JP Massiah v. The Justices of the Peace Review Council et al - April 3rd 2018 @ 10 A.M.
Divisional Court - 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario - Limited seating
This is a case of firsts.
1. The first case in Ontario's history where a judicial officer was removed for conduct determined to be inconsistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code while being denied the defences provided by the Code.
2. The first and only case in Ontario since Hryciuk v. Ontario where a judicial officer was removed from office for conduct which was not first the subject of a complaint in writing to a Review Council and pre-screened and investigated prior to a public hearing.
3. The first and only case in Ontario's long history where a judicial officer was compelled to defend a complaint where the complainant was unknown until after the public hearing was concluded and after seeking the advice of Independent Counsel dismissed the advice given them and failed to answer the statutory question entrusted to them - namely, to uphold or dismiss the complaint under s. 11.1(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act. (see Decision on Jurisdiction and Alleged Abuses of Process - January 12th, 2015)
4. The first and only case in the history of Ontario's Divisional Court where a tribunal has filed a record of proceedings which omitted the document which was relied upon by the said tribunal to both order the public hearing and to identify the allegations of judicial misconduct thereby depriving the reviewing court of all relevant documents necessary to discharge its statutory and constitutional review duty.
5. The first and only case in the history of Ontario's Divisional Court where subsequent to the Court's order upholding the said tribunal's decision as reasonable the tribunal acknowledges in writing that it has in fact retained the portions of the record which were not filed with the reviewing court pursuant to the s.10 of the Judicial Review Procedures Act.(Fresh Evidence - Exhibit HH - JP Massiah's November 22nd, 2017 affidavit)
6. The first and only case in the history of the Divisional Court where the subject tribunal and the judicial officer's lawyer before the Divisional Court oppose his Rule 59 motion on the ground that they had an agreement which the judicial officer supposedly agreed to.
7. The first and only case in the history of the Divisional Court where after an order from the court that the "2012 Panel" rehear the issue of compensation in accordance with the Court's order a panel with one fewer member deliberates for 13 months and renders a "no decision" and then requests the Chair of the said tribunal to appoint a fresh new panel to hear the case over the judicial officer's objection that they lacked jurisdiction to do this. The new tribunal proceeding to deny the judicial officer of the right to an oral hearing and the calling of viva voce evidence and for all intents and purposes upholding the first no compensation recommendation.
8. The first case in Ontario's where an African-Canadian judicial officer has been represented by an African-Canadian lead counsel in judicial misconduct proceedings.
9. The first case in Ontario where a lawyer who has acted with four other lawyers in the representation of a client has been singled out for professional discipline for steps taken in the said representation.
10. The first case in Ontario where the judicial officer's lawyer before the Divisional Court had communications with the investigator from The Law Society of Upper Canada investigating the complaint filed by the tribunal against the African-Canadian lawyer to update them on the status of the proceedings between the drafting and filing of his factum and application record with the Divisional Court.
NOTE: This piece is published here to draw attention to the multitude of issues of public importance raised by this little case. I am counsel for JP Massiah. I continue to represent him because I have a duty as a lawyer to do so especially since I believe that he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
If any fact in this publication is incorrect kindly bring it to my attention and I will correct it. The purpose of this exercise if to educate.
Divisional Court - 130 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario - Limited seating
This is a case of firsts.
1. The first case in Ontario's history where a judicial officer was removed for conduct determined to be inconsistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code while being denied the defences provided by the Code.
2. The first and only case in Ontario since Hryciuk v. Ontario where a judicial officer was removed from office for conduct which was not first the subject of a complaint in writing to a Review Council and pre-screened and investigated prior to a public hearing.
3. The first and only case in Ontario's long history where a judicial officer was compelled to defend a complaint where the complainant was unknown until after the public hearing was concluded and after seeking the advice of Independent Counsel dismissed the advice given them and failed to answer the statutory question entrusted to them - namely, to uphold or dismiss the complaint under s. 11.1(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act. (see Decision on Jurisdiction and Alleged Abuses of Process - January 12th, 2015)
4. The first and only case in the history of Ontario's Divisional Court where a tribunal has filed a record of proceedings which omitted the document which was relied upon by the said tribunal to both order the public hearing and to identify the allegations of judicial misconduct thereby depriving the reviewing court of all relevant documents necessary to discharge its statutory and constitutional review duty.
5. The first and only case in the history of Ontario's Divisional Court where subsequent to the Court's order upholding the said tribunal's decision as reasonable the tribunal acknowledges in writing that it has in fact retained the portions of the record which were not filed with the reviewing court pursuant to the s.10 of the Judicial Review Procedures Act.(Fresh Evidence - Exhibit HH - JP Massiah's November 22nd, 2017 affidavit)
6. The first and only case in the history of the Divisional Court where the subject tribunal and the judicial officer's lawyer before the Divisional Court oppose his Rule 59 motion on the ground that they had an agreement which the judicial officer supposedly agreed to.
7. The first and only case in the history of the Divisional Court where after an order from the court that the "2012 Panel" rehear the issue of compensation in accordance with the Court's order a panel with one fewer member deliberates for 13 months and renders a "no decision" and then requests the Chair of the said tribunal to appoint a fresh new panel to hear the case over the judicial officer's objection that they lacked jurisdiction to do this. The new tribunal proceeding to deny the judicial officer of the right to an oral hearing and the calling of viva voce evidence and for all intents and purposes upholding the first no compensation recommendation.
8. The first case in Ontario's where an African-Canadian judicial officer has been represented by an African-Canadian lead counsel in judicial misconduct proceedings.
9. The first case in Ontario where a lawyer who has acted with four other lawyers in the representation of a client has been singled out for professional discipline for steps taken in the said representation.
10. The first case in Ontario where the judicial officer's lawyer before the Divisional Court had communications with the investigator from The Law Society of Upper Canada investigating the complaint filed by the tribunal against the African-Canadian lawyer to update them on the status of the proceedings between the drafting and filing of his factum and application record with the Divisional Court.
NOTE: This piece is published here to draw attention to the multitude of issues of public importance raised by this little case. I am counsel for JP Massiah. I continue to represent him because I have a duty as a lawyer to do so especially since I believe that he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
If any fact in this publication is incorrect kindly bring it to my attention and I will correct it. The purpose of this exercise if to educate.
No comments:
Post a Comment