The following is the text of Constable Perry Dunlop’s Will State. The will state, also referred to as a will say, is the former police officer’s personal account of events in Cornwall, Ontario from September 1993 when he first learned that David Silmser filed a sexual abuse complaint with Cornwall Police Service in December 1992 alleging sexual abuse against local Roman Catholic priest Father Charles MacDonald and local probation officer Ken Seguin.
Perry Dunlop and his wife Helen were forced to take the stand at the Cornwall Public Inquiry to, as all witnesses have been told, tell their story. Perry attempted to read his will state into evidence stating that this was his best recollection of events. He was not allowed to do so. As a consequence Justice Glaude is attempting to have Perry charged with contempt of court.
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5
WILL STATE – Constable Perry Dunlop
Cornwall Police Service April 7, 2000
1. I have been a member of the Cornwall Police Service for the past 17 years and am presently a First Class Constable. I am 38 years old, married, with three young children. I am currently assigned to uniform duties attached to “D” Team.
Over the span of my career, I have also worked in the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Cornwall Police Service. I have also participated in a Joint Forces operation with the Ontario Provincial Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I worked with the Cornwall Police Drug Unit, in unison with other police and law enforcement agencies. I was privileged to have been chosen by the Solicitor Generals Office to train and become a member of an undercover operator pool for the Province of Ontario.
2. 2. On September 23, 1993, while attending to my professional and official duties related to my assignment to the Criminal Investigation Bureau Drug Unit. I gained knowledge of a sexual assault complaint involving allegations of abuse by a Catholic Priest, Father Charles MacDonald and a Cornwall Probation Officer for the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, Ken Seguin. The alleged victim of the abuse was D.S.
3. On September 24, 1993, before attending court, I was in the Intelligence Office where Sergeants Ron Lefebvre and Claude Lortie were openly discussing this sexual assault case. I had already been informed by Sergeant Lortie that the allegations of sexual assault were against Father Charles MacDonald.
4. The initial complaint was dated December of 1992. The incident showed up on our police computer terminal as overdue on January 18, 1993.
(Book One – Tab 1)
There were no reports entered into the police computer network (OMPPAC) with regards to the investigation. I became concerned about the allegations and the investigation. On the police computer (OMPPAC), the only information displayed was the sexual assault location of 40 Fourth Street West.
This was the location of St. Columban’s Church, of which I was a member. Normal procedure is to follow up on all investigations. This includes entering the initial report on the computer as well as attaching the names of the complainant(s), witness statements and suspect(s).
Page 2 of 110
It was unusual for any occurrence to remain overdue for that long with no file update entries. There is a definite time line procedure that is followed by our department and in fact, it is policy that officers keep up on their assignments.
5. I had strong ties with St. Andrews Catholic Church where Father MacDonald was then presiding. I regularly attended St. Andrews Catholic Church and in fact Father Charles MacDonald had performed my marriage ceremony and baptized my first born daughter at St. Andrews Catholic Church. We had several family members and friends that attended St. Andrew’s Catholic Church, which is a parish in the Diocese of Alexandria. I was actively involved in the Diocese of Alexandria’s educational and social activities. Given the allegations of sexual assault against Father Charles MacDonald, I was concerned for the safety of the children of the Parish, and all other children that Father Charles MacDonald may/would have had contact with.
6. It was during the discussion with Sergeants Lefebvre and Lortie that I first learned that the investigation concerning Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin had been recently terminated because the Catholic Diocese of Cornwall had made a monetary settlement of $32,000 dollars with the complainant. I have never, in all my years as a police officer, heard or seen a criminal investigation being terminated due to a monetary settlement or payoff. The investigation into the allegations made by the victim were deemed a high priority upon the initial intake by the Cornwall Police.
The victim had first contacted police on the 9th of December 1992. The victim placed a call to our service and spoke to the Officer in Charge, Sergeant Nakic. The victim stated that during his time as an altar boy at St. Columban’s Church he was sexually assaulted by Father Charles MacDonald and further he was assaulted by the Probation Officer Ken Seguin who was a friend of the Priest. Sergeant Nakic sent an internal correspondence to Staff Inspector Stuart MacDonald to advise of this call. (Book One – Tab 2) Sergeant Lortie was assigned the case mid-December of 1992.
Between Christmas and New Year’s, Deputy Chief St. Denis called Sergeant Lortie into his office and requested an update on the file/investigation. Chief Claude Shaver was on holidays and Deputy Chief St. Denis was the Acting Chief Constable.
Sergeant Lortie had called D.S. on the 14th of December 1992 and set up a scheduled meeting for January 18, 1994. This fact is confirmed by Sergeant
Page 3 of 110
Lortie’s notes, page 422 of evidence books.
There was going to be a very short delay due to sick leave on the part of Sergeant Lortie. The Deputy Chief St. Denis then advised the Officer in Charge, S/Sgt. Lucien Brunet, of Criminal Investigations Branch that the investigation would be reassigned as it was deemed a priority case. Deputy Chief St. Denis advised Staff Sergeant Brunet, in the form of an internal correspondence letter, dated 8th January 1993.
(Book One – Tab 3)
When Deputy Chief St. Denis reassigned the case he indicated to the Officer in Charge of Criminal Investigations that this case could possibly turn into an Alfred type situation and ordered him to reassign forthwith.
Staff Sergeant Brunet then assigned Constable Heidi Sebalj to investigate the D.S. complaint.
NOTE- Alfred is a small town not far from Cornwall. It was home to a large boys reformatory school. /n the recent past a large scale investigation was conducted. Several Christian Brothers that ran a boys school were convicted of sexual assault, on young boys who were in their control. There was a book written on this subject entitled “BOYS DON’T CRY”. It is clear from the onset, that the Deputy Chief was indicating the magnitude and scope of this complaint/investigation.
7. Cornwall Police Service Constable Heidi Sebalj, of the sexual assault unit, was the officer investigating the complaint made by the victim. I asked Constable Sebalj if I could see the victim’s statement.
8. Constable Sebalj provided me with the original eight page victim’s statement which contained detailed allegations of sexual abuse by Father Charles MacDonald and Probation Officer Ken Seguin.
9. The victim’s statement contained, in part, the following information:
(a) The victim became an altar boy at age 12 at St. Columban’s Church where Father Charles MacDonald presided.
(b) The victim and Father Charles MacDonald were alone in the Church
Page 4 of 110
sacristy together. Father MacDonald started to touch the victim’s leg and moved his hand up to his inner thigh, ultimately touching the victim’s penis.
(c) The victim attended a retreat at St. Andrew’s Church parish. While the victim was in bed (and in a private location), Father MacDonald sat down on his bed. At this point, Father MacDonald was naked. Father MacDonald put his right hand under the blankets and felt the victim’s penis under his pyjamas.
(d) At age 14, the victim walked past St. Columban’s Church and Father MacDonald called him into his office. Father MacDonald informed the victim that he watches girls walk past and that he masturbates himself while watching them. Father MacDonald grabbed the victim’s leg and with one finger rubbed the victim’s inner thigh up and down and then grabbed the victim’s penis.
The victim then got up very quickly and ran down the hall and out of the front door.
(e) Several months later, Father MacDonald saw the victim and suggested to the victim that they go for a car ride. After initially refusing, the victim agreed to get in the car to discuss the problems the victim had been having at school. Father MacDonald drove the car into the country and stopped in an isolated location. Father MacDonald suggested that they go for a walk. After they exited the car, Father MacDonald took off his pants and started masturbating himself. The victim turned around to observe this act of Father Charles MacDonald. The victim D.S. was scared and tried to escape, he ran as fast as he could, but was tackled by Father MacDonald. Father MacDonald rolled the victim onto his back, undid the victim’s pants, sat on the victim’s stomach, and tried to push his penis into the victim. The victim cried and yelled and then went blank.
(f) As a result of the victim’s anger, he stole $40 from the parish. He was caught, charged, convicted and placed on probation while aged 14 and 15. His probation officer was Ken Seguin. Ken Seguin later repeatedly sexually assaulted the victim. The victim later found out that Ken Seguin was Father MacDonald’s best friend.
10. It appeared that the victim had a very good memory, remembering smells, sights and places. As a police officer I have taken and read many statements and it is my opinion that this one appeared to be truthful.
Page 5 of 110
11. After realizing the gravity of the allegations, I had great concerns for the safety of the children now attending St. Andrew’s Catholic Church and the safety of those children in contact with Ken Seguin, the probation officer. After reading the victim’s statement, I was appalled and extremely concerned for the safety of the children in the community.
I felt bad for the victim, who appeared to have been victimized by the priest, the Church, Probation, and now by the police. I was concerned that both Father Charles MacDonald and Ken Seguin, who in the course of their respective duties, would continue to have
ample opportunity to interact with children.
I knew both men held positions of supreme trust and authority within the community. I felt strongly that the Cornwall Police should continue in their investigation irrespective of the monetary settlement or the lack of cooperation of the victim.
My thought process was this: a young altar boy alleges he was sexually molested by a Priest.
In his frustration he breaks into the Church and steals forty dollars. He is caught by our Police Service. He is convicted by our Courts and sentenced to Probation.
He alleged he was sexually assaulted by his probation officer. He indicates the two persons who he mentioned were good friends.
Now years later, he returns to our Service to lodge his complaint. He is obviously frustrated and unsatisfied. After ten months he receives a monetary settlement, the now infamous thirty two-thousand dollars.
12. I had previously been aware of a case involving Father Deslauriers, a Catholic priest. In or about 1985, Father Deslauriers was a priest in the Cornwall Diocese who was accused of sexually assaulting young males. Deslauriers had been an active parish priest in the Cornwall Diocese for several years. The case involved a major investigation, and ultimately resulted in his being charged with 16 counts of sexually abusing nine young Cornwall men. Father Gilles Deslauriers was convicted and received two years probation. Father Deslauriers was transferred to a parish at St. Adele, Quebec, not far from Cornwall. One of Father
Page 6 of 110
Deslauriers victim’s has gone on record in a statement to the press saying, the Catholic Church has never made any attempt to apologize to him.
13. Constable Sebalj informed me that she had difficulty getting a hold of the victim D.S, I then went to the photocopier and made a copy of the victim’s statement and gave Constable Sebalj back the original victim’s statement.
14. After obtaining a copy of the statement I went to see two superior officer’s who both asked me for a copy of the statement I was under the impression they were going to perhaps take action. They also seemed to be under the same rational that the statement
may disappear. They both asked for a copy of the statement. I gave both of them a copy of the D.S. statement. The officers were Staff Sergeant Lortie and Staff Sergeant Dupuis.
15. I have since been informed that on or about September 3, 1993, Staff Sergeant Brunet received a letter from Malcolm MacDonald, a Cornwall lawyer, who was representing Father Charles MacDonald. The letter which is attached is as follows:
Angus Malcolm Macdonald, Q.C. LL.B, B.A., K.S.J Barrister & Solicitor
504 Pitt Street, Suite 1
Cornwall, Ontario K6J-3R5
September 3, 1993
Cornwall City Police Justice Building
340 Pitt Street
ATT: Det Sergeant Luc Brunet
This will confirm our telephone conversation of this morning. I am enclosing a Statement prepared by Sean Adams, Solicitor for David
Silmser and signed by David Silmser.
Page 7 of 110
I understand that Mr. Adams was advised by you that David Silmser should speak to Cst. Sebalj personally and I understand that the Constable will not be back until some time next week. David Silmser indicated to Mr. Adams that he would be available any time she wants to see him.
A. M. MACDONALD
Full letter at: (Book One – Tab 4)
I have also included at this tab the document Malcolm Macdonald refers to in the above letter. This document is the certificate of independent legal advice. The document is signed by lawyer Sean Adams and victim D.S.
(Book One – Tab 4)
Also at this tab is the letter by Malcolm Macdonald about the money being held in escrow until the victim attends police station to advise police he does not want to proceed with charges.
16. I first brought this matter to the attention of Mr. Richard Abell, Executive Director of the Children’s Aid Society, on September 25, 1993, the day after I photocopied the witness statement. In my conversation with Mr. Abell, I told him about this case
and my fear for the children who were presently at risk.
17. The following day, on September 26, 1993, I had another conversation with Mr. Abell and brought a copy of the victim’s statement over to Mr. Abell’s home. Mr. Abell viewed the statement but I retained possession of it. Mr. Abell informed me that I, as a police officer, had a duty to report any suspected child abuse. I was aware of this statutory duty to report already and believed that I was acting in accordance with my duty to report when I first approached Mr. Abell. I informed Mr. Abell that I would be speaking with Staff Sergeant Brunet to see what was going on with the case.
(Book One – Tab 5) Child Family Services Act past and present.
Note-I still have in my possession my original books from Ontario Police College 1983 recruit training. The material pointed to the specific area dealing with safety of children. This material is supplied to all police officers in the Province of Ontario.
Page 8 of 110
18. On September 28, 1993, I approached Constable Sebalj and told her that I was concerned about the case. Constable Sebalj advised me that she had tried for a month to get in touch with the victim by telephone. I also learned at this time that there were other victims. They indicated they had been sexually assaulted as minors by Father Charles MacDonald.
As a police officer, I could not understand if other victims came forward, indicating that they too had been victims of Father Charles MacDonald, why the investigation was being terminated. Also, I wondered what the status was with regards to the allegations made by
D.S. towards probation officer Ken Seguin.
I have learned, that little or no investigation was ever done on this case. Proper police protocol was not followed.
I thought back to the Father Gilles Deslaurier case. He was a Catholic Priest that was charged and convicted of several counts of sexual assaults on children. I know for sure that two seasoned police officers were assigned to the case from start to finish. It was a high profile case in our community. Constable Herb Lefebvre and Sergeant Ron Lefebvre worked as a team on this file. I wondered then, as I do this day, why the investigation into Father Charles MacDonald and Probation officer Ken Seguin was not given the backing and the resources that a case of this magnitude requires.
Cases such as this need the full thrust and resources available to a police officer. This type of investigation requires the direction and guidance of seasoned senior police officers that have experience. The officers also need the full backing, guidance and assistance of supervisors and senior management.
Both Staff Inspector Stuart MacDonald, and Deputy Chief Joe St Denis agreed the case was high profile upon initial intake. A case this complex needs all resources available. Case managers dedicated secretaries, dealing specifically on this file. The suspects initially mentioned by the first victim, had power, money and position within our community.
Probation Services also had a high stake in allegations made of sexual assault by one of their employees. It is now known that two former probation officers in the Cornwall office were sexually assaulting clients.
19. Given the nature of and allegations contained in the victim’s statement and coupled with the fact that Constable Sebalj made me aware of other sexual
Page 9 of 110
assault victims of Father MacDonald, I continued to fear that there were children at risk in our community. I made Senior Officers of the Cornwall Police Service aware of my concerns and in fact, forwarded victim D.S.’s statement to them.
20. On September 29, 1993, I met with Senior Crown Attorney Murray MacDonald and showed him the D.S. statement. I had called him the previous evening at his residence requesting a meeting with him. I considered Murray a friend, along with dealing with him as a police officer, we also hunted and socialized on occasion.
The meeting took place the following morning. Murray told me to meet him on the fourth floor of the Justice Building, the same building that houses our police station. This is not the regular Crown’s office, but an office that is used by the Crown when attending court at the Justice Building/Police Station. On this morning I attended with a copy of the victim statement. I placed it on Murray’s desk and went through the allegations that were made in the statement along with the names that were mentioned as suspected paedophiles.
The Crown Attorney informed me that he was aware of the Father Charles MacDonald allegations but was not aware of the allegation of sexual abuse against Ken Seguin. The allegation against Ken Seguin was made in the same statement. I pointed out the exact location in the statement where the allegations against Ken Seguin of sexual assault had been made by the victim.
Murray did not read the statement at this time. Murray said he had spoken to Malcolm MacDonald the lawyer, and former Federal Crown Attorney, that was currently representing Father Charles MacDonald. Malcolm MacDonald indicated to Murray, about a week prior to our meeting, that the investigation was over and that a settlement had been reached. I found it hard to believe that the Crown was not aware of the allegations against Probation Officer Ken Seguin, as it was mentioned in the victim’s statement.
Constable Sebalj also told me that she had met\spoke\communicated with the crown on several occasions about the case. Evidence obtained through my Police Services Act charges and trial also indicate that the Senior Crown Attorney Murray MacDonald was aware of this investigation and the allegations contained in the victim’s statement. Senior Crown Attorney Murray MacDonald stated to me at our meeting that Staff Sergeant Brunet was on top of this investigation and maybe I should speak to him.
Page 10 of 110
Note: Milton MacDonald, was charged and convicted of sexually assaulting nine young boys from the period of 1963 to 1992. Milton MacDonald was sentenced to 20 months in 1995 for these assaults. He was also charged and convicted in 1969 for a similar offence.
Milton MacDonald is Murray MacDonald’s father. (Book One – Tab 6)
21. I then went downstairs to the main floor of the Police Station and Staff Sergeant
Brunet asked if he could see me in his office. This meeting took place immediately after my meeting with the Crown Attorney. He told me that D.S. had come to see Constable Sebalj and wanted to end the investigation on this date. Brunet said that the investigation was over since we had no complainant.
I told Staff Sergeant Brunet that I had a problem with the investigation ending. I said I have several family members that attend St. Andrews Catholic Church. I was also concerned about the people being sent to probation who were potentially at risk from Ken Seguin.
I said it made me sick to know that children were potentially at risk and that we had done little or nothing on this file. Brunet stated: “We can’t solve all the crimes a lot of times. We know who is responsible, but there is nothing we can do. I have spoken to Constable
Kevin Malloy (a Cornwall Police Service Constable) who knows a lot about sexual assault and he said we need corroboration”.
POLICE NOW HAD THREE VICTIMS.
I stated to Staff Sergeant Brunet that Constable Sebalj told me that there were other victims in this case. I asked: “Did we ever interview Father Charlie or Ken Seguin during the course of this investigation and confront them on the allegations made against them?” He said: “No”. I asked him if we had ever conducted surveillance on them, again the answer was no. I asked what had been done and he said Constable Sebalj had called some people.
Brunet then stated: “You realize you can be charged for Breach of Trust under the Police Act. We would really hate to lose you, Perry. You’ve been through this before but you were single at the time. ( Brunet was making reference to an incident in 1985 where I was charged under the Police Services Act for failing to report damage to a police car of an approximate value of one hundred dollars.) Now you have a wife and three children to think about.
You have your career to think about. You have to operate within the system or you are just as bad as a criminal. You know in these cases you have to dot your
Page 11 of 110
“i” and cross your “t”. He then asked me if I had any paperwork on the case and said: “I want it returned. This is over and you have to let it be. I have spoken to the Crown. There is nothing we can do. This guy has settled. He (D.S.) has a lawyer and everything.”
I said to Brunet: “Have you considered going to the Bishop?” He stated: “No, but that’s a good idea. Maybe the Chief and I could go down. But then that’s it. You have to let it go.” I said: “This is wrong. The way it was handled was wrong. No wonder the victim settled
after waiting so long.” He said: “I agree and I guess I’m going to have to take some of the blame for this.” Our conversation ended when his phone rang. I felt threatened for my job.
There was no doubt in my mind that children would remain at risk. I was very concerned. I also could not believe the accused persons had never even been interviewed by the police.
I felt very intimidated and threatened by Staff Sergeant Brunet as I left his office. That was the very last time, to this present date, that Staff Sergeant Brunet has ever spoken to me, with the exception of a recent grievance issue. Staff Sergeant Brunet was very defensive towards the investigation, and very offensive towards me. I have never in my career been treated in that manner.
22. On September 30, 1993, having concluded that it was my duty under the Child and Family Services Act to report the alleged sexual abuse, I provided Mr. Richard Abell, Director of Children’s Aid Society in Cornwall, a copy of the D.S. victim statement. I have been told and do verily believe that the Chief of Police, Claude Shaver, went wild when he found out I had visited the Children’s Aid Society. In fact, he went to Children’s Aid Society to confront Mr. Abell and was furious that I had gone outside the Police Service. There has been evidence given at my Police Act trial that indicates the former Chief of Police had hands on this investigation from the onset and was not following proper police protocol.
He was bypassing the chain of command and directing this investigation. (Book One – Tab 7)
I have learned through statements that I have obtained that Shaver was good friends with the two suspects in the initial case. Chief Claude Shaver should have declared a conflict of interest.
Page 12 of 110
23. On Sunday, October 3, 1993, I noticed Constable Heidi Sebalj had come into work, which was unusual. I verily believe that it was on this date that she entered the sexual assault occurrence into the project file.
The project file was an exclusive file that we maintained in the drug unit. This file was for informant information or current secretive operations that were currently being conducted. Access to the files was limited to authorized personal given an access code, You need specific authorized access to enter project files.
By entering this incident into the project file it would ensure that members, (the patrol officers and members who work the street) would have no clue as to the alleged sexual assault incidents, As well, other police officers, from any other police service, that may
investigate in the future similar acts by the same said individuals would not have access or knowledge of this case. I had never seen or heard of a sexual assault being entered in the project file data base. I will give you two examples:
Example one: Suspect A is being investigated for possible sexual assaults on young children. An incident is. created but placed under the project file. Suspect A is a well-respected person within the community. A patrol officer observes Suspect A with children in his car, at a remote area. The officer goes to the car to ensure all is in order. He runs the plate of the car as well as the male adult driver.
There is no entry on any police computer files. Therefore the officer has no idea of any threat. Potential chances are he won’t give it a second thought.
Example two: suspect A moves to a new city, province or country after he has been investigated for suspected child abuse. Suspect A is charged with assaulting a child in his new location. The Police agency that charges him searches all police data banks for similar acts, investigations or convictions in preparation for court. The results are negative. The project file ensures this will not happen. The public are wanting a register for pedophiles. The government is saying they will take steps towards this goal, yet Police are not disclosing amongst themselves or to other agencies where the perpetrators are.
24. On October 12, 1993. Staff Sergeant Derochie, my immediate supervisor in uniform, asked if he could speak with me in private at the Police Club. On this particular night we were having a squad meeting. He said:
Page 13 of 110
“Before you hear it from anyone else, I am investigating you under the Police Services Act. I have already taken a couple of statements.
It has to do with the Father Charlie case.”
Staff Sergeant Derochie then left the room and came back in. Staff Sergeant Derochie asked:
“Did you have no idea this was going to happen?” I said: “No.”
Staff Sergeant Derochie said:
“Luc (Staff Sergeant Brunet) seemed to think you knew that there would probably be charges coming.”
Sometime prior to this date Chief Shaver attended Children’s Aid Society and spoke to Richard Able. I am informed that Chief Claude Shaver was very agitated on this visit. He banged his fist on Richard Abell’s desk and stated that he would get Constable Dunlop for his action in taking this matter out of house. Richard Able attended my house to inform me to keep low, “it appears they are coming for your head”. The message I received from Richard Abell was that my job was on the line, if not over. This was around the end of October 1993 prior to Ken Seguin committing suicide.
25. I found it very unusual that my own Staff Sergeant would be assigned, and agreed to investigate me. This was not the usual police service procedure.
These are excerpts from Staff Sergeant Derouchie’s notes, Constable Sebalj’s, and Staff Sergeant Lucien Brunet’s notes.
This evidence disclosed during my Police Act hearings.
This material in it’s entirety has been disclosed to the Solicitor General as well as The Attorney General in 1997.
Note: The bold upper case comments/observations are my own.
STAFF SERGEANT DEROUCHIE’S NOTES .
Page 14 of 110
SUB SEC 1. page 158 evidence book two – 15 Oct 1993
all agreed that Dunlop’s action’s were inexcusable.
SUB SEC 2. page 161 evidence book –
Constable Dunlop displayed poor judgement when he turned over a copy of the victim’s statement to C.A.S.
INEXCUSABLE ACTIONS AND POOR JUDGEMENT WERE STATUTORY LAW
SUB SEC 3. page 224 evidence book – Oct 12 1993:
“I had by this time received bits and pieces of information which led me to believe that there were far larger issues at stake here than that involving Dunlop”.
WHAT WERE THE FAR LARGER ISSUES?
SUB SEC 4. page 230 evidence book – 14 Oct 1993:
“Abell had serious concerns about the way the case had been handled”
WHAT WERE THE SERIOUS CONCERNS?
SUB SEC 5. page 232 evidence book – 14 Oct 1993:
” After speaking with Able I had serious concerns about the whole issue of mis management of the case over shadowing Dunlop’s involvement – I met with the Chief and the Deputy they were both aware of all the facts relative to this investigation”
TOP TWO POLICE OFFICERS, CHIEF AND DEPUTY AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS.
Page 15 of 110
SUB SEC 6. page 234 evidence book – 14 Oct 1993:
“the Chief and D/C agreed that the Dunlop issue was secondary and that the real problem (criminal investigation) would be dealt with.”
WHEN WOULD THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION: “THE REAL PROBLEM”, BE DEALT WITH AND BY WHOM?
SUB SEC 7. page 254 evidence book – 04 Nov 1993:
“On October 1st the Chief came to C.A.S. and met Abell and Townsdale and discussed the case. There was frank discussion about how C.A.S. had become involved…with subsequent discussion on why C.A.S. had not received disclosure. Abell advised that the Chief was upset over Dunlop’s involvement in this investigation. On October 8th the Chief and S/Sgt Brunet met with Abell and Townsdale at CAS. They were advised of the results of the meeting the Chief and Brunet had with the church
We continued to talk about the particulars of the case and Abell said that the suspects fit a profile which normally indicate a pattern of abuse of multiple victims being abused over many years. As is the case when members of the Church are involved, coverups are sometime involved. He believed that this might be the case in this incident…Silmser had been paid off to keep things quiet. Abell also informed me that they were not involving themselves with looking into Ken Seguin’s involvement. Their Ministries were not connected as previously thought and they were not prepared to enter the same type of investigation they were doing on MacDonald. (No further explanation??)
WHY WOULD CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY NOT BECOME INVOLVED WITH INVESTIGATING KEN SEGUIN ?
THE DIRECTOR OF CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY IS INDICATING COVER UP.
Page 16 of 110
He told me that he would be pleased if our Service re-opened and re-investigated the criminal end of this matter.”
SUB SEC 8. page 269- 270 evidence book – 4th Nov 1993:
“I advised the Chief and D/C that I would still like to talk to Crown on merits of our original investigation just to put the whole idea of continuing the investigation to bed, or perhaps, to be given encouragement to continue …..
Meeting with the L’Orignal Crown does suggest yet another extension of my mandate.
I have not taken over a criminal investigation! Cst. Sebalj’s investigation is completed……If there is a chance to continue and undue some of the damage which was done by not dealing with the complaint in a more timely manner…then we would all do what we had to in order to fix this investigation.
What did fix the investigation mean?
IT IS NOW THE 4th OF NOVEMBER 1993, CHIEF SHAVER SAYS THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IS OVER. ONLY TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THIS STATEMENT THE CHIEF AND DEPUTY CHIEF INDICATED THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION:”THE REAL PROBLEM WOULD BE DEALT WITH.” (SEE SEC 25 SUB 6 ABOVE)
page 234 evidence book – 14 Oct 1993:
“the Chief and D/C agreed that the Dunlop issue was secondary and that the real problem (criminal investigation) would be dealt with.”
SUB SEC 9. page 271 evidence book – 5th Nov 1993:
“15:30 received a call from Gregory Bell of CAS. He informed me that he had spoken to Silmser at about 1:30 P.M. yesterday. He described Silmser as being quite amicable and willing to co-operate, not at all the same person Sebalj described at 9:05 A.M.
Page 17 of 110
Bell is one of the case workers assigned to the CAS investigation, he asked me the names of the other two people assaulted by Father MacDonald could be provided to them. I told him I didn’t know at this time. The Chief is of the opinion that we should not.”
WE AS POLICE OFFICERS ARE OBLIGATED UNDER LAW TO PROVIDE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY WITH THIS INFORMATION. YET THE CHIEF OF POLICE, CLAUDE SHAVER, SAYS NO.
SUB SEC 10. page 273 evidence book – 9th Nov 1993
Staff Inspector Stuart McDonald stated that a Sergeant should handle this case because of the people involved.
SUB SEC 11. page 274 evidence book – 9th Nov 1993
C.I.B. lost jurisdiction to the Chief.
WHY DID CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BRANCH LOOSE JURISDICTION TO THE CHIEF?
WAS HE ACTIVELY INVESTIGATING THE CASE? WHERE ARE HIS NOTES?
HOW MANY CASES DID THE CHIEF INVESTIGATE?
WHY SO MUCH HANDS ON AND VESTED INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE?
SUB SEC 12. page 275-279- evidence book – 10th Nov 1993
Little activity on case Feb., May, Jun, July.
Staff Sergeant Derouchie is speaking to Cst. Sebalj.
Page 280 Derouchie notes:”She (Sebalj) had consulted the Crown on this matter several times on a very informal basis, on the telephone and on chance encounters in person.”
Page 18 of 110
WHERE ARE OFFICER NOTES OF THE SEVERAL MEETINGS?
SUB SEC 13. page 284 evidence book – 10th Nov 1993
“The Crown came into my office on his way back to his office from court.
We spoke briefly about the case and I asked if he was still willing to arrange a meeting with the L’Orignal Crown. He said he would if we had a victim. I got the impression that he would not arrange a meeting unless we had a charge to lay.
The Crown told me that he had spoken to Sebalj on more than one occasion about this matter. He acknowledged that the case was a strange one and that Sebalj appeared to be having trouble forming R & P G.
He told me that he had declared a conflict of interest in this matter because of his involvement with the church. He explained that he is a member of a committee, and that he had been in a debate with the Bishop over the matters of secrecy involving wrong doing by members of the clergy. He identified this case as being another example of the Church covering up sexual misconduct by a priest. I asked him if he was aware that Sebalj had found two other people who had sexual encounters with Fr. MacDonald at about the same time (or a year or two later) He indicated that he was not aware.
THE SENIOR CROWN ATTORNEY MURRAY MACDONALD IS INDICATING COVER UP.
SO WITH THREE VICTIMS PLUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PROBATION OFFICER KEN SEGUIN OUR SENIOR CROWN IS STILL RELUCTANT TO ARRANGE A MEETING WITH AN OUTSIDE CROWN.
The following information is included for
Page 19 of 110
The outside crown that Murray was eluding to was Robert Pelletier. Pelletier also prosecuted all of the Alfred cases along with Inspector Tim Smith of the Ontario Provincial Police. Many of the boys who served time in Alfred were from Cornwall. If you look ahead in this will state to June of 1997, Inspector Tim Smith indicates that Robert Pelletier would no longer be on the case as there had to be a perception of independence and fairness.
However on the 22 December 1998 Regional Director of Crown Attorneys Eastern Region sends a letter to Detective Sergeant P.R. Hall. The subject matter :
Allegations of Conspiracy to commit Murder and Death Threats Against Cst. Perry Dunlop and Family. (Book Three – Tab 3)
SUB SEC 14. page 286 evidence book – 10 Nov 1993
Crown Attorney Murray MacDonald states people commit suicide over these things.
THIS STATEMENT IS MADE JUST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO KEN SEGUIN’S SUICIDE.
SUB SEC 15. page 293 evidence book – 6th Dec 1993
“I met with Crown Attorney Murray MacDonald. I briefed him on the investigation conducted by Sebalj, and brought him up to date on what has occurred since my involvement started.
He wanted to go on record as saying that with the information he had on the case, that he had no problem with the way Cst Sebalj and S/Sgt Brunet had handled the investigation. He had been consulted by Sebalj on several occasions, as well as S/Sgt Brunet.
Page 20 of 110
He said that he was aware that Sebalj was having difficulty with the investigation. She was unable to get corroboration.
THREE VICTIMS, KEN SEGUIN ALLEGATIONS NO CORROBORATION ?
SUSPECTS NEVER INTERVIEWED.
BOTH SUSPECTS LEFT IN POSITIONS OF SUPREME TRUST AND AUTHORITY WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.
CONSTABLE SEBALJ NOTES
SUB SEC 16. page 307 evidence book-13 January 1993:
“13:15 t/c to victim – reluctant to speak with female advised him that Cst Malloy will sit in on interviews”
NOTES FROM THIS DATE INDICATE THAT THE VICTIM D.S. ADVISED CST. SEBALJ HE HAD BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED AS A YOUNG BOY BY FATHER CHARLES MACDONALD
SUB SEC 17. page 310 evidence book – 26 January 1993:
“16:25-t/c to victim’s residence….as long as I’ve got you, may as well tell you. I’m not happy with the way this is going….) asked to talk to
SUB SEC 18. page 311 evidence book – 27 January 1993:
“10:10 meeting with Chief & Sgt. Lefebvre to discuss Silmser, decision made that investigation would remain mine but interview must accommodate his wishes.”
SUB SEC 19. page 312 evidence book – 28 January 1993:
“09:22 in youth office with Cst. Malloy, Sgt. Lefebvre & Silmser. Silmser requested that interview be conducted without me in the room, I pleaded my case….I would not
Page 21 of 110
participate in the interview, just listen”
IT IS OBVIOUS FROM HER OWN NOTES THAT THE VICTIM WANTED A MALE TO INVESTIGATE HIS COMPLAINT FROM THE ONSET
SUB SEC 20. page 315 evidence book – 16 February 1993:
“0935 unscheduled visit from victim. Provided statement. States Father McDougall called last night – 15 Feb – wanted to discuss a settlement….”
Father MacDougald calls the victim at home to discuss a monetary settlement. At this point in time there is an ongoing criminal investigation under way.
FACT: ON FEBRUARY 16, 1993 D.S. PROVIDED HIS EIGHT PAGE STATEMENT TO THE CORNWALL POLICE SERVICE.
SUB SEC 21. page 339 evidence book – 02 March 1993:
“Meet Crown MacDonald in CIB asked how investigation was going…became concerned about my grounds suggested a meeting with victim”
SUB SEC 22. page 370-387 evidence book two, more victims identified March 1993.
SUB SEC 23. page 415 evidence book – 23 Aug 1993
Lawyer Malcolm MacDonald asks Constable SebaIj no handcuffs for Father Charlie when he is brought to station.
THIS WOULD INDICATE TO ME THAT HIS CLIENT FATHER CHARLES MACDONALD WAS GETTING NERVOUS. PERHAPS MALCOLM MACDONALD WAS GETTING NERVOUS.
IT WOULD CERTAINLY INDICATE TO ME AN ARREST
Page 22 of 110
WAS COMING AND MALCOLM MACDONALD WAS ASKING FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT.
SUB SEC 24. page 416 evidence book 07 September 1993:
“0800 met by S/Sgt Brunet handed me a letter from Malcolm MacDonalds office which enclosed a Direction signed by Silmser on 03 Sept 1993″
SUB SEC 25. Page 417 evidence book 13 September 1993:
“Meet with Crown MacDonald …suggest satisfied that Silmser acted of his own free will”
SUB SEC 26. page 420 evidence book 29 September 1993
Sebalj gets Silmser to sign her notebook as follows:
“I David Silmser received a settlement to my satisfaction from the Cornwall Catholic Diocese. I wish that this matter against Charles MacDonald be closed. My lawyer Sean Adams will handle any further questions or inquiries about this matter.”
Signed by David Silmser Witnessed by Sebalj
STAFF SERGEANT LUC BRUNET’S NOTES
SUB SEC 27. page 436 evidence book – 01 OCT 1993:
“Chief Shaver requested I attend his office for a meeting present was D/C St. Dennis.
Subject was: David Silmser
Father Charles MacDonald
and Ken Seguin
I was advised that Perry Dunlop had turned over the statement obtained from David Silmser by Cst Sebalj
Page 23 of 110
I was advised by Chief Shaver to get a letter from Mr. Adams requesting direction on the Ken Seguin complaint.
I was advised to enter the report on the system under projects.”
HERE WE HAVE CHIEF SHAVER DIRECTING THE INCIDENT TO THE PROJECT FILES.
CHIEF SHAVER THEN WANTS A LETTER SENT TO A LAWYER; AS TO HOW TO PROCEED WITH KEN SEGUIN.
SUB SEC 28. page 438 evidence book 07 Oct 1993:
“15:00 HRS 10-7 220 Montreal Road. Bishop Larocque was very receptive. Heard our concerns and stated that he would be speaking to Father Charles MacDonald this evening with Father MacDougald. He will let the Chief know results tomorrow morning.
Fri Oct 8/93 09:20 hrs
Called in to see Chief Shaver. He advised that the Bishop called him and advised that Father Charles MacDonald had a homosexuality problem but only with consenting adults. He agreed to go for treatment and will be leaving immediately.
IN THE BISHOP’S OWN WORDS FATHER CHARLIE IS GOING FOR TREATMENT BECAUSE HE IS A HOMOSEXUAL?
Fri Oct 8/93 14:10 hrs
Meeting with Rick Able and Angelo Townsdale C.A.S.
SENIOR CROWN MURRAY MACDONALD DECLARES HE HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. YET, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS HE AVAILS HIMSELF TO THE CORNWALL
Page 24 of 110
POLICE SERVICE TO SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH THIS FILE.
HE CONTINUES TO GIVE VERBAL ADVICE AS WELL AS WRITTEN ADVICE FROM BEGINNING TO END ON THIS FILE. NOTE: ANGELO TOWNSDALE CURRENTLY SITS ON THE POLICE SERVICES BOARD AND HAS WORKED WITH THE CHILDREN’S AIDS SOCIETY FOR YEARS IN A SENIOR POSITION.
NOTE: ALL OF THE ABOVE EVIDENCE WAS HAND DELIVERED TO THE OFFICES OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SOLICITOR GENERAL IN TORONTO IN APRIL OF 1997 26.
26. I have been advised by Inspector Tim Smith, that Ken Seguin had a number of pornographic video tapes, store bought and home made. These tapes were seized by the Ontario Provincial Police, on February 10, 1993. Some of the tapes showed explicit sexual acts involving minors. These tapes would have implicated not only Ken Seguin but others as well. The Ontario Provincial Police have admitted destroying these tapes. Inspector Tim Smith indicated to me at one of our meetings that he would love to have these tapes in his possession as it would make the investigation much easier.
These tapes were illegally seized during a search for weapons at the home of Ron Leroux.
I have attached a copy of this warrant along with the return. (Book One – Tab 8) This was an interesting time in 1993. At this tab I have also inserted a copy of Constable Sebalj’s notes which indicate:
10 February 1993 10:39 –
t/c (telephone call) from V (victim D.S.) He called (indicating) Seguin is “running scared”. Advised him (D.S. advised Seguin) he is laying charges on McDonald – stated he’s getting very mad.
Page 25 of 110
I have also included at this tab excerpts from three statements that were included in the package I forwarded to the Attorney General and Solicitor General.
Excerpt from Ron Leroux affidavit of 13 November 1996:
On or about mid-December, 1992, I attended Ken Seguin House and found him in a state of depression. I observed him at 5:30 a.m. in his pyjamas on the ice behind his home. He was suicidal. I immediately went outside and talked him back into his place. At this time he told me about the allegations against him made by D.S. He told me there was another person involved. I brought him to Florida to help him recuperate.
I returned to Ft. Lauderdale on or about February 3 or 4, 1993 by myself. I returned to Canada on or about early March, 1993 to find my home in a complete mess as if someone had searched my home. I received a telephone call from the O.P.P. Lancaster, Ontario advising me they had done a search on my house and that they found a leather suitcase and weapons. The officer asked me to go to the station and I went the next day. When I arrived, I was greeted by an O.P.P. officer, 6’3 or 6’4 in height, who talked to me about the leather suitcase. He asked me if I owned the suitcase and I replied “no”. He seemed not to want to leave me with the suitcase. He asked me if I knew what was in the suitcase and I replied “No”. He then said that he knew what was in the suitcase and advised that it contained pornographic tapes. I signed a release form and left the suitcase at the O.P.P. station. This officer advised me that he was going to destroy these tapes. I then returned home.
A few hours after returning from the O.P.P. station, I attended Ken’s house to ask him what was going on as he had agreed to take care of my home during my trip. Ken Seguin was also supposed to look after my dog. I was infuriated and asked him about the suitcase. Ken Seguin admitted that it was his suitcase and it contained personal pornographic tapes with his handwriting on them. Ken also stated that it was his personal pornographic tape collection from over the years and he wanted them out of the house. He said he was under investigation for sexual assault and that these tapes would “clinch” a conviction against him. Ken said that it would ruin him. Ken was extremely apologetic. I also observed destroyed tapes and probation documents in a bin at my home, on the upper floor outside the master bedroom bathroom, I was surprised to find the destroyed tapes and documents.
On or about March, 1994, in the presence of my wife Cindy Leroux I advised an
Page 26 of 110
O.P.P. officer and an Ottawa officer about these tapes. Both officers stated that they knew nothing of these tapes but would look into it.
I plead guilty on Malcolm’s advice to an “unsafe storage” charge and was fined $300.00.”
Excerpt from Don Labelle’s statement of 12 December 1996:
“I remember one time when the Lancaster Ontario Provincial Police came to do a search warrant on Ron Leroux’s residence, which is now my residence. I had called and complained about firearms that Ron Leroux had that may not been registered properly. The officers came when Ron was away in Florida and conducted a search. I let them in because I had a key. I recall that they found an old rusty 22 caliber rifle. During the search they also located a large brown briefcase/suitcase full of video tapes. I had never seen these tapes before, and I do not believe that they were Ron’s. Whoever placed these tapes there knew it was a special location, sort of a secret hiding spot upstairs. The officers took these tapes with them and I have never seen them again.”
Excerpt from Gerry Renshaw’s statement of 5 Dec 1996:
“I have observed a beaten up suitcase, brown or beige with a flop over cover with a lock on it. I observed it in Ken’s large closet in his bedroom. Ken advised me that he was being harassed by D.S. He said he was terrified by a criminal investigation and of losing his career and his family name. He advised me that he had to get rid of some video tapes that would implicate him. He also advised me that he had my probation records and that he had to destroy these as well. Approximately two days later, Ken advised me that my probation records were missing. Ken should not have had these records in the first place.”
If you look at the Sebalj notes in this tab dated 16 February 1993 you also see two interesting facts. The first: that Father MacDougald called D.S. the night of 15 February 1993 to discuss a settlement.
The second point of interest was that on the 16th of February 1993 the victim D.S. provided his original eight page statement to the Cornwall Police Service. The original statement alleged that D.S. was sexually assaulted by Ken Seguin.
Page 27 of 110
So to get things in sequence:
1 – D.S. is calling Constable Sebalj on the 10th of February 1993 indicating that Ken Seguin is “running scared”
2 – He is obviously under investigation as he states to Ron Leroux: ” I am under investigation for sexual assault and these tapes would clinch a conviction against me”
3 – Other witnesses confirm the existence of the tapes.
4 – The Ontario Provincial Police seize the tapes illegally. This all takes place within a very specific time frame. Yet, Ken Seguin is never interviewed by police.
It is my belief that if the Cornwall Police investigators or the O.P.P. investigators would have sat down with Seguin and questioned him that things would have transpired in a much different fashion.
I believe that Ken Seguin had an attack of conscience and would have been ready to talk to investigators.
I have been told and do verily believe that copies were made of these tapes.
THEY ARE STILL IN EXISTENCE TODAY.
Was there no communication between the Cornwall Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police?
Were both police services investigating allegations of sexual abuse by Ken Seguin?
Why did the Ontario Provincial Police seize these tapes? Whose pictures were on these tapes? How did the officers know where the tapes were?
Page 28 of 110
Click to continue to Part 2
Click to go to: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5