E.J.Guiste on Law and Justice: JP Massiah's Reply Factum on Motion to Set Aside Order Upholding Removal

Divisional Court File No. 316/15

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

B E T W E E N:

ERROL MASSIAH

Applicant

- and -

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE REVIEW COUNCIL and THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONCURRENCE OF THE
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO

Respondents

-and-

RAJ ANAND AND WEIORFOULDS LLP

Intervenors

APPLICANT’S REPLY FACTUM

E. J. GUISTE

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Trial & Appellate Advocacy

2 County Court Blvd., Suite 494

Brampton, Ontario

L6W 3W8

Ernest J. Guiste (LSUC # 34970C)

Tel. (416) 364-8908

Fax (416) 364-0973 fax

E mail – ejguiste@yahoo.com

Counsel for the Applicant, His Worship Massiah

PART- I

OVERVIEW

1. The Applicant asserts his right to reply granted by Justice Kitley in her order of December 1^st, 2017. This reply will address the Respondents’ and the Intervenor.

2. The following points raised by the subject Tribunal(JPRC) invite a reply:

1. No conflict of interest or “ineffective assistance on the part
of Presenting Counsel;

2. No “bias” on the part of the Hearing Panel;

3. No “agreements” were made behind the Applicant’s back;

4. The Divisional Court record was not “incomplete”;

5. No general right to “effective assistance of counsel” in
civil cases;

6. No “facts arising after” the order was made;

7. The test under Rule 59.06;

8. No basis for adjudication of constitutional issue.

3. The following points raised by the Attorney General for Ontario and others invite a reply:

1. Allegation of absence of notice to federal government;

2. Scope of constitutional remedy sought; and

3. Abdication of the role of the Attorney General per
Ministry of the Attorney General Act;

4. The following points raised by the Intervenors invite a reply:

1. Conflict, incompetence of counsel and ineffective
assistance are not relevant on a Rule 59.06 motion absent
fraud;

2. Two allegations are incomprehensible: human rights
experience and responding to inquiry by the Law Society of
Upper Canada when asked to do so;

3. Application of R v. Widdifield (1995) 25 OR (3d) 161;

4. Application of Sherman v Manley 19 O.R. (2d) 531;

5. Application of Stewart v. CBC 1997 Canli 12318

5. Both Respondents and the Intervenor in this case have overlooked at least seven fundamental points which materially impact the utility of their submissions in the adjudication of this motion and Constitutional Question. Those fundamental points are the following:

1. The subject tribunal is adjudicative in nature;

2. The subject tribunal has no privative clause;

3. Based on the record before it this Honourable Court

found the subject tribunal’s liability and penalty

decisions to be reasonable;

4. All of the issues which the Applicant asserts were not adjudicated by this Honourable Court call for a
correctness standard of review;

5. The subject tribunal confirmed in writing in March,
2017 that it has in fact retained the portions of the
record of proceedings which was not filed with this
Honourable Court; and

6. The complaint to the Law Society of Ontario against
the Applicant’s lead counsel by the subject tribunal
was made by the Justices of the Peace Review Council,
who is a party to this application making it unnecessary
and inappropriate for their investigator to have had the
sorts of communications evidenced in the record with
Appellate counsel just prior to compilation of his
Application Record and Factum;

7. The law in Ontario is clear that the appearance of bias is as

important as the reality and bias renders the results of any

proceeding, including the hearing before this Honourable

Court a nullity.

PART II - THE FACTS:

6. The subject tribunal has two adjudicative bodies, namely, the complaints committee and the panel. Under s.11(15) the former shall order that a formal hearing into the complaint be held by a hearing panel and under s.11.1(10) the panel may “dismiss the complaint, with our without a finding that it is unfounded or, if it upholds the complaint, it may (g) recommend to the Attorney General that the justice of the peace be removed from office”…

7. There is no privative clause in the Justices of the Peace Act.

8 The federal Attorney General was properly served and they declined to participate.

Letter Filed with Court

9. This Honourable Court concluded the following on the adjudication of the judicial review in this matter:

[61] For these reasons, I conclude that the decision of the

2012 Panel that the applicant had engaged in misconduct

is a reasonable one. The 2012 Panel’s conclusion that the

applicant had to be removed from his judicial office, in

light of the nature of the misconduct, is also a reasonable

one. The decision of the 2012 Panel not to recommend

compensation for legal fees is not, however, one that can

stand given that it based on a flawed premise.

Record of Proceedings Clearly

Defined before Hearing Panel

10. Presenting Counsel – Mr Gourlay:

My friend seems to be under the impressions that means they’re

lost from the record and that they don’t form any part of the

panel’s consideration or the record of the case, that’s obviously

untrue. All of the factums, and motion records, and notices

of motion that have been filed in this proceeding are before

you and will be preserved as part of the record of this proceeding

and there’s simply no need to mark them as exhibits.

Justice Livingstone:

And generally the Panel is of the view that any materials filed,

such as Mr. Gourlay referred to, facta, books of authorities,

responding facta, et cetera, are not technically filed as

exhibits, they are part of the record. They remain part of the

record for any further applications which could follow our

decision, but they are not evidence per se and therefore would

not be filed.

October 8^th, 2014 Transcript – Applicant’s Afd. Nov.22/17

Hearing Panel Decisions

Clearly Cite Documents

Omitted from Record

Before Divisional Court:

Investigation Transcripts

11. [66] Therefore, we find that the investigators for the Complaints Committee had the authority to gather the Information about the new allegations and to provide the results to the Committee. The transcripts from the witness interviews conducted in 2012 during the investigation were filed as part of the Record by His Worship.

Decision on Jurisdiction and Alleged Abuses of Process

2012 Hearing Panel’s

Delineation of Jurisdiction

Issue:

A.2 Overview of the Reports

12. [11] For ease of understanding, the Panel sets out the following descriptions of the two Reports which were involved in determining and documenting allegations of judicial misconduct in this case:

a. The Hunt Report is the document submitted by the
Review Council by Mr. Douglas Hunt, Q.C....
This report contains a cover-page from Mr. Hunt’s
law office and “will States” from five people at the
Whitby courthouse.

b. The Investigators’ Report is the document submitted
to the Complaints Committee by the investigators, Mr. Lindsay
and Mr. Davis, who were retained on behalf of the Complaints
Committee pursuant to section 8(15) of the Act to assist in its
investigation. This report contained new allegations which
became known to the Complaints Committee as a result of the
witness interviews conducted by the investigators in 2012
during the Committee’s investigation of the Hunt Report
allegations.

[67] We further conclude that the Complaints Committee had the authority

to consider the new allegations in those transcripts within its
mandate under s.11(7) of the Act and pursuant to the ruling in
Sazant, (supra), as an extension of the complaint filed by
Mr. Hunt.

Decision on Jurisdiction and Alleged Abuses of Process

Applicant Motion Record – Relevant Docts – Tab

JPRC Serves Fresh Evidence

Motion on Eve of Hearing:

13. After all of the facta and Books of Authorities of the parties were served and filed with the Divisional Court the JPRC served a “Respondent’s Motion Record Re: Fresh Evidence”. Although the Notice of Motion seeks the following orders: 1. An order that the 5-volume “investigation transcripts” filed by the Applicant at the hearing below be added to the Record of the Proceedings as Volumes 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12; and 2. An order that these five volumes be sealed and not accessible to the public - the two supporting affidavits in the Motion Record deal solely with a letter which the Registrar and Counsel to the JPRC deposed in an affidavit was sent to Mr. Doug Hunt in satisfaction of part of the Complaint Committee’s mandatory statutory obligation.

JPRC Fresh Evidence Motion Record

Applicant’s Supplemental Affidavit – Ex. A

14. On the eve of the hearing, appellate counsel acting for the Applicant wrote a letter to this Honourable Court consenting to the inclusion of a letter into the record which the JPRC maintains was sent to the complainant, Mr. Hunt, but which letter was not before the 2012 Panel. Appellate counsel amended page 15 of his factum to incorporate this “fresh evidence”.

Mr. Anand’s September 13, 2016 letter and

Enclosure – Supplemental Record

15. The only order rendered by the Divisional Court Panel on the Applicant’s judicial review application is the order rendered on October 12^th 2016. No order was made admitting any fresh evidence.

Divisional Court Reasons for Judgement

Applicant’s Motion Record – Relevant Docts – Tab

Correctness Standard

Of Review:

16. There is no dispute that Appellate Counsel for the Applicant was specifically asked to raise the following legal issues before this Honourable Court: bias on the part of the hearing panel, bias and excess of jurisdiction on the part of Presenting Counsel, Chief Justice’s lack of jurisdiction to appoint a replacement for the Law Society of Ontario’s nominee and to appoint two temporary members – the status of whom were not known until after the Attorney General tabled the seventh Annual Report of the JPRC in the legislature in June 2015, error in the interpretation and application of the Ontario Human Rights Code concepts of “vexatious”, “unwelcome”, and “poisoned work environment” and error in the interpretation and application of Hryciuk v. Ontario.

Raj Anand’s sworn affidavit

Applicant’s supporting affidavits

Registrar’s e mail dated Dec.4^th/15

Raj Anand undertakings – Tab 2 p.10

Panel Composition

17. There is no doubt that the advice given the Applicant by Mr. Anand on this point is clearly in error. Mr. Anand refused to raise it because he was of the view that it was not raised below when in fact it could not have been raised until the disclosure by the Registrar to him and counsel for the JPRC by way of her e mail dated December 4, 2015 – almost twelve months after the liability decision and some nine months after the penalty decision and some eight months after the Order-In-Council.

Raj Anand Affidavit – Exhibit II

Raj Anand undergakings

Bias by JPRC Panel

Re Law Society Nominee

Taint

18. Once again, there is no doubt that the advice given by Mr. Anand on this point is clearly in error. Mr. Anand advised the Applicant that he would not raise this issue in this Honourable Court because it was not raised before the Hearing Panel. The Hearing Panel’s decision on the Applicant’s bias motion makes Mr. Anand’s error on this point irrefutable.

Raj Anand Affidavit – para 12

JPRC Bias Decision

Applicant’s Motion Record – Relevant Doct

Power of Chief Justice

To Replace Law Society

Nominee

19. Once again, Mr. Anand’s justification for not raising this issue in this Honourable Court is based on his erroneous understanding of what was raised before the 2012 Hearing Panel. The error in his understanding is found in his affidavit sworn January 3^rd, 2018 – well after the November 15^th, 2016 referenced by JPRC counsel as his cut-off for fresh evidence.

As above

Presenting Counsel’s

Latent Admission on

SPPA Interpretation

20. By way of letter dated February 1^st, 2017 to the remainder of the 2012 Hearing Panel, well after the November 15^th, 2016 cut-off date proposed by JPRC counsel, JPRC counsel makes a latent admission that s.4.2.1(1) “does not apply to a circumstance like this because it empowers the chair (with the consent of the parties) to decide that a hearing will be conducted by a “panel of one person”, not to add one person to an already existing panel of two. Likewise, s.4.2.1(2) allows a case to be decided by a reduced panel even where there is a “statutory requirement in another Act that a proceeding be heard by a panel of a specified number of persons”, provided that all parties consent. Again, this is about enabling a tribunal to constitute a smaller panel than normally required, not about adding a member to a panel that has already been constituted.” This is the SPPA provision which the 2012 Hearing Panel relied upon to erroneously conclude that the Chief Justice had the juris to replace The Law Society nominee.

Presenting Counsel’s Submission on Re-Hearing

Exhibit I – Applicant’s Further Supporting Afd

JPRC Panel Decision on Bias – para 31

Presenting Counsel Bias

Excess of Jurisdiction

21. Mr. Anand clearly acknowledged in the Notice of Application for Judicial Review he issued that there was a lack of commonality between the “complaint” and the matters taken up in the Notice of Hearing. He clearly entertained the idea as late as November, 2015 that the manner in which Presenting Counsel presented the case exceeded her statutory authority under the Procedures Document and most importantly deprived the Applicant of a fair hearing. This irregularity in the proceedings was advanced in the Draft Factum at paragraph 61 but abandoned after contact from the Law Society of Upper Canada investigator and his finalizing of the Application Record and Factum on or about January 13^th, 2016.

Notice of Application for Judicial Review

Applicant’s Motion Record – Relevant Docts – Tab

Memorandum on Presenting Counsel Conduct

Applicant’s Further Supporting Afd – Exhibit B

Weir Foulds Accounts billing LSUC contacts

Applicant’s Main Factum Contains summary

22. Mr. Anand candidly acknowledged in both his sworn affidavit and under cross-examination that the Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario expressed interest in seeking intervention before this Honourable Court and “Marie’s conduct might be part of the hook.”

Raj Anand Affidavit – Exhibit FF

Transcript of Mr. Anand’s Cross-Exam - at p.11-12

Mr. Anand on

Cross-Exam –

Feb. 8^th, 2018

Presenting Counsel

Conduct

23.

Q. ….So I am suggesting to you that that Notice of Application for Judicial Review does not raise bias involving Ms. Henein.

A. I believe you are right, although, again, I would not necessarily characterize it as a bias issue, Ms. Henein’s conduct.

Q. How about an issue going to trial fairness ?

A. Yes, it could have been characterized that way.

Q. So Mr. Massiah was of the view that Marie Henein’s conduct interfered with his trial fairness rights, and communicated that to you ?

A. I think the discussion was more about complying with the rules and statutes, as to the proper role of presenting counsel, but it would certainly relate to fairness as well.

Transcript of Cross-Exam – R.Anand p.12-13

Presenting Counsel

Abandoned Impartiality

24.

Q. Now, in the paragraph starting with, “Presenting Counsel abandoned impartiality”, you don’t take issue with the point that presenting counsel is supposed to be impartial in the presentation of these cases; do you ?

A. I don’t take issue with that.

As above at ln 133 p.31

Presenting Counsel

Misrepresentation on

Identity of Complainant

25. In April 2017, well after Presenting Counsel’s proposed fresh evidence cut-off date, the Applicant learned that Presenting Counsel, Marie Henein’s spouse was a law partner of former presenting counsel, Mr. Hunt at the material time of his carriage of my first proceeding and the delivery of his Hunt Report to the JPRC. Presenting Counsel had informed his counsel in response to a direct question as to the identity of the complainant and she responded that it was the witnesses, causing him to rely upon this representation in his conduct of his defence only for the panel to determine that the intention of the persons said to be the complainants was not relevant as Mr. Hunt was the complainant.

Applicant’s sworn affidavit

E mail to Ms. Henein and Response – Exhibits

Decision on Jurisdiction and Alleged Abuses of Process

Applicant’s Motion Record – Relevant Docts – Tab 5

Applicant held to

Higher Standard than

Other witness

26.

Q. It says here that, “Inconsistencies abounded in this proceeding”; is that a fair characterization of the evidence ?

A. Yes.

Q. And that it appeared, when you look at the reasons and the record, that Mr. Massiah was held to a higher standard than the other witnesses ?

A. That was the argument that we were considering making.

Q. But that’s a fair assessment of the Record of Proceedings, that Mr. Massiah was held to a higher standard than all the other witnesses ?

A. That was certainly an arguable position…..

Q. The record revealed that.

A. ….for us to take.

As above ln 141 p.33 -34

Interpretation and

Application of Human

Rights Code

27. Mr. Anand’s sworn affidavit of January 3^rd, 2018 reveals that he provided deficient, inconsistent or incorrect legal advice to the Applicant on the issue of the interpretation and application of the Code concepts of “vexatious”, “unwelcome” and “poisoned work environment”. The advice in his September 22, 2015 opinion letter to the Applicant, Exhibit F on his affidavit, stands in stark contradiction to his opinion in his e mail dated September 21, 2014 – Exhibit D in the Applicant’s Further Supporting Affidavit dated December 10^th, 2017 and the jurisprudence from this court and the Court of Appeal on this issue.

Raj Anand’Affidavit – Opinion – Tab F

Raj Anand’s e mail Sept. 21^st, 2014 – Exhibit D

Applicant’s Further Supporting Affidavit

Interpretation and

Application of Hryciuk

28. Well after JPRC counsel’s proposed cut-off date for fresh evidence, Mr. Anand curiously embraces Hryciuk v. Ontario (1996) 31 O.R. (3d) 1 (ONCA) as a basis seeking leave to appeal on behalf of the Applicant although he failed to raise it in this Honourable Court.

Factum of the Applicant (ONCA)

Reply Factum of the Applicant (ONCA)

Applicant’s Further Supporting Affidavit – Tabs J-K

Unconstitutionality

Raised by Mr. Anand

29. Mr. Anand clearly asserted in this Honourable Court that the constitutional principles of judicial independence and security of tenure were engaged in the Applicant’s removal from judicial office.

Applicant’s Facta in this court and ONCA

Applicant’s Motion Record – Filed Filed Here

Applicant’s Further Supporting Afd, (ONCA) – Tab J-K

30. The Applicant deposed in his affidavit and on re-examination at his cross-exam on his affidavits that Mr. Anand and his associate did not fully explain things to him in order to enable him to make an informed decision on the matters he wanted him to agree to.

Applicant’s Responding Affidavit - para 7, 27-28

Transcript of cross-exam of Applicant – p.171-191

31. The Law Society’s investigator did not write to Mr. Anand requesting information from him.

Raj Anand’s billings for LSUC contacts

32. The information which Mr. Anand maintains that The Law Society of Upper Canada sought from him could easily have been obtained by them through a letter to the complainant or by checking with the Divisional Court office.

33. In the proceedings before the 2012 Hearing Panel the Applicant expressly relied upon the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel as part of the abuse of process motion the 2012 Hearing Panel heard and dismissed and went so far as to characterize the second proceeding as a collateral attack on the decision and disposition of the 2011 Panel. This was not reflected in the record filed in this Honourable Court or the facta.

Applicant’s Motion Record – Docts Not Filed

Applicant’s submissions on abuse of process

34. In his written submission on liability which were not filed in this Honourable Court the Applicant expressly relied upon findings of fact made by the 2011 Panel including the finding that he was not aware that his conduct was improper, no one had brought it to his attention that his conduct was of concern, this was his first offence, he had learned his lesson and that he would not re-offend.

As above – Submissions on Liability

35. In its decision of October this Honourable Court expressly found that the factual findings of the 2011 Panel are binding on the 2012 Panel.

Reasons for Decision – at para 37

36. In his written submissions on liability the Applicant pointed out the irreconcilable dispositions in Re Kowarsky and Re Obakata. In Obakata the justice of the peace committed a sexual assault on a fellow justice of the peace – grabbing her breast and forcefully twisting her nipple and this conduct did not warrant removal from the Bench. In Re Kowarsky, a justice of the peace who went through the same training session as the Applicant actually stated to a court clerk while seated on the Bench in open court – “Madame Clerk, I am ready for my blow job now.” The Notice of Hearing in that case revealed that this justice of the peace had a habit of hugging and kissing staff he had not seen for some time. Again, in Re Kowarsky the justice of the peace was not removed from office. In both instances reprimands were ordered

As above

PART III - THE ISSUES & LAW:

THE ISSUES

37.

1. Is Presenting Counsel in a conflict of interest, exceeding their statutory
jurisdiction or otherwise lacking standing to defend the reasonableness
of the JPRC Hearing Panel’s decisions ?

2. Is there another party who can defend the decisions of the JPRC
Hearing Panel ?

3. Does there exist any principled reason why the constitutionality of
the conflict between the provisions in the Justices of the Peace Act
and the Procedures Document which have the effect of granting
Presenting Counsel an unfettered discretion to send the Applicant to
a public hearings for matters which did not arise from a complaint in
writing to the Review Council and which have not been investigated
by a Complaints Committee can not be considered and adjudicated on
this motion ?

4. Can counsel for the parties on a judicial review in the context of a
judicial removal from office agree to excise relevant documents
from the record of proceedings, which exclusions are capable of
calling into question the reasonableness and transparency of the
decisions being reviewed ?

5. In the context of adjudicating a Rule 59 motion in the context of a
judicial review – particularly one involving constitutional rights
like judicial independence, judicial security of tenure, the right to
counsel and the independence of the Bar, does evidence pointing to
the incorrectness of the order of the subject tribunal and the reviewing
court when combined with the misguided leave to appeal initiated by
appellate counsel in this case and the failure of the Respondents to
inform this court of the retirement of per diem judge Livingstone
establish “facts arising or discovered after it was made” ?

6. Is it in the public interest for this court to hold that clients can agree to
such acts by the lawyer retained to represent them or would the public
be better served by a finding that the lawyer has failed to discharge his
duty of candour to the client or that the Respondents have failed to
discharge their duty to the court in detailing and marshalling the
issues for adjudication ?

PART III - THE LAW:

38. In Ontario v. Ontario Power Generation [2015] 3 S.C.R. 147 the
Supreme Court provided guidelines for the very important issue of the
propriety of Presenting Counsel before the JPRC Hearing Panel compiling
the record of proceedings on this judicial review application and then fully
defending the decisions of the 2012 Hearing Panel in this Honourable Court.
The court said that the following factors are relevant in informing the court’s
exercise of discretion: statutory provisions addressing the structure, processes
and role of the particular tribunal and the mandate of the tribunal - that is,
whether it is adjudicative or non-adjudicative.

39. The subject tribunal in this case is adjudicative, has no privative clause
and most clearly delineates the role of Presenting Counsel in the Procedures
Document – clearly circumscribing that role to “see that the complaint against
the justice of the peace is evaluated fairly and dispassionately to the end of
achieving a just result.” The Procedures Document further stipulates that
Presenting Counsel’s purpose is to “preparing and presenting the case against
the respondent.” That function is now spent.

Function of

Attorney General

40. 5. The Attorney General,

(i) shall superintend all matters connected with judicial
offices.

Ministry of the Attorney General Act

41. In this instant case the Attorney General is available to defend the
decisions of the JPRC a tribunal which comes under that office’s jurisdiction
and a party who has been involved in the litigation as a party from the outset.

42. A Rule 59 motion involving a judicial review application is materially
different from a Rule 59 motion flowing from the typical civil action for
negligence or the like. In a civil action there are at least two parties to the
action which are contesting a claim between them. The claim is for all intents
and purposes a private dispute between two or more litigants. An application
for judicial review – particularly involving the removal of a judicial officer is
a very public matter calling for the utmost of fairness, transparency and strict
adherence to constitutional rights.

43. The role of counsel for the parties and the court must always be
mindful of the very public aspect of the proceedings. It is doubtful whether
even if the subject tribunal had a privative clause whether it could cloak
itself in the garb of Presenting Counsel in preparing and filing its record of
proceedings under the Judicial Review Procedures Act and then take the
position that whatever deficiency is in its record of proceedings was arrived
at by agreement of the parties, particularly where they have subsequently
acknowledged the deficiency and they are in fact in possession of the full
and proper record.

44. Judicial Review is based on a tribunal’s record of proceedings.
Our courts count on a rely on counsel representing the parties to act in
accordance with the highest standards in ensuring that matters like the
case at bar are adjudicated fairly and in accordance with law.

45. The constitutional flaws in the enabling legislation and Procedures
Document combined with the litany of procedural irregularities in this case
call for strong judicial leadership and guidance in ensuring that justice is
seen to be done.

46. The Justices of the Peace Review Council, the Attorney General
for Ontario and the Intervenors must not be seen to profit from their
indiscretions – even if inadvertent. As this case clearly illustrates
mutual mistake and inadvertence as distinct from fraud on the court
can have the very same impact on a litigant’s legal rights and the
legal legitimacy of a courts finding that decisions by a tribunal were
reasonable.

47. The focus of this court’s inquiry ought to be on the impact of the
JPRC deficient record of proceedings on this court’s order; the impact
of Presenting Counsel’s representation on the identity of the complainant
on the fairness of the hearing; the impact of Mr. Anand’s failure to raise
litany of issues calling for a correctness standard of review; and lastly the
overriding impact of the unconstitutionality of the challenged segments of
the enabling legislation and the Procedures Document.

48.       Once approached from this point of view, the reality that this court’s
order of October 4^th, 2016   must be set aside is inescapable since justice must
be seen to be done.  The appearance of bias and unfairness is just as important
as the reality.

49. The three cases cited by the Intervenor do not provide this court
with any guidance on the issues before it. The rights and issues involved
on this motion are unique and warrant careful judicial scrutiny.

50. The nature of the issues raised on this motion are public issues
which transcend the parties and any costs award ought to judiciously
consider the wisdom of the impact of a costs award on a lower level
judicial who is merely seeking to have the law of Ontario respected.

PART IV - ORDER REQUESTED

51. The Applicant repeats and relies upon the orders previously requested noted but notes that it is only the problematic segments of the JPA and Procedures Document (permitting the conflict between the “complaint” and “notice of hearing” ) and the absence of an obligation to pay clause in the portion dealing with the recommendation for compensation that are
the object of constitutional challenge.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

March 22nd, 2018

_________________________

E. J. Guiste, for the Applicant

SCHEDULE A

1. Ontario v. Ontario Power Generation [2105] 3 S.C.R. 147 (headnote only)

SCHEDULE – B

1. Ministry of the Attorney General Act, R.S.O. ch M.17 – s.5

NOTE: This legal document was filed in the Divisional Court in support of JP Massiah's motion seeking to set aside, vary or amend that court's Order of October 4th, 2016. It is published here for the sole purpose of drawing attention to an issue of public importance - the removal of a judicial officer and the contention that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

E.J.Guiste on Law and Justice

Friday, April 6, 2018

JP Massiah's Reply Factum on Motion to Set Aside Order Upholding Removal

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Blog Archive