Pelletier: Robert Pelletier

Robert Pelletier

Now a judge,  Justice Robert Pelletier, from Alfred, Ontario, was formerly a Crown attorney in L’Orignal, Ontario. Robert Pelletier, as a Crown attorney, became officially involved with Project Truth in January 1996.  He obtained an initial brief from Justice B.W. Lennox.  

Good friend of Cornwall Crown attorney Murray MacDonald, the Crown at the helm when David Silmser first went to Cornwall police with allegations of sex abuse against Father Charles MacDonald and probation officer Ken Seguin.

It was Murray MacDonald who, in a 14 Sept. 1993, referred to Silmser as “a very non-credible complainant” using “threat of criminal prosecution” to get money.  When charges were finally laid in March 1996 Pelletier was brought in by Murray MacDonald as the Crown attorney.  (My recollection is that Pelletier was best man at Murray MacDonald’s wedding)  Pelletier testified at the inquiry that he stepped aside from the case in 1999 because he realized that he might have to call Murray MacDonald to testify and that he could not cross-examine “a colleague and good friend.”

Justice Robert Pelletier testified at the Cornwall Public Inquiry 26 January 2009 

Robert Pelletier attained a Bachelor of Law from the University of Ottawa, Ontario.  He was called to the Ontario Bar in 1985. 1985-1989:  Assistant Crown attorney in LÓrignal  

1989-2005:  Crown attorney for the United Counties of Prescott and Russell. 

May 1997 to January 1998 and from May 1998 to January 1999:  Acting Director of Crown Operations for the East Region. 

21 October 2005:   Canada’s Minister of Justice Irwin Cotler and Attorney General appointed Robert Pelletier to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  (Cotler was Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada in the Jean Chretien Liberal government) 

26 January 2009:  Transcript of Justice Robert Pelletier testimony at the Cornwall Public Inquiry The Saga: Chronology of John MacDonald’s ongoing and relentless quest for justice

BLOGS

04 February 2009:  BLOG Royal run-around

27 January 2009:  BLOG  Coincidences

Documents of Interest

19-21 May 2004:  Ontario Crown Association Spring Educational Conference (Speakers include AG Michael Bryant,  Murray MacDonald,  Curt Flanagan, Brendan Crawley  and Murray Segal)

22 December 1998:  Robert Pelletier to OPP Det Sgt Pat Hall advising no RP&G for charges in death threats against Perry Dunlop, and if there were it would not be in the public interest to proceed

02 April 1997: The Griffiths Pelletier Memo

15 September 1994:   Pelletier to OPP Det. Insp. Tim Smith re Father Charles MacDonald investigation

(says contacted by Murray MacDonald in the summer 1993 advising that it may be necessary for Pelletier to review the case and that MacDonald felt he may possibly be in a conflict of interest)

ONTARIO JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT ANNOUNCED

OTTAWA , October 21, 2005 – Irwin Cotler, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today announced the following appointment:

Robert Pelletier of Alfred is appointed a judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. He will be assigned to Cornwall by the Chief Justice.

Mr. Justice Pelletier received a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Ottawa in 1983 and was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 1985.

At the time of his appointment, Mr. Justice Pelletier was Crown Attorney for the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario for the United Counties of Prescott and Russell. In addition, he has served as Acting Director of Crown Operations for the East Region from 1997 until 1999.

Mr. Justice Pelletier has acted as Lead of the French Services Improvement Committee at the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario since 2002. He is a past member of the Ministry’s Criminal Law Division, Divisional Management Committee and the Division’s representative in the establishment of the National French Language Training Institute for prosecutors and police staff. He is a frequent lecturer at the Ontario Crown Attorney’s Association, the Provincial Court Judges Seminar and the National Prosecutors Conference. In addition, he has served as an instructor at the Bar Admission Course since 1994.

This appointment is effective immediately.

-30-

Ref.:

François Giroux
Judicial Affairs Advisor
Office of the Minister of Justice
(613) 992-4621

Possible Conflict Of Interest Causes Former Lawyer To Remove Himself- Inquiry

Local News – AM 1220

January 27, 2009 — A former lawyer had to remove himself from a child sex abuse case in Cornwall because he was friends with a possible witness. Justice Robert Pelletier told the Cornwall Public Inquiry he could not continue prosecuting charges against a city priest in the 1990’s. He says some members of the community alleged Cornwall Crown Murray MacDonald was trying to obstruct justice but those allegations were never proven. Pelletier says MacDonald may have been called as a witness which could be a conflict of interest because he knew MacDonald personally and professionally. (Hear audio clip below) Hearings continue at 9:30 this morning.

[Transcript of audio clip: “ by the late spring of 1999 it became obvious that  Mr. MacDonald, though not necessarily, may possibly have to testify and that I could not be cross-examining a colleague and good friend.”]

One trial for MacDonald

That was always the plan: Crown

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

27 January 2009

Posted By TREVOR PRITCHARD, STANDARD-FREEHOLDER

It was always the plan to proceed with one trial involving eight alleged victims of Rev. Charles MacDonald, a former eastern Ontario Crown attorney told the Cornwall Public Inquiry Monday.

Justice Robert Pelletier said he took a “calculated risk” in deciding to join two different sets of charges because he felt that would bolster the prosecution’s case.

“As soon as I found out there were five other complainants, my mind was made up,” Pelletier testified.

“In my view, it was a calculated risk, and one that favoured the prosecution, ultimately.”

Pelletier, the Crown attorney for Prescott-Russell from 1989 until 2005, was assigned to prosecute MacDonald in 1996 after a conflict of interest forced the local Crown to step aside.

That same year, MacDonald had been charged with seven counts of sexual abuse involving three men. Additional charges were tacked on in 1998 after five more men came forward, all claiming they’d been abused as boys by the former St. Columban’s Parish priest.

Despite the risk for delay, joining the charges would allow a judge or jury to hear the evidence of eight alleged victims all at once, rather than three in one case and five in another, Pelletier said Monday.

Doing so would also cut down on the number of different versions of the same story, Pelletier added, as victims in one case would not have to be witnesses in the other.

“I had that feeling (to join the charges) very strongly,” he told Citizens for Community Renewal lawyer Helen Daley.

“In fact, I felt it was my duty to do so.”

Pelletier did not see the case through to its conclusion, however. In 1999, he removed himself from the prosecution after it became possible that local Crown attorney Murray MacDonald – a colleague and good friend – might have to take the stand.

The charges of the eight complainants were joined by the new prosecutor – a decision Pelletier said Monday he wholly agreed with. Charges involving a ninth alleged victim were added in 2000.

But Charles MacDonald’s defence team successfully argued that their client’s rights under Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached, and the priest left court a free man in 2002.

Pelletier told Victims Group lawyer Dallas Lee that he felt the prosecution was “on very solid footing” and didn’t think at the time that an application to stay the charges would succeed.

“But obviously there was a risk,” he added. ” And I calculated that risk, assessed the risk, and chose to proceed with what I felt would be a much stronger case – with eight complainants, as opposed to three in one case and five in the other.”

Pelletier said he was concerned with delay from the first time he spoke with David Silmser, the first alleged victim of Charles MacDonald to come forward.

The former Crown wrote in a personal note that Silmser was “abusive and vulgar” during a February 1996 conversation.

After that, he agreed only to speak with Silmser through his lawyer – because if Silmser threatened him, he would have to remove himself from the case.

“In those circumstances, it would be impossible for me to represent the Crown with Mr. Silmser as a complainant,” Pelletier said.

The inquiry is looking at how a number of public institutions, including the provincial justice system, handled historical sexual abuse allegations.

Hearings resume at 9:30 a. m.

– – –

EXTENSION GETS TURNED DOWN

Cornwall (Staff)–Lawyers at the Cornwall Public Inquiry will not be getting an additional month to prepare their final submissions.

Commissioner Normand Glaude said Monday that a request delivered last week to the Ministry of the Attorney General for more time had been turned down.

Eleven parties with standing at the motion had argued that the February deadlines imposed by the province in October 2008 were too restrictive and did not allow enough time to prepare comprehensive final submissions.

A ministry spokesperson said they were asking the commission to stick to that October deadline.

The refusal by the Attorney General’s office means that written submissions are due Feb. 17, with oral submissions required by Feb. 27.

Article ID# 1405645

…………………………………

Comments on this article

Going to try this post again.
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.

What Perry did was bring to light a potential ring of molesters, but at what cost? Looking in from a distance it would appear he took the trust and faith of the victims misled them into a false sense of security believing they could find restitution and or justice. When it came time to act on his promise he fled. This too could be construed to a conspiracy of mental anguish and mental abuse. I believe if Perry was as thorough in his investigation as people are led to believe he would have known the route the trials and inquiry would take. He also would have known how deep this whole speculated ring went.

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 TopPost #1 By itinerant

…………………………………

Going to try this post again.

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.

What Perry did was bring to light a potential ring of molesters, but at what cost? Looking in from a distance it would appear he took the trust and faith of the victims misled them into a false sense of security believing they could find restitution and or justice. When it came time to act on his promise he fled. This too could be construed to a conspiracy of mental anguish and mental abuse. I believe if Perry was as thorough in his investigation as people are led to believe he would have known the route the trials and inquiry would take. He also would have known how deep this whole speculated ring went.

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

…………………………………

Man you are so full of yourself you stink. If the police force had not dropped the ball in the first place Perry never would have had to do any investigation at all. Obviously some very high placed people were being protected by the higher ups. You can bury your head in the sand and believe what you want I just know what I believe. By the way would you do since you are so strong and courageous would you do what was right like Perry did or would you simply let everything get swept under the carpet like the higher ups were doing for the suspects.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #3 By dodger

…………………………………

If victims did not trust the local police nor the church officials that were higher up maybe they had good reason. But of course we can blind ourselves to the fact that the bishop signed a bribery letter to a victim with hush money and also 3 other lawyers were involved but of course there was no conspiracy.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #4 By dodger

…………………………………

Dodger, sure you can call it hush money or you can call it, severance to a man that was to cause nothing but trouble. If this man was so dead set on only an apology, which is something he claims as ‘All he wanted” why did he take the money? It is easy to accuse the padre at a time when molesting kids was becoming so rampant in the media. Hey it sold papers. I still have to ask, can anyone prove what happened? If so then nail the accused to the wall and stone them. I will through the first stone. As for Perry, if that is what you call courage, then you are misled. As easily as the potential victims were misled into believing someone is willing to help just because they have some social status.

Yes I do some investigations into different forms of safety for people in industry and NEVER EVER have I skinked about in the shadows and NEVER have I EVER let my clients stand on their own in questionable situations, call it professional pride.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #5 By itinerant

…………………………………

First and fore most how many people in this city has been charged and convicted of child sexal assault.The answer is many weather it was 40 years ago or 4 months ago.But whats the diffrence I ask here.Well the peodiphiles who are knowbodys in this society allways seem to be convicted but the pediphiles who hold a higher place in society are very well protected and are set free for what ever reasons,.That people is the diffrence.All the people accused of these crimes and got of because of some stupid reason.this is why this inquirey was called and asked for by over 12000 people we the people are not stupid.Coverup,some corruption you bet 12000 people can,t be wrong.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #6 By luckyred

…………………………………

You know what luckyred you are right 12,000 people can’t be wrong. For your info itinerant I am not misled I just see what so so easily close your eyes to.

and god forbid that the padre be accused of anything as slinky as a secret deal to silence a victim but that is exactly what happened your not gonna tell me a smart man like the bishop would blindly sign a sealed envelope nor any of the other lawyers that were involved they knew exactly what they were doing but the sheet hit the fan and it splattered them all.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #7 By dodger

…………………………………

and of course malcolm macdonald got a basic total release of all charges why?
he was found guilty!

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #8 By dodger

…………………………………

That could not be because of friends in high places could it? Of course not that would imply there was a conspiracy.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #9 By dodger

…………………………………

One more thing if everyone was innocent of anything why not charge the man with blackmail? No let’s pay him off that’s easier. Innocent people do not attempt to shut a victim up.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #10 By dodger

…………………………………

dodger, to counter sue would cause nothing but more head aches and people like yourself would again claim the system is corrupt. It is a loose loose situation. I asked the same question also, at 70+ years old what would the padre have to gain by bringing a troubled man to court for wrongful prosecution? You have heard the term “pick your battles” well this is one that is better off left unchallenged. As for the bishop, again sometimes it is better to pay out in hopes that unsubstantiated accusations do not make it to the public eye. Especially in light of current media publications and the cry that all churches are molesting alter boys. Remember it is only a select few that speak out against him. I for one support the man knowing him very well

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #11 By itinerant

…………………………………

Itinerant…just a quick note before I head to work, and I will pick this up later. Again check your “facts” before you speak. Indeed the “padre” did sue David Silmser back in 1995….check the news from the day…but just where did that suit end up? OH YEAH…..dropped……I wonder why? John Mac Donald

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #12 By wildone

…………………………………

Oh I know you support him blindly like the pied pipers rats that followed him and jumped off a cliff for him. Never ever question authority that is how this mess got started. The bishop is lucky he is not in the USA because over there they take this kind of stuff seriously.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #13 By dodger,

…………………………………

If what wildone says is true then looks like someone had something to hide for sure.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #14 By dodger,

…………………………………

Where have you guys been??? As John says – check the news of the day!!! It’s a common occurance that accused priests SUE their accusers!

No added stress with that – huh?

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #15 By RealityChecker

…………………………………

Doesn’t surprise me in the least another way of shutting up a victim.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #16 By dodger,

…………………………………

I spoke with the padre offering him congratulations after he was stayed. The reason it was dropped was as I stated before. He never really wanted to counter sue. It was not worth the hassles. John were did all this abuse take place for you?

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #17 By itinerant,

…………………………………

John don’t trust this snake

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #18 By dodger

…………………………………
He hasn’t answered any questions in the past and I doubt he will now either.

I do wonder if it was at ST Raphael’s’, or Perhaps Pilon’s point or maybe in St Andrews. Many of which were places retreats were held. Maybe even with in the confines of the youth group hang out atop the sacristy

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #19 By itinerant

…………………………………

You seem to know an awful lot about those hangouts would explain a lot of your comments.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #20 By dodger

…………………………………

Dodger, I will entertain myself this evening and reply to your post as it will fuel your conspiracy theory and give you yet another topic to be wrong about. I was there too! But like most alter boys was smart enough to know boys do not play with boys…Oh wait a minute I a repeating myself again

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #21 By itinerant

…………………………………

…and DUMB enough not to realize priests DO and CAN molest kids!!!!

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #22 By RealityChecker

…………………………………

hey it’s the other idiot

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #23 By itinerant

…………………………………

Like I said you really have a high opinion of yourself itinerant but that does not mean you are right. If there are many news stories about priests molesting boys could it possibly be that some priests are doing just that or god forbid that a padre would be caught with his robe down. If the church continues to protect the ones that they know are dirty then the church deserves to be drug down with them.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #24 By dodger

…………………………………

Dodger we always revisit the same conversation. I never said it did not happen. What I am saying is you have to quit whining and blaming others and start proving. You see again I asked John some questions and he has not answered. You are all so quick to judge but slow to prove thus it is you who nobody can trust. High on myself, No not at all, I just have little or no time in my life to waste on self pitying people. Fix it, change it, or forget it. We all choose the better part of our own destiny. If you choose to wallow in swill please do not expect others to do the same.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #25 By itinerant

…………………………………

There will be no fix until they are all outed. As for forgetting they would like us to do that so that it can happen again. these people did not choose to get molested. As for me I am not wallowing just making sure that the people that have their heads in the sand ignoring the truth of what went on hear it enough that maybe they will make sure it never happens again. A victim has the right to not speak if he so chooses that does not make him a coward nor a liar.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #26 By dodger,

…………………………………

I will put it this way to you Itinerant…If I have learned anything over the last 14 years, it is to watch what I say to who. IF your repressed memories would start to resurface, then ANYTHING that I say to you would not only be used against you, but against me also. You could have sat in on the pre-trials and heard everything. You could have been there in support of the padre, along with his ONE other friend, or you may have joined his sister and walked out in disgust of her brothers actions.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #27 By wildone,

…………………………………

Touche and a very good point because the pedophile supporters want to prove that victims are liars especially in public and what better way than to save everything they say and use it against them a little later. Oh sorry alleged pedophiles.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #28 By dodger,

…………………………………

Head in the sand or head up your butt it matters not.

I truly cannot believe how naive you are relating to testimony. How can you believe a person is acting anyone’s best interest when he flees at the first sign of being held accountable? Does it not contradict what you are all trying to stop? That is people being held accountable for their actions. Your other post clearly details why the accused get away with the crimes “A victim has the right to not speak if he so chooses that does not make him a coward nor a liar.” Once any individual is not held responsible for their actions due to his/her RIGHTS, then it opens the door for the accused to have the same right. It is called the charter of rights. I hope you are proud of your beliefs and the lifestyle you promote. Thank you for your comment and for adding to the problems of the world I guess I had better start watching Sesame Street to better understand your mentality.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #29 By itinerant

…………………………………

Or you can just put your head back in the sand whatever floats your boat. As far as I am concerned you do not warrant the batting of an eyelash. You are totally inconsequential to anything.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #30 By dodger,

Coincidence May Have Helped Conspiracy Theory-Pelletier

Local News – AM 1220

January 26, 2009 — It may have been coincidences which lead to some Cornwallites believing there was a conspiracy about child sex abuse. Justice Robert Pelletier told the Cornwall Public Inquiry there were links between events that may fuel a conspiracy theory. Pelletier says the father of Cornwall Crown Murray MacDonald had been convicted of sex-related charges. MacDonald is the lawyer who initially decided charges would not be laid against a city priest. Another city lawyer also pleaded guilty to attempting to obstruct justice after an illegal settlement between an alleged victim and the local diocese. Pelletier testified they were three “unfortunate” coincidences. (Hear audio clip below) Pelletier’s testimony continues.

[Transcript of audio clip: “… what makes the coincidence unfortunate is that those three elements converge nd, in my view, could very well lead those to believe that there may be a conspiracy — to find this as confirmation.”]

13 January 2009:  Prosecutor remained on case despite conflict

 

 

 

___________________________

 

27 January 2009: Possible Conflict Of Interest Causes Former Lawyer To Remove Himself- Inquiry

27 January 2009:  One trial for MacDonald: That was always the plan: Crown

26 January 2009:  Coincidence may have helped conspiracy theory

______________________________

02 April 1997:  Memo from Crown attorney Robert Pelletier to Peter Griffiths, Director of Crowns for the Eastern Region,