Dr. Charles Smith said although it was "inappropriate" for him to speak with a mother suspected in her child's death, the meeting was not indicative of a "close" and inappropriate relationship with law enforcement.
Smith, once considered the top pathologist in his field, told an inquiry Wednesday the incident was a "unique" one and was not reflective of a close working relationship with authorities.
It was his third day on the stand at an inquiry into his medical findings on more than a dozen cases.
In previous days of testimony, Smith apologized for his medical conclusions in 20 cases of suspicious child deaths. He blamed mistakes on being "disorganized," and "ignorant" of how the criminal justice system works.
On Wednesday Smith was questioned about his role in an investigation into the death of a Barrie, Ont. child.
A police affidavit revealed Smith paid a visit to the mother of the child on Sept. 5, 1996, after speaking with authorities and finding out her home had been wiretapped and that she was considered a suspect in her son's death.
According to the affidavit, authorities "did not direct Smith in any way how to conduct their meeting with (the boy's) mother and did not ask him to solicit any information from her.''
The affidavit also says Smith went out for lunch with the police after meeting the mother and told authorities speaking with her about the boy's death "was like talking to her about a load of gravel."
"Does it tell us anything about the closeness of your relationship with the police in general . . . . does it shed any light on that at all, Dr. Smith?'' asked Linda Rothstein, lead commission counsel.
Smith responded by saying he was asked by the coroner's office to meet with the boy's mother and discuss the autopsy results. He said his superior knew the woman was a suspect and that she was under police surveillance.
"I believe that it is better interpreted as an indicator that when I was asked to do something by the office of the chief coroner, I responded," Smith said.
"I don't think it was appropriate for a person who has one responsibility in a death investigation to be asked to communicate that information in this kind of an environment,'' he continued.
"This situation, I think, is not appropriate for a pathologist, a pediatric pathologist, to be in.''
Smith's testimony in child-death cases as an expert witness throughout his career helped convict a number of people who were later found innocent of any wrongdoing.
One father spent more than a decade in prison for the death of his niece before being exonerated, and several mothers spent years in prison before the cases against them fell apart.
The inquiry has heard months of testimony from experts and former colleagues.
The mandate of the inquiry is broader than just Smith's work, however.
Its objective is to take a look at errors that exist in Ontario's pediatric pathology system. Smith is facing a room full of lawyers seeking insight into how his work in pediatric pathology often served only to worsen the tragedy of a child's death.
With files from The Canadian Press
