A former investigator from the Permanent Anti-Corruption Unit accused “without foundation” of having been at the origin of media leaks has just filed a $1 million civil lawsuit against the State, in addition to demanding an apology and the holding of a public inquiry.
“He is the victim of a most Machiavellian and illegal plot by those who are supposed to ensure justice within our society. The truthful factual framework [de cette affaire] is worthy of the greatest film or series scenarios, but is carried out at great expense by the State, on the backs of Quebec citizens, ”deplores Richard Despaties in the court document made public yesterday at the Montreal courthouse.
Mr. Despaties is particularly against the ex-boss of the Permanent Anti-Corruption Unit (UPAC) Robert Lafrenière and his close collaborators, who were splashed in a recent judgment indicating that it was Lafrenière himself who would have organized leaks media on ongoing investigations.
However, before these revelations, UPAC had initiated “Project A” aimed at investigating media leaks. This “phony investigation” had targeted Mr. Despaties as the main suspect, as well as MP Guy Ouellette, since cleared of all suspicion.
This case ultimately led to the dismissal of Mr. Despaties in 2016.
bogus agreement
A grievance had been filed, but during his hearing, an agreement was finally reached.
“By a forced decision based on false accusations […] and burned by the illegal actions of the UPAC management, [M. Despaties] was pressured into accepting a very unfair and damaging settlement, which ruined his career,” the civil suit reads.
However, at the time of signing the agreement to settle the grievance, the State knew very well that Mr. Despaties was innocent, alleges the latter, who is therefore asking the court to annul the agreement, to be compensated, and to to be reinstated in his job at UPAC.
To clear his reputation, he also calls for an apology and a public inquiry.
“The actions of the management of UPAC were committed not inadvertently, nor by accident, but consciously and with full knowledge of the facts”, it is stated in the court document.