Part Eighteen: Closing Submissions; Affected Families Group; Why Did The Chief Coroner's Office Fail To Hold Dr. Charles Smith Accountable?

"CLEARLY, BOTH DRS. YOUNG AND CAIRNS WERE MORE FOCUSSED ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND ON THE NEED TO PROTECT THE REPUTATION OF THE OFFICE THAN ON THE UNDERLYING ISSUES INVOLVING DR. SMITH AND THE DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES FOR THE INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES INVOLVED."

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS; AFFECTED FAMILIES GROUP;

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

During the period from the early 1990’s through to 2004 there can be no little doubt that Drs. Young and Cairns, and Dr. Young in particular, sheltered and protected Dr. Smith.

Why did this take place?

The key barriers to effective oversight and accountability by the Chief Coroner's Office appear to have been:

0: Neither Dr. Young or Dr. Cairns were forensic pathologists, and Dr. Chiasson did not have the authority or experience to supervise Dr. Smith. As a result, no one was in a position to effectively evaluate his work;

0: There were no clear lines of authority or reporting;

0: Accountability for the work of the Ontario Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit was nowhere defined;

0: The Chief Coroner's Office was so invested in Dr. Smith’s work that it was incapable of objective and critical oversight;

0: Dr. Cairns in particular was enamoured of Dr. Smith’s icon status;

0: The consequences of critical oversight would have had a highly negative impact for the Chief Coroner's Office's reputation and for Dr. Young in particular;

0: At various times, Dr. Smith was treated as a friend and colleague who was under attack.

Of these, (d) through (g) are most troubling.

Failing to create an effective organizational structure to allow for oversight and supervision by those who have the skills to do it is one thing; fostering an environment where such oversight cannot meaningfully occur is another.

It is incomprehensible that the 2001 review never contemplated a retrospective examination of past cases for purposes of determining whether there were errors which may have led to miscarriages of justice.

Clearly, both Drs. Young and Cairns were more focussed on public perception and on the need to protect the reputation of the office than on the underlying issues involving Dr. Smith and the devastating consequences for the individuals and families involved...


Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;