Part Thirteen: Closing Submissions; Affected Families Argue That There Were Tools Chief Coroner's Office Could Have Used To Rein In Dr. Smith;

"ALTHOUGH DR. CAIRNS TESTIFIED THAT HE SPOKE TO DR. SMITH MANY TIMES ABOUT TARDINESS AND COMPLETION OF POST-MORTEM REPORTS, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN THE RECORD EVIDENCING ANY WRITTEN ADMONISHMENT OR REPRIMAND BEING PROVIDED TO DR. SMITH BY EITHER DR. CAIRNS OR DR. YOUNG IN THE PERIOD UNDER REVIEW."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS: AFFECTED FAMILIES GROUP;

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

This Blog is currently focusing 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 a section in which the group argues that the Chief Coroner's Office had tools it could have used to hold Dr. Charles Smith accountable for his mistakes - even though he was not its employee.

"Although Dr. Smith was not its employee, the Chief Coroner's Office could and should have evaluated his performance and that of the Ontario Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit as a whole," the section begins;

"It had a number of tools it could have used to hold him accountable for mistakes," it continues:

"0: Written reprimands or warnings;

0: Re-direction of cases to other pathologists;

0: Revocation of Dr. Smith’s position as member of the Pediatric Death Review Committee and Death Under 2 Committee;

0: Revocation of his appointment as Director of the Ontario Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit;

Although Dr. Cairns testified that he spoke to Dr. Smith many times about tardiness and completion of post-mortem reports, there is not a single document in the record evidencing any written admonishment or reprimand being provided to Dr. Smith by either Dr. Cairns or Dr. Young in the period under review.

The only document critical of even the Ontario Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit was prepared by Dr. Chiasson in December, 1998 as part of his attempt to revision the unit.

It states in part as follow: In my view, the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit is not fulfilling its mandate to provide a high quality forensic pathology service to the Coroner’s Office despite the Office’s attempts to provide guidance and direction. Furthermore, I do not believe that the problems with the unit can be remedied given the current arrangements we have with the Hospital for Sick Children.

Following the receipt of the opinion of Dr. Mary Case in the Nicholas case, Dr. Young had what he characterized as his “hugging the tree” conversation with Dr. Smith.

Dr. Young suggested to this Inquiry that “we had dealt with him in a disciplinary manner”.

The reality is that no disciplinary measures or sanctions were discussed at this meeting."

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;