The following post is the second in a series designed to address the very serious issue of the right of justices of the peace to be indemnified by the Government of Ontario for costs associated with defending themselves in judicial misconduct proceedings. This is the second case in which the subject justice of the peace was recommended to be removed from office yet was indemnified for the cost of his defence. Neither of these cases raise issues of statutory interpretation, jurisdiction or abuse of process where one would understandably expect indemnification. The rationale for indemnification rests not in pity for the judicial officer but by recognition that indemnification brings to fruition the judicial officers right to counsel and access to justice which brings legal legitimacy to the misconduct proceedings.
NOTE: The names of the young women involved in this case have not been used. I do not see their names as being relevant to the point of the post.
The appointment and tenure of a Justice of the Peace in Ontario, is governed by the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.J.4. Section 8 of that Act is the section that deals with the removal of a Justice of the Peace from office. The section states as follows:
8. - (1) A justice of the peace may be removed from office only by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
(2) The order may be made only if,
(a) a complaint regarding the justice of the peace has been made to the Review Council; and
(b) the removal is recommended , following an inquiry held under section 12, on the ground that the justice of the peace has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his or her office by reason of ,
(ii) conduct that is incompatible with the execution of the duties of his or her office, or
(iii) ) having failed to perform the duties of his or her office assigned.
(3) The order shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly if it is in session or, if not, within fifteen days after the commencement of the next session. 1989, c. 46, s.8
With regard to Justice of the Peace Blackburn, the Justice of the Peace Review Council held a hearing on March 2,1993 into the matter of two complaints
- one filed by C, and the other by Mr. George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of A. The Review Council, by written report dated March 18, 1993, then recommended that an inquiry be held under section 12 of the Justices of the Peace Act, to inquire into the question of whether Justice of the Peace Blackburn should be removed from office.
By Order in Council 2082 / 93 I was appointed to conduct the inquiry pursuant to section 12 of the Justices of the Peace Act. A copy of this Order in Council is appended hereto as Appendix 1.
Notice of this Inquiry was published both in the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail on November 18, 1993. A copy of this notice is appended hereto as Appendix 2. On December 14, 1993 I convened a hearing to hear submissions from the media as to whether or not cameras would be allowed in the hearing room. It was my decision that they would not be allowed and a copy of that decision is appended hereto as Appendix 3.
On December 20, 1993 the Inquiry commenced. A Statement of Agreed Facts was submitted at that time. The Statement had been signed by Mr. Gavin MacKenzie, Commission Counsel and Justice of the Peace Blackburn. The two complainants had not signed the statement. However, I was informed by Commission Counsel that both Ms. C and Ms. A had reviewed it, had no objection to its contents, and were content that it be introduced in that form. As a result of the filing of this Agreed Statement there was no viva voce evidence called. Appended to the Agreed Statement was a report from Dr. Zownir, Justice of the Peace Blackburn's physician. This report documented his ongoing physical condition. A copy of the Agreed Statement is appended hereto as Appendix 4.
Background of Justice of the Peace Blackburn
Justice of the Peace Blackburn was 64 years old at the time of the hearing. He had been married for 43 years and had five children. He came to Canada from Grenada in 1974, was employed by the Government of Ontario in the Ministries of Transportation and Revenue and was appointed a Justice of the Peace in 1980. Justice of the Peace Blackburn is designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as a presiding justice of the peace pursuant to section 4 of theJustices of the Peace Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.J.4. Such designation means that, in addition to other duties that justices of the peace are authorized to perform, he is authorized to preside at the trials of persons charged with offences under Ontario laws. After the complaints were made, Justice of the Peace Blackburn was assigned to office work which he has continued to this date.
Itis my understanding that this is the first inquiry held pursuant to section 12 of the Justices of the Peace Act. However, there are precedents for inquiries of a similar nature with regard to provincial judges.
Justice of the Peace Blackburn admitted the allegations through the filing of the Statement of Agreed Facts and thereby obviated the necessity of having the complainants testify. The issue for me therefore became whether the admitted behaviour was such as to justify a recommendation for removal from office.
Conduct of Justice of the Peace Blackburn
The allegations that Justice of the Peace Blackburn has admitted unquestionably constitute improper conduct. His comments were gross and disgusting and I find it difficult to understand what could have caused him to behave so badly. Making the situation even worse was the fact that one of the young women to whom he addressed his comments was a 16 year old high school student. The other individual was also a young woman - 21 years of age. The conduct occurred in the course of Justice of the Peace Blackburn's day to day duties. In the case of Ms. A she was a co-op student working in the courts in an attempt to discover if a career in law was in her future. What an example to set of our justice system. While Ms. C was not as young as Ms. A nor was she still in high school, the situation was also very difficult for her. Given her age she must have been relatively new to the working world. She came into Justice of the Peace Blackburn's office as a professional and had every right to be treated as such. Instead she had to listen to disgusting comments that had nothing to do with the job to be done. This behaviour demeaned her.
Mr. Earl Levy, counsel for Justice of the Peace Blackburn submitted a medical report which was appended as part of the Statement of Agreed Facts. This report indicated that his client suffered from numerous medical problems. While the report certainly verified his medical condition it did not explain why he would engage in such bizarre behaviour. Perhaps, more relevant, it did not give me any basis for being satisfied that such behaviour would not recur.
Appended also to the Statement of Agreed Facts was a letter dated November 9, 1993 from Mr. Rick Warren, an employee counsellor with Management Board Secretariat of the Ontario Government. The letter stated that Justice of the Peace Blackburn had attended for counselling related to the complaints. Mr. Warren indicated that he felt Justice of the Peace Blackburn had benefited from his involvement with Employee Counselling. Character evidence was also contained in the Statement of Agreed Facts from Bishop Brown and Justice of the Peace Downes. Both indicated that they felt Justice of the Peace Blackburn's behaviour was out of character and would not be repeated. However, no one was able to give an explanation for the behaviour in the first place.
I am mindful that Justice of the Peace Blackburn admitted the allegations at the Justice of the Peace Review Council and apologized at that time to the complainants. He did the same before this Inquiry and therefore spared the complainants from having to testify. I commend him for this and for taking counselling on his own initiative.
Standards of Conduct
A number of authorities were cited to me regarding judicial standards of conduct. The authorities came both from prior judicial inquiries into judicial behaviour and from academic writings from various jurisdictions. They were most helpful.
The authorities presented to me all dealt with the standards of conduct for judges. I found nothing related to justices of the peace or those who hold similar positions in other jurisdictions. The question then remains whether justices of the peace should be held to the same standards of conduct as judges. However, when considering Justice of the Peace Blackburn's conduct I consider this issue to be irrelevant. What Justice of the Peace Blackburn said to these young women in the course of his and their professional duties would be wrong and totally unacceptable in any workplace. One need not worry about any special standards of judicial conduct - his conduct did not meet the bare minimum of what would be acceptable in any work environment in today's society.
The issue then becomes what is the appropriate remedy for such unacceptable behaviour. It is at this stage of the Inquiry that the question of whether justices of the peace should be held to the same standards of behaviour as judges becomes more relevant. As I indicated above, the literature dealing with this subject speaks only to judges and not to other judicial officers. Justices of the peace are judicial officers. The difference between the requirements for appointment of judges and justices of the peace is that justices of the peace are not required to have formal legal training nor are they required to have been members of a Bar prior to their appointment.
However, justices of the peace are very important judicial officers. Among other duties, they make decisions that affect a person's liberty such as bail , they determine whether process will issue, they decide whether or not to issue search warrants, and they preside in court. In fact, for many people their only contact with a judicial decision maker is with a justice of the peace. It is the justices of the peace who preside in court on matters such as parking tags, speeding tickets, by-law infractions, and provincial offences. These are the day to day type of "judicial" issues that confront most people. Itis therefore quite probable that a great number of the public will form judgements of our justice system based on their experiences with a justice of the peace. Justice of the Peace Blackburn was a presiding justice of the peace which means that he carried out the full range of duties that could be assigned to a justice of the peace, including presiding in court.
In an article cited to me by Commission Counsel entitled, ''Judges on Trial
- A Study of the Appointment and Accountability of the English Judiciary' ', by Shimon Shetreet, the author states at p. 282,
"Judges could not discharge their functions without complete public confidence. If a judge behaved in a way which seriously impaired public confidence in him, he would no longer be able to administer justice and therefore should leave the bench. The test of public confidence was expressly used in Canada by the Hon. I. C. Rand who was appointed a Commissioner to investigate the conduct of a judge. In a report recommending the removal of the judge the Commissioner proposed this test for determining unfitness in a judge. 'Would the conduct fairly determined in the light of all circumstances lead [fairminded persons acting normally, expressing in fact enlightened public opinion] to attribute such a deficit of normal character that the discharge of the duties of the office thereafter would be suspect? Has it destroyed unquestioning confidence of uprightness, or moral integrity, of honesty in decision, the elements of public honour? If so then unfitness has been demonstrated.' "
The Honourable Mr. Justice Robins in his decision in the Commission of Inquiry re: Provincial Judge Harry J. Williams stated at p. 17 of the decision:
"The confidence of the public in the administration of justice is of paramount importance. That confidence is vital to our democratic system of government. And public confidence in the judiciary - in its integrity, its impartiality, its independence, its moral authority - is indispensable to the administration of justice. In the ultimate analysis the authority of our courts rests on public acceptance of judicial decisions - and that acceptance in turn depends on public confidence in our judges.
Every judge in his judicial and non-judicial activity has a responsibility to preserve and enhance public confidence in the administration ofjustice. He serves as an exemplar of justice, to much of the puhlic its personifi cation, and confidence in our system of justice in large measure depends on him. When he engages in misconduct, the magnitude of the misconduct may be measured by the extent to which he has impaired the confidence of the public in himself as a judge and in the administration of justice."
And he continued at p. 19:
"But in deciding whether specific conduct constitutes misbehaviour requi ring a judge's removal from office under the terms of The Provincial Courts Act , it must be remembered that men and women who assume judicial office remain human - and 'in a world of imperfect humans, the faults of human clay are always manifest'. There must be allowance for forgivable error; human frailties and fallibilities must not be forgotten; none of us can attain the ideal. To warrant removal misbehaviour should be more than indiscretion or error in judgment. But whether in a given case misbehaviour for non-judicial activity justifies removal from office must normally depend on circumstances which cannot be covered fully by any statement of general principle. There are no tests of misbehaviour capable of exact definition. Nor are there standards of judicial conduct which admit of quantitative measurement. Each case must ultimately depend on the nature of the conduct, all the facts surrounding it, its effect on the judge' s ability to perform his official duties, and the extent to which it has impaired public confidence in the judge and in the administration of justice. As in so many issues in law and ethics, it becomes a matter of degree, a question of where the line is to be drawn."
While these latter comments apply to non-judicial activities, in my view they have even greater relevance when one is concerned with judicial activities. I also have no difficulty in finding that these comments have application to the behaviour and conduct of justices of the peace just as they do to judges. Members of the public do not easily make distinctions between the various decision makers in the system.
Again I must emphasize that we are not here discussing behaviour or conduct that might perhaps be on the periphery of acceptable but behaviour that is clearly in any setting totally unacceptable. If the behaviour had been less serious then there might be an argument about whether justices of the peace should be held to exactly the same standards as judges in those circumstances.
When justices of the peace accept their appointments they can't help but appreciate that they are a part of the justice system and the public will have certain expectations of their behaviour while discharging their judicial duties.
Being mindful of the principles set out above regarding judicial conduct, it is my opinion that Justice of the Peace Blackburn by his behaviour to the complainants in this Inquiry has - and here I adopt the words of Madam Justice Macfarland in the Hryciuk decision - "displayed a lack of regard for the dignity and honour of his judicial position. His conduct must seriously diminish public respect and confidence in him and thereby severely impair his ability to function" as a justice of the peace.
I conclude that Justice of the Peace Blackburn's misconduct is such that it does not serve the best interests of the administration of justice in this province that he continue as a justice of the peace. Of particular significance to me in coming to this conclusion was the nature of the behaviour, the fact that it occurred in the course of his judicial duties and the age and circumstances of the young women to whom his behaviour was directed. I take this view despite the fact that he apologized , admitted the allegations thereby sparing the complainants from testifying and attended gender equity training. None of these factors can excuse his behaviour, nor restore the necessary public respect and confidence in him .
Before concluding my reasons I wish to commend the complainants - Ms. C and Ms. A. They are two courageous young women. Initiating a complaint such as this and following it through the process is not an easy task. I hope that their experiences have not caused them to lose faith in our justice system.
For the reasons given above I find that His Worship Justice of the Peace Blackburn has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his office by reason of conduct that is incompatible with the execution of the duties of his office and I recommend that he be removed from that office.
With regard to the issue of costs, despite my recommendation that Justice of the Peace Blackburn be removed, I am prepared to recommend that he be compensated according to sec. 12(3)(b) of the Justices of the Peace Act "for all his costs in connection with the Inquiry '.' Itshould be noted that there is no provision in the statute which ties a recom mendation as to costs to the recommendation as to removal. I have made this recommendation because of Justice of the Peace Blackburn's actions in apologizing, and admitting the allegations. As a result of this the proceedings were shortened considerably and the complainants spared from testifying. While I recognize that the reason for an inquiry being held at all was Justice of the Peace Blackburn's behaviour it is my view that he deserves some acknowledgement for the manner in which he conducted himself following the incidents in question. In my view this can be accomplished through a recom mendation that he be compensated for all his costs in connection with the Inquiry.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
January 21, 1994
COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF
HIS WORSHIP LEONARD BLACKBURN, A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS
I. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
By Order in Council dated August 19, 1993, Her Honour Judge Mary Hogan, a Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division), was appointed pursuant to section 12 of the Justices of the Peace Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.J.4, to inquire into the question of whether His Worship Leonard Blackburn, a Justice of the Peace, should be removed from office.
The Commission of lnquiry was appointed on the recommendation of the Justices of the Peace Review Council upon the completion of an investigation into complaints of A and C.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION CONCERNING JUSTICE OF THE PEACE BLACKBURN
Justice of the Peace Blackburn is 64 years old. He was born on January 1, 1929. He has been married for 43 years, and has five children ranging from 21 to 44 years of age. Three of his children and one grandchild live with Justice of the Peace Blackburn and his wife. He and one of his children are the only members of the household who are employed outside the home. Justice of the Peace Blackburn was suffering from financial difficulties at the time of the incidents described below.
Justice of the Peace Blackburn came to Canada from Grenada in 1974. He was employed by the Government of Ontario in the Ministries of Transportation and Revenue until he was appointed a justice of the peace in 1980.
Justice of the Peace Blackburn has been designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as a presiding justice of the peace pursuant to section 4 of the Justices of the Peace Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.J.4. Inhis capacity he is authorized to preside at the trials of persons charged with offences under Ontario laws, among other duties that justices of the peace are authorized to perform.
After the above complaints were made, Justice of the Peace Blackburn was assigned to office work which he has continued to this date. That work included such matters as: signing failing to responds resulting in convictions being registered by him together with the imposition of fines and costs; signing suspensions of drivers' licences for failure to pay fines; and signing plate denial orders.
Justice of the Peace Blackburn suffers from hypertension and is diabetic. His medical condition is described more fully in a report dated February 23, 1993 from Dr. Jerry Zowni r, a copy of which is attached as exhibit W.to this Statement of Agreed Facts.
III. COMPLAINT OF A
A is 18 years old. She was born on November 25, 1975. She is a secondary school student who is currently taking her 0.A.C. classes leading to university entrance.
On October 14, 1992 Ms. A was 16 years old, and in grade 12. She was enrolled in the school's co-operative educational program, in which students are given the opportunity to work in a field that interests them. Because Ms. A is interested in the possibility of pursuing a career in law, she chose to take her co operative education placement at the College Park criminal courts at 444 Yonge Street in Toronto.
At approximately 11:00 a.m. on October 14, 1992 Ms. A entered Justice of the Peace Blackburn's office at the College Park Courthouse to ask him some questions pertaining to certain judicial functions. He gave her the answers that she required and then proceeded to ask her questions about her aspirations for the future. Following this brief discussion Justice Blackburn made comments to the following effect:
• "You're very pretty . . . you've brightened up my day.";
• ". . . this is the best day I've had in a long time thanks to you";
• "I don't want to go on my morning break because I don't want to Jose any time when we could be talking together".
Justice of the Peace Blackburn asked Ms. A whether or not she had a boyfriend to which she replied "yes". He then told her about another young female co-op student with whom he worked previously. He told her how he and this student began to talk and get "friendly". He then told Ms. A that this student was:
• 15 or 16 years old;
• that she was an extremely beautiful girl;
• that she used to stare at him from the same place everyday ;
• that she approached him and told him that she liked him;
• that they became "friends";
• that he saw this student for about six years until she was about 22 years of age;
• that he told this student that he couldn't marry her;
• that she should get married; and
• that "if she wants to see me she can. She can get some of what she [the other student] was accustomed to".
Justice of the Peace Blackburn said words to A to the following
• "You have a great body. How do you keep it up?"
Following the mention by Ms. A of a woman who had been calling the
administrative office from Metfors, Justice of the Peace Blackburn mentioned a 22 year old woman who was in prison and said that he had looked through the cell window and saw this woman "stark naked". Then he commented on how beautiful her body was and said that she was dancing around saying words to the following effect: "I want to fuck. I want to fuck. I want to fuck."
Justice of the Peace Blackburn also asked Ms. A whether or not she had gone to court yet. She replied by telling him that she had gone on Tuesday, October 13, 1992. He then proceeded to tell her that he once had an interesting careless driving charge before him in court. He told her the story of a man who was pulled over by the police because he was weaving through traffic. When the police officer approached the man's car, he noticed that there was a woman lying down on the floor of the car and that the man's pant zipper was undone. Justice of the Peace Blackburn also mentioned to Ms. A that there was a "wet spot" on the man's pants in the pelvic area. He then told Ms. A that the accused testified in court that he had dropped a lit cigarette on the floor and had asked the woman to look for it. When asked about the "wet spot" in his pelvic area, the accused said tt h at he had stopped off at a restaurant just prior to being pulled over where he had a "little accident". Justice of the Peace Blackburn went on to tell Ms. A that he did not believe the man's story and then said words to the following effect: "Obviously the girl was giving him a blow job".
Justice of the Peace Blackburn provided Ms. A with his business card with two phone numbers on it. One of the phone numbers was a direct line to him at Old City Hall (327-5179) and the other was his direct line at College Park (965-0129). He said that she could call him any time to talk.
Justice of the Peace Blackburn asked Ms. A what time she had lunch to which she responded "1:00 p.m." He then told her that his secretary takes lunch at 1:00p.m. as well and locks the door so that he's by himself in his office. Justice Blackburn then asked her to have lunch with him. When Ms. A indicated that she'd let him know whether or not she could have lunch with him, he asked to see her hands. Ms. A showed him her hands with her palms up and he said "you have very nice hands". Following this Ms. A thanked him and left his office.
Ms. A returned to his office and told him that she had to spend lunch with another co-op student and he asked her to promise that she would come back sometime in the afternoon. She did in fact make this promise but did not return to his office.
During Ms. A's conversation with Justice of the Peace Blackburn they were interrupted four times: first, by two police officers, one male and one female who wanted an information signed; second, by a gentleman who came in to sign as a surety; third , by a lawyer who wanted some subpoenas signed; and fourth, by a police officer for a forgotten reason.
IV. COMPLAINT OF C
On October 20, 1992, C was 21 years old . She was employed as a retail investigator by Loss Prevention Services Limited. She is licenced as a private investigator and is interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement.
On October 20, 1992, Ms. C attended at College Park Court, 444 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario at approximately 12:00 noon to lay two charges for theft under $1,000 pursuant to the Criminal Code.
At approximately 12:20 p.m. Ms. C entered the office of Justice of the Peace Blackburn, whom she had not met previously. The door to his office remained open.
Shortly after Ms. C's arrival in Justice of the Peace Blackburn's office he asked if she was Yugoslavian. She replied: "yes". Following this reply by Ms. C Justice of the Peace Blackburn said words to the following effect: "Yugoslavian women are passionate lovers".
Justice of the Peace Blackburn told Ms. C that he was seeing a Yugoslavian lady and said words to the following effect:
• "In some countries a lot of hair is attractive";
• "Do you know how unattractive it is when a women has no hair down there?" (while pointing down between his legs);
• "Her hair down there is not white, but a pinkish colour. Can you believe that? What colour is yours?";
• "She (referring to the Yugoslavian lady he was seeing) is married, but they have a loveless marriage, that is why I am there. Her husband can't perform in bed , but she is still with him. Terrible thing."
Following this discussion, Ms. C left Justice of the Peace Blackburn's office for a moment and then returned to sign the papers required for laying the charges. After he signed the information he asked Ms. C to put her right hand on the Bible and swear that the information that she gave was the truth. When she put her hand on the Bible, he started to rub it. As he rubbed it she said "don't" and pulled her hand back.
When Ms. C got up to leave Justice Blackburn's office, he asked: "When will I see you again?" and then said "Ibet it is black and silky down there". Ms. C did not respond to either question or comment and left his office.
V. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE BLACKBURN'S APOLOGY
Ms. Patel and Ms. C both made complaints to the Justices of the Peace Review Council as a result of the incidents described above. During the investigation by the Council, Justice of the Peace Blackburn made the following apology to Ms. A and Ms. C, who were present before the Council in person at the time:
"I have read and understand your allegations against me made by Ms. A and Ms. C. I do not dispute them and wish to apologize to both ladies for my objectionable conduct.
I understand that my behaviour was upsetting to both Ms. A and Ms. C. This was not my intention nor was any personal insult intended. It is difficult for me to understand why I acted so foolishly on these two occasions during one week in my whole life. However, even at my age there are lessons to be learned and I have learned from what I have done.
I assure you and the members of the Council that there will be no repetition of this conduct and I hope you both can forgive me. That's my formal apology."
VI. REACTION ON COMPLAINANTS
Ms. C informed the Justice of the Peace Review Council that "I went into that office as a professional to deal with another professional and what I heard was extremely upsetting to me. When I left, I was very insulted." Ms. A told the Justices of the Peace Review Council that "I took co-op from school because I wanted to learn about the profession . . . I came to [Justice of the Peace Blackburn] and asked [him] questions because I wanted to learn."
VII. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE BLACKBURN'S SEXUAL HARASSMENT COURSE
Attached as Exhibit "B" to this Statement of Agreed Facts is a letter dated November 9, 1993 from Mr. Rick Warren concerning Justice of the Peace Blackburn's attendance at a sexual harassment course offered by the Ontario Government, Employee Health & Safety Services Branch.
VIII. CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Bishop Arthur George Brown was elected a Bishop in 1981. He was a lay member of the Judicial Council for eight years. He is a member of the Ontario Council on Multiculturalism and is associated with Cardinal Carter on public relations between the Caribbean Islands and Toronto.
The Bishop has known Justice of the Peace Blackburn for 18 years. Mr. Blackburn has been very active in his parish and is on its Advisory Council. He has seen the Justice of the Peace interact with other persons and has never heard anything derogatory about him. He has visited the Justice of the Peace a number of times at his home. The Bishop's three daughters are friends of the Blackburn family. His youngest single daughter has a house that backs on to the Blackburn's home and they have had a lot of contact with each other.
Bishop Brown knows that Justice of the Peace Blackburn was held in high esteem in Grenada. He knows that the Justice has very good manners and is a real gentleman. The Bishop is bewildered by the allegations against Justice of the Peace Blackburn - they are out of character in his view.
Bishop Brown feels that Justice of the Peace Blackburn would live up to his promise not to repeat his objectionable behaviour.
Charles Arthur Downes has been a Justice of the Peace since 1978. He has known Justice of the Peace Blackburn since the latter joined his church shortly after coming to Canada. The Justices of the Peace provide services to members of the congregation with respect to signing various documents. Justice of the Peace Blackburn is also involved in the administrative end of the church.
He has seen Justice of the Peace Blackburn interact with other people including females and has never seen him act in a crude or obscene manner and has not heard anybody else talk about Justice of the Peace Blackburn that way.Justice of the Peace Blackburn' s actions with respect to Ms. A and Ms. C were out of character in Justice of the Peace Downes' view. Justice of the Peace Downes feels that Justice of the Peace Blackburn's word is his bond and that he would live up to his promise not to repeat his objectionable behaviour.
Justice of the Peace Blackburn acknowledges that before signing this Statement of Agreed Facts he reviewed it carefully and obtained the advice of his counsel, Earl Levy, Q.C.
DATED at Toronto this 17th day of December, 1993.
Gavin MacKenzie Justice of the Peace
Commission of Inquiry Counsel Leonard Blackburn
Davies, Ward & Beck
1 First Canadian Place Toronto, Ontario MSX lBJ