injusticebusters logo

"Tell a big enough lie often enough and people will believe it's true."
-- Joseph Goebbels, Third Reich Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda

Matthew Miazga

The Foster Parent Scandal Prosecutor

Brian Dueck

He joined the prosecutor's office two years after Terry Hinz. When Sgt. Brian Dueck (right) took to him the case Hinz had rejected, he eagerly took it on. Was it the brood mares which grabbed his attention? Did he really believe that the Klassen family was part of an intergenerational Satanix cult? Did Dueck use his insider Mennonite heritage to persuade this prosecutor, who many acknowledge is at least normally intelligent, to pursue this case which has surely now wrecked his career?

Matthew Miazga

Well, no. The evidence clearly shows that Matthew Miazga (right) thought this would be the big case which would surely advance his career. All he had to do was keep certain key documents out of the hands of the accused and make sure the court sealed all documents and placed publication bans on anyone who found out about them.

The key bit of disclosure Miazga failed to give to the defence was Dueck's Information -- a 30 page document which shows the trail of the investigation and would have provided any one of the defendants with a strong suspicion that Dueck did not believe in his own case. There is nothing about brood mares in this Information. There is, however, misleading information: for instance Dueck uses information from a dead man (Hugh Stonechild Beck), claims that Michael Ross was removed by Social Services from the home of Dale and Anita Klassen because of some impropriety on their part when, in fact, Dale and Anita had demanded his removal, a police record of a Marie Kassen who was not born in the same year or place as the mother of the Klassens in this case.

Sonja Hansen

Dueck, under examination for discovery told Richard Klassen he did not want him (Klassen) arrested regarding Kathy Ross because she had not disclosed anything on tape. Matt went ahead and charged Klassen, and apparently ordered Dueck to go to P.A. to try and get disclosure against him from a murderer, Beryl Stonechild, in the pen.

While he was examined in the discovery process, Miazga resorted to childish manoevres like claiming Richard Klassen threw a pen at him. This would be for the benefit of transcript readers. He readily blamed his co-prosecutor, Sonja Hansen as well as his bosses, Ellen Gunn and Richard Quinney.

When Miazga agreed to take this file from Dueck in the spring of 1991, the two of them locked step in a stroll down the road to perdition. They are almost there. . .

This case represents 5½ years of work on the Internet and 5 years before that where we tried to get this story to the public. Court seals and publication bans rarely serve the public interest. In this case, dishonest police, prosecutors and social workers deceived many honest officials by keeping the case secret, trusting that their unethical conduct would never be revealed.

Excerpts from the Miazga letters to his co-conspirators

Money for experts. . . to educate the public . . .?

D Murray Brown,
Director of Appeals,
Public Prosecutions

July 23, 1992

George Fraser

The first witness is Carol Bunko-Ruys of Community Child Care in Saskatoon. . . . part of her fees for testifying at the preliminary inquiry were covered by Social Services as part of their budget for providing counselling for the children. . . . her rate for preparation both with myself and the children for court is $50 per hour. Her rate for testifying in court is $400 per day

Dr. Fraser who is a psychiatrist with the Royal Ottawa Hospital . . .$1,000 per day for testifying and $150 an hour for reports and preparation . . .travel expenses.

It is my view that the evidence of Ms. Bunko-Ruys is essential to the prosecution of this matter and the evidence of Dr. Fraser or a witness similar to him would be highly desirable to try to explain some of the more bizarre aspects of the children's testimony. It is my view that these types of disclosures are going to become more and more frequent in the future and if nothing else, the testimony of these types of experts can slowly go towards educating the court and public as to the existence and legitimacy of these types of disclosures which up until now have been largely discounted not only by the public but by the authorities as well. In regards to the witness on ritual and Satanic abuse, I have canvassed locally and although there are people with experience in this area, no one comes close to the stature of someone such as Dr. Fraser in terms of his experience and knowledge in the area. There are two or three other persons who have been suggested as possible witnesses but Dr. Fraser seems to be the best candidate in my view.

I would ask that you advise me as soon as possible as to what to arrangements I could go ahead to make as this case is scheduled to begin in October and of course I am on leave until that time and must make arrangements with these witnesses quickly.

Yours truly,

Matthew K. Miazga,
Crown Prosecutor


January 21, 1992

Sheila Gagne, Head
Department of Social Services

Finally I would like to thank you and other personnel fom the Department of Social Services who met with Ms. Hansen and myself while these cases were ongoing. The case was perhaps one of the most difficult that both of us have faced in our careers for various reasons and found that the support shown encouraged us to continue on.

Yours truly
Matthew K. Miazga,
Crown Prosecutor

cc to Carol Bunko-Ruys
Judy Hjertas
Gary Dewarle

The Lawyer as Prosecutor: Rule (Nova Scotia Barrister's Law Society Handbook)
See Chapter 5 - Duty as Prosecutor

5.1-3 When acting as a prosecutor, a lawyer must act for the public and the administration of justice resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law while treating the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy and respect. 2


When engaged as a prosecutor, the lawyer’s primary duty is not to seek to convict but to see that justice is done through a fair trial on the merits. The prosecutor exercises a public function involving much discretion and power and must act fairly and dispassionately. The prosecutor should not do anything that might prevent the accused from being represented by counsel or communicating with counsel and, to the extent required by law and accepted practice, should make timely disclosure to defence counsel or directly to an unrepresented accused of all relevant and known facts and witnesses, whether tending to show guilt or innocence.

2 In reviewing matters involving the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by a Crown prosecutor, the Executive Director and the members of the Complaints Investigation Committee will be guided by the following from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta, 2002 SCC 65:

Interestingly enough, this is on the website of Nova Scotia, a province whose Justice System is as beleaguered as Saskatchewan regarding corruption and cover-ups.