[Appendix B to complaint filed with the Canadian Judicial Council regarding Justices James Chadwick and Colin McKinnon and the Jacques Leduc sex abuse trial]
Appendix B to
MacEachern letter of 09 April 2001
Justice James Chadwick
1. Justice James Chadwick presided at the motion for stay.
Justice Chadwick was called in to the Leduc trial 21 February 2001 after the sitting judge, Justice Colin McKinnon, was forced to recuse himself from a motion to stay proceedings. The trial had commenced 15 January 2002. In other words, several weeks of testimony had transpired before Justice Chadwick took the bench. Consequently, Justice Chadwick was deprived of critical information and knowledge with which to situate the conduct, demeanor and testimony of the witnesses against the serious allegations of non-disclosure put forth by defence.
I respectfully submit that, due to his absence from the courtroom for the weeks of prior testimony, Justice Chadwick was incapable of situating the allegation of non-disclosure within the context of the surrounding testimony. Therefore, I respectfully submit that Justice Chadwick, or any judge for that matter, was incapable of rendering a just decision regarding the import of a brief and benign witness contact with former Constable Dunlop. Justice McKinnon should have done the honourable thing and, for the sake of justice, called a mistrial. Justice Chadwick should not have presided at the motion for stay.
2. Justice Chadwick refused to wait to have a key witness properly subpoened.
In filing for the application to stay, defence alleged deliberate non-disclosure of a witness contact with former Constable Perry Dunlop.
Justice Chadwick took the bench at the Leduc trial 21 February 2001. At that time, he stated that, aside from what he had heard on CBC radio that morning, he knew very little about the case.
Former Constable Dunlop was obviously a key witness for the motion. Despite his stated lack of familiarity with the circumstances surrounding the motion, and the issue of former Constable Dunlop as related to that motion, Justice Chadwick curtly declined the Crown’s offer to assist defence to properly subpoena Perry Dunlop as a witness. Justice Chadwick stated that that would take over a week. Justice Chadwick’s response implied that either he or the trial could not spare those additional days. Consequently, Mr. Dunlop was not present to defend the attack on his conduct and person which transpired throughout the motion to stay. Nor was Mr. Dunlop present to counter the hearsay, speculation and improbable theories put forth by the defence.
I respectfully submit that, given Justice Chadwick’s self-stated lack of familiarity with the trial, his impatience to proceed portrayed a remarkable indifference to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that, had Mr. Dunlop been properly subpoenaed, the facts regarding his notes and conduct would have been ascertained and the motion to stay would have been deemed groundless and frivolous and therefore denied. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that because Justice Chadwick refused to allot the necessary time required to properly subpoena Perry Dunlop, a suspected paedophile has been set “free.”
3. Justice Chadwick willfully relied on hearsay and speculation to reach his verdict.
a. Hearsay: The motion to stay focused on the conduct and person of former Constable Perry Dunlop, his notes and his willsay. As stated above, Justice Chadwick refused to have Perry Dunlop properly subpoenaed to take the stand. Consequently Mr. Dunlop did not appear as a key witness.
In his reasons for granting the application for stay, Justice Chadwick made reference to the following points:
• Former Constable Dunlop counselled a victim in another trial to change his evidence;
• The testimony of Project Truth officers regarding their contacts with Mr. Dunlop; and
• The testimony of a victim’s mother regarding her brief contact with former Constable Dunlop.
I respectfully submit that the testimony referenced above, and countless other allegations put forth by defence, were hearsay. I respectfully submit that Justice Chadwick relied on hearsay because he was unwilling to take the necessary time required to properly subpoena Mr. Dunlop. Therefore, I respectfully submit that Justice Chadwick willfully relied on hearsay to grant the application for stay.
b. Speculation: In his reasons for granting the application for stay, Justice Chadwick made specific reference to the following:
• Suspicion regarding the notes of former Constable Dunlop (“When one looks at the notes of Perry Dunlop, one becomes suspicious as to when entries were actually made and whether they are complete.”);
• Speculation that former Constable Dunlop contacted the Leduc victims ( “It would be logical to conclude that Dunlop would have pursed the complainants in the Leduc case.”);
• Speculation that the victims and other witnesses colluded with each other (“defence suggest collusion amongst the witnesses in the Leduc case”); and
• Speculation that the victims and witness colluded with former Constable Dunlop (“defence suggest collusion amongst the witnesses in the Leduc case both with each other and with outside interests.”).
I respectfully submit that all of the testimony referenced above was groundless speculation. I respectfully submit that Justice Chadwick relied on groundless speculation because he was unwilling to take the necessary time required to properly subpoena Mr. Dunlop.
Therefore, I respectfully submit that Justice Chadwick willfully relied on groundless speculation to grant the application for stay.
4. Justice Chadwick made efforts to exonerate his fellow judge, Justice Colin McKinnon.
Justice Colin McKinnon was forced to recuse himself from the motion for stay after he was publicly confronted — for a second time — with his serious conflict of interest. Until he was forced to address that conflict, Justice McKinnon attempted to feign ignorance of the conduct and person of former Constable Perry Dunlop.
On 21 February 2001 Justice McKinnon announced that Justice Chadwick would preside at the motion to stay. Justice McKinnon also verbalized his intent to return to the trial if the motion for stay was unsuccessful.
On 01 March 2001 the stay was granted. In his reasons for granting the stay, Justice Chadwick made the two following statements:
• “I am sure if the trial judge had known of Dunlop’s involvement before the trial began, he would have declined the assignment”; and
• “Now that Dunlop is relevant to the Leduc case, the trial judge in all likelihood would have to recuse himself from the trial and declare a mistrial.”
I respectfully submit that, given the extraordinary circumstances which forced Justice McKinnon’s temporary recusal, it was highly inappropriate for Justice Chadwick to make excusatory commentary on Justice McKinnon’s behalf. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that, contrary to Justice Chadwick’s thought, Justice McKinnon showed no indication of recusing himself and declaring a mistrial and, in fact, had indicated his intent to return to the bench should the trial resume. Finally, I respectfully submit that, in granting the stay, Justice Chadwick was attempting in part to exonerate Justice McKinnon by sparing him the embarrassment of recusal and the concurrent legal disgrace of declaring a mistrial.
5. Justice Chadwick showed bias in opting against a mistrial.
a. Justice Chadwick indicated that he opted against calling a mistrial because 18 of 26 witnesses had testified.
I respectfully submit that it is unconscionable and illogical that an accused paedophile is allowed to ‘walk’ because 18 of 26 witnesses have already testified.
b. Justice Chadwick indicated that he opted against a mistrial because it would be “a tremendous hardship” on the victims and other witnesses to testify again.
I respectfully submit that the hardship of testifying again would be minimal in contrast to the hardship of being viewed by the community and judiciary as liars. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that every sex abuse trial is a tremendous hardship on the victims and their families; that has never been viewed as just cause to shun the pursuit of justice and thereby endanger the community.
c. Justice Chadwick indicated that he opted against a mistrial because he believed “the contentious publicity has caused [Mr. Leduc] and his family a great deal of grief and hardship.”
I respectfully submit that the contentious publicity caused the victims and their families a great deal of hardship. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that Justice Chadwick’s expression of sympathy for an accused paedophile showed a callous indifference to the families of victims who were present in the courtroom.
d. Justice Chadwick indicated he opted against a mistrial because of his concern for the financial strain on Mr. Leduc.
I respectfully submit that the trial created a serious financial strain for the victims and their families, none of whom are lawyers.
Furthermore, I respectfully submit that Mr. Leduc personally chose to increase his legal fees by retaining the services of a Toronto-based defence team. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that it is incredible that Justice Chadwick would even consider throwing out a trial because of his concerns for the financial well-being of an accused paedophile.
e. Justice Chadwick opted against a mistrial because “There have been too many innocent people improperly convicted in both Canada and the United States as a result of unfair trial procedures” and the accused “is entitled to a fair and proper trial within a reasonable period of time.”
I respectfully submit that, in making the former part of the above statement, Justice Chadwick inferred that Mr. Leduc was innocent.
Furthermore, I respectfully submit that Justice Chadwick was in no position to make such an inference. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that, in making that comment, Justice Chadwick implied that the victims and their families are liars. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that this may well be one of the cases where the guilty are set free because of unfair trial procedures.
6. Justice Chadwick’s order to stay proceedings was based on an inconsequential and benign contact of a witness with Perry Dunlop.
a. In citing his reasons for judgement of “wilful” non-disclosure by the Crown, Justice Chadwick referred to former Constable Dunlop as “a self-appointed investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner” and talked of “Dunlop’s vigilante approach” whereby “the end justifies the means.”
Justice Chadwick also stated that a victim in another case “was counselled by Dunlop to change his evidence.” Justice Chadwick then quoted from a transcript to substantiate this hearsay. The transcript, however, did nothing to substantiate the serious allegation.
I respectfully submit that there was absolutely no substantiation or evidence for the ruling of “willful” non-disclosure against the Crown. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that no “reasonable” person would deduce that non-disclosure of a benign contact by a distraught victim’s mother with a man known publicly for his integrity and familiarity with male sexual abuse had any bearing upon whether Mr. Leduc did, or did not, sodomize and/or otherwise sexually molest the victims.
b. During the trial, a victim’s mother testified that she had initiated a brief contact with Constable Perry Dunlop. That contact was initiated after the distraught mother broke down at a welfare office. The break down transpired because the woman was concerned about her son and she didn’t know where to go or what to do. A clerk at the welfare office advised her to call Constable Dunlop. Constable Dunlop was then known as man who understood the difficulties facing male sex abuse victims. Cornwall was lacking any agencies or persons to meet that particular and very unique need.
Justice Chadwick was not present in the courtroom to see or hear the woman as she testified. He was, however, presiding at the motion for stay which evolved from her testimony. The object of the motion was to prove that non-disclosure of a witness contact (i.e., the victim’s mother) with Mr. Dunlop denied Mr. Leduc his charter rights “to make full answer and defence.”
The defence’s argument of “wilful” non-disclosure of this benign contact was relevant only if one was prepared to ascribe to the highly speculative, fallacious and defamatory notion regarding the conduct and person of Mr. Dunlop outlined previously (ref. Appendix A para 5b above).
I respectfully submit that Justice Chadwick, for unknown reasons, bore animus against the conduct and person of former Constable Dunlop. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that, for unknown reasons, Justice Chadwick willfully embraced a highly speculative, fallacious and defamatory notion regarding the conduct and person of Mr. Dunlop. Furthermore, I respectfully submit that because Justice Chadwick willfully vilified Mr. Dunlop, an alleged paedophile is “free.”
Continue to Backgrounder