File No. 22-041/11
JUSTICE 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 preliminary motion before the Panel on July 4th, 2013 at 10 a.m. at
1 Queen Street East in the City of . Toronto
The Grounds for the Application are:
1. None of the purported complaints comply with the express requirement in s.10.2(2) of the Justices of the Peace Act that they be in writing;
2. Consequently, the Review Council had no jurisdiction to establish a complaints committee, the committee had no jurisdiction to investigate and to order a hearing before a hearing panel;
3. All of the current purported complaints pre-date the disposition rendered on the Applicant’s prior proceeding and are consequently subsumed in that disposition;
4. The manner and tone of the purported investigation carried out by the committee was so void of fairness and integrity that it represents an abuse of process at common law.
The following documentary evidence will be relied upon:
1. The record of proceedings to date including interview transcripts;
2. Such further evidence that the Panel may consider relevant.
The Applicant may be served with documents related to this motion at the office of his solicitors of record, Eugene Bhattacharya, Barrister and Solicitor,
295 Matheson Blvd., East,
pursuant to the Rules. Mississauga,
Ontario, L4Z 1X8
Jun 28th, 2013
ERNEST J. GUISTE
Trial & Appeal Lawyer
(416) 364-0973 FAX
Co-counsel for the Applicant
Henein & Associates
Ms. Marie Henein
E Mail email@example.com
Justices of the Peace Review Council
Ms. Marilyn E. King, Registrar - E mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Independent Counsel's Opinion
May 23, 2014
Dear Ms. King:
As you know, the Hearing Panel has asked us for independent legal advice
(in accordance with s.8(15) of the Justices of the Peace Act) concerning
two issues, which arise in the context of a motion brought by Mr. Guiste
on behalf of Justice of the Peace Massiah, and on which the parties have
filed written submissions. The question in relation to which the Hearing Panel
seeks independent advice on are as follows:
1. What is the extent of the jurisdiction (if any) of this Hearing Panel of the
Justices of the Peace Review Council to review and/or grant relief
concerning decisions or actions taken by the Complaints Committee ?
2. What is the extent of the jurisdiction (if any) of the Hearing Panel to
consider whether there is a valid complaint under s.10.2 of the Justices
of the Peace Act ("JPA or "Act"), or is the Hearing Panel mandated only
to proceed with a hearing once it has been ordered by the Complaints
Committee under s.11(15)(d) of the JPA ?
We therefore conclude, based on this jurisprudence as well, that
the Hearing Panel has jurisdiction to consider the specific
issue of the sufficiency of the "complaint" within the meaning
of s.10.2, both in assessing whether it has jurisdiction to convene
the hearing, or as part of a broader consideration of whether an
"abuse of process" has occurred."
Decision on Threshold
25) We accept that the Hearing Panel has jurisdiction to consider the
specific issue of the sufficiency of the "complaint" within the meaning of
s.10.2 in assessing whether it has jurisdiction to conduct the hearing.
26) The Hearing Panel has previously received materials and written submissions in
preparation for the abuse of process and fairness motion filed by His Worship.
27) In response to the jurisdiction question raised by the Panel, in our view, both
Presenting Counsel and Counsel for His Worship also provided materials and or oral
submissions related to the abuse of process and fairness motion. As well, Mr. Gover
also commented on abuse of process and fairness issues in his legal opinion.
Submissions from all counsel on those issues have been instructive.
28) However, the abuse of process and fairness motion has not been fully argued by
Presenting Counsel and Counsel for His Worship, as yet. That motion is scheduled to be
heard shortly. In our view, it would be premature for us to make any ruling on those
29) As a result, it is only the narrow issues framed in the two questions the Hearing
Panel posed to Mr. Gover (see para 18) on which the Hearing Panel has ruled in this
Excerpts from Presenting
Counsel Submissions of
May 1st, 2017:
2. This was, at its core, a relatively straightforward hearing that Mr. Massiah's counsel,
Mr. Guiste, chose to conduct in an extraordinarily un-straightforward and vexatious
29. The part of the process conducted by Mr. Guiste served no benefit either to
Mr. Massiah or to the public at large.
NOTE: This piece is published in order to draw attention to an issue of public
importance. The removal of a judicial officer in the free world and in Ontario
is an issue of public importance. The right to defend and the independence of
the bar are also issues of fundamental importance. This post is shared with the
community in the spirit that justice must be seen to be done.