BishopAccountability.org
	Judge Slams Affidavit Errors By Terri Saunders Standard Freeholder [Canada] April 27, 2007 http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=504081&catname=Local+News&classif= A judge berated a lawyer representing victims at the Cornwall Public Inquiry Thursday for not ensuring affidavits filed with the commission were accurate. Comm. Normand Glaude told Dallas Lee he wasn't interested in hearing excuses for why a number of victim-sworn affidavits contain errors. "We are dealing with a law firm that purports to act in the best interests of these people, and we have people that are swearing affidavits," said Glaude. "I want ... to bring home to your clients and to your firm that this type of thing cannot happen again." Last month, errors were identified in at least two affidavits filed with the inquiry on behalf of members of The Victims Group who are represented at the inquiry by lawyers from the London, Ont.-based law firm Ledroit Beckett. In one case, the affidavit incorrectly named a priest as a perpetrator of abuse when no allegation had been made against the priest by that particular individual, a witness identified at the inquiry as C-10. A second affidavit contained inaccurate statements regarding the individual's take on the response of some public institutions to his allegations of abuse. On Thursday, Lee said three lawyers and two clerks with Ledroit Beckett have been identifying any further errors in the affidavits since the day after Glaude ordered a review of the documents within 30 days from March 28. Lee said out of 45 affidavits filed when the group sought standing and funding in the fall of 2005, 37 have been reviewed. Of the eight outstanding affidavits, one individual is no longer being represented by Ledroit Beckett and notice will be sent to the person's new counsel to have the original affidavit reviewed. The remaining seven individuals are proving difficult to contact, Lee said. "We have made efforts consisting of at least, in all seven cases, two letters enclosing the affidavit and asking them to contact us and a minimum of three telephone calls to each," Lee said. "We have not heard back from any of them. Our efforts obviously will continue in that regard." Lee said factual errors have been found in further affidavits, but in his opinion, they do not approach the seriousness of the errors previously identified. "I can report to you that none of the errors are in any way close to as serious as the errors in C-10's affidavit. His was thankfully an anomaly," said Lee. "None of the affidavits I am about to speak to contain improperly named perpetrators of abuse. None of the errors result in one of the affiants not being a victim of abuse. And none of the errors pertaining to an affiant's financial situation, in my submission, would have in any way altered your decision with respect to funding." Lee provided Glaude with an example of typographic errors contained in at least one further affidavit. "An easy example I can give you is that one of the affiants alleges abuse at the hands of a Father Lefebvre. The affidavit has his name being spelled L-E-F-E-V-B-R-E," said Lee. "In fact, it should be the 'B' before the 'V.'" Glaude disagreed with Lee the error was not serious. "Let's assume that there was a Father Lefebvre who spelled his name with the 'B' and 'V,'" said Glaude. "He might have not thought that inconsequential." Glaude said the responsibility for ensuring the affidavits are entirely correct ultimately rests with the law firm and ordered Lee to provide the inquiry with supplementary affidavits containing corrections as soon as possible. "In this inquiry, the biggest thing that we've had to fight with is misunderstandings, miscommunication, innuendos and that kind of thing," Glaude said. "In this inquiry, if people are going to say things (and) write things down (then) the people who are receiving that information have a standard of care. That standard of care is that we make sure that what's in the document is correct." While Lee agreed with most of Glaude's comments, he did not agree with any suggestion he is not acting in the best interest of his clients. "I'm not trying to play games," Lee said. "I think I have to take some issue with your statement that we purport to act in the best interests of our clients. We do our best; I do my best. I can speak for myself at least to act in the best interests of my clients." Lee said if he could go back in time, he would have done things differently. "Clearly, I should have reviewed every single one of them in detail. Clearly, I should have understood that as a victim of abuse they may not particularly care what's in the document," he said. "They may trust that if a lawyer drafted it, it must be right. "I didn't do that at the time, and I regret that. And there are errors now, and I can assure you and I take your point to heart. I can absolutely assure you this is not going to happen again."
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.