Scores of autopsies involving murdered Ontario children have not been re-examined since the Charles Smith pathology scandal erupted because it would be costly and difficult, the Goudge commission was told yesterday.
"It is very resource-intensive and very complicated to do," said Barry McLellan, Ontario's chief coroner until he left for a new job in September.
"This does not mean that it shouldn't be done," he said. "My own view is that it is difficult, and we should be improving current and future investigations."
Dr. McLellan made the admission after James Lockyer - a lawyer for 10 people convicted of killing their children based on dubious evidence from Dr. Smith - accused his office of myopia in confining a recent review of cases solely to those on which Dr. Smith had worked.
Mr. Lockyer noted that, while Dr. Smith has been the dominant figure in the pathology scandal, mistakes by many other pathologists and doctors also came to light in the same cases. Moreover, he said, numerous miscarriages involving pathology errors have also cropped up in other parts of Canada and in other Western countries.
Mr. Lockyer noted that throughout the 1990s, the entire coroner's system in Ontario was instructed to "think dirty" - a directive that since been rescinded because it can give rise to a dangerous bias and investigative excesses.
Dr. McLellan said any further reviews of pediatric homicide cases should be called by the province's attorney-general, not the chief coroner. He also remarked that the Smith review - which covered 43 homicide cases from 1991 to 2001 - was one of the most ambitious undertakings any coroner's system has ever taken on.
(A team of international experts found significant problems with 20 of the 43 cases it reviewed. Announcing the results last winter, Dr. McLellan ordered a second review of Dr. Smith's cases for 1981 to 1999.)
In other developments yesterday:
Mr. Lockyer attacked the coroner's system for permitting pediatricians and child sex-abuse experts to work alongside pathologists who were conducting autopsies and deciding on causes of death. These people "have no business" interfering, and potentially biasing, the conclusions that pathologists reach, he said.
Dr. McLellan refused to endorse a call from Mr. Lockyer for the Chief Coroner's office to review controversial cases, potentially saving the wrongful conviction movement tens of thousands of dollars in private pathologists' fees.
Neils Ortved, Dr. Smith's lawyer, complained that Mr. Lockyer has "tainted" the inquiry by misusing statistics to the detriment of his client, and by steering the inquiry into questions of individual guilt and innocence, which it is not empowered to consider.
The Goudge commission is looking into how Dr. Smith was able to remain at the pinnacle of pediatric forensic pathology in the province despite a growing list of prosecutions that fell apart because of his mistakes.
