Thursday, March 29, 2018

Eight Key Facts TorStar Did Not Reveal in their Publication on the JP Massiah Case Today

1.   The Toronto Star appears to have been in receipt of the JPRC Decision prior to JP Massiah or his lawyer;

2.   $130,000 of the $770,000 fee in the Bill of Costs was for Massiah's appellate counsel who refused to raise bias and excesses of jurisdiction on the part of Presenting Counsel which he acknowledged adversely impacted the fairness of the hearing because he was concerned that "it may be ill-received by the Court".  This is now referred to as "Groia Chill" among litigation lawyers.

3.   JP Massiah's appellate counsel also failed to raise bias arising from The Law Society of Upper Canada nominee, who voluntarily recused herself from the Hearing Panel on account of JP Massiah's concerns about a reasonable apprehension of bias, tainting the balance of the panel since she sat with them from June - November, 19th, 2013 - some six hearing days.

4.   JP Massiah's appellate counsel refused to follow JP Massiah's instruction to challenge the composition of the Hearing Panel having two temporary members when the enabling legislation allows only one.  This lawyer's refusal was based on his erroneous understanding that he could not raise it for the first time on judicial review - believing that it was not raised below when in fact it could not have been raised earlier because only he was privy to the information on the status of the members of the Review Council.  This information is not available to the public of JPs subject to discipline until the JPRC's Annual Report is tabled in the Legislature by the Attorney General. The Toronto Star has written extensively on this failing by the Attorney General.(see Ontario is Keeping Secret Complaints About JPs - TorStar June 16, 2104; Ontario Failing to Release Reports of Complaints Against Judges - Torstar January 23, 2017)

5.   E.J. Guiste was JP Massiah's lead counsel and represented him throughout the proceedings.  Mr. Guiste had Mr. House conduct the evidence portion of the hearing on account of the Hearing Panel's blatant exhibition of bias and racial intolerance towards JP Massiah and himself which is well documented in the portions of the record of proceedings which were not filed with the Divisional Court and is the driving force behind the motion to set aside the Divisional Court order upholding the liability and penalty decisions;

6.   The Divisional Court ordered that the compensation re-hearing be conducted by the 2012 Panel. All of the parties before the Divisional Court were fully aware that the chair of that panel retired and therefore the 2012 Hearing Panel no longer existed but they failed to inform the Divisional Court;

7.   E.J. Guiste has argued consistently that the JPRC Hearing Panel lacked jurisdiction to conduct a hearing for several reasons and that was the purpose of the preliminary motions.  Had the bias and or jurisdiction and abuse of process motions been properly adjudicated there would not have been a hearing period;

8.   The JPRC Hearing Panel failed to answer the question which they were authorized by the Justices of the Peace Act to adjudicate, namely, to uphold or dismiss the "complaint" even though high profile lawyer, Mr. Brian Gover advised them on this point.

NOTE:  I continue to defend JP Massiah because I believe him to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice and that I am duty-bound as a lawyer to do so.   

No comments:

Post a Comment