Friday, March 31, 2017

Leave to Bring Motion Seeking Re-Opening(March 6, 2017) Etc.: Re Massiah Re-Hearing

E mail dated March 6th, 2017 @ 8:41 AM - wrote:

Madam Registrar:

RE: Leave to Bring Motion

We hereby seek the panel's leave to bring the attached motion seeking a re-opening of the 2012 Panel's findings on liability and penalty pursuant to the Procedures Document
and established jurisprudence.

We as counsel see this motion as proper and necessary in light of the irregularities in the
filed "record of proceedings" and the narrowing of the issues at the Divisional Court -
effectively excluding the important consideration of the erroneous interpretation to the
Human Rights Code and to Hryciuk  v. Ontario.  The other salient issue is that it is clear
that the 2012 Panel did not answer the question it was authorized by the Act to answer
but instead answered a question put to it by Presenting Counsel and totally overlooked
our client's proper legal objections.

You should have four attachments;  1. containing the NOM and attachments and the
second containing the Amendment to the 2013 Annual Report and a TorStar article
where you and Mr. Hunt are quoted on the issues to be decided.  A third containing
a minor amendment adding para 1A to replace the first page of the NOM and
4. A copy of Chandler  v. Alta Assoc. of Architects.

We trust that this is satisfactory.

E.J. Guiste and J. House
Co-counsel for the Applicant.

- Amended Notice of Motion 1A only
- reopening Chandler 1989 Canli 41
- Re-Opening Motion
- TorStar Tax Payers Billed for Guilty Justices Legal Bills Evidence

E mail dated March 6, 2017 @ 11:27 AM - Ernest Guiste wrote to King Marilyn, J. House, Marie Henein, Matthew Gourlay


Please forgive me but I believe it to be my duty in the proper discharge of my duty as
counsel to bring the following legal authorities to the hearing panel's attention:

1.  Canada Post Corp.  v.  CUPW 2008 Canli 32313 (Div Crt)

2.   Criminal Lawyers Assn.  v.  Ministry of Community Safety 2016 ONSC 6947 (Div Crt)

3.   CUPE   v.   Air Canada and Brial Keller 2014 ONSC 2552 (Div Crt)

As Jennings J. pointed out in Canada Post sura at para 21 we do not see it as being
a proper use of public resources, judicial time as well as the time of counsel in this
matter to run to the Court of Appeal or Divisional Court at this time.  The cost of
these proceedings has been brought home loud and clear to our client.  Our duty
as barristers in this case requires that we be mindful of the public purse but it must
 not trump our duty to advance fearlessly our client's case.  As it stands, we can not
 be accused of having cost the taxpayers any money.  We can only trust in God
that our services as barristers shall be recognized in time.


E.J. Guiste and J. House
Co-counsel for H.W. Massiah

E mail dated March 6, 2017 @ 5:38 PM - Marilyn King to Ernest Guiste, 
Jeff House, Marie Henein, Matthew Gourlay

RE: Decision on Jurisdiction in Relation to Notice of Constitutional Question


In my capacity as the Registrar of the Justices of the Peace Review Council (JPRC),
I am sending you a decision, Decision on Jurisdiction in Relation to Notice of
Constitutional Question, issued by the Hearing Panel of the JPRC that is presiding
over the matter remitted to it by the Divisional Court in Massiah  v.  Justices of the
Peace Review Council, 2016 ONSC 6191.

Marilyn E. King

E mail dated March 6, 2017 @ 5:45 PM - King Marilyn to Ernest Guiste, 
Jeff House, Marie Henein, Matthew Gourlay

Re: Re-opening Further Authorities

Good afternoon, Counsel,

This e mail confirms receipt of the e mail from Mr. Guiste and that the case law was
brought to the attention of the Hearing Panel this morning.

Marilyn King
Registrar, Ontario Judicial Council
and Justices of the Peace Review Council

E mail dated March 6, 2017 @ 6:29 PM Ernest Guiste wrote:

Madam Registrar:

Receipt acknowledged with thanks.

Neither Presenting Council or our client referred to or got
any notice of Harle  v.  101090442 Saskatchewan Ltd. 2016 SK CA 66.

This decision is totally new to me as counsel.  I wish to say something
about this decision.  May I please have this opportunity ?  I am prepared
to keep my submission on it very brief - no more than a page or two.


E.J. Guiste

E Mail dated March 8, 2017 @ 10:12 AM King, Marilyn wrote:

Mr. Guiste,

The 2013 Annual Report was not amended.  In addition to posting the Annual Report,
notice was posted of an inadvertent omission.  I do not recall the date when I became
aware of the omission but a staff member noticed it and brought it to my attention.

Documents send by the Chief Justice to the Justices of the Peace Review Council are not
public documents.

In relation to this hearing, as the Registrar, I can inform you that the Honourable Justice
Deborah Livingstone and His Worship Michael Cuthbertson were appointed as
temporary members of the JPRC effective May 28, 2013.

Yes, we have the copies of the Investigators Reports.

Marilyn E. King

E mail dated March 8, 2017 @ 12:04 PM, Ernest Guiste wrote:

Madam Registrar:

Please find attached my client's motion raising his
concerns about a reasonable apprehension of bias
which is hereby served pursuant to the Procedures

I will address your recent info separately.


E.J. Guiste

E mail dated March 10th, 2017 @ 5:33 PM, King Marilyn wrote:

Good afternoon, Mr. Guiste and Mr. House,

Please see the attached letter sent on behalf of the JPRC Hearing Panel.

Yours truly,

Marilyn E. King

March 10, 2017

Mr. Jeffry A. House
Barrister and Solicitor
31 Prince Arthur Avenue
Toronto, Ontario L6W 3W8(sic)

Mr. Ernest J. Guiste
Professional Corporation
2 County Court Blvd., Suite 494
Brampton, Ontario M5R 1B2 (sic)

Dear Counsel:

RE:  Proper Filing of Motions

The Hearing Panel has been informed by the Registrar of the two motions sent by e mail
by Mr. Guiste.  The Panel has requested that if you seek to file motions for adjudication
by the Hearing Panel, please file them properly at the desk of the Office of the Justices
of the Peace Review Council.

Please file three hard copies, which includes one for each Panel member and one for our

Please also serve Presenting Counsel.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Marilyn E. King

FOR: Hearing Panel of the Justices of the Peace Review Council
c. Ms. Marie Henein and Mr. Matthew Gourlay, Presenting Counsel

March 10th, 2017

Priority Post

1 Queen Street East, Suite 2310
Toronto, Ontario, M5C 2W5

Attention:  Ms. M. King, Registrar and Counsel

Dear Ms. King:


Please find enclosed four copies of each of the motions served on you and
Presenting Counsel post Notice of Constitutional Question.  There are some
e mails which are germane to these motion which I have expressly asked you
to bring to the attention of the hearing panel.

I trust that this is satisfactory.

Yours very truly,

Ernest J. Gusite
cc. co-counsel, Mr. House, Presenting Counsel - Ms. Henein and Mr. Gourlay
Mr. Massiah via regular mail

Excerpts from Decision on Motions
Dated March 30th, 2017

7)   Mr. Massiah has presented no statute or case law relevant to circumstances
where there has been a judicial review and a denial of leave to appeal in support of
his argument to re-ligigate matters from the hearing or newly litigate matters related
to the complaints process beyond our re-consideration of the compensation issue.

23)   In summary, we provide the following rulings on the two Motions filed before us:

a)   Our jurisdiction is narrow and only as permitted by the Divisional court(sic) ruling
(see our decision of 6 March 2017).  As a result, we decline to further consider Motion 1;

b)   We will not allow re-litigation or new litigation of matters beyond our jurisdiction as
ordered by the Divisional Court (see our decision of 6 March 2017).  As a result, we
decline to further consider Motion 2;

c)   To avoid an abuse of process, Mr. Massiah is to file no more motions without leave
from this Hearing Panel.

d)   We will not consider the Notice of Motion of 6 March 2017 indicating an intention
to file a motion seeking remedies beyond our jurisdiction.

Dated March 30, 2017

Hearing Panel

Justice of the Peace Michael Cuthbertson*
Ms. Leonore Foster, Community Member

*The Registrar and Counsel for the JPRC, Ms. King advised on March 8th, 2017
that H.W. Cuthbertson was appointed a temporary member of the Review Council
effective May 28, 2013 by the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice
(at the time) The Chair of the Panel, the Honourable Justice Livingstone was also
 appointed a temporary member of the Review Council at the same time.
Disclosure of the letter or documents evidencing these appointments were sought
in one of the motions. The Hearing Panel denied this relevant disclosure by way
of its March 30th, 2017 decision.

**One of the grounds for re-opening is that the Hearing Panel was not properly
constituted because - 1. Justice Livingstone was a "part-time judge" who
required the consent of the Attorney General to sit and 2.  The Justices of the
Peace Act, s.8(10) allows the Chief Justice to appoint a judge or a justice of
the peace. It does not allow for the appointment of two temporary members
on a panel.

s.8(10) JPA

The Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice may appoint a judge or a justice
of the peace who is not a member of the Review Council to be a temporary member
of a complaints committee or hearing panel in order to deal fully with a matter.

**The issue of the composition of the hearing panel was not one raised before the
appellate courts. Indeed, neither J.P. Massiah or his counsel or members of the
public would know who is or is not a "temporary member" but for the Registrar's
publication of this fact in the JPRC's Annual Report to the Attorney General.

***The Toronto Star has written at least three articles on this most unsatisfactory
and prejudicial practice. A justice of the peace subject to removal from office is
entitled to know the status of those who sit in judgment of him or her at the time
of the hearing and not after they are removed from office. J.P. Massiah and likely
other justices of the peace removed from office recently may well have been
removed by improperly constituted hearing panels. This is serious.

***Ontario is Keeping Secret Complains About JPs - June 16, 2014; Ontario Failing
to Release Reports of Complaints Against Judges - January 23, 2017; Report Sheds
Light on Secretive Discipline Process for Ontario Judges, JPs - February 11, 2017
"Annual reports about complaints against Ontario judges and justices of the peace
have been released two weeks after the Star highlighted that the Ministry of the
Attorney General was failing to release them in a timely fashion."

NOTE:  The above e mails and the cases referred to and attached were filed with the Hearing Panel in the Re-Hearing currently before a Hearing Panel of the JPRC.  This information is published here as a public service since the Hearing Panel has ruled against the conventional public hearing traditionally afforded in cases involving the removal of judicial officers in the free world. The removal of a judicial officer is a matter of public importance. The manner in which it is done is unquestionably a matter of public interest and importance and justice must be seen to be done. 

No comments:

Post a Comment