Letter to The Honourable Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Sports: Lake Babine First Nations and John Furlong

Hello Honourable Qualtrough,

I am a Vancouver lawyer (UBC LLB 1975), I have practised as a labour arbitrator since 1990, and my book on wrongly convicted Ivan Henry was published in 2014: https://www.amazon.ca/Innocence-Trial-Framing-Ivan-Henry/dp/1772030023

Six long months ago, I assisted Cathy Woodgate in writing a letter to PM Trudeau saying that, until and unless the members of Lake Babine’s First Nations are heard regarding whether or not John Furlong abused them (as a volunteer RC missionary in Burns Lake Immaculata Elementary school in 1969-70), he should be asked to stand down from his position as chair of “Own the Podium”.

That letter has since been passed from The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould to The Honourable Carolyn Bennett to The Honourable Melanie Joly…. and now to you, The Honourable Carla Qualtrough.

To say the least, this is a most unfortunate state of affairs.

Surely, Cathy Woodgate—a committed elder, advocating on behalf of the Lake Babine “day school survivors”—is entitled to a response without further delay.

Instead, John Furlong continues to ostensibly enjoy the favour (indeed highest plaudits) of our federal government. For instance, his name was twinned with Minister Qualtrough’s in this Globe and Mail article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/carla-qualtrough-appointed-to-federal-cabinet-in-gold-medal-day-for-sport/article27113619/

If you really care about establishing and nurturing trustworthy relationships with our First Nations people, please LISTEN to them before continuing to give John Furlong a free pass.

June 23rd—International Olympics Day–is fast approaching.

This problem cries out to be dealt with before then.

Regards, Joan

Two articles of interest as background:


Historic Sexual Abuse—Corroboration not needed

The Supreme Court of Canada has said that, notwithstanding the absence of corroboration in a case involving historic abuse, a finding of credibility is still possible: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/6211/index.do

In that case, the plaintiff FH had been a resident from 1966 to 1974 of the Sechelt Indian Residential School, an institution operated by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. Though FH claimed to have been sexually assaulted by M, an Oblate Brother, when he was 10, he told no-one about it until 2000, when he confided in his wife.

Despite inconsistencies in his testimony as to the frequency and gravity of the sexual assaults, the trial judge found him to be credible, concluding that he had been anally raped by M on four occasions during the 1968‑69 school year….

A majority of the Court of Appeal overturned that decision on the grounds that the trial judge had failed to consider the serious inconsistencies in FH’s testimony in determining whether the alleged sexual assaults had been proven to the standard of proof that was “commensurate with the allegation….”

In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada said, among other things, that, in serious cases such as this one—where there is little other evidence than that of the plaintiff and the defendant, and the alleged events took place long ago—the judge is required to make a decision.

Sexual assault victims need not provide independent corroborating evidence. Such evidence may not be available, especially where the alleged incidents took place decades earlier. Also, incidents of sexual assault normally occur in private. Hence, trial judges may be required to make a decision on the basis of whether they believe the plaintiff or the defendant. As difficult as that may be, they must assess the evidence and make their determination without imposing a legal requirement for corroboration.