Source of Complaint:
"Mr. Justice Nordheimer specifically singled out complaints against judicial officers coming from the government as those presumptively worthy of compensation from the Attorney General. No complaint came from the general public about Mr. Massiah - none."
"In this case new evidence shows that the person found by the Hearing Panel to be the complainant, Mr. Doug Hunt, was a former Assistant Deputy Attorney General for Ontario and Presenting Counsel in Mr. Massiah's first hearing. That is as close to government as one can get I submit."
"The evidence clearly shows that Mr. Hunt, in his capacity as Presenting Counsel, forwarded information brought to his attention to his instructing counsel, Ms. Marilyn King, and he did not express an intention to bring a complaint against H.W. Massiah's conduct."
"Presenting Counsel, Ms. Henein told me in direct response to my question to her as to whether Mr. Hunt was the complainant that it was the witnesses who would testify against H.W. Massiah that were the complainants. She did not call Mr. Hunt to testify at the hearing. New evidence shows that her husband was Mr. Hunt's law partner from 2005 to 2011."
"My client was denied the opportunity to confront Mr. Hunt with the crucial question of whether he intended to make a complaint about his conduct. Instead, I had Mr. House ask every witness what their intention was. None of the witnesses intended to complain was what Mr. House established."
Prejudicial Publicity Before
Complaint Confirmed Jan.12th
"Before the complaint against my client was confirmed by the Hearing Panel on
January 12th, 2015 my client was tried and condemned in the media. Mr. Hunt,
the former Assistant Deputy Attorney General and the complainant in the case is
actually quoted by the Toronto Star as stating the following on November 20th, 2014:
"The government does not pay the legal costs of citizens who are
acquitted, let alone someone who is found guilty".*
My Alleged Conduct:
"It is my duty as a lawyer to fearlessly defend my client and to uphold the Rule of Law. All of my work on this case over the close to four years has been guided by this fundamental principle and this principle alone."
"The role and function of Presenting Counsel in these proceedings is governed by the
JPRC Procedures Document and it is clear that the aggressive and highly political
rhetoric displayed here is inconsistent with the role and decorum of that office."
"Plain and simply the Procedures Document does not vest Presenting Counsel with the
power to assess or tax accounts or to invite disciplinary proceedings."
"Ironically, even with a recommendation the enabling legislation for jps has no enforcement mechanism to compel the Attorney General to enforce the recommendation to compensate. This makes the recommendation an illusory remedy and unconstitutional. It also has the potential to compromise a lawyer's discharge of his duty."
NOTE: This post is published here as a public service. The removal of a judicial officer is an issue of public service in the free world and in Ontario. It is published in the spirit that justice must be seen to be done. A motion seeking the Hearing Panel's leave to hear the JP on the points raised above was filed with the JPRC and is awaiting their consideration.
*"Taxpayers billed for guilty justices' legall fees" - TorStar - Nov.20, 2014*
"But, Hunt said it is important JPs have access to resources to defend themselves against
allegations brought forward by the government."