The following post is the second in a series designed to address the very serious issue of the right of justices of the peace to be indemnified by the Government of Ontario for costs associated with defending themselves in judicial misconduct proceedings. This is the second case in which the subject justice of the peace was recommended to be removed from office yet was indemnified for the cost of his defence. Neither of these cases raise issues of statutory interpretation, jurisdiction or abuse of process where one would understandably expect indemnification. The rationale for indemnification rests not in pity for the judicial officer but by recognition that indemnification brings to fruition the judicial officers right to counsel and access to justice which brings legal legitimacy to the misconduct proceedings.
NOTE: The names of the young women involved in this case have not been used. I do not see their names as being relevant to the point of the post.
The
appointment and tenure
of a Justice of the Peace in Ontario, is governed by the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.J.4. Section 8 of that
Act is the section that deals with the removal
of a Justice of the Peace from office. The section
states as follows:
8.
- (1)
A justice of the peace may be removed
from office only by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
(2) The order may be made only if,
(a)
a complaint regarding the justice of the peace has been made to
the Review Council; and
(b)
the removal is recommended ,
following an inquiry held under section 12, on the ground that the justice
of the peace has become incapacitated or disabled from the due execution of his or her office by reason of ,
(i)
infirmity
(ii)
conduct that is incompatible
with the execution of the duties of his or her office, or
(iii)
) having failed to perform the duties of his or her office assigned.
(3) The
order shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly if it is in session or, if not, within fifteen days
after the commencement of the next
session. 1989, c. 46, s.8
With regard to Justice of the Peace
Blackburn, the Justice of the Peace Review Council held a hearing on March 2,1993 into the matter of two complaints
- one filed by C, and the other
by Mr. George Thomson,
Deputy Attorney General, on behalf
of A. The Review
Council, by written
report dated March
18, 1993, then recommended that an inquiry be held under section
12 of the Justices of the Peace Act, to inquire into the question of whether Justice
of the Peace Blackburn should be removed from office.
By Order
in Council 2082 / 93 I was appointed to conduct the inquiry pursuant to
section 12 of the Justices
of the Peace Act. A copy of this Order in Council
is appended hereto as Appendix 1.
Notice of this Inquiry
was published both in the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail on November 18, 1993. A copy of this notice is appended
hereto as Appendix 2. On December 14, 1993 I convened a hearing to hear
submissions from the media as to whether or not cameras
would be allowed in the hearing room.
It was my decision
that they would not be allowed and a copy of that decision is appended hereto
as Appendix 3.
On December 20, 1993 the Inquiry
commenced. A Statement
of Agreed Facts was submitted at that time. The Statement had been
signed by Mr. Gavin MacKenzie, Commission
Counsel and Justice
of the Peace Blackburn. The two complainants
had not signed the statement. However, I was informed by Commission Counsel that both Ms. C and Ms. A had reviewed it, had no objection to its contents,
and were content
that it be introduced in that form. As a result
of the filing
of this Agreed
Statement there was no viva
voce evidence called. Appended to the Agreed Statement
was a report from Dr. Zownir, Justice
of the Peace
Blackburn's physician. This report documented his ongoing physical condition. A copy of the Agreed
Statement is appended hereto as Appendix 4.
Background of Justice of the Peace Blackburn
Justice of the Peace
Blackburn was 64 years old at the time of the hearing. He had been married for 43 years
and had five
children. He came to Canada
from Grenada
in 1974, was employed
by the Government of Ontario
in the Ministries of Transportation and Revenue and was appointed
a Justice of the Peace
in 1980. Justice of the Peace Blackburn is designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as a presiding justice
of the peace
pursuant to section
4 of theJustices of the Peace Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.J.4. Such designation means that,
in addition to other duties that justices of the peace are authorized to perform, he is authorized to preside at the trials of persons charged
with offences under
Ontario laws. After
the complaints were made, Justice
of the Peace Blackburn was assigned to office work
which he has continued to this date.
The Inquiry
Itis my understanding that this is the first
inquiry held pursuant to section 12 of the Justices
of the Peace Act. However, there are precedents for inquiries of a
similar nature with regard to provincial judges.
Justice of the Peace Blackburn
admitted the allegations through the filing
of the Statement of Agreed Facts and thereby obviated the necessity of having the complainants testify.
The issue for me therefore became whether the admitted behaviour was
such as to justify a
recommendation for removal from office.
Conduct of Justice
of the Peace Blackburn
The allegations that Justice of the
Peace Blackburn has admitted unquestionably constitute improper conduct.
His comments were gross and disgusting and I find it difficult to understand what could have caused him to behave so badly.
Making the situation even worse was the fact
that one of the young
women to whom he addressed his
comments was a 16 year old high
school student. The other individual was also a young woman - 21 years
of age. The conduct occurred in the course of Justice of the Peace Blackburn's day to day duties. In the case of Ms. A she was a co-op student working in the courts in an attempt to discover if a career
in law was in her future. What an example
to set of our justice
system. While Ms. C was not as young
as Ms. A nor was she still in high school,
the situation was also very difficult for her. Given her age she must have been relatively new to the working world. She came
into Justice of the Peace Blackburn's office as a professional and had every right to be treated as such. Instead
she had to listen to disgusting comments
that had nothing
to do with the job to be done. This
behaviour demeaned her.
Mr. Earl Levy, counsel for Justice of
the Peace Blackburn submitted a medical report which was appended as part of
the Statement of Agreed Facts. This report indicated that his client
suffered from numerous
medical problems. While
the report certainly verified his medical condition it did not explain
why he would engage in such bizarre behaviour. Perhaps, more relevant,
it did not give me any basis
for being satisfied that such
behaviour would not recur.
Appended also to the Statement of
Agreed Facts was a letter dated November 9, 1993 from Mr. Rick Warren,
an employee counsellor with Management Board Secretariat of the Ontario
Government. The letter
stated that Justice of the Peace Blackburn had
attended for counselling related to the complaints. Mr. Warren indicated that he felt Justice of the Peace Blackburn had benefited from his
involvement with Employee
Counselling. Character evidence
was also contained in the Statement of Agreed Facts from Bishop Brown
and Justice of the Peace Downes.
Both indicated that they felt Justice of the Peace Blackburn's behaviour was out of character
and would not be repeated.
However, no one was able to give an explanation for the behaviour in the first place.
I am mindful that Justice of the
Peace Blackburn admitted the allegations at the Justice of the Peace Review Council
and apologized at that time to the complainants. He did the same before this
Inquiry and therefore spared the complainants from having to testify. I
commend him for this and for taking counselling on his
own initiative.
Standards of Conduct
A number of authorities were cited to
me regarding judicial standards of conduct. The authorities came both from prior judicial
inquiries into judicial
behaviour and from academic writings from various jurisdictions. They
were most helpful.
The authorities presented to me all dealt
with the standards of conduct for judges. I found nothing related
to justices of the peace
or those who hold similar positions in other jurisdictions. The question then remains whether
justices of the peace should be held
to the same
standards of conduct
as judges. However,
when considering Justice of the Peace Blackburn's
conduct I consider this issue to be irrelevant. What Justice of the Peace
Blackburn said to these young women in the course of his and their professional duties would be wrong and
totally unacceptable in any workplace. One need not worry about any special standards of judicial conduct - his conduct
did not meet
the bare minimum
of what would
be acceptable in any work environment in today's society.
The
issue then becomes
what is the appropriate remedy for such unacceptable behaviour. It is at this stage of the Inquiry
that the question
of whether justices
of the peace should be held to the same standards
of behaviour as judges becomes
more relevant. As I indicated above, the literature dealing with this
subject speaks only to judges and not to other judicial
officers. Justices of the peace are
judicial officers. The difference
between the requirements for appointment of judges and justices of the peace is that justices of the peace are not
required to have formal legal training nor are they required to have been members of a Bar prior to their appointment.
However, justices of the peace
are very important judicial officers. Among other
duties, they make decisions that affect a person's liberty
such as bail
, they determine whether process
will issue, they decide whether
or not to issue search warrants, and they
preside in court.
In fact, for many people
their only contact
with a judicial decision maker is with
a justice of the peace.
It is the justices of the peace who
preside in court on matters such as
parking tags, speeding tickets, by-law infractions, and provincial offences. These are the
day to day type of "judicial" issues that confront most
people. Itis therefore quite probable
that a great number of the public will
form judgements of our justice system
based on their
experiences with a justice of the peace.
Justice of the Peace Blackburn was a presiding justice of the peace which means that he carried out the full range of duties that
could be assigned
to a justice of the peace, including presiding in court.
In an article cited to me by Commission
Counsel entitled, ''Judges on Trial
- A Study of the Appointment and Accountability of the English
Judiciary' ', by Shimon Shetreet,
the author states at p. 282,
"Judges could not discharge their functions without complete public confidence. If a judge behaved
in a way which seriously impaired public confidence in him, he would no longer be able to administer justice
and therefore should leave the bench. The
test of public confidence was expressly used in Canada by the Hon. I. C.
Rand who was appointed a Commissioner to investigate the conduct of a judge.
In a report recommending the removal
of the judge the Commissioner proposed this test for determining unfitness in
a judge. 'Would the conduct fairly determined in the light
of all circumstances lead [fairminded persons acting normally, expressing in fact enlightened public opinion] to attribute such a deficit of normal
character that the discharge of the duties
of the office thereafter would be suspect? Has it destroyed unquestioning confidence of uprightness, or moral integrity, of honesty in decision, the elements of public honour? If so
then unfitness has been demonstrated.' "
The
Honourable Mr. Justice Robins in his decision in the Commission of Inquiry
re: Provincial Judge Harry
J. Williams stated at p. 17 of the decision:
"The
confidence of the public in the administration of justice is of paramount importance. That confidence is vital to our democratic system of government. And public confidence in the judiciary - in its integrity, its impartiality, its independence, its moral authority - is indispensable to the administration of justice. In the ultimate
analysis the authority of our courts rests on public acceptance of judicial
decisions - and that acceptance
in turn depends on public confidence in our
judges.
Every
judge in his judicial and non-judicial activity
has a responsibility to
preserve and enhance public confidence in the administration ofjustice.
He serves as an exemplar
of justice, to much of the puhlic its personifi
cation, and confidence in our system of justice
in large measure depends on him. When he engages
in misconduct, the magnitude of the misconduct may be measured
by the extent to which he has impaired the confidence of the public in himself
as a judge and in the administration of justice."
And he continued
at p. 19:
"But in deciding whether specific conduct constitutes misbehaviour
requi ring a judge's removal
from office under
the terms of The Provincial
Courts Act , it must be remembered that men and women
who assume judicial office remain
human - and 'in a world of imperfect humans,
the faults
of human clay are always
manifest'. There must be allowance
for forgivable error; human
frailties and fallibilities must not be forgotten; none of us can attain the ideal. To warrant
removal misbehaviour should
be more than indiscretion or error in judgment.
But whether in a given
case misbehaviour for non-judicial
activity justifies removal from office must
normally depend on circumstances which cannot be covered fully by any statement of general
principle. There are no tests of misbehaviour capable of exact definition. Nor are there
standards of judicial
conduct which admit of
quantitative measurement. Each case must ultimately depend on the nature of
the conduct, all the facts surrounding it, its
effect on the judge' s ability to perform
his official duties,
and the extent
to which it has impaired public
confidence in the judge and in the administration of justice. As in so many issues in law and ethics, it becomes a matter of degree, a question of
where the line is to be drawn."
While these latter comments
apply to non-judicial activities, in my view they have even greater relevance
when one is concerned with judicial activities. I also
have no difficulty in finding that these comments have application to the behaviour and conduct of justices of the peace
just as they do to judges. Members
of the public do not easily
make distinctions between
the various decision
makers in the system.
Again I must emphasize that
we are not here discussing behaviour or conduct
that might perhaps be on the periphery of acceptable but behaviour that is
clearly in any setting totally unacceptable. If the
behaviour had been less serious then there might be an argument about
whether justices of the peace should be held to
exactly the same standards as
judges in those circumstances.
When justices of the peace
accept their appointments they can't help but appreciate
that they are a part of the justice system
and the public will have certain
expectations of their behaviour while discharging their judicial duties.
Being mindful
of the principles set out above regarding judicial conduct, it is my opinion
that Justice of the Peace Blackburn by his behaviour
to the complainants in this Inquiry
has - and here I adopt the words of Madam Justice Macfarland in the Hryciuk
decision - "displayed a lack of regard for the dignity and honour
of his judicial position. His conduct must seriously diminish
public respect and confidence in him and thereby severely
impair his ability
to function" as a
justice of the peace.
I conclude that Justice of
the Peace Blackburn's misconduct is such that it does
not serve the best interests of the administration of justice in this province that he continue
as a justice of the peace.
Of particular significance to me in coming to this conclusion was the nature of the behaviour, the fact that it occurred
in the course of his judicial duties and the age and circumstances of the young women to whom his behaviour was directed. I
take this view despite the fact that he apologized
, admitted the
allegations thereby sparing
the complainants from testifying and attended gender equity training. None of
these factors can excuse his
behaviour, nor restore the necessary public
respect and confidence in him .
Before concluding my reasons
I wish to commend
the complainants - Ms. C and Ms. A. They are two courageous young women. Initiating a complaint such as this and following it through the
process is not an easy task. I hope that their experiences have not caused them to lose faith in our justice system.
Conclusion
For
the reasons given above I find that His Worship Justice of the Peace Blackburn
has become incapacitated or disabled from
the due execution of his office by
reason of conduct that is incompatible with the execution of the duties of his office
and I recommend that he be removed from that
office.
Costs
With regard
to the issue of costs, despite my recommendation that Justice of the Peace Blackburn be removed, I am
prepared to recommend that he be compensated according to sec. 12(3)(b) of the Justices of the Peace Act "for all his costs in connection with the Inquiry '.' Itshould be noted that there is no provision
in the statute which ties a recom mendation as to costs to the recommendation as to removal.
I have made this recommendation because of Justice
of the Peace Blackburn's actions in apologizing, and admitting the
allegations. As a result of this the proceedings were shortened considerably and the complainants spared from testifying. While I recognize
that the reason
for an inquiry being held at all was Justice of the Peace Blackburn's
behaviour it is my view that he deserves some acknowledgement for the manner in which he
conducted himself following the incidents
in question. In my
view this can be accomplished through a recom
mendation that he be compensated for all his costs in connection with
the Inquiry.
All of
which is respectfully submitted.
January 21, 1994
COMMISSIONER
11
Appendix 4
COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF
HIS
WORSHIP LEONARD BLACKBURN, A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
STATEMENT OF
AGREED FACTS
I.
APPOINTMENT
OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
By Order in Council dated
August 19, 1993, Her Honour Judge Mary Hogan, a Judge of the Ontario
Court of Justice
(Provincial Division), was appointed pursuant to section 12 of the Justices of the Peace Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.J.4,
to inquire into the
question of whether
His Worship Leonard Blackburn, a Justice of the Peace, should be
removed from office.
The Commission of lnquiry
was appointed on the recommendation of the Justices of the Peace
Review Council upon the completion of an investigation into complaints of A and C.
II.
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION CONCERNING JUSTICE
OF THE PEACE BLACKBURN
Justice of the Peace Blackburn is 64 years
old. He was born on January 1, 1929. He has been married for 43 years, and
has five children ranging from 21 to 44 years of age. Three of his children and one grandchild
live with Justice
of the Peace Blackburn and his wife. He and one of his children are the only members of the household who are employed
outside the home.
Justice of the Peace Blackburn was suffering from financial difficulties at the time
of the incidents described below.
Justice of the Peace
Blackburn came to Canada from Grenada in 1974. He was
employed by the Government of Ontario in the Ministries of Transportation and
Revenue until he was appointed a justice
of the peace in 1980.
Justice of the Peace
Blackburn has been designated by the Lieutenant Governor
in Council as a presiding justice of the peace pursuant to section 4 of the Justices
of the Peace Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.J.4. Inhis capacity he is authorized to preside
at the trials
of persons charged
with offences under
Ontario laws, among other
duties that justices of the peace are
authorized to perform.
After the above
complaints were made, Justice of the Peace Blackburn was
assigned to office work which he has
continued to this date. That work included
such matters as: signing failing
to responds resulting in convictions being
registered by him together with the imposition of fines and
costs; signing suspensions of drivers' licences for failure to pay fines;
and signing plate denial orders.
Justice of the Peace
Blackburn suffers from hypertension and is diabetic. His
medical condition is described more
fully in a report dated February 23, 1993 from Dr.
Jerry Zowni r, a copy of which is attached as exhibit W.to this Statement of
Agreed Facts.
III.
COMPLAINT OF A
A is 18
years old. She was born on November 25,
1975. She
is a secondary school student who is currently
taking her 0.A.C. classes
leading to university entrance.
On
October 14, 1992 Ms. A was 16 years old, and in grade 12. She was enrolled in the school's
co-operative educational program,
in which students are given the opportunity to work in a field
that interests them. Because Ms. A is interested in the possibility of pursuing a
career in law, she chose to take her co operative education placement at the College
Park criminal courts at 444 Yonge Street in Toronto.
At approximately 11:00 a.m. on October
14, 1992 Ms. A entered Justice of the Peace Blackburn's office at the College Park Courthouse to ask him some questions pertaining to certain judicial
functions. He gave her the answers that she required and then proceeded to ask her questions about her aspirations for the future. Following this brief discussion Justice Blackburn made comments to the following effect:
•
"You're
very pretty . . . you've brightened up my day.";
•
".
. . this is the best day I've had in a long time thanks to you";
•
"I don't want to go on my morning break
because I don't want to Jose any time
when we could be talking together".
Justice of the Peace
Blackburn asked Ms. A whether or not she had a boyfriend to which she replied "yes". He then told her about another young female co-op student
with whom he worked previously. He told her how he and this student began to
talk and get "friendly". He then told Ms. A that this student was:
•
15 or 16 years
old;
•
that she was an extremely
beautiful girl;
•
that she used to stare at him from the same place everyday
;
•
that she approached him and
told him that she liked him;
•
that they became "friends";
•
that he saw this student for about six years until she was about 22 years of age;
•
that he told this student
that he couldn't marry her;
•
that she should get
married; and
•
that "if
she wants to see me she can. She can get some of what she [the
other student] was accustomed to".
effect:
Justice of the Peace Blackburn said words to A to the following
•
"You have a great body. How do you
keep it up?"
Following the
mention by Ms. A of a woman who had been calling the
administrative office from Metfors, Justice
of the Peace Blackburn mentioned a 22 year old woman
who was in prison and said that he had looked through the cell window and saw this woman "stark naked". Then he commented on how beautiful
her body was and said that she was dancing
around saying words to
the following effect: "I
want to fuck. I want to fuck.
I want to fuck."
Justice of the Peace Blackburn also
asked Ms. A whether or not she had gone to court yet. She replied
by telling him that she had gone on Tuesday,
October 13, 1992. He then proceeded to tell her that he once had an interesting careless driving charge before him in court.
He told her the story of a man who was pulled
over by the police because
he was weaving through traffic.
When the police officer approached
the man's car, he noticed that there was a woman lying down on the floor of the car and that the man's pant zipper was undone. Justice
of the Peace Blackburn also mentioned to Ms. A that there was a "wet
spot" on the man's pants in the pelvic area. He then told Ms. A that the accused
testified in court that he had dropped a lit cigarette on the floor and had asked the woman to look for it.
When asked about the "wet
spot" in his pelvic area, the accused
said tt h at he had stopped off
at a
restaurant just prior to being pulled over where he had a "little accident". Justice of the Peace Blackburn
went on to tell Ms. A that he did not believe
the man's story
and then said words to the following
effect: "Obviously the girl was giving him a blow job".
Justice of the Peace Blackburn
provided Ms. A with his business card with two phone numbers on it. One of
the phone numbers was a direct line to him at
Old City Hall (327-5179) and the other was his direct line at College Park (965-0129). He said that she could call him any time
to talk.
Justice of the Peace
Blackburn asked Ms. A what time she had
lunch to which she responded "1:00 p.m." He then told her that his secretary takes lunch at
1:00p.m. as well and locks the door so
that he's by himself in his office. Justice Blackburn then asked her to have lunch with
him. When Ms. A indicated that she'd let him know whether or not she could
have lunch with him, he asked to see her hands. Ms. A showed him her hands
with her palms up and he said "you have very nice hands". Following
this Ms. A thanked him and left his office.
Ms. A returned to his office and told him that she had to spend lunch with another co-op student and he asked her to promise that she would come back sometime in the afternoon. She did in fact make this promise
but did not return to his
office.
During Ms. A's conversation with Justice of the Peace Blackburn they were
interrupted four times: first, by two police officers, one male and one female who wanted an information signed;
second, by a gentleman who came in to sign as a surety; third , by a lawyer who wanted some subpoenas signed;
and fourth, by
a police officer for a forgotten reason.
IV. COMPLAINT OF C
On October 20, 1992, C was 21 years old . She was
employed as a retail investigator by Loss Prevention Services Limited. She is licenced
as a private investigator and is
interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement.
On
October 20, 1992, Ms. C attended at College
Park Court, 444 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario
at approximately 12:00 noon to lay two
charges for theft under $1,000 pursuant to the Criminal Code.
At approximately 12:20 p.m. Ms. C entered the office of Justice of the Peace Blackburn, whom she had not met
previously. The door to his office remained open.
Shortly after Ms. C's arrival in
Justice of the Peace Blackburn's office
he asked if she was Yugoslavian. She replied: "yes". Following this reply by Ms. C Justice of the Peace Blackburn said
words to the following effect: "Yugoslavian
women are passionate lovers".
Justice of the Peace Blackburn told
Ms. C that he was seeing a Yugoslavian lady and said words to the
following effect:
•
"In some countries a
lot of hair is attractive";
•
"Do you know how
unattractive it is when a women has no hair down there?" (while pointing down between
his legs);
•
"Her hair down there
is not white, but a pinkish colour.
Can you believe that?
What colour is yours?";
•
"She
(referring to the Yugoslavian lady he was seeing) is married, but they
have a loveless marriage, that is why I am there.
Her husband can't perform in bed ,
but she is still with him. Terrible thing."
Following this discussion, Ms. C left Justice of the Peace Blackburn's office for a moment and then returned
to sign the papers required
for laying the charges. After he signed the information he asked Ms. C to put her right hand on the Bible
and swear that the
information that she gave
was the truth. When she put her hand on the Bible, he started to rub it. As he rubbed it she said "don't" and pulled her
hand back.
When Ms. C got up to leave Justice Blackburn's
office, he asked: "When will I see you again?" and then said "Ibet
it is black and silky
down there". Ms. C did not respond to either question or comment and left his office.
V.
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE BLACKBURN'S
APOLOGY
Ms. Patel and Ms. C both made complaints to the Justices
of the Peace Review Council
as a result of the
incidents described above.
During the investigation by the Council, Justice of the Peace Blackburn made the following
apology to Ms. A and Ms. C,
who were present
before the Council in person
at the time:
"I have read
and understand your
allegations against me made by Ms. A and Ms. C. I do not dispute them and wish to apologize to both ladies for my objectionable conduct.
I understand that my behaviour
was upsetting to both Ms. A and Ms. C. This was not my intention nor was any personal insult
intended. It is difficult for me to
understand why I acted so foolishly on these
two occasions during
one week in my whole life. However,
even at my age there are
lessons to be learned and I have
learned from what I have done.
I
assure you and the members
of the Council that there will be no repetition of this conduct and I hope you both can forgive me. That's my formal apology."
VI.
REACTION ON COMPLAINANTS
Ms. C informed the Justice of the
Peace Review Council that "I went into that office as a professional to deal with another professional and what I heard
was extremely upsetting to me. When I left, I was very insulted."
Ms. A told the Justices
of the Peace Review Council
that "I took co-op from school because
I wanted to learn about the profession . . . I came to [Justice of the Peace Blackburn] and asked
[him] questions because I wanted
to learn."
VII.
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE BLACKBURN'S SEXUAL HARASSMENT COURSE
Attached as Exhibit "B" to this Statement of Agreed Facts is a letter
dated November
9, 1993 from Mr. Rick Warren concerning Justice of the Peace Blackburn's attendance at a
sexual harassment course offered by the Ontario Government,
Employee Health & Safety Services Branch.
VIII.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Bishop Arthur George Brown was
elected a Bishop in 1981. He was a lay member
of the Judicial Council for eight years. He is a member of the Ontario Council on Multiculturalism and is associated with Cardinal Carter on public
relations between the
Caribbean Islands and Toronto.
The Bishop has known Justice of the
Peace Blackburn for 18 years. Mr. Blackburn
has been very active in his parish and is on its Advisory Council. He has seen the Justice of the Peace interact
with other persons
and has never heard anything
derogatory about him. He has visited the Justice of the Peace a number
of times at his home.
The Bishop's three daughters are friends of the Blackburn
family. His youngest
single daughter has a house that backs on to the Blackburn's home and they have had a lot of contact
with each other.
Bishop Brown knows that Justice of the Peace Blackburn was held in high esteem in Grenada.
He knows that the Justice
has very good manners and is a real gentleman. The Bishop is bewildered by the allegations against Justice of the Peace Blackburn - they are out of character in his view.
Bishop Brown feels that Justice of
the Peace Blackburn would live up to his
promise not to repeat his objectionable behaviour.
Charles Arthur Downes has been a
Justice of the Peace since 1978. He has known
Justice of the Peace Blackburn since the latter
joined his church
shortly after coming to Canada.
The Justices of the Peace provide services
to members of the congregation with respect to signing
various documents. Justice of the Peace Blackburn
is also involved in the
administrative end of the church.
He has seen Justice of the Peace
Blackburn interact with other people including females
and has never seen him act in a crude or obscene
manner and has not heard
anybody else talk
about Justice of the Peace Blackburn that way.Justice of the Peace Blackburn' s actions with
respect to Ms. A and Ms. C were out of character in Justice of the Peace Downes' view. Justice of the Peace Downes feels that Justice
of the Peace Blackburn's word is his bond and that he would live up
to his promise not to repeat his objectionable behaviour.
IX. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Justice
of the Peace Blackburn acknowledges that before signing this Statement of
Agreed Facts he reviewed it carefully and obtained the advice of his counsel, Earl Levy,
Q.C.
DATED at Toronto this 17th day of December, 1993.
Gavin MacKenzie Justice
of the Peace
Commission of Inquiry Counsel Leonard Blackburn
Davies, Ward & Beck
44th Floor
1 First
Canadian Place Toronto, Ontario MSX lBJ
No comments:
Post a Comment