Ontario's chief coroner at the time may have blocked efforts to investigate the work of Dr. Charles Smith, a Toronto child pathologist now accused of making errors in 20 criminal cases.

CBC News has learned Dr. James Young, the province's former chief coroner, tried to stop the investigation of complaints against Smith a decade ago.

Dr. Charles Smith, seen in this undated photo, is at the centre of an inquiry into 20 child autopsies done between 1991 and 2000.
(CBC)

The Ontario government announced April 20 it would hold a full public inquiry into Smith's work after a review panel found he had erred in 20 of 45 cases of child deaths about which he testified in court between 1991 and 2000. Thirteen of those cases resulted in criminal convictions. One person remains behind bars.

Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant said the inquiry could look into allegations government officials were protecting Smith. Bryant said he can't order Justice Steven Goudge to look into a specific allegation but it does fall within the mandate of the inquiry.

Maurice Gagnon said he made a complaint about Smith's evidence to Young, then chief coroner, after Gagnon's daughter was implicated in the death of her son in 1995.  While police never laid charges, Gagnon says the accusation left his family psychologically devastated.

Gagnon said Young dismissed his concerns so he went to the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. He soon learned Young had intervened and told the college it didn't have the jurisdiction to investigate because Smith worked for the coroner's office.

"He was protecting his own people. He had circled the wagons and it was obvious he wasn't prepared to hold them accountable for any misdeed," Gagnon told CBC Radio.

"There was just no avenue to put in a complaint against these people. They could do what they wanted. They were their own police."

Gagnon wasn't alone. Other complaints from people who were wrongly accused in the 1990s were starting to come in but it wasn't until 2001 that the chief coroner's office announced a review of Smith's work. The officials at the coroner's office declared Smith competent but details of the review were never made public.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons was eventually forced to hear complaints against Smith and in 2002, it reprimanded him.

David Bayliss, of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, wonders why it took so long for the complaints to be dealt with — nine years after the first one was filed.

"Mistakes were made. The question then becomes: Why weren't those mistakes caught by an earlier review? Was it a legitimate review or was it a cover up? That's the question."

Bayliss says he hopes the public inquiry gets to the bottom of who knew what and when. 

The inquiry's report is expected within a year.