Making systemic change through an inquest (Part one)
On September 22, 2015, three women in Renfrew County– Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam – were murdered by Basil Borutski, a man who had been involved with each of them in the past. This triple femicide shocked the rural community and made headlines across Canada.
In June of this year, an inquest was held into the circumstances surrounding those deaths, with the purpose of identifying changes to prevent similar deaths from happening in the future.
I was a witness and also attended the full inquest, which gave me an opportunity to have a close look at how the inquest process works.
Some background
Intimate partner homicide is all too common in Canada. One woman is killed approximately every six days by her partner or former partner, often as the relationship is ending or shortly thereafter.
During the three weeks of the inquest, at least five women in Ontario were killed by men who had had some kind of intimate relationship with them – or had desired to have such a relationship.
Ontario’s Domestic Violence Death Review Committee (DVDRC) reviews every such death, and its regular reports have identified pending or recent separation as the second greatest risk factor for lethality, topped only by a history of domestic violence.
While those most affected by such murders are, of course, family members and close friends of the victims, the impact – especially in small and rural communities –is felt by many others.
This was very much the case in Renfrew County. In the days, weeks, months and years following the murders of Carol, Anastasia and Nathalie, community members came together to grieve, ask how this could have happened and talk about what could have been done to prevent it. Many people attended the criminal trial of the perpetrator in 2017, which led to two convictions of first-degree murder and one of second-degree murder.
A community impact statement – similar to the better-known and more often used victim impact statement – was referred to by the judge as he passed sentence: three life sentences, two with no possibility of parole for 25 years and one with no possibility of parole for 20 years, with the parole eligibility periods to run consecutively rather than concurrently. This meant, given the age of the perpetrator, he would never leave prison, which brought some measure of comfort to many. (Of course, the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Bissonnette case has changed this situation.)
What’s the role of an inquest?
According to the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario, an inquest is a public hearing conducted by a coroner with a jury of five community members to inform the public about the circumstances of a death.
The jurors, based on the evidence presented to them, are required to answer five questions:
- Who died?
- When did they die?
- Where?
- How?
- By what means? (natural causes, accident, homicide, suicide, undetermined)
The jury may also propose recommendations for change, which are non-binding.
It is not the role of an inquest jury to make any finding of legal responsibility, express any conclusion of law, assign blame or state or imply judgment.
Before an inquest begins, the coroner establishes the scope of the inquest. In this case, the coroner identified that the inquest was to look at a number of factors related to intimate partner violence/homicide, with a focus on rural communities. The inquest was to examine, through evidence and witnesses, common risk factors for IPV and femicide, unique challenges in rural communities, possible changes to police and justice system policies and practices, safety planning barriers, community awareness, alternatives to existing criminal law responses, the role of firearms and the perpetrator’s history of violence.
Who’s involved in an inquest?
Generally, inquests are conducted by a coroner. In this inquest, the chief presiding officer was Leslie Reaume, a lawyer with extensive experience in the areas of labour, employment and human rights mediation and arbitration. The presiding officer is supported by a team from the coroner’s office: one or more Crowns (in this case, Prabhu Rajan and Christine McGoey) and police officers seconded from municipal police forces.
Certain people – family members and, where relevant, the perpetrator, have an automatic right to have standing as parties to the inquest. The province was represented by two lawyers. In this case, the perpetrator declined to respond, so was not involved. Valerie Warmerdam, the daughter of one of the murdered women, participated as a party, representing herself. End Violence Against Women Renfrew County (EVA) sought and were approved as a party and were represented by Kirsten Mercer of Goldblatt Partners LLP.
Given the topics to be discussed at this inquest, special steps were taken to ensure the proceedings were as trauma-informed as possible. A mental health worker was available on site every day; a separate room was booked at the hotel where the inquest took place for anyone who needed a quiet space away from the inquest, breaks were frequent. The coroner’s team brought a more informal approach than usual to proceedings, which also contributed to a survivor-friendly environment. The space — an otherwise somewhat sterile hotel conference room — was brightened by the presence of peace lilies, contributed by EVA.
And so, on the morning of June 6th, we all gathered, ready for the inquest to get underway. In Part Two, I will provide an overview of what the witnesses had to say and the recommendations made by the jury.
This article was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily, part of LexisNexis Canada Inc.
