JUSTICES OF THE PEACE REVIEW COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF a complaint respecting
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE Errol Massiah
Justice of the Peace in the
Central East Region
NOTICE OF MOTION
TAKE NOTICE THAT the His Worship Justice of the Peace Massiah intends to bring a motion before the Panel – seeking a re-opening of the findings of liability and penalty - in writing – since the Panel has dispensed with the traditional oral public hearing.
The Grounds for the Application are:
1A. The panel exceeded its jurisdiction in failing to answer the question it was authorized by the Justices of the Peace Act to answer under s.11.1(10); (see Chandler v. Alta Assoc of Architects attached)
2. The Chair of the panel displayed a lack of impartiality, objectivity and fairness in the adjudication of the complaint which culminated in her carrying on communications regarding the case she was adjudicating with columnist, Michel Mandel of the Toronto Sun and publicly appearing to support her partisan publications regarding the case by re-tweeting Ms. Mandel’s article entitled “Fired JP loses Bid to Have Taxpayers Pay Legal Fees – Lawyer’s Conduct to be Reviewed” the day following the release of the Compensation Decision from her Twitter account Deborah Livingstone@dresdengirrl;
3. The 2012 Panel failed in its duty to follow the law and disregarded all legal authorities put before it on behalf of His Worship Massiah;
4. The 2012 Panel was improperly empanelled in that it was not made up of “members of the Review Council” as stipulated by the Justices of the Peace Act. In an after-the-fact amendment of the JPRC applicable Annual Report the Registrar informed the Applicant and the public that both the judicial officers on the said panel were appointed “temporary members” by the Chief Justice in excess of jurisdiction as the Procedures Document allows for one judicial officer to be appointed to make up a panel and not both.
5. The 2012 Panel’s animus and bias against the Applicant further came to light when former panel member, Ms. Margot Blight, who recused herself from the hearing panel on account of the party’s concern of an appearance of bias, sitting as the Chair of panel of the Law Society Tribunal improperly made reference to the Applicant’s case as a precedent in a case before her notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant’s judicial review application challenging the said decision was yet to be adjudicated by the Divisional Court. (see LSUC v. Venn 2016 ONLSTH 72, April 25, 2016 at paragraph 14)
6. The 2012 Panel’s decision to make a public referral against one of the Applicant’s two lawyers interfered with his right to counsel of his choice on his judicial review/appeal proceedings.
7. The Justices of the Peace Review Council filed a deficient record of proceedings before the Divisional Court which not only curtailed meaningful appellate review by the appellate courts in this matter but may have improperly impacted the issues which counsel for the parties identified for appellate review.
The following documentary evidence will be relied upon:
1. London Free Press article dated May 31, 2011, “From Deb... to just Deb
2. Re-tweet by Deborah Livingstone@dresdengirrl of “JP fired
over lecherous behaviour loses bid to have taxpayers pay $600,000 in legal fees”
3. Registrar’s Amendment to the Annual Report
4. LSUC v. Venn 2016 ONLSTH 72
5. Such further documents and evidence as the panel will permit.
The Applicant may be served with documents related to this motion at the office of his solicitors of record, E.J. Guiste and J. House pursuant to the Rules.
March 6th, 2017
E. J. GUISTE
Trial & Appellate Advocacy
2 County Court Blvd., Suite 494
(416) 364-0973 FAX
Co-counsel for the Applicant
Barrister & Solicitor
31 Prince Arthur Avenue
Fax (416) 960-5456
Co-counsel for the Applicant
Henein Hutchison LLP
235 King Street East, 3rd Floor
Ms. Marie Henein and Mr. M. Gourlay
E Mail email@example.com
Justices of the Peace Review Council
Ms. Marilyn E. King, Registrar - E mail firstname.lastname@example.org