Lawyers Must Stand Strong and Firm in Defence of Clients: L.S.U.C. v. VENN (M. Blight)

MR. GUISTE:  In the interest of -- so we don't get carried away and we don't get into irrelevant considerations, it's our position on the motion that we're not asserting that any member of the Panel has an actual malice or impropriety against His Worship.  We are simply stating and asserting that the appearance of fairness justice must be seen to be done.  That in light of all of the transgressions that are indicated --- you're all good people, but that those transgressions raise in the minds of reasonable people a reasonable apprehension of bias.  So it's not actual.
[Hearing Transcript - May 27,, 2014 at p.74]


MR. GUISTE:   "My role in this case is as an advocate representing the Justice of the Peace.  I have a duty to raise each and every argument and right that he has.  At times as an advocate we're put in the unenviable role of asserting things like bias, making objections strenuously, repetitively, but in my respectful submission, that goes with the territory.  When the advocate raises an issue of bias, it is not that he doesn't respect the Tribunal, it is because he has a duty in law to advance his client's interests and to ensure that His Worship Massiah's Constitutional right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal is respected.  There has been a lot of discussion about conduct, and at the end of the day the advocate must stand strong, stand firm in the representation of his or her client...."
[ E.J. Guiste - Re Massiah 2015 - Transcript - May 28th, 2014 at p.10]


MS. BLIGHT:  So Mr. Guiste described a complaint filed by the Registrar against justice a justice of the peace arising from testimony given at a hearing held before a prior hearing panel.  I can advise that I sat as the lawyer member of the complaints committee.  Until Mr. Guiste raised the issue this morning I had not realized that I'd had any prior involvement with His Worship.  The complaints committee dismissed the complaint without requesting that His Worship provide a response. I had simply not recalled who the justice of the peace was who was the respondent in that matter.
[Hearing Transcript of November 19th, 2013 at p.41-42]

"The underlying rationale of section 11(4) appears to be that a Hearing Panel should not have made prior decisions related in any way to the conduct before the Hearing Panel other than what may have been public.  While the facts of the instant case are not the same, section 11(4) is instructive.  I want to be clear that as Presenting Counsel, we take the unequivocal position that Ms. Blight has displayed no actual bias, nor has she acted inappropriately in any manner whatsoever. However, in my role as Presenting Counsel, I must be also mindful of the principle that justice must be seen to be done."  [Exhibit 16 - Presenting Counsel's Letter dated Feb.12, 2014 to Hearing Panel]



Ms. S. Margot Blight, the lawyer member of the Hearing Panel, was allowed to recuse herself from the Hearing Panel in February, 2014.(Exhibit 16 - Presenting Counsel's Letter to the Hearing Panel)

The Law Society of Upper Canada

- and- 

John Kenneth Venn

Before:  S. Margot Blight (chair)

              M. Virginia MacLean, Q.C.

              Jan Richardson 

Heard:   December 21, 2015, in Toronto, Ontario

Appearance:   Amanda Worley, for the Applicant

                       The Respondent, not present or represented

Ms. Margot Blight referred to the Disposition in Re Massiah to justify the penalty in a discipline case which came up for adjudication before her at the Law Society Tribunal even thought the case was pending a decision from the Divisional Court on judicial review. (see paragraph 14)

[15]   In short, there is no indication here that imposition of a suspension would have any deterrent effect on the Lawyer.  No penalty short of revocation can be imposed in this case in order to protect the public or uphold the reputation of the legal profession.

Justices of the Peace Review Council

IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING UNDER SECTION 11.1 OF THE 

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT, R.S.O. 1990 c. J.4

AS AMENDED

Concerning a Complaint about the Conduct of

Justice of the Peace Errol Massiah

DECISION ON DISPOSITION

[66]  .....We find that the only disposition which can restore the public confidence in the 

integrity of the judiciary and in the administration of justice is a recommendation to the 

Attorney General that His Worship Errol Massiah be removed from office in accordance 

with section 11.2 of the Justices of the Peace Act.  Accordingly, we make that 

recommendation.

April 28, 2015

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

(DIVISIONAL COURT)

ERROL MASSIAH

- and- 

THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE REVIEW COUNCIL ET AL

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

Date  June 18th, 2015

Issued by  S. Baweja

2.   THE APPLICANT MAKES APPLICATION FOR:

(a)   an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Decision;

(b)   an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Penalty;

(c)   an order in the nature of certiorai quashing the Compensation Decision and ordering

compensation of the applicant's legal costs;

(d)   an order in the nature of certiorari quashing Order-in-Council O.C. 546/2015;

(e)   in the alternative, an order remitting the matter to a differently constituted hearing 

panel of the JPRC, to be dealt with in accordance with this Court's reasons and decision;

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

MARROCCO A.C.J., NORDHEIMER & THORBURN JJ.

BETWEEN:

ERROL MASSIAH

- and - 

THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

REVIEW COUNCIL ET AL

NORDHEIMER J::

[62]   The application for judicial review is allowed only to the extent that the decision of
the 2012 Panel, not to recommend compensation for legal fees, is set aside and that
single issue is remitted back to the 2012 Panel for reconsideration.

NORDHEIMER J.

MARROCCO A.C.J.

THORBURN J.

Date of Release: October 4, 2016


NOTE:  This piece is written for the sole purpose of drawing attention to an issue of public importance. The removal of a judicial officer from office is an issue of public importance. Interfering with a judicial officer's right to counsel is also a matter of public importance. Lawyers should never be punished for doing their job. If and when judicial officers are removed in our system of law justice must be seen to be done.  It is in this spirit and this spirit alone that this piece is shared with the community.