"Submissions from all counsel on those issues have been instructive" - 2012 Panel on Panel's Jurisdiction Questions

                                                          File No. 22-041/11

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE REVIEW COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER OF a complaint respecting

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE Errol Massiah

Justice of the Peace in the

Central East Region

NOTICE OF MOTION

          TAKE NOTICE THAT the His Worship Justice of the Peace Massiah intends to bring a preliminary motion before the Panel on July 4^th, 2013 at 10 a.m. at 1 Queen Street East in the City of Toronto.

The Grounds for the Application are:

1.           None of the purported complaints comply with the express requirement in s.10.2(2) of the Justices of the Peace Act that they be in writing;

2.      Consequently, the Review Council had no jurisdiction to establish a complaints committee, the committee had no jurisdiction to investigate and to order a hearing before a hearing panel;

3.      All of the current purported complaints pre-date the disposition rendered on the Applicant’s prior proceeding and are consequently subsumed in that disposition;

4.      The manner and tone of the purported investigation carried out by the committee was so void of fairness and integrity that it represents an abuse of process at common law.

   

The following documentary evidence will be relied upon:

  

1.      The record of proceedings to date including interview transcripts;

2.      Such further evidence that the Panel may consider relevant.

             The Applicant may be served with documents related to this motion at the office of his solicitors of record, Eugene Bhattacharya, Barrister and Solicitor, 295 Matheson Blvd., East, Mississauga, Ontario, L4Z 1X8 pursuant to the Rules.

Jun 28^th, 2013                                                               

ERNEST J. GUISTE

Trial & Appeal Lawyer

245 Yorkland Blvd., Suite 302

Toronto, Ontario

M2J 4W9

(416) 364-8908

(416) 364-0973 FAX

Co-counsel for the Applicant

Henein & Associates

445 King Street West, Suite 202

Toronto, Ontario

M5V 1K4

Ms. Marie Henein

E Mail mhenein@hhlp.ca

AND TO:

Justices of the Peace Review Council

31 Adelaide Street East

Toronto, Ontario

M5C 2J3

Ms. Marilyn E. King, Registrar   - E mail marilyn.king@ontario.ca

Independent Counsel's Opinion

Exhibit 17

STOCKWOODS barristers

May 23, 2014

Dear Ms. King:

As you know, the Hearing Panel has asked us for independent legal advice 

(in accordance with s.8(15) of the Justices of the Peace Act) concerning 

two issues, which arise in the context of a motion brought by Mr. Guiste 

on behalf of Justice of the Peace Massiah, and on which the parties have 

filed written submissions.  The question in relation to which the Hearing Panel

seeks independent advice on are as follows:

1.   What is the extent of the jurisdiction (if any) of this Hearing Panel of the 

Justices of the Peace Review Council to review and/or grant relief 

concerning decisions or actions taken by the Complaints Committee ?

2.   What is the extent of the jurisdiction (if any) of the Hearing Panel to 

consider whether there is a valid complaint under s.10.2 of the Justices 

of the Peace Act ("JPA or "Act"), or is the Hearing Panel mandated only 

to proceed with a hearing once it has been ordered by the Complaints 

Committee under s.11(15)(d) of the JPA ?

We therefore conclude, based on this jurisprudence as well, that 

the Hearing Panel has jurisdiction to consider the specific 

issue of the sufficiency of the "complaint" within the meaning 

of s.10.2, both in assessing whether it has jurisdiction to convene 

the hearing, or as part of a broader consideration of whether an 

"abuse of process" has occurred."

Brian Gover 

            

Hearing Panel's
Decision on Threshold
Jurisdiction Questions:


25)   We accept that the Hearing Panel has jurisdiction to consider the 
specific issue of the sufficiency of the "complaint" within the meaning of 
s.10.2 in assessing whether it has jurisdiction to conduct the hearing.

26)   The Hearing Panel has previously received materials and written submissions in
preparation for the abuse of process and fairness motion filed by His Worship.

27)   In response to the jurisdiction question raised by the Panel, in our view, both
Presenting Counsel and Counsel for His Worship also provided materials and or oral
submissions related to the abuse of process and fairness motion. As well, Mr. Gover
also commented on abuse of process and fairness issues in his legal opinion.
Submissions from all counsel on those issues have been instructive.

28)   However, the abuse of process and fairness motion has not been fully argued by
Presenting Counsel and Counsel for His Worship, as yet.  That motion is scheduled to be
heard shortly.  In our view, it would be premature for us to make any ruling on those
matter now.

29)   As a result, it is only the narrow issues framed in the two questions the Hearing
Panel posed to Mr. Gover (see para 18) on which the Hearing Panel has ruled in this
decision.


Excerpts from Presenting
Counsel Submissions of 
May 1st, 2017:


2.   This was, at its core, a relatively straightforward hearing that Mr. Massiah's counsel,
Mr. Guiste, chose to conduct in an extraordinarily un-straightforward and vexatious
manner.

29.   The part of the process conducted by Mr. Guiste served no benefit either to
Mr. Massiah or to the public at large.


NOTE: This piece is published in order to draw attention to an issue of public
importance. The removal of a judicial officer in the free world and in Ontario
is an issue of public importance.  The right to defend and the independence of
the bar are also issues of fundamental importance. This post is shared with the
community in the spirit that justice must be seen to be done.