Saturday, April 22, 2017

Fresh Evidence Motion Filed With Justices of the Peace Review Council


IN THE MATTER OF a complaint respecting
Justice of the Peace in the
Central East Region


          TAKE NOTICE THAT the His Worship Justice of the Peace Massiah hereby seeks leave to bring a motion before the Panel – to admit fresh evidence in writing since the Hearing Panel has dispensed with the traditional public hearing format.

The Grounds for the Application are:

1.      During my hearing, the issue of who is the “complainant” and whether the mandatory requirements prescribed by the Justices of the Peace Act, and Procedures Document were complied with and(sic) was a central issue before the Hearing Panel. 

          Current Presenting Counsel did not call former Presenting Counsel, Mr. Hunt, to testify that in submitting his report to his instructing counsel, The Registrar, Ms. Marilyn King, he had the intention to make a complaint about my conduct. Current Presenting Counsel told my lawyer that the “complainants’ were the witnesses who would come to testify in a letter dated January 14th, 2014. Witnesses were accordingly cross-examined on this information and they testified to having no intention to file a “complaint.”

          The Panel ruled On January 12th, 2015 that Mr. Hunt was the “complainant”. 

          After the findings of liability, disposition and compensation, 
the Registrar and Presenting Counsel’s instructing counsel, 
Ms. King, prepared an affidavit sworn August 19th, 2016 in which 
she deposed that she complied with one of the two mandatory 
requirements of notice to complainants, namely, that the 
“complaint” was proceeding to a hearing and that his evidence may 
be required.  Ms. King has not disclosed an acknowledgement of 
receipt of the “complaint” to date.

                   I was denied the right to confront Mr. Hunt 
on the crucial point of whether he intended to make a complaint 
about my conduct.  The Hearing Panel and indeed the People of 
Ontario were denied his evidence on a crucial and material point in 
my removal from judicial office, namely, whether he intended to 
make a complaint about my conduct. 
2.      The new evidence is relevant and calls into question the fairness of the proceedings against me and soundly demonstrates the reasonableness and merit of all of the motions and steps taken on my behalf in defending my office – a pivotal issue in the Hearing Panel’s decision on whether I should be compensated “for all or part of the cost of legal services incurred in connection with the hearing” pursuant to s.11.1(16) of the Justices of the Peace Act.

 3.      On April 14th, 2017 I learned that current Presenting Counsel, Ms. Henein’s spouse was a law partner of the complainant, former Presenting Counsel, Mr. Doug Hunt, in and around the material time of him acting as Presenting Counsel on my matter before Justice Vallencourt and the date of his report to his instructing counsel, Ms. Marilyn King, Registrar and Counsel to the Justices of the Peace Review Council.

4.      On April 14th, 2017 I also learned that prior to going into the private practice of law the “complainant”, prior Presenting Counsel, Mr. Hunt was Assistant Deputy Attorney General and Director of Criminal Law for Ontario.

5.      The Registrar’s recent disclosure in her sworn affidavit prompted investigations which have brought the relationship between current Presenting Counsel, her spouse and the complainant, former Presenting Counsel, Mr. Hunt to light.
 6.      The new evidence is also relevant to the Divisional Court’s clear acknowledgement that “a complaint coming from the Government is, nonetheless a real one” and therefore one of several compelling reasons why “adjudicative bodies, dealing with complaints against judicial office holders, ought to start from the premise that it is always in the best interests of the administration of justice, to ensure that persons, who are subject to such complaints, have the benefit of counsel. Consequently, the costs of ensuring a fair, full and complete process, ought usually to be borne by the public purse, because it is the interests of the public, first and foremost, that are being advanced and maintained through the complaint process.”

7.      Presenting Counsel’s answer to my counsel’s question on who is the complainant and her decision not to call the complainant, former Presenting Counsel to give evidence on his intention,  when looked at in the light of the new evidence raises a true reasonable apprehension of bias and is clearly contrary to the age old principle that justice must be seen to be done.

8.      Section 4 of the JPRC’s Procedural Code for Hearing;

9.      Rule 3.4-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The following documentary evidence will be relied upon:

1.  Sworn affidavit of Errol Massiah dated April 16th, 2017 and all exhibits thereto;         

            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.

April 16th, 2017                                                                    

Professional Corporation
Trial & Appellate Advocacy
2 County Court Blvd., Suite 494
Brampton, Ontario
L6W 3W8
(416) 364-8908
(416) 364-0973 FAX
Co-counsel for the Applicant

Barrister & Solicitor
31 Prince Arthur Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M5R 1B2
Tel.(416) 707-6271
Fax (416) 960-5456

Co-counsel for the Applicant

Henein Hutchison LLP
235 King Street East, 3rd Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5A 1J9

Ms. Marie Henein and Mr. M. Gourlay



Justices of the Peace Review Council
31 Adelaide Street East
Toronto, Ontario
M5C 2J3
Ms. Marilyn E. King, Registrar   - E mail

NOTE:  This Notice of Motion to Adduce Fresh Evidence was filed with the 
Justices of the Peace Review Council on April 19th, 2017.  In a nutshell, newly 
discovered evidence shows that current Presenting Counsel's spouse was a 
law partner of former Presenting Counsel and complainant, Mr. Doug Hunt.
In addition, the complainant, Mr. Hunt was Assistant Deputy Attorney
General of Ontario prior to going into private practice.

This document is published here because the JPRC has dispensed with 
traditional public hearing format.  This piece is published as a public service.  
The people of Ontario are entitled to see that justice is done. At the time of 
publication the JPRC has not seen fit to publish this or any other 
of the motion materials.  Transparency in these matters is vitally important 
to public confidence in the administration of justice. It is in the spirit that justice 
must be seen to be done that this publication is made here.


No comments:

Post a Comment