Throughout the course of this hearing, Dean Steacy contradicts himself multiple times. How many? We simply don’t know for sure. But if the number of occasions that I was able to dig up are any indication, it’s safe to say that the sky – or perhaps in this Star Chamber context – the “Stars” are the limit.
In this particular audio clip, Dean Steacy gets caught contradicting the evidence already known to the Tribunal. It becomes so flagrant that the Tribunal Judge feels the need to interject to correct him and point out the contradiction in his testimony, a correction which Steacy amazingly admits at the end of the clip.
In the course of the questioning, Barbara Kulaszka, Lemire’s lawyer, is trying to score a bigger point (than what is the subject of this particular blog analysis) about why Steacy posted on Stormfront’s discussion board in September 2006 when, in fact, he had dismissed Lemire’s complaint against the RCMP, Peel Regional Police and a whole assortment of media outlets back in May 2006. In other words, she was trying to find out the justification for him posting on the board after the Commission had rejected Lemire’s complaint.
Steacy claimed that they had not yet officially rejected his complaint and so the file was technically still open. (Why this should have any relevance to a CHRC investigator cruising a complainant’s board, I do not know – other than, of course, to find some dirt on the complainant in order to find some justification to dismiss the complaint). When Steacy claimed that Lemire’s complaint had not been rejected for substantive reasons but only administrative (format) ones, the Tribunal Judge finally steps in, pulls out Steacy’s letter to Lemire, and shows him that, in fact, he had dismissed the complaint based on substantive reasons and not merely administrative ones as Steacy had been maintaining.
The relevance of this point, other than showing the stark contradiction in Steacy’s testimony, is to all but prove Kulaszka’s point that Lemire’s complaint had been rejected in May 2006 and therefore Steacy had no business being on the Stormfront discussion board in the capacity as a CHRC investigator in September of that year. This was, of course, well beforeWarman’s complaint against Lemire which was filed in November 2003.
In the audio clip, from 0:00-3:24, you will hear Steacy claiming that Lemire’s case was not “dismissed” or “closed” because the only problem was an administrative one not a substantive one. But at 3:24, the Tribunal Judge steps in and cites the actual letter written by Steacy rejecting Lemire’s complaint on substantive reasons. After citing the letter, the Judge concludes by stating:
As I read your conclusions, sir, you are not saying that the form itself is misfiled or that it has been improperly prepared, you are actually alluding to the provisions of the Act. (7:58-8:10)
and then immediately thereafter, Steacy “apologizes” for his contradiction.