More Evidence of Bias/Unfairness in JP Removal Case: JP's Submissions Overlooked ? - Part 4

E. J. GUISTE

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATON

TRIAL & APPELLATE ADVOCACY

2 COUNTY COURT BLVD., SUITE 494

BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, L6W 3W8

TEL.(416) 364-8908.  FAX (416) 364-0973

E-MAIL:    ejguiste@yahoo.com

                      

February 6th, 2017                                                  E MAIL                                              

                                               

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE REVIEW COUNCIL

1 Queen Street East, Suite 2310

Toronto, Ontario

M5C 2W5

Attention:  Ms. M. King, Registrar and Counsel

Dear Ms. King:

RE:      MASSIAH – COMPENSATION – REHEARING

            The following are JP Massiah’s submissions on the question raised in your letter of January 23^rd, 2017 and Presenting Counsel’s letter of February 1^st, 2017.

Role of Registrar:

            It is unclear from your letter of January 23^rd, 2017 whether you are writing as

Registrar to the JPRC, Counsel to the JPRC or on behalf of the hearing panel.

Composition of Hearing Panel:

            The Justices of the Peace Act stipulates that a hearing panel shall contain a judge who shall chair the panel, a justice of the peace and a member who is a judge, a lawyer or a member of the public.  All the members of the panel constitute a quorum according to s.11.1(3).

            Accordingly, JP Massiah requests that a member of the JPRC who is a Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice be appointed to satisfy the statutory quorum.  This is precisely what happened when Ms. Margot Blight recused herself.

Public Hearing:

            The Procedures Document at p.23 provides that consideration of the question of compensation shall take place in public if there was a public hearing.  There are no exceptional circumstances put forward by JP Massiah or Presenting Counsel to move from the presumption of a public hearing called for by both the JPA and the Procedures Document.

The Facts:

            JP Massiah does not agree that the underlying facts regarding the issue of compensation is res judicata. Rather, the purpose of the contemplated hearing is to adjudicate the issue of compensation afresh. JP Massiah recommends that the practice of both oral and written submissions be continued.

            I trust that this is satisfactory .

                                   

Yours very truly,

 ERNEST J. GUISTE

Per

Ernest J. Guiste

Cc co-counsel, Mr. House, Presenting Counsel – Ms. Henein and Mr. Gourlay

Mr. Massiah via e mail