Part Seven: Closing Submissions: Affected Families Group: Chief Coroner's Office Alleged To Have Turned Dr. Charles Smith Into "Icon"; Implications;

OVER TIME, HE BECAME THE LARGEST FROG IN THE SMALL POND OF PEDIATRIC FORENSIC PATHOLOGY – IN FACT, THE ONLY FROG.

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

THE ONTARIO CHIEF CORONER'S OFFICE'S ROLE IN PROMOTING DR. SMITH’S CAREER, ITS DESPERATE NEED FOR HIS SERVICES, AND THE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH HIS ICON STATUS GO A LONG WAY TO EXPLAIN THE (OFFICE'S) FAILURE TO TAKE ANY STEPS PRIOR TO 2001 TO RESPOND TO DR. SMITH’S ERRORS AND ITS GLACIAL REACTION IN 2001 AND FOLLOWING WHEN DR. SMITH’S FALL FROM GRACE BEGAN.

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

FROM CLOSING SUBMISSIONS: THE AFFECTED FAMILIES GROUP:

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

This Blog is currently looking at the closing written submissions filed by various parties appearing at the Goudge Inquiry which is expected to report on September 30, 2008.

The current focus is on the submissions filed by the "Affected Families Group" - a group of families who were directly affected by the systemic failings which occurred in pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario between 1991 and 2001;

The Group is represented by lawyers Peter Wardle (Wardle, Daley, Bernstein) and Julie M. Kirkpatrick.

Today's focus is on the section of the submissions argue that the Ontario Chief Coroner's Office is responsible for creating Dr. Smith's "icon status" with extremely unfortunate consequences for Ontario's criminal justice system.

"Dr. Smith’s interest in and involvement with coroner’s autopsies appears to date to the early 1980’s," the section begins;.

"Over time, he became the largest frog in the small pond of pediatric forensic pathology – in fact, the only frog," it continues.

"By the mid 1980’s he had begun to lecture on forensic pediatric pathology, including giving seminars for pathologists and coroners who were working for the Chief Coroner's Office.

According to Dr. Cairns, during this time no one else had an interest in forensic pediatric pathology, and the Chief Coroner's Office was encouraging him to develop that expertise.

By the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, Dr. Smith was lecturing to Crown Attorneys and police officers and had become a fixture at educational courses for coroners.

He began to lecture at international conferences, for example, the first North American conference on Child Abuse and Neglect.

Dr. Cairns readily admitted that around this time, in the early 1990’s, it was very advantageous for Ontario Chief Coroner's Office to have someone who had developed this type of expertise.

Dr. Cairns also agreed that being appointed as Director of the Ontario Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit would have enhanced Dr. Smith’s reputation.

By the mid-1990’s, Dr. Smith was giving a forensic pathology course for regional pathologists, seminars for the Canadian Association of Pathologists and a lecture to the Association of Family Court Judges.

Furthermore, Dr. Smith was giving a number of presentations to the American Association of Forensic Sciences, including papers where Dr. Young was listed as a co-author.

Dr. Cairns acknowledged that throughout this period, from 1991 forward, Dr. Young was actively assisting Dr. Smith’s career, in the sense of promoting him wherever he could.

Dr. Cairns agreed that “Dr. Smith didn’t come out of nowhere and become an icon overnight”.

Indeed, Dr. Cairns admitted that all of Dr. Smith’s career steps from the mid-1980’s right forward to the mid to late-1990’s were taken with the active encouragement and involvement of the Chief Coroner's Office.

One of the reasons for that encouragement was that it was very useful for the Chief Coroner's Office to have someone with this expertise and with this stature.

Dr. Smith’s curriculum vitae also makes it clear that as he gained expertise and prominence, he began to give lectures in areas which were strictly speaking outside his area of competence, for example on the topic of child abuse.

Dr. Cairns agreed that Dr. Smith took on a “public awareness” role in connection with the investigation of child abuse.

As time went on, Dr. Smith’s stature began grew.

He went on international exhumations. He went on a well-publicised trip to the Arctic.

He went to India.

He began to get favourable press treatment.

In each case, his association with the Chief Coroner's Office would have been very apparent.

Dr. Cairns admitted that the Chief Coroner's Office assisted Dr. Smith’s career throughout and that the Office benefited from his expertise and his pedigree75.

In short, the Chief Coroner's Office had a vested interest in Dr. Smith’s continuing success.

If Dr. Smith turned out to have feet of clay, that would have an unfavourable impact for the Office.

Dr. Cairns, in his capacity as Deputy Chief Coroner of Ontario, gave opinion evidence in support of Dr. Smith in two specific cases this Inquiry has reviewed (Nicholas and Paolo).

The very fact that he would do so would suggests that the Chief Coroner's Office as an institution supported Dr. Smith’s opinion and testimony in those cases.

This has been identified as a problem by Dr. Crane, for example.

The Chief Coroner's Offices' role in promoting Dr. Smith’s career, its desperate need for his services, and the benefits associated with his icon status go a long way to explain the Chief Coroner's Offices' failure to take any steps prior to 2001 to respond to Dr. Smith’s errors and its glacial reaction in 2001 and following when Dr. Smith’s fall from grace began."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;