Owner turns to polygraph to clear his name in 2012 fire
Lie detector tests are a common tool in the legal system
A local lawyer is hoping that his client’s exoneration through a polygraph test will help convince his insurer to pay up.
Jeff Ayotte represents Kawartha Home and Property Landscape owner Jamie Mills.
Mills’s Chemong Rd. business in Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield Township was destroyed by fire Nov. 17. Emergency crews arriving at the property shortly after 2 a.m. discovered the building engulfed shortly.
Damage was estimated at $1.5 million.
Last week Mills volunteered to undergo a polygraph test with a private company, Toronto Polygraph Services.
Ayotte said Mills hoped the positive results would clear any lingering suspicion that was involved in the fire.
Ideally, Ayotte said, it would also prompt his insurance company to follow through on its obligation to his client.
Several insurance adjusters wouldn’t comment on polygraph tests when contacted by The Examiner. One individual, who didn’t want his name used, said commenting on the issue would be unfair because no decision has been made and the polygraph was something an individual did on the advice of his attorney.
There’s no question that the lengthy OPP investigation has taken a toll on Mill’s reputation, and his business, Ayotte said.
When contacted by the Examiner, Peterborough County OPP Const. Bruce Hanna would only say that the fire is considered suspicious and is still under investigation.
Mills is still trying to get back on his feet, and Ayotte said the already difficult situation has been made more difficult by Mills’s lack of insurance funds. Kawartha Home and Property Landscape is operating, he said, though its scope is limited.
Polygraph tests are common tools of police services across the province.
According to Ayotte, they’re also used by attorneys as they build their client’s case.
Asking clients to take a polygraph test is a fairly common practice, Ayotte said.
“It’s not unusual at all,” he said, adding that he couldn’t count the number of times his Charlotte St. office has asked clients to take one.
Ayotte practices both civil and criminal law.
Civil and criminal courts handle polygraph tests differently, he explained.
The results of a polygraph test aren’t admissible in criminal court.
An accused person may take a polygraph test on the advice of a lawyer. Other times he or she may opt to take one with a private company in a bid to prove their innocence.
But the results of that test don’t have to be shared with the Crown attorney, regardless of whether the result becomes part of the defence’s case or if a client failed the test, Ayotte said.
It gets a little tricky with civil court.
Ayotte explained that polygraph test results are admissible in civil court if certain conditions are met. Those conditions would be hashed out by the attorneys representing the parties involved.
But lawyers have a mutual obligation to disclose all relevant information, and that includes the results of a polygraph test, he said.
If a client takes a polygraph and does well, it’s good news. But if a client fails the test, that information can easily wind up in the other team’s hands.
“It’s a bit more of a calculated risk in a civil court,” Ayotte said.
Ayotte was confident Mills’s positive test would result in a positive resolution to his insurance issue.
Citing a previous case, Ayotte said courts have decided in favour of people seeking compensation from their insurers after they were exonerated from any wrong doing through a polygraph test.