Questions of Law Raised by HW Massiah on Compensation Claim - Excerpt from JP Massiah's Submissions

1.         Does the financial security component of judicial independence carry with it an obligation that the Respondent be indemnified by the Attorney General for the costs associated with his defence in these judicial misconduct proceedings under the Justices of the Peace Act  ?

2.         Does the financial security component of judicial independence carry with it an obligation that the Respondent be indemnified by the Attorney General for the costs associated with his defence in judicial misconduct proceedings under the Justices of the Peace Act, where as here, the legal basis for the misconduct is contingent on the adjudication of the Human Rights Code, preliminary questions going to jurisdiction and abuse of process?

3.         Does the financial security component of judicial independence carry with it an obligation that the Respondent be indemnified by the Attorney General for the costs associated with his defence in judicial misconduct proceedings under the Justices of the Peace Act where the Hearing Panel expressly invite counsel for the parties to resolve the following legal questions,  seeks out Independent Counsel for legal advice and orders that the preliminary motion be adjudicated on a full evidentiary hearing and the Hearing Panel denies the Respondent of an opportunity to participate in a Pre-Hearing Conference to explore resolution short of a hearing in circumstances?

4.         The Respondent submits that the answer to all three questions above is yes.  The reasons in support of this conclusion is delineated below.

Additional questions of law

for Panel’s adjudication:

5.                                 1.         Did the Respondent have a legal right to defend

                                                those allegations raised in the Notice of Hearing

                                                which he did not admit to in his written response

                                                to the Complaints Committee notice letter to him ?

                                    2.         Assuming the Respondent has such a right, does

                                                the refusal to indemnify him for the cost of

                                                defending himself render such a right illusory,

                                                deprive him of access to justice and denude the

                                                proceedings of fairness and legal legitimacy ?

  

6.         The Respondent respectfully submits that the answer to both questions is yes.  The overriding rationale for this is founded in the fundamental tenets of our system of justice. Judicial officers are the guardian of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.  They must never be seen to be influenced in any manner by the administration.  We have a clear separation of those functions in our system.  The ability of the Respondent to fully defend himself in such a system is critical to the legal legitimacy of the decision to remove him.  He makes $122,000 per year. He could not properly defend himself were it not for all of the counsel who have defended him to date rising to the call of duty and providing him with a proper defence in reliance on the age old practice of the Attorney Generals indemnifying judicial officers for the cost of their defence.

                                                Compensation Documents First Hearing – Tab 10