pre-trial hearing. While she only questioned him for half a day, Dunlop’s cross-examination was considerably longer, and Leduc’s lawyers asked him not only about his conversations with C-16’s mother but also about his other interactions with abuse victims.
Dunlop was also asked about his mental health and whether he had “anti-homosexual” beliefs. In a letter he submitted midway through the hearing to Justice Terence Plantana , Dunlop said he felt like he was being “attacked” by both sides and that he’d been misled to think he was only going to be asked about C-16’s mother.
Commission counsel Karen Jones asked Narozniak why she did not object once during Dunlop’s cross-examination.
“It depends on the circumstances,” said Narozniak. “If there’s nothing to object to, then no, there are no objections.”
Narozniak said before the hearing started, she offered Dunlop the option to review an inch-thick document that contained the testimony he’d given in another Project Truth trial, but he declined.
She also asked if he wanted to arrive in Cornwall from his new home in B.C. a few days before the hearing so he could be well-rested, but Dunlop insisted on arriving the night before.
Narozniak said Dunlop’s behaviour at the trial was unbecoming of an experienced police officer.
“I was truly disappointed that Mr. Dunlop did not show the same kind of courage the victims did,” she said.
But during the trial, Dunlop felt like the Crown had abandoned him, said Coalition for Action attorney Frank Horn.
Horn suggested Narozniak only put Dunlop on the stand so his reputation could be torn apart during cross-examination.
“Mr. Dunlop, as a police officer, should know full well that the Crown is not on anybody’s side but the side of the administration of justice,” said Narozniak.
Dunlop has refused to testify at the inquiry, in part because he no longer trusts the province’s justice system. In 2008 he spent seven months in jail on contempt charges.
After the pre-trial hearing, Leduc’s defence team argued his right to be tried within a reasonable amount of time had been violated, and in October 2004, Plantana stayed all the charges.
Narozniak’s counter-argument had been that the defence essentially had waived their client’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by not making their argument sooner.
One rumour that circulated afterwards was that Narozniak “didn’t put up a fight” at the stay application, said Dallas Lee, an attorney for The Victims Group.
Narozniak said she was worried about losing, but she and her co-counsel put up a “full-court press” in trying to keep the charges from being thrown out.
“If I was resigned (to losing), I wouldn’t have been staying up all night trying to make sure my submissions were the most compelling possible,” she said.
The inquiry is exploring how public institutions, including the province’s justice system, handled allegations of historical sexual abuse.
Hearings resume Monday at 9:30 a.m. with a new witness.
Article ID# 1403743
DO some police really lie on the stand,and produce false evedince. O come on Narozniak,mrs Narozniak your in cornwall not mexico.SO the crown is on knowbodys side ,just the side of justices.Please advise that to all the other crown attorneys and the victims who go throught the courts for justice.WOW/ Is she saying the victims have knowbody when there cases proceed throught the courts.Please advise what happens to the officer who is caught producing false evedince.PLease tell this once more to Mcintosh
Reply | Report | Page Top Post #1 By luckyred,
If I may put forth a bit of personal philosophy. What Dunlop has been praised for is exposing a possible pedophile ring. Kudos to you Perry and well done. To date there is only speculation based on guided questioning by a bunch of lawyers everyone claims are not acting in the best interest of the victims. What this has created are questions as to the credibility of the victims who do not trust the system, and the system that leads a less then reputable investigation. To some Dunlop was a hero. How do Dunlop’s so called heroics differ from the accused? He appears to have run an investigation in the back halls and alleys. Why did he proceed in this manner? Maybe it was a carefully orchestrated to intensify the conspiracy theory or tender witnesses to suit. These procedures are the same procedures used by the accused. Skunking about and abusing children.
Also, if Perry ran his investigation the way it was suppose to be carried out, and how it was suppose to be carried out, he should have no issues with being present at the inquiry. Perry should have attacked the inquiry with conviction based on his expertise, knowledge and evidence. He had enough support with all the self help groups and the accused.
Perry seems to have chosen to follow in the foot steps of his fellow police officers that basically called in sick. The only difference is Perry took the martyr approach. All accomplished the same end, victims were again victimized. However the martyr approach will present Perry as a hero to people in despair, while others will label him as a coward.
Reply | Report | Page Top Post #2 By itinerant,
Any fool can see what the hell is going on at this clown show.Nobody has touched on police investagations and the proper way of doing investagations,are we to belivie this commissioner is an expert on police investagations.Why the hell are these lawyers acting like this is a trial.They had there chance at the proper trial but used a tecnicalaty to get there clients off.This is not and should not be the perry dunlop inquirey.
Reply | Report | Page Top Post #3 By luckyred,
This inquiry was called to investigate institutions and their responses to allegations of child abuse. It was not called to investigate Perry Dunlop. I agree wholeheartedly with you luckyred. Now if some of the all knowing all wise people would just get that fact straight in their head they may be able to see why this all started in the first place.
Reply | Report | Page Top Post #4 By dodger,
Crown Says She Was Disappointed With Dunlop-Inquiry
Local News _ AM 1220
January 23, 2009 — The Crown attorney in a prominent child sex abuse case says she was not pleased with Perry Dunlop. Lidia Narozniak told the Cornwall Public Inquiry today that Dunlop did not show the same courage as the complainants when he was called as a witness in the Jacques Leduc prosecution. It is not clear why Narozniak felt that way. Leduc is a city lawyer who had his charges stayed in 2004 after a judge ruled that matter had taken too long to get to trial. Leduc’s charges were originally stayed in 2001 due to disclosure issues. Narozniak testified she was disappointed with Dunlop’s actions. (Hear audio clip below) Dunlop is the former Cornwall police officer who did an off-hours investigation into child sex abuse allegations. Hearings continue Monday at 9:30.
[Transcript of audio clip: “when you contrast what the victims went through, the days of gruelling cross-examination –…. I was truly disappointed that Mr. Dunlop did not show the same kind of courage the victims did.”]
Crown in ’04 Leduc case testifies
Cornwall Standard Freeholder
23 January 2009
Posted By TREVOR PRITCHARD
The prosecutor in the second sex abuse trial involving city lawyer Jacques Leduc took the stand Thursday evening at the Cornwall Public Inquiry.
Lidia Narozniak testified she felt it “prudent” to go over every single document from the previous 2001 trial, which ended with all the charges against Leduc, a city lawyer, being stayed.
“My goal was to ensure that the trial proceeded without being derailed,” Narozniak told commission counsel Karen Jones.
Leduc was one of 15 men charged during Project Truth, the Ontario Provincial Police’s four-year probe into allegations a clan of pedophiles had once operated in the Cornwall area.
His initial set of charges were stayed in May 2001 after a judge ruled certain documents had not been disclosed to his defence team.
Narozniak was an assistant Crown attorney in Kitchener, Ont., when she was assigned to a three-person panel tasked with reviewing an appeal of the case.
ASKED TO TAKE THE REINS
In 2003, Narozniak was asked by one of her fellow panel members, John Pearson, whether she would consider taking the reins of the prosecution should the appeal be successful.
“I said yes,” Narozniak recalled. “And the rest was waiting to see what the Supreme Court of Canada would do.”
The appeal was approved in 2004, and a new trial was ordered.
However, the charges against Leduc were once more stayed–this time, because the judge ruled his rights to a trial within a reasonable amount of time had been violated.
Narozniak’s testimony continues today