injusticebusters logo

Robert Stewart letter

Notice of Appeal

Robert Stewart: has a publication ban helped keep this man in Collins Bay, Kingston for 9 years after an unfair trial?

While Mr. Stewart's case was before the courts there was another murder trial proceeding in Ottawa against a woman by the name of Julia Elliott. The lead investigator in this investigation was one Lyle McCharles, the same lead investigator involved in Mr. Stewart's case. On Tuesday September 8, 1999 Justice Paul Cosgrove, the Justice hearing the Elliott trial, stayed the proceedings against her, stating, as reported by the Ottawa Citizen on Sept. 8, 1999, "that deceit on the part of several Ontario Provincial Police officers and misconduct by various Crown attorneys has irreparably destroyed her right to a fair trial".

A publication ban was ordered "by the Justice hearing the matters involving Mr. Stewart" to prevent the names of the police officers or crown involved in the Elliott trial being divulged in the media.

This is how the police and the crown treated the testimony of the jailhouse informants, as long as the informants said what the crown wanted to hear, they could care less about their lies.

Mr. Terry Cooper's [crown] thoughts in this regard were: "If he wants to lie on the stand, that's his problem."

Due to a death in the Stewart family, this website will be closing down soon. We would like to thank everyone for all your assistance. We would also like to congratulate " Richard Trudel " who has been freed on bail pending a new trial.

This letter was written before the events of the Elliott trial.
Many of the same key officials are also involved in this case:

May 13, 1998

The Honourable Mr. Charles Harnick, Q.C.
Attorney General for Ontario
11 th Floor
720 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario

James Lockyer

Dear Sir:

Regina V. Richard Mallory and Robert Stewart
Charges - First Degree Murder (x2) East Region - Ottawa General Division
Trail Date - June 2, 1998

We are writing to request that, in light of the recommendations of the Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin and your endorsement of those recommendations, an independent Crown(s) and/or committee be assigned immediately to review the prosecution of our client, Robert Stewart.

We are particularly concerned about the misuse of jailhouse informants, the tunnel vision of the prosecuting team, and the loss, destruction and failure to preserve forensic evidence in this case.


The prosecution of Robert Stewart began almost eight years ago with the discovery of the bodies of a low level drug dealer, Michel Giroux, and his common law spouse, Manon Bourdeau, in their home in Cumberland, Ontario on or about January, 16 1990.

Originally, four men were charged with two counts of First Degree Murder. Two of them -- James Sauve and Richard Trudel -- have been tried and convicted by a jury after a 16 month trial. Mallory and Stewart (our client) were severed from that prosecution in 1995. Sauve and Trudel have filed appeals against their convictions and it is our strongly held position that they were wrongly convicted. The Assistant Crown Attorneys involved in that case, and who remain in charge of the prosecution of Robert Stewart, are Vikki Bair, Terry Cooper and Bernhard Dandyk. In addition to the prosecutors, the trial Judge at the first trial, Mr. Justice Mc William, is also the trial Judge at this trial despite two recusal applications brought by us on behalf of Mr. Stewart.

Pinkofsky Lockyer
Barristers & Solicitors

TELEPHONE: 416-598-1881
FAX: 416-598-3384

With respect to the trial of the remaining two accused men, Mallory and Stewart, we have just completed the pre-trial motions and a jury is to be selected on June 2, 1998. Much of the evidence called during the pre-trial proceedings relates to the abuse of process being alleged by the defence arising from investigative and prosecutorial mishandling of this case. Mr. Justice McWilliam has ruled, upon the urging of the prosecutors, that this application not be completed or argued until some time after the Crown's case is completed and possibly only after a verdict has been reached by the jury. That could be more than 18 months away.

Mr. Berzins, the Crown Attorney of Ottawa has offerd Mr. Mallory time served if he would plead guilty to manslaughter of the male victim only. Mr. Mallory has been detained in custody, on these charges only, at a detention center since December 20, 1990. He has been refused bail. He has refused the Crown's offer -- his position is that he will not plead guilty to an offense he did not commit. Mr. Stewart was offered a plea to second degree murder of the male victim only, with a parole ineligibility of 10 years. Mr. Stewart is also in custody and would have approximately 2 1/2 years left to serve, either in a penitentiary or perhaps a half-way house (based on the Crown's offer), before reaching eligibility for full parole. he has turned down this offer indicating that he, like his co-accused, will not plead guilty to an offence he did not commit.


The Crown's Case Consists Largely of Unsavory Witnesses and Jailhouse Informants.

Most of the Crowns witnesses have been paid substantial sums of money through the Ontario Provincial Police special fund and or the Ministry of the Attorney General's Witness Assistance and Protection Plan. Many of the Crown's witnesses have received other benefits as well --such as the removal of outstanding charges and/or warrants from the system, residency at police officers' homes, and assistance from police investigator to avoid being charged with new offences.

a. Denis Gaudreault

"All my life, I've been a crook and a thief and a liar and a dope dealer and all that. Do you think I'm gonna trust the cops the first time around?"

Denis Gaudreault, October 8, 1991.
Preliminary Inquiry.

The Crown's central witness, Denis Gaudreault, has received the benefit of approximately $400,000 over a 7 1/2 year period, the removal of a number of outstanding charges and warrants from the CPIC system, and several relocations and name changes at public expense. he was removed from the Ministry of the Attorney General's Witness Protection Program in August, 1997 because, after continuously committing criminal offences and breaching the terms of his contract, he was finally deemed unmanageable and a danger to this community.

Mr. Gaudreault, in response to being terminated from the program, was interviewed on national television where he threatened that he would not testify at Mr. Stewart's trail unless he received $100,000, another new name, another relocation, and the deletion of his criminal record in its entirety. During the interview with a reporter from CTV National News, Mr. Gaudreault admitted that he had committed criminal offences while in the Witness Protection Program and alleged that his police handlers condoned his illegal activities. Mr Gaudreault maintained that he should not be charged for breaking the law, but rather that his police handler should be charge for permitting him to do so.

In March, 1998, Mr. Gaudreault brought an application to the Ontario Court (General Division) for reinstatement of his monthly payments. the Ministry of the Attorney General was represented by Dana Venner of the Crown Law Office (Criminal) in Toronto. Ms. Venner opposed the application and has conducted herself at all times in a professional and objective fashion in relation to this case. By contrast, the local prosecutors in the case (Ms. Bair, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. and Mr. Dandyk) and police investigators (Detectives Rick Riddell and Heather Lamarche) acted behind the scenes to defeat the Ministry's position on the application. The Crowns and police provided legal advice to Mr. Gaudreault's counsel, supplied disclosure and transcripts of evidence to his counsel at the expense of the Ministry, and prepared an affidavit for use by his counsel on the application. Leaving aside issues of conflict of interest that therefore arise with respect to the trail Crowns, the result is that Mr. Gaudreault is once again receiving $2000 per month until at least the end of the trial.

Turning to Mr. Gaudreault's evidence, he has repeatedly lied to the police and the prosecutors and has committed perjury while testifying in these proceedings. In response to the defence position on the abuse of process application, that the failure to prosecute Mr. Gaudreault for any of these offences is tantamount to official condonation of obstruction of justice and perjury by Crown witnesses, the trial Crowns wrote in the factum:

'An alternative conclusion, and one of far greater validity, is that the attitude of the prosecution is characterized by the desire to promote the revelation of truth under oath rather that to punish and discourage respect for the oath by prosecuting in the manner suggested by the Applicant."

Given the recommendations of Mr. Justice Kaufman we fully expect the Ministry of the Attorney General will want to disassociate itself with statements suggesting that the truth can only be found if Crown witness are not charged with perjury when they lie:

Recommendation 51: Prosecution of informer for false statements

Where an in-custody informer has lied either to the authorities or to the Court, Crown counsel should support the prosecution of that informer, where there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, to the appropriate extent of the law, even if his or her false claims were not to be tendered in a criminal proceeding. The prosecution of informers who attempt (even Unsuccessfully) to falsely implicate an accused is, of course, intended, amongst other things, to deter like-minded members of the prison population. This policy should be reflected in the Crown Policy manual.

Recommendation 52: Extension of Crown policy to analogous persons

The current crown policy defines "in-custody informer' to address one type of in-custody witness whose evidence is particularly problematic. However, the policy does not address similar categories of witness who raise similar, but no identical, concerns. For example, a person facing charges, or a person in custody who claims to have observed relevant events of heard an accused confess while both were out of custody, may be no less motivated than an in-custody informer to falsely implicate an accuse in return for benefits. The Crown Policy Manual should, therefore, be amended to reflect that Crown counsel should be mindful of the concerns which motivate the policy respecting in-custody informers, to the extent applicable to other categories of witnesses, in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion generally.

An example of one of Mr. Gaudreault's many serious lies can be found in a statement he provided to the police implicating Mr. Stewart in another murder in the Bayshore area of Ottawa. Mr. Stewart's counsel (Michael Edelson) cross-examined Gaudreault about this statement at the preliminary inquiry on January 6, 1994

Q. Just a second. When you made the statement to the police back then about Stewart killing other
people, for example, which you now admit was a lie, that he didn't do it.
A. It was all hearsay, yes.
Q. It wasn't hear say, you said it.
A. Correct.
Q. You said he did it. That's not hearsay,...
A. Correct.
Q. ...right? My question to you, sir, is when you made those statements to the police, you knew you
were lying, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you expect those lies to be exposed?
A. Yeah, they were lies, yeah.
Q. Why - see, what I'm troubled by is this. You said you never trusted Fitzgibbons, the Pie man,...
A. Correct.
Q. ...right? And if you didn't trust him - no one forced you to talk to him, did they?
A. No.
Q. No one was holding a gun to your head and saying, "You've got to make a statement about the
Bayshore murder", right?
A. Well, it was just at the time that....
Q. No one forced you to make that statement.
A. The time that he asked me the question is - that's the time me and Jamie went up to that bar up on
Bank Street. We went downstairs and I guess Big - whatever his name was, I can't remember right
now - was having a discussion and they were all - about something about a girl and all sorts of stuff,
and me and Jamie went and picked up the .223.

Q. Forget about that. When you spoke to Fitzgibbons, okay - I think it was in March of '91 -...
A. Yeah.
Q. ...and he interviewed you about the Bayshore murder,...
A. Correct.
Q. could have told him to take a hike, correct?
A. Yeah.
Q. I mean, no one was forcing you at that time to say a word to Fitzgibbons, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And at that point in time you could have just as easily said, "I have nothing to say."
A. Correct.
Q. Right. But instead you deliberately chose to lie about the accused being involved in another murder, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Why?
A. Don't know.
Q. You don't know. You see what I'm getting at, Mr. Gaudreault? Given the choice of saying nothing
or lying, you always choose the option of lying, right?
A. Correct.

On the subject of lying to the police generally in relation to this investigation,
Mr. Gaudreault gave the following evidence on December 9, 1991:

Q. Now, Mr. Gaudreault, looking at your version, I take it what you're saying is: I've been a thief, I've been
a robber, I've been a drug dealer, I've been a liar, I've lied about a lot of things, and I've done a lot of
bad things, but I'm not lying about the events that surround the homicides. Is that a fair summary of
what you're saying here?
A. Correct.
Q. I see. So what you're saying is that in none of the times you've spoken to the police did you ever
lie to the police.
A. Sure did!
Q. You did.
A. I lied to them all the time.
Q. "All the time."
A. I've already told you that...
Q. Yes.
A. ...awhile back and you're still going back on the same thing that you've been askin' me question for
the last....
Q. Except we're talking about the same subject. We're talking about the subject of the murders.
And you're saying even on the subject of the murders, you lied to them throughout, right?
Time and again, you lied to the police, correct?
A. Correct.

Mr. Gaudreault's first version of events on the night he claims these murders took place contains the same mistakes as the newspapers accounts did. Mr Gaudreault's next attempt involves only two men going to the scene in a pick up truck.

When it appeared to Mr. Gaudreault that his contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (whereby he was to be paid $3000 per month) might be in jeopardy, and Det. Lamarche suggested to him that in fact James Sauve had been the shooter and that a white Cadillac had been used to drive to the scene, Mr. Gaudreault was quick to adopt these suggestions as the truth.

To lend an air of credibility to his new version, through, Mr. Gaudreault claimed he had not told them the whole truth earlier because he was in fact the driver of the white Cadillac. He had long since been assured by the investigators that as long as he didn't pull the trigger he would not be charged. If placing himself at the scene in the car seems an odd thing for Mr. Gaudreault to lie about, one has to be aware that Mr. Gaudreault has demonstrated repeatedly that in order to try to convince the police he was telling them the truth he would often alter a story he had heard by inserting himself into the story as a participant.

For example, he alleged to the police that Michael Neville, a prominent and respected Ottawa defence attorney, had taken a pay off to the police on behalf of Mr. Stewart. His testimony regarding this on October 17, 1991 at the preliminary inquiry provides just one illustration of Mr. Gaudreault's propensity to lie about being involved in events that he may (or may not have) only heard about.

Q. You told the court the other day when I dealt with the issue of Mr. Neville, you said that he was
laundering money for Stewart. He was buying real estate for Stewart....
A. Okay, I'll tell - I'll tell you exactly what I was told. This is - I was told, like you say, hearsay again.
Mr. Stewart came over to my place....
Q. No, I don't have to hear it again.
A. No, no....
Q. I'm just - I want to ask you a totally different question, okay?
A. Okay, but there's another thing too...
Q. I know what you told....

A. ...what I could answer you furthermore, because in one of the statements, you'll probably end up
asking - which I lied in that statement because I wanted the police to know that this was serious -
that I just didn't wanna be left dry. When the Denis Roy - when Denis Roy got killed or kill himself -
took his life - Randy came over tryin' to pick up all the product and all the dope from everybody,
'cause they wanted everything off the street. Because before that, there was - there was an
argument which Rob Stewart told me - it's something to do with Vanasse and it was with the contact
in Montreal. Rick Mallory, Denis Roy and Rob Stewart had a hit on him for somethin' that was said -
like, Denis was stepping on feet doing things. Then Denis died. Then Randy came over during that
day 'cause he had to go over to Jamie to pick up some money at Jamie, which Jamie later on -
I guess you'll be asking him the same question - and he came over and he wanted me to give him
some money. And I said, "Well, how much do you want?" He says, "Everything, I want. I'm supposed
to be picking up everythin'." I said, "Well, I don't have everything." He says, "How much you got?"
And I exaggerated in some of the statement because I was scared and I didn't know what to think -
so I've given him over $5,000 to Randy, his number one runner. Then I said, "Well, what's that for?"
He told me that he had to meet Michael Neville - like, that's like you say, hearsay. I didn't wanna say it,
but now you're putting me in a corner, I don't have any choice, basically. He told me he was meeting
Mike Neville off the Cumming (sic) Street by Donald Street - Cummings and Donald in a townhouse
'cause I been there with Stewart once. I think it's one of the Martin's place that lives there.
He says he had to meet Mike Neville to give him $25,000 so they could get off this rap - or this
charge because there was a gun found and all that. All what I'm tellin' ya is what one guy told me.
And after Rob came - after - awhile after, Rob came - I don't know if it was a day or a couple days -
and he came in to verified (sic) everything. He just said it cost him $25,000 for this stupid fuckin'
thing. That's exactly what was said, it just cost him 25 grand. And I'm not making anything up, I'm
just telling you exactly what I was told.

Q. Well!
A. You take it any way you want to take it. Like, even at one point, he used to come to my place. He
did lotta white, so he might a been so far going through all this - I know he - he must've exaggerated
at some point. But....
Q. Who's "he"?
A. Rob Stewart. But as far as I'm concerned, he didn't exaggerated to me at the time. And I still believe
'til today that most of his thing is true. Because these people there, they were making, like, lots of
money - like, it's - it's not a thing that basically you just do a little bit and get away with somethin'.
I'm talkin' millions of dollars they could make in a year if they want to. Look at Vanasse, it's - you
know, it's got nothin' to do with this, but look at him. He's bein' extradited right now and look at the
amount - over - close to a ton and a half. And you tell me that these people - like, my life is not in
danger and all that? I know what I've seen; I know what I did. I know that I shoulda never lie.
I shoulda came up forward with the statements - all my statements were the truth - but I didn't
trust anybody, from what I've heard. That's why I'm scared today and I've been scared all along.
And that's why I don't know what to do. Because I know what I did that one night wasn't fair, and I'm
not proud of it, but you'se people keep pushing me, and I just don't know how much more I could take
of this stuff.
Q. Well, we have some way to go, so just be patient. Because you lied to the police when you told them
that Mr. Neville had been paid $25,000....
A. By myself.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. So what you said to the police was that you personally met with Mr. Neville. You personally handed
over to him $25,000 in cash, true?

A. Because that would be the only way that the police might believe that I'm saying the truth about this,
and I was afraid that they wouldn't believe me if I say, "Well, this guy said that, that guy said that."
I know what I did.
Q. So what you say, Mr. Gaudreault, is that by lying, you tried to demonstrate to the police you were
telling the truth.
A. No, I was getting things worse.
Q. Just a second. By lying, and in this case by lying about Michael Neville, a prominent lawyer in
Ottawa, about your involvement with Mr. Neville, you were trying to demonstrate to the police that
you were telling the truth.
A. Correct.
Q. Exactly.
A. But I wasn't lying. I was lying....
Q. You were lying.
A. Yeah, I was lying to the police to say that I'm the one that went out and give him the money, but I
thought that might be the only way that they would believe me that I had nothing to do with this.
Q. In other words, by lying to them, you were going to get them to believe you. Pretty strange
thought process, don't you think?
A. Yeah, but I'm - I'm a thief; I'm a crook...
Q. We've been through that.
A. ...I'm a liar.
Q. We know all that.
A. Yeah.
Q. This is the statement you're talking about, June 20th, 1990, where you say that you go out - it's the
fourth page along, if Mr. Stewart wants to examine that.

MR. STEWART: Yes, I've got it, thank you.
Q. You say that: "That was the night of the killing up - the Cumberland - but I didn't know any of this - like,
he owed him a favour and he was cashing in on the favour which I - he even deducted $2,000 off my
bill and I had to pay Sauvé 10,000. Just before that, I paid a bill for Stewart to Mike - uh, Mike Neville.
I pay Mike Neville $25,000 up on Cummings Avenue at the townhouses off Cummings and Donald -
the back of the townhouses." You told the police that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. It was a lie?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. In fact, you were capable, Mr. Gaudreault, not only of lying, but you fabricate things with great detail,
don't you?
A. No, I didn't, sir.
Q. Great descriptive detail.
A. Because the only thing I did, instead of putting Randy, I put my name.
Q. Just a second. Not only did you do that, but you described the events with great detail, right?
A. Because that's the event that was described to me.
Q. Yes, here's what you say:
"I pay Mike Neville $25,000 up on Cummings Avenue at the townhouses off Cummings and Donald -
the back townhouses. He drove in and I was told there to wait for him. He was going to come
down. Then I found out that late in the afternoon, a couple of hours after that, Neville took the
$25,000 because he had to meet Stewart over at the Ottawa Police to get Stewart off on something
and Denis Roy's suicide mission", right?
A. Correct.
Q. So what you were telling the police in that statement, sir - and you were already under contract to tell
the truth to the police - what you told them was not true.
A. Correct.
Q. And you described to the police an event in which you were personally involved with a prominent
Ottawa lawyer, paying him $25,000 which was going to be used to get Stewart off on the Roy suicide.
A. Correct.
Q. Yes. Never happened with you. Never happened.
A. No, it happened with Randy.
Q. You say Randy related to you that he met Mr. Neville behind the Cummings townhouses.
Not in his office...
A. Correct.
Q. ...but behind the Cummings townhouses where a pay - a payment was made of $25,000, right?

A. Correct. But Stewart came over and - and verified everything a few days later.
Q. I suggest to you, sir, that you're again not telling the truth.
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Because you told quite a different story to the police in an earlier statement...
A. But I've lie....
Q. ...about the same events.
A. See, I've lied through all my statesment.
Q. We know that.
A. I didn't know where I've lied, so I tried to make it as good as I could, like, but with the
lies. But I'mnot lying today, I'm just telling you'se and I've - and I've told 'em yesterday the
same thing.
Q. Hold on a minute, because I think you are lying today.
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Page 25 of the March 20th, 1990 interview. You talk about the lawyer, Mike Neville.
MR. STEWART: I'm sorry, I missed that page. 20...?
MR. STEWART: Of March - of the typed....
MR. EDELSON: Of the typed March 20th interview.
Q. In the lower third of the page it says - this is Jim Fitzgibbons - he's the fellow from Nepean,
remember? - who interviewed you?
A. Yeah, I've never trusted that guy. I just....
Q. You didn't trust him either, okay.
A. Pie salesman makes a cop.
Q. Pardon?
A. Eh?
Q. What did you say?
A. Well, when I first got introduce to him when he first came and picked me up to - like, to sort
of like talk...
Q. Right.
A. ...his - well, from what I've heard, he used to sell pies before, like.
Q. He's a pie salesman?
A. Yeah. So then they....
Q. Like pies you eat?
A. Eh?
Q. Pies you eat?
A. Yeah, pies to eat.
Q. Okay, yes.
A. Then he just - then he makes it from a pie salesman to something else. I - I've never had
any arrangements with him. I never had any deal - he just ask me basically about the .223, when I
got it. I tried to remember the best I could because of the - about the rough time when we went and
got the .223 off Bruce Shield - me and Jamie exactly what happened.
Q. Okay, so you didn't trust him either.
A. No.
Q. No.
A. He's one guy I didn't trust and I still don't trust.
Q. And you said you had no deal with him. I take it you meant you had no contract.
A. I'm not talking about contracts. I had no....
Q. What kind of deal would you be talking about?
A. Any deals. I didn't....
Q. What kind of deal?
A. All what I was told is just somebody wanted to talk to me about the .223 and he was asking me a
lotta questions and I was just giving him a lotta bogus answers. Like, I....
Q. A lot of bogus answers?
A. Yeah.
Q. I see. Well, let's deal with this bogus answer. It says, "The lawyer, Mike Neville, yeah, he does
quite well too by Rob, yeah." That's Fitzgibbons talking. You say, "Because the day that - that
was the day of the Denis Roy killing. He came over to my place and picked up $14,000."
A. That was Randy,
Q. Let's stop there for a moment.
A. That's....
Q. You're talking about Neville.
A. That's Randy.
Q. Randy is never even talked about there. Well, let's go on, because I think you're lying to me,
under oath.
A. No, not under oath.
Q. Listen - well, you are under oath.
A. Yeah, that's right.
Q. It says, "And went up to the next door neighbour and picked up 11,000 because the
runner Randy said that there was too - for somebody - that Rob had to see right now with a lawyer
and had to take care of, so it cost him $25,000 for Mike Neville that day to walk in wherever
they go." All right. Now, you're talking about the lawyer Mike Neville. You raised the subject
here and that was the day of Denis Roy's killing, so you're talking about the same subject, right?
The $25,000 payment to Neville.
A. Yeah.
Q. Right. And you're saying, "He came over to my place and picked up $14,000" - you're talking
about Mike Neville.
A. I don't remember about telling 'em he came over to my place.
Q. Well, I'm not surprised.
A. No, I know, if it's written there, it's written there...
Q. Yes.
A. ...but I don't remember. Like I told yA...
Q. Okay.
A. ...I'd given him lotta bogus - bogus answers. I just didn't like him, I just didn't trust him, and he was
too pushy, and he wanted to know too many things.
Q. I see. So on March 20th, 1990, when it appears you....
A. That was a month - basically about a month - 35 days after I left, I was still - like, had the shakes still
little bit. I was still doin' the dope. I was in an hotel room - I didn't know what to expect - lot of
statements. This other guy comes outta nowhere - wanted information about a .223 which was
used somewhere. I didn't know what to suspect. Are they gonna charge me because I had the .223
at home? Are they gonna do this? Are they gonna do that? I didn't know what to tell him so I just
give him a whole bunch of bogus answers.
Q. All right, so it was all bull.
A. Yeah, basically it was all bull. And I've already told Heather Lamarche yesterday when she brought
me those papers - I said, "You're not gonna like what I'm gonna tell ya, but this stuff here
about Fitz...there's some in it that's true, but lotta bogus stuff" - basically, lots of bogus.
Q. So the stuff about Neville being at your house and collecting $14,000,...
A. Bogus.
Q. ...having to go next door to the neighbour and pick up an additional $11,000....
A. That was Randy.
Q. Okay, so we're talking about the same $25,000?
A. Correct.
Q. Because in June, a few months later, you tell the police that you meet him behind the
Cummings townhouses.
A. Correct.
Q. And in March, you had already told the police that Neville came to your house and picked up 14.
A. Correct.
Q. So not only was it all bogus, but you were changing the story back and forth.
A. Because I didn't know what to do, where to turn, if they'd protect me, what they'd do.
You give 'em too much - I've seen people give information to police and bein' left there, just for the
kill - just for no reason at all - just once they got everything they want, they just forget ya and drop
you there, and I - that wasn't gonna happen to me - not with - with what happened.
Q. So what you did....
A. I made some of it up, yes.
Q. Yes, you fabricated evidence....
A. No, I didn't fabricate, it's just things that I've heard - well, you call it fabricate....
Q. Sorry, fabrication means you make it up.
A. Yeah.
Q. It didn't happen?
A. I made it up because I was told from it from Randy, and there's some other things too that I've heard
in those statements a little further - well, you'll go into - that I've also pre-fab.
Q. Yes.
A. Not pre-fab, uh...

Q. You made it up?
A. No, I've heard it and I just made it up - like, make it sound like I was there.
Q. Like you were there?
A. Yeah.
Q. So you heard things and then you put yourself there.
A. Yeah.
Q. All right. Now, this was a way you did things - you would often hear things and then you would
put yourself in the shoes of someone else and say you were there, right?
A. Depends.
Q. Well, the Neville incident, that's exactly what you did.
A. Yes.
Q. And I suggest, sir, the reason you did that was you knew Mr. Neville was a defence lawyer, right?
A. Of course.
Q. And you knew he worked for Mr. Stewart from time-to-time when he was retained to defend
Mr. Stewart for charges, right?
A. All what I know is what I've heard from Mr. Stewart which is correct.
Q. And pretty hot information to give to the police - that you got a prominent attorney meeting with a guy in
a secret meeting - you - behind some townhouses. You're not going to his office. I mean, his office
isn't on Cummings Avenue behind a townhouse, right?
A. Correct.
Q. So you're making it look like there's something wrong going on here, right? There's a secret meeting
- big amount of cash being handed over to Neville, right?
A. Mr. Edelson, I'll tell you the same thing too, I was scared at the time. I didn't know who to trust.
I didn't know if the police believed that these people were connected that highly up. But I'm gonna tell
you something right now, and it's not that I'm lying - but if you ask me my personal opinion? Yeah, it
did happen with Michael Neville.
Q. Okay, so what you're saying is you're maintaining that it probably happened, even though you
weren't there.
A. I'm telling you from my understanding, from what I've heard, and I believe it.
Q. Okay, that's fine. I'm just interested in what you personally saw with your own eyes.
You weren't there.
A. I wasn't there, no.
Q. Okay. Well, what I'm suggesting to you, sir, is that this was something that you mastered -
this ability to describe with great detail events at which you never attended, right?
A. You call it mastering. I don't call it mastering. I call it no trust in the police, no trust in the police, no
trust with the lawyers, I'm all alone, something might happen to me, I have to say something that if I
say something, they gonna listen.
Q. Well, here you're giving them some information about a prominent lawyer and you're making it look
like he's involved in some dirty activity, aren't you?
A. Listen, I'm not saying he's into - don't miss - you might say....
Q. Interpret?
A. Don't interpret that I'm saying that he's in any dirty activities. All what I'm saying is from Stewart, to -
when he verified - when I've heard it from Randy, I just heard that he needed $25,000...
Q. Um-hmm.
A. ...for this case with the Denis Roy. They didn't get in no details - no nothing. Rob came over and told
me it just finished costing him 25,000. After that, he - he came over to my place another occasion
and said that they were making investment, buying property here, land here, things like that, and
he was like a secret investor and Neville was making the investment. Now, any lawyers, you go up
and see him, if you pay him, doesn't mean he's a crook, it just mean that he's investing money.
Q. But you made, I suggest to you, sir, a far far worse statement about Mr. Neville. You suggested to
the police - you didn't suggest it, you told them....
A. That he coulda been giving information also.
Q. That when Mr. Stewart wanted to recruit a new drug dealer....
A. He'd get a check done on him, and that's exactly what Mr. Stewart told me. I'm just telling you what
he told me. He says - and there's even another place too - when I've turn on an agent, he even told
the agent himself, which was Glen - I'm not gonna reveal his last name - but these guys - the Crown
will tell ya - he even revealed to him that he'd make a check on him before he even makes any kinds
of transaction. And this guy was there and you could call him, whatever, and ask him questions.
And I'm not the only one he told that to. He told it to him, and he told me before, when he meets
new faces, it's easy - he'll make a check with them through his sister or through Mike Neville.
If somebody missed something, the other one won't. That's all what I've been told through him.
I've never seen it.
Q. Yes, except you told the police that you'd seen his sister with police files from the R.C.M.P.
A. That was miss - mis-written or whatever you call it because we went through that.
I've told you - I've - Mr. Stewart came - he had a file with R.C.M.P. file, and I put it together
that he just got it off his sister. I've never seen his sister with any file. I've never seen his sister -
and I've already said, all what I was told, sister had his - his cottage under his (sic) name and I've
seen him with R.C.M.P. file. I just believe what he said..
Q. Exactly, some things. Again, Mr. Gaudreault, one of the methods you used in your interviews with
the police was you would tell the police that you had seen things with your own eyes that, in fact,
had simply been told to you by other people, right?
A. To protect myself for the police to....
Q. Whatever the motive...
A. Yeah.
Q. happened, true?
A. Some of it, but not this - what I'm here for today, no, I did not pre-fab this one.

In addition to making up detailed stories where he would insert himself as a participant to try to convince the police of his honesty, Mr. Gaudreault also created and provided false physical evidence to investigators in this case. Whenever it appeared that the investigators might be losing patience with Mr. Gaudreault and his changing versions of events and/or his contracts were about to expire, Mr. Gaudreault would suggest to the police that he had some really good evidence for them but he would not surrender the evidence immediately because he needed to hang on to it long enough to ensure that the promises made to him by the police were kept. First he claimed to have a drug debt book that our client, Mr. Stewart had initialled in relation to payments made by Stewart to the alleged participants in the murderers. Mr. Gaudreault led the police on a merry chase regarding this debt book for many months, but when he finally turned it over, it was clear to Detective Riddell that the book was a forgery. It was all written at one time and in the same ink. Mr. Gaudreault has since explained that he didn't trust the police and he wanted them to believe him so he created the phoney book. Unfortunately the original book has never turned up. However, in evidence now are a few pieces of paper which he claims are really the original documents. They appear dirty and are written in different coloured inks. After the debt book fiasco, Mr. Gaudreault claimed he could provide a computer disk (for a small electronic organizer) to the police that had belonged to Mr. Stewart. The disk would contain all of Mr. Stewart's drug contacts and financial information. All the police would have to do is figure out the password to get to the information stored on the disk. Mr Gaudreault again hesitated to turn over the disk and told many stories 15:39:35o the police about precisely where it was and when he would turn it over to them. When he finally did turn over the disk the police went to work trying to access the information stored on the disk. In the meantime Mr. Gaudreault testified that he had given the disk to the police and that the disk was the real thing. After much time and effort, was expended by the police to try to access the information on the disk, it was learned that the disk was brand new and had never contained any information at all. When Mr.Gaudreault returned to the preliminary inquiry to complete his evidence, he was forced to admit that he had committed perjury over about a four-day period in relation to the disk.

The evolution of his evidence about the disk provides but one example of the elaborate lies and false evidence Mr. Gaudreault is willing to provide both to the police and while under oath in Court.

October 16, 1991

Q. You didn't only tell them that you had the black book - and we have your copy of the black book here...
A. Correct.
Q. went on to tell them that you had a computer disk of some sort...
A. Yeah.
Q. ...which related to Mr. Stewart.
A. That's a computer disk that I got off Mr. Stewart one time.
Q. Did you steal it?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And could you just advise me when you got that item for the first time in your life?
A. I can't - uh, it's the time he came over - I guess it was over to Jamie's or at my house.
Q. Just a second. Jamie's not living with you.
A. No, no, Jamie or at my house.
Q. Okay.
A. He dropped the calculator, got "pissed off", then on his way, just - think the next day....
Q. Just so I understand what we're talking about, sir, are we talking about a calculator or a computer
disk? It's referred to...
A. It's....
Q. ...throughout as a disk.
A. Yeah, but there was nothing - it was a blank disk.
Q. Okay, we're going to come to that. We're talking about a standard computer disk.
A. Yeah.
Q. Like a floppy disk or a hard disk?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay, which was it? Was it like a C-D? You know, like hard metal?
A. Uh....
Q. Like a compact disk? You know, you play music on it.
A. No, I don't - square thing that you....
Q. It was like a square disk that you put in a computer.
A. Yeah.
Q. All right. And just so I understand, sir, you say you stole this from Mr. Stewart. Where was it when
you took it?
A. In the car.
Q. Which car?
A. His car. I think it was the - I'm not sure if it was the Oldsmobile or the Camaro.
Q. And when did you - when did you steal it?
A. I don't remember. Exactly, I just don't.
Q. We know when you left, around February. Relative to the time you left town, when did you steal the
disk? How long before?
A. I don't know. I can't recall.
Q. Okay. Why did you steal it?
A. 'Cause I thought there might be something in there later on that might be important for
something I might need.
Q. Well, something you might need - what were you thinking when you stole it?
A. To protect myself.
Q. To protect yourself. How were you going to accomplish protection for yourself by stealing the disk?
A. Well, if it was Rob, it had things of importance to him, but I didn't know the disk was a new disk.
Q. All right, what you thought you were getting was something of real importance...
A. Because....
Q. Rob's dealings.
A. Yeah, because he marked everything in it.
Q. You would observe him marking things on a computer?
A. Yeah, every time he came over - well, basically when he came over, he'd mark it in it or he wouldn't
mark it in it.
Q. You're sort of indicating with your hand. Was this a small instrument that he used?
A. It's like a calculator - you could have telephone numbers - for all sorts of purposes. It's like A....
Q. It's an electronic device.
A. Yeah, you could take it and feed it to a big computer.
Q. Excuse-me, you're indicating with your hand something about ten or 11 inches across?
A. Yeah.
Q. And....
A. Because I think that they have one also that they show me.
Q. They showed you a similar item.
A. No, they show me one of the items that they got.
Q. So that what they showed you was one of the little computers. Let me use that phrase, one of these
small things that you had seen, similar to the ones you'd seen Stewart punch things on.
A. No, I was told it was one of Rob's computer, but I think it's the one that he dropped in the toilet.
Q. All right, because I thought what you told us that he dropped in the toilet - and you used the word
it "sizzled" - was a calculator.
A. It's like a computer-calculator. You could calculate on it or you could put phone numbers, addresses.
Q. I see, okay.
A. See, I don't know the purpose - like, I never used those ones.
Q. And you could plug it into a big computer.
A. Or you could feed the disk to it.
Q. Did this little calculator device that you saw him drop in the toilet have a disk in it?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. So it was driven by a disk?
A. Yeah.
Q. And it was one of those disks that you stole.
A. Yeah.
Q. All right. Now, this particular disk that you stole - I take it, you took it with you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did he ever tell you or ask you about the disk? Like, "Denis, have you seen my computer disk?"
A. No, because he never did.
Q. Okay, so you took it, and he apparently never asked you any questions about it and you
left.......No audible response
Q. You're shaking your head. That's no?
A. No.
Q. And you left and went out west and you took the disk with you.
A. Yeah, I had disk and papers and a few other things, yeah.
Q. You thought it had valuable information on it that you could use some day.
A. Yeah.
Q. Do you mean use to make a patch with the police? To bribe or to blackmail Rob Stewart? What are
you talking about?
A. To protect myself.
Q. How would you protect yourself?
A. I was thinking like I normally think - he might come after me, fuck, if he knows I got that.
But the thing was blank so it didn't mean anythin'.
Q. Yes, but you didn't know it was blank.
A. Correct.
Q. Right. You thought it was loaded...
A. Correct.
Q. ...with information.
A. Yeah.
Q. And you thought you could use it against him.
A. Correct.
Q. Such as if he ever came after you or threatened you, you could say, "Look, Rob, I have your
computer disk and I'll turn it over to the police."
A. And he would say, "Go ahead, it's blank."
Q. How would....
A. But I never came up to that - to that situation, so I never....
Q. Well, we're going to examine that right now. But he couldn't say to you it's blank because he didn't
even know you'd stole it, right?
A. Correct.
Q. He didn't even know you had it.
A. Correct.
Q. Right. In fact, the only people who knew you had it were the police because you told them you had it.
A. Yeah.
Q. And you told them that you had important information on it concerning Mr. Stewart and his dealings.
A. That's at the time. That's what I thought, yeah.
Q. Yes.
A. That's exactly what I told 'em.
Q. Yes. And you kept leading the police on into believing that you had important information on
this disk concerning Mr. Stewart's dealings.
A. Correct.
Q. Right. And throughout your dealings with the police in reference to the computer disk, were you truthful?
A. No.
Q. All right, are you telling us, Mr. Gaudreault, then, that on occasions when you dealt with the
police concerning the disk, that you lied?
A. Because I didn't know what was on it.
Q. Not about what was on it, sir, but in your dealings with the police about it, did you lie to them?
A. I can't remember.
Q. You can't remember. When you said you weren't truthful, I take it you were telling the court....
A. I didn't know - yeah, I didn't know if there was anything on it - or if there wasn't.
Q. Okay. So you were mistaken, really.
A. Yeah.
Q. You weren't lying to them, you just didn't know if it was blank, is that what you're saying?
A. Correct.
Q. So you're not telling us, then, that you knew it was blank and you represented it to be full of information.
A. Correct.
Q. All right, you didn't lie in that way, right?
A. Right.
Q. You were just mistaken about it having information on it.
A. Yeah.
Q. All right. Because what I'm suggesting to you, sir, is that time and again, they requested the disk
from you, as they did the black book...
A. Yes, they did.
Q. ...and you lied to them, didn't you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Why did you do that? Why did you not want them to get the disk?
A. Like, I'll keep tellin' the same over and over, I never trusted them and I still don't trust 'em today.
Q. Well, you did turn the disk over, though.
A. I had no choice.
Q. Why did you have no choice?
A. They needed it really bad.


October 17, 1991

Q. Mr. Gaudreault, when we broke last week, you told me that you had stolen a computer disk from
Mr. Stewart. Do you recall that subject, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you told the court that sometime later, after many discussions with the police, you finally turned
it over to the police.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And we went over that - the date you turned it over. And that would've been much later, obviously,
after you first seized it, correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Tell me this: is that the only disk you had?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. All right. You didn't have any other computer disks that you had either taken or stolen or taken in
your possession in any fashion in relation to Mr. Stewart or his business.
A. What do you mean by that?
Q. Well....
A. That if I took something that....
Q. Did you take any other computer disks...
A. No, not - no....
Q. .. aside from the one we're talking about?
A. Not that I recall.
MR. EDELSON: Excuse-me, Your Honour.
MR. STEWART: Perhaps we can page Officer Lamarche.
MR. EDELSON: Yes, about the disk and the machine, Your Honour.

Q. I'm just going to show you the disk that was turned over to the police and that little computer I think
they showed you.

...Clerk pages Constable Lamarche

Q. Remember at the hotel that day?
A. Yeah.
Q. I just want to identify that for us. So this disk that you turned over was the only one that you ever had
in your possession.
A. Yes, it was.
Q. All right. And when did you first discover - because you told me last time you had been under
the impression that it was loaded with information.
A. Yeah.
Q. ...right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. About his drug dealing and all the rest of it.
A. Yeah.
Q. When did you first discover it had nothing on it?
A. They just told me.
Q. The police told you some time afterwards?
A. Yes. Yes, they did.
Q. I see. Just to fix that in time, sir, it seems that the disk was turned over - this would be on the 16 th
of August 1990. I take it, you wouldn't remember that date particularly.
A. No.
Q. But you have no disagreement that that was likely the date.
A. If that's what it's marked, yeah.
Q. I'm just looking at Constable Riddell's notes for that date and it says that you were with Richard...
actually, Richardson was here in Ontario at the time when the disk was turned over.
Do you recall that, sir?
A. I recall that he was here but I don't recall....
Q. Okay, but in any event, sir, it says that at 1:30 that day, that the disk was handed over by you to Riddell.
A. Okay.
Q. All right. You have no disagreement with that?
A. No.
Q. All right. And then in terms of the chronology, on November 6th - this is August 16th - November 6th,
you turned over the black book which is our Exhibit 63.
A. Yes, it is.
Q. All right. Now, given that was the only disk that you ever had, I take it, it would be impossible
for you to produce any other disk, right? Unless you made one up.
A. Yeah.
Q. Did you make one up?
A. No.
Q. All right, so you never fabricated a disk or made a disk such as the black book.
A. No, I just brought the disk that I took away from Rob.
Q. Okay. Did you - after the police told you - which would have to have been after the 16th of August,
1990, because that was the time at which you turned over the one disk you had....
A. Correct.
Q. After the police told you that there was nothing on the disk, did you tell the police anything else about
any disk after that?
A. I don't remember.
MR. STEWART: Tell? Is the word tell?
Q. Did you tell the police anything after that about the disk?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Okay.

MR. EDELSON: A moment, Your Honour. Now....
MR. STEWART: Just once Mr. Edelson shows it to Mr. Gaudreault, perhaps we can have the disk
entered and then returned back to Officer Lamarche.
MR. EDELSON: That's fine, Your Honour.

Q. Opened already, sir, is an envelope. Let me show you this. It says, "16th of August '90", which is the
date I've just talked to you about. It says "Sharp Disk, The Expense Manager, seized at room 143,
Relax Inn in Gloucester", and it's signed by Constable Rick Riddell of the Ontario Provincial Police.
Now, opening this white envelope, inside, there appears to be something. I'm just going to move this in
the bag so you get a better look at it. There's a hard small disk. It says "Sharp" at the top - ten -
excuse- me, 1-Q-701-A - called the "Expense Manager". Can you identify that for us, sir?
A. Yeah, that's the disk I've turned to - from what I see, that's the disk I've turn to Mr. Riddell.
Q. Okay, this appears, sir, to you, to be the identical disk you turned over to Constable Riddell.
A. Yes.
Q. All right.

MR. EDELSON: Next numbered exhibit, please.
THE COURT: Exhibit 70.
EXHIBIT NUMBER 70: Envelope with Sharp Disk -Produced and marked.

January 5, 1994

Q. Just let's finish this confrontation you had with Detective Riddell. And at this point, they had
also discovered that the famous disk that you had presented - could I find out the exhibit number of
that, please.

MR. EDELSON: The computer disk.

Q. The disk you presented was also a total fraud.
A. Yeah.
Q. In fact, there was nothing on it, was there?
A. Yeah.

CLERK OF THE COURT: It's number 70.
CLERK OF THE COURT: 7-0. It's not there. It's marked on this exhibit list that it was returned to
Constable Lamarche on October 18th, 1991.

Q. Well, as I recollect the envelope - the plastic envelope that was in, Mr. Gaudreault, they sent that
disk - first of all, they went to an accounting firm, P.M.G. - Peat Marwick. They spoke to a
forensic accountant. He says, "I can't help you." They went to Sharp and they wrote Sharp, the maker
of the computer - the pocket computer - and they asked them to break the code so that they could get
the information on your disk, right?
A. Um-hmm.
Q. Sharp's lawyers wrote the police and said, "No can do, write to Japan." So presumably they wrote
to Japan. They then gave the material to the R-C-M-P, I think they gave it to the F-B-I, and the
Secret Service in the United States. Can you imagine the expense and the trouble you put the police to
in the course of this investigation about the disk?
A. No.
Q. Huge expense! Huge use of manpower! You wasted their time completely...
A. Correct.
Q. ...with this fraud. You were confronted by Riddell and he said, "You're making us all look like
a bunch of dummies! We had the disk tested. There's nothing on it." Right?
A. Correct.
Q. "You made us all look like fools!" And you knew - he said, "You knew the disk had nothing on
it when you handed it to us", right?
A. Correct.
Q. You sent them off on this huge wild goose chase where public funds were spent on the police, the
F-B-I, the Secret Service, the R-C-M-P - all these people were sent off trying to figure out what was on
this disk when you knew from day one it was blank, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Why would you send them off on a wild goose chase like that, Mr. Gaudreault? Lie and defraud
the police on this piece of evidence.
A. Didn't trust 'em.
Q. I didn't trust them. Is that going to be your answer - your pat answer for every time you've lied to
the police...
A. I never trusted the police.
Q. ...hundreds of times, "I didn't trust them"?
A. That's right, at the time, I didn't trust 'em.
Q. I take it, you still don't trust them.
A. No.
Q. How do we know you're not lying now? If you don't trust them now, how do we know you're not
lying today?
A. I'm not.
Q. How do we know?
A. I'm not.

January 6, 1994

Q. Uh-huh. Now, just one last area about the disk because I now move to Okmanas' notes, which we
never had before, in terms of this areA. You had a discussion, it appears, with Okmanas in July of
1990, on the 11th, where you were telling them about the disk. Do you remember the Stewart
computer disk that you said you had...
A. Yeah.
Q. your possession? And you not only told them that it had all of his drug dealing information on
it, right? That's what you told them about the disk, that's why it was important, right?
A. That was a lie, yeah.
Q. But, as I told you yesterday, they went through enormous effort and expense to try and decode the
disk, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you remember telling them the secret password?
A. No.
Q. You did. Do you remember what it was?
A. No.
Q. You don't remember. This is at page 136 of Okmanas' notes, Box 1, Volume 6. You said that
the password was 1937 "(obviously Stewart's year of birth)". Remember saying that?
A. No.
Q. Well, this is a direct quote out of your mouth recorded in Okmanas' notes.
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Well, there was a couple of reasons, obviously, but it doesn't make sense because he'd be 56 years
of age.
A. Like I said, I don't recall that.
Q. Well, just a second. Undoubtedly, we'll hear from Okmanas at some point, that he recorded this
direct quote from your mouth.
A. Correct.
Q. You have to agree with me that you told them Stewart's date of birth was 1937. I mean, he'd be -
today he'd be 57.
A. Yeah.
Q. If you said that,...
A. I was lying.
Q. ...that was a - it was a lie.
A. Correct.
Q. It was utter nonsense,...
A. Correct.

continued > > >