November 19th, 2013 Transcript
Following Ms. Margot Blight's revelation that she sat in judgment of the subject JP on a
complaint alleging purjury initiated by the Ms. Marilyn King, the Registrar and counsel
for the Justices of the Peace Review Council, Presenting Counsel stated the following
about adjourning the proceedings on that day:
"However, I think, in fairness this has just been brought to the attention of
Mr. Guiste and Justice of the Peace Massiah. I can indicate that if I were
in his position I would want an opportunity to review all those materials
and to make submissions before the panel.
You appreciate how strongly I have been opposed to the adjournment on the
basis that the abuse of process should have been going, but things arise
through no fault of anyone. This has arisen. I hesitate to take an
aggressive position and push this matter forward without allowing you
the opportunity to have not only Mr. Guiste's submissions but
my submissions and the law on this area, because my position will be no
recusal is appropriate, and I want to be able to give you the law, because
there is law on this."
On November 19th, 2013 the proceedings were adjurned to April 9th, 2014
@ 10 A.M. and the parties along with the Hearing Panel scheduled the following
hearing dates: April 9th, 28th, 30th, May 27th, 29th, June 3rd, 4th, 11th, 12th,
18th, 19th, July 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st. The transcript
reveals that Presenting Counsel stated the following:
MS. HENEIN: Those dates are all agreeable. I'd ask for what its worth
that the hearing dates be marked preemptory.
Submissions of Presenting Counsel
RE: Applicant's Bias Motion:
4. These proceedings have repeatedly been delayed by the Applicant.
There is a significant public interest in having this matter proceed in a timely manner.
5. This hearing commenced with a set date on July 4, 2013. The Applicant's
preliminary motion was set to be heard on July 29. Evidence was to be
heard and the hearing proper concluded that fall. Instead, the Applicant
brought an ill-founded and untimely application for a publication ban that caused
the hearing of his motion to be delayed. Just before the proceedings were to
resume in November, counsel informed the Panel that he was otherwise occupied in a
Superior Court trial and that the remainder of the 2013 dates wold have to be
rescheduled. Co-counsel was no longer available to conduct the hearing
because the Applicant had made an allegation of incompetence against
him, requiring his withdrawal.
6. Now we are in late May 2014 and he has brought yet another motion which
threatens to further delay the hearing of his original motion, not to mention the
hearing on the merits. The pattern is clear.
7. Maintaining public confidence in the judiciary is the overriding purpose of the
judicial conduct regime. Public confidence would be undermined if efforts
by the Applicant to derail the proceedings with meritless motions are
not met with the appropriate response. For these reasons, the motion should
be dismissed without need for further evidence or argument.
JPRC Procedures Document:
4. The duty of legal counsel engaged under this Part shall not be to seek a particular
order against a respondent, but to see that the complaint against the
justice of the peace is evaluated fairly and dispassionately to the end of
achieving a just result.
NOTE: This piece is written as a community service to draw attention to an issue of
public importance. The removal of a judicial officer is an issue of public importance
in the free world and also in Ontario. The right to defend one's judicial office is a
well recognized right in the free world. This piece is published in the spirit that
Justice Must Be Seen to Be Done.