Another alarm bell: Tuesday February 26; Cairns DNA;

MR. PETER WARDLE: Now, if we could just
14 look at the email from Elizabeth Quinlan that's in the
15 middle of the page and, first of all, perhaps you could
16 tell us who Elizabeth Quinlan was. I'm assuming she was
17 a Crown.
18 Do you know in what jurisdiction?
19 MR. JUSTICE JOHN MCMAHON: I believe she
20 was in Barrie. I don't know the lady directly, because
21 there's about nine hundred (900) Crown attorneys, but --
22 and I'm cheating somewhat, but I -- I believe that in any
23 event, but I see at the ba -- bottom there it even tells
24 you that she's with that office.
25 MR. PETER WARDLE: So I wanted to just


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

61
1 take you through the body of this email, if we may. The
2 email indicates that Ms. Quinlan had prosecuted Roy
3 Simmons (phonetic) on a charge of manslaughter in which
4 Dr. Charles Smith was a witness.
5 The prosecution began in 1994, and I
6 believe -- and she says in the email:
7 "I believe in 1997 or early 1998, we
8 were advised that Dr. Smith had mixed
9 up samples from the post-mortem that
10 were subsequently used in DNA testing."
11 And then it goes on to say:
12 "To give you some background, Simmons
13 was charged in 1994 with killing his 3-
14 month-old grandson. It was believed
15 that he was also the father of the
16 baby. DNA tests were done to confirm
17 this; however, the tests [and I'm
18 assuming that's the initial tests] show
19 that not only was Simmons not the
20 father of the baby, he was not the
21 grandfather of the baby or the father
22 of the child -- baby's mother.
23 Although the maternal grandmother was
24 adamant that Simmons was the father of
25 the baby's mother, we were assured by


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62
1 CS -- CFS of the accuracy of the
2 results of the test."
3 And then you'll see it goes on to say:
4 "Simmons was convicted of manslaughter
5 in October 1995. The Ontario Court of
6 Appeal ordered a retrial on an
7 unrelated issue. Before the retrial,
8 the baby's mother advised the police
9 that the information she had given to
10 them about the paternity of the baby
11 was false. She confirmed that Simmons
12 was the father of the baby. DNA
13 testing was redone using a sample from
14 the mother and another sample from the
15 baby. These second tests confirmed
16 that Simmons was the father and
17 grandfather of the baby, and of course,
18 the father of the baby's mother."
19 And it's really the last paragraph I
20 wanted to direct you to:
21 "An investigation was undertaken
22 regarding the mixing up of the original
23 sample. A meeting was held with Dr.
24 Jim Cairns, Dr. Smith, CFS personnel,
25 the investigating officer, Detective


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63
1 Constable Dave Fawcette, Detective
2 Inspector Ken Smith, and myself."
3 And -- and just stopping there. It would
4 appear from the chronology that this would be -- it
5 doesn't say when this meeting took place, but I'm
6 assuming from what's in this email, that it must have
7 been somewhere between 1996 and 1998.
8 MR. JUSTICE JOHN MCMAHON: It would make
9 sense.
10 MR. PETER WARDLE: And then it says:
11 "Dr. Charles Smith explained at that
12 meeting that he had mislabeled the
13 original sample from the baby taken at
14 the post-mortem and had taken the wrong
15 sample to CFS for DNA testing. This
16 resulted in the initial incorrect
17 result as to the paternity of the
18 baby."
19 And then it goes on to say:
20 "Simmons was convicted in 1999. After
21 the retrial on the charge of
22 manslaughter, he pleaded guilty to
23 incest."
24 And I'm really just highlighting this for
25 you, sir, because we've heard a lot of evidence about


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64
1 what the Coroner's Office knew or didn't know about
2 issues relating to Dr. Smith's competence in the -- in
3 the late 1990's.
4 And -- and this would certainly suggest
5 that Dr. Cairns, at least, was aware of one (1) incident
6 involving a mixing up of a sample, which appears to have
7 had some impact on an ongoing criminal prosecution, is
8 that fair?
9 MR. JUSTICE JOHN MCMAHON: Absolutely, it
10 would be fair based on that -- what Ms. Quinlan's
11 recollection is.