COURT FILE NO.: 515/07

DATE: 20071119

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

HOILETT, FERRIER AND SWINTON JJ.

B E T W E E N:

THE HONOURABLE G. NORMAND GLAUDE, COMMISSIONER OF THE CORNWALL PUBLIC INQUIRY

Applicant

• and -

PERRY DUNLOP

Respondent

Brian Gover and Patricia M. Latimer, for the Applicant

Leslie McIntosh, for the Attorney General for Ontario (Proposed Intervenor)

HEARD at Toronto: November 19, 2007

swinton J.: (Orally)

1The Honourable G. Normand Glaude, Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry states a case to the Divisional Court asking that it inquire into the refusal of Perry Dunlop to answer questions before the Cornwall Public Inquiry in September and October, 2007.

2Section 8 of the Public Inquiries Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.41 provides:

Where any person without lawful excuse,

(b) being in attendance as a witness at an inquiry, refuses to take an oath or to make an affirmation legally required by the commission to be taken or made, or to produce any document or thing in his or her power or control legally required by the commission to be produced to it, or to answer any question to which the commission may legally require an answer,

the commission may state a case to the Divisional Court setting out the facts and that court may, on the application of the commission or of the Attorney General, inquire into the matter and, after hearing any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of that person and after hearing any statement that may be offered in defense, punish or take steps for the punishment of that person in like manner as if he or she had been guilty of contempt of the court.

3Mr. Dunlop attended as a witness at the Commission on September 17, 2007, was affirmed and read a prepared statement but refused to answer any questions posed by Commission counsel. After returning on several occasions and maintaining his refusal, Mr. Dunlop requested an opportunity to seek legal advice. The Commissioner granted his request and ordered Mr. Dunlop to re-attend before the Commission on October 9, 2007.

4On October 9, 2007, Mr. Dunlop attended at the Commission, read a prepared statement and maintained his refusal to answer any questions posed by Commission counsel or counsel for the parties with standing.

5The Commissioner submits that Mr. Dunlop’s refusal was made without lawful excuse and constitutes contempt pursuant to s.8 of the Public Inquiries Act. Mr. Dunlop did not appear today, although properly served.

6Mr. Dunlop attended before the Commission on several occasions and was affirmed, but refused to answer questions to which the Commission legally required answers. The transcript of evidence establishes that Mr. Dunlop would not respond to questions from Commission counsel, despite being given an ample opportunity to do so. Mr. Dunlop is legally required to answer questions put to him by Commission counsel, provided they are relevant to the mandate of the Inquiry.

7Mr. Dunlop has knowledge and information that goes to the heart of the mandate of the Commission, and the questions to be asked of him are clearly relevant. Paragraph 54 of the Commissioner’s Factum sets out the areas in which Mr. Dunlop is to be questioned. These areas are relevant to the Commission’s mandate to inquire into and report on the institutional response of the justice system and other public institutions to allegations of sexual abuse of young people in the Cornwall area.

8A witness may refuse to answer a question before a Commission only if he or she has a “lawful excuse” for the refusal. Mr. Dunlop has given no legal reason for his refusal to answer questions. He refused to answer questions because he said that he has no faith in the Ontario justice system or the mandate of the inquiry; he is a “scapegoat”; the process is a cover-up; he was forced to appear against his will; and he could add nothing to his “will state”. In our view, he has provided no lawful excuse for his refusal to answer relevant questions.

9Therefore, we find that the Commissioner has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Dunlop is guilty of contempt. He is ordered to appear before the Commissioner on January 14, 2008 to answer questions asked by Commission counsel and counsel for parties with standing.

Mr. Dunlop is also to attend before this Court on a date to be fixed in order that this Court may deal with the appropriate punishment.

SWINTON J.

HOILETT J.

FERRIER J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 19, 2007

Date of Release: December 6, 2007

COURT FILE NO.: 515/07

DATE: 20071119

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT