tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-91239970474983310132024-03-14T03:27:01.835-04:00Mayorgatemayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.comBlogger169125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-38928356282542370532023-02-05T14:12:00.000-05:002023-02-05T14:12:02.451-05:00Are there consequences for a Judge’s Breach of Law?<p> <i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">This can be a disturbing
question that awaits an answer. First of all it is obvious if a judge
is caught standing over a dead body with knife in hand dripping
blood, that that judge may be considered a suspect, but this question
is not so obvious. This question asks whether judges get away with
whatever they want to do, whatever their egos desire. Remember judges
hold immense power over ordinary peoples’ lives.</i></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Without
a doubt it takes a special kind of person to want to be a judge after
all a judge has such power over the lives of those who stand before
him or her. It takes courage to take the position of guardian of the
Rule of Law, that Rule is what binds our society as a whole. Yet are
judges untouchable? Does our fever for that elusive and totally
independent judiciary for the supposed sake of true democracy allow
the birth of a miniature caste of individuals who have total impunity
from all consequence?</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Our
society needs judges as we need police, human beings cannot live in
utopia for real. We do not need corrupt judges nor do we need judges
who have been corrupted by the power we give them.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Complete
independence for the judiciary also equates to complete immunity from
any legal action at all. Regardless of how corrupt the judge’s
actions are, regardless of how many court rules the judge breaks,
laws he or she breaches, or how wrong the decision made by the judge,
that judge walks free and clear.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">The
Attorney General for Ontario Mr. Doug Downey, when approached with
details of a judge’s corrupt actions raised the whole judicial
independence. According to Mr. Downey whose Ministry oversees the
laws of the province they cannot touch judges and he advised to take
the complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council. In fact the Registrar
from the Supreme Court of Canada gave the same advice on the same
issue.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Everyone
is afraid to touch any question of wrong doing by a judge, so what is
the Canadian Judicial Council? Who are these courageous individuals
who take on to examine complaints about judges? The answer to this
question may be overly comforting or filled with promises of Utopian
justice.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">The
Council has 44 members, under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Richard Wagner.
Federally nominated Chief Justices and Associate Chief Justices of
Canadian superior courts make up the Council. It was established by
an act of parliament in 1971 and its 50 years of existence has not
provided any awe inspiring examples of actions or leadership by
example. </span><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">In 2021 it revised its <a href="https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2021/CJC_20-301_Ethical-Principles_Bilingual_Final.pdf" target="_blank">Ethical Principles for Judges</a>, first published 20 years earlier, but this is
not to be taken as a code of conduct for judges as the Council
states, it is a guide only. So it’s no better than a tourist guide
one picks up with the decision being yours if you wish to follow the
tracks advised therein.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">A
complaint filed with the CJC goes through a number of stages. First,
the new complaint falls into the hands of the Executive Director of
the Council. The Executive Director decides if it is to be forwarded
to a member of the Judicial Conduct Committee. Now the Committee
might seek additional information, seek the judge’s comments, or
dismiss the matter. Stage Two, if the complaint is retained it is
passed onto the Judicial Conduct Committee who may continue the
complaint or dismiss it. Now if the Committee does not dismiss it
then further investigation may be requested, corrective measures
suggested or the complaint then forwarded to the Review Panel.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Stage
Three, the Review Panel will decide whether the matter should be
referred to an Inquiry Committee. At Stage Four, the Inquiry
Committee will conduct its own proceedings and will produce an
Inquiry Committee Report. Finally Stage Five, those eligible Council
members will then think about the Inquiry Committee Report and what
to do about it.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">How
much confidence is there in the CJC when their past record is far
from reassuring. In the words of the CJC itself the complaint has to
be considered on its severity not on the fact that a judge had
breached any rules or ethics. Yet it is judges who are judging
judges! The CJC outlines its five stage process but </span><u style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">nowhere</u><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">
in that outline does it state how is the complainant kept informed
through it all. Does a dismissal have a reasoning provided or does it
simply say ‘you didn’t prove the case’?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">A
true test of the CJC and its rhetoric has been put in motion. The CJC
has a new complaint filed before them, the allegations in the
complaint are extremely serious and are fully supported with exhibits
to prove the case. There is no denying any part of it, and there is
no way for any Executive Director or Council member to diminish the
severity of the breach of law committed by Justice Paul Sweeny of the
Superior Court of St. Catharines.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif"><br /></span></p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rOkkRwRo_Al6tQi2o7wA8g4E1uE2xtrv/preview" width="640"></iframe>
<p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Justice
Paul Sweeny with full intent and purpose decided he would not
disclose serious details of his past that greatly affected his
ability to make an impartial and unbiased decision. This information
about his past would be known to a lawyer but Justice Sweeny was
hearing motions with two self-represented litigants defending their
position. This was a premeditated and calculated decision. In
addition to nondisclosure of his past professional position Justice
Sweeny and Counsel Michael Kestenberg, a Toronto lawyer representing
a lawyer, Rachel Goerz, had not disclosed their personal and
professional association outside of the court stage. The allegation
further extends to raise the question of collusion between Justice
Sweeny and Counsel Michael Kestenberg. Justice Sweeny has the duty as
the hearing judge to read all the filed material prior to the hearing
which appraised him of the counsel he would be hearing, meaning a
former associate, and the fact that the defending part were
self-represented litigants.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">This
complaint brought to the Canadian Judicial Council reaches a level of
obscenity of the level of breach of the Rule of Law committed by
Justice Paul Sweeny. If the Council needs to determine the severity
of a breach of judicial conduct then this complaint must require a
full Inquiry Committee Report and recommendation for the removal of
Justice Sweeny from the bench. Counsel Michael Kestenberg will be
answering his own complaint filed with the Law Society of Upper
Canada.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">The
full complaint with its exhibits is provided here to examine. Upon
examination an alarming question begs to be answered. How could this
happen here in a courtroom in Canada? We have Supreme Court
endorsements of principles on the treatment of self-represented
litigants, we have judges like<a href="http://www.ruleoflaw.ca/reflections-on-charter-values-a-call-for-judicial-humility/" target="_blank"> Justice Peter Lauwers of the Court of
Appeal for Ontario</a></span><b style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.ruleoflaw.ca/reflections-on-charter-values-a-call-for-judicial-humility/" target="_blank"> </a></b><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif"><a href="http://www.ruleoflaw.ca/reflections-on-charter-values-a-call-for-judicial-humility/" target="_blank">speak of the corruption of power judges face </a>and the many so-called
constraints placed on judges by the Rule of Law. Yet this happened in
a courtroom in Canada and no one seems to care about it other than
protect each other from consequence.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Now the Canadian Judicial Council
has the full complaint placed before them. This complaint against
Justice Sweeny deals with beach of the Rule of Law, breach of Court
Law, breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and breach of
Human Rights. All of this was intentional and premeditated by a
Justice of the Court of Canada.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Question is, what will the Canadian
Judicial Council do about it? The result and decision by the CJC will
be published.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif"><br /></span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br /></p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjerPoAhQWmwyJEZjTfYEXZGofKNL03E1EbSF0nCETqdGD-ge6cWJdIJU0yLFwgW52a1PJkhtmzeGLV8RzYQsDxX1a0qFyxlmlfoCBMtf16ixkj3PKwedbRJrw2gX7LUcTYRrBh-csp_jNH6xLYeIdHb8yOHql25MVNV957fofpAXtvM-_ylBa70fOfQQ/s1412/Canadian%20Judicial%20Council,%20Honourable%20Justice%20Paul%20Sweeny,%20Judicial%20Complaint.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="582" data-original-width="1412" height="264" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjerPoAhQWmwyJEZjTfYEXZGofKNL03E1EbSF0nCETqdGD-ge6cWJdIJU0yLFwgW52a1PJkhtmzeGLV8RzYQsDxX1a0qFyxlmlfoCBMtf16ixkj3PKwedbRJrw2gX7LUcTYRrBh-csp_jNH6xLYeIdHb8yOHql25MVNV957fofpAXtvM-_ylBa70fOfQQ/w640-h264/Canadian%20Judicial%20Council,%20Honourable%20Justice%20Paul%20Sweeny,%20Judicial%20Complaint.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: red;">Confirmation of Receipt of Complaint, Canadian Judicial Council</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><br /><br />******<div><br /></div><div>Part One: <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/09/self-represent-self-destruct.html" target="_blank">Self Represent - Self Destruct</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Part Two: <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-dark-face-of-canadas-justice.html" target="_blank">Dark Face of Canada's Justice</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Part Three: <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/03/judicial-cloak-of-protection.html" target="_blank">Judicial Cloak of Protection</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Part Four: <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/07/supreme-court-of-canada-commits-highest.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court of Canada Commits highest aberration of its own law</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Part Five: <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/12/what-is-measure-of-judge.html" target="_blank">What is the Measure of A Judge</a><br /><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br /></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p></div>mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-14509738400718947802022-12-11T16:21:00.001-05:002023-02-08T12:16:14.318-05:00What is the Measure of a Judge?<p> <i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Mark
Twain said, “Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as
often,” can such a simple yardstick be sufficient as a guide to
judge Judges? Judges themselves would surely as a collective find it
extremely impudent that anyone other than a judge would ever judge
them. Yet in our modern society how can we allow such a small group
of individuals to wield such absolute autocratic power? As J.J.
McCullough of the Washington Post referred to Supreme Courts as an
“institution of an arbitrary and unaccountable nine-member
oligarchy.”</i></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">For
so long our society has had an absolute trust and respect in our
judiciary. Our democratic governments take such pride in the
separation of state and bench in fact to such a degree that the
judiciary is nothing more than an all powerful autocratic institution
who are free of all consequence for their actions. Even our
politicians can face senate or parliamentary hearings, legal action or in the very
least they can be voted out of office. Can a judge be voted out and
off the bench? The answer is no. There are those who will point to
the Canadian Judicial Council where complaints relating to judges are
directed for adjudication. Simply look at who comprises the Council
and ask what has the Council done sine it was formed in 1971.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">In
1998 the <a href="https://cjc-ccm.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_judicialconduct_Principles_en.pdf" target="_blank">CJC published the Ethical Principles for Judges</a> and in its
Forward written by the Honourable Beverley McLachlin, then Chief
Justice of Canada in this opening statement: “The ability of
Canada's legal system to function effectively and to deliver the kind
of justice that Canadians need and deserve depends in large part on
the ethical standards of our judges.” This 60 page document is not
a code of ethics for judges to follow and page 9 clarifies that where
it states; “The Statements, Principles and Commentaries are
advisory in nature. Their goals are to assist judges with the
difficult ethical and professional issues which confront them and to
assist members of the public to better understand the judicial role.
They are not and shall not be used as a code or a list of prohibited
behaviours. They do not set out standards defining judicial
misconduct.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">With
headings like Integrity, Diligence, Impartiality, Judicial Demeanour
and Conflicts of Interest, none of these 60 pages are anything more
than guidelines. Judges don't need to really bother with them and
with the absolute independence we grant them, we get what we deserve
according to the Honourable Beverley McLachlin, former Chief Justice
of Canada.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">The
Canadian Judicial Council is where complaints relating to judges are
steered to be heard. I was advised of this fact by the Minister for
the Attorney General and the Supreme Court of Canada, should there be
confidence in this advice? Since its inception in 1971 the CJC's
record is far from anything that builds credibility of judges judging
judges. The reality is, the CJC resembles a bad television sit-com
with the head of the family being the Chief Justice of Canada aided
by all the Chief Justices and Associate Chief Justices from the
provinces. So this exclusive club which handles complaints of ethical
misconduct such as improper demeaner, failure to properly disqualify
when a judge has a conflict of interest, engaging in exparte
communication and failure to execute their judicial duties, has said
that misconduct should not guarantee the judge's removal, the gravity
of the misconduct must be determined.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">The
CJC does not think that misconduct by a judge, the breach of trust
committed warrants consequence, rather the discussion is on how bad
the committed misconduct is! Yet the severity of the misconduct is
judged by judges who themselves may have committed similar
misconduct. Retired Supreme Court judge Rosalie Abella in an
interview with CTV, May 2021 said, “The good faith in Canada's
judges, with wisdom and the intelligence is extraordinary. I don't
have a slight hesitation, their ability to deliver justice to the
Canadian public.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">So
we are back to the opening question, what is the measure of a judge?
Dale Carnegie, the famous American motivator, went a little further
than Mark Twain when he said, “Pay less attention to what men say,
just watch what they do.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">To
watch what judges do is not easy as most of their actions relate to
matters they hear as members of the bench. Their words, well they are
spread out in public whether through legal journals, interviews with
mainstream media or depending on their position more widely spread
public appearances. The first judge to face the well articulated
yardstick of Mark Twain or Dale Carnegie is Justice David M.
Paciocco.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Justice
David M. Paciocco sits on the bench of the Court of Appeal for
Ontario. This is the highest court in the province and the court of
last resort, as trying to have the Supreme Court to listen to you is
extremely difficult. Justice Paciocco has authoured several books on
criminal law, he is a professor of law and in 2005 was nominated to
receive an Honorary Doctorate from Laurentian University. He is a
legal scholar, and is considered one of Canada's foremost experts on
the law of evidence. Paciocco was elevated to the Court of Appeal for
Ontario in 2017.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Prior
to being appointed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario<a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2017/04/the_honourable_justicedavidmpacioccosquestionnaire.html" target="_blank"> Justice Paciocco had to submit to a questionnaire</a> which the Judicial Advisory
Committee then provides the Minister for Justice with a list of
“highly recommended” and “recommended” candidates. Parts of
these questionnaires are made public and it is a chance to hear
directly from Justice Paciocco. One would think that whatever Judge
Paciocco said had to carry real meaning to him and was not said to
simply impress the Committee.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">The
first quote from Justice Paciocco relates to what he sees as the role
of judges in our Canadian constitutional democracy. “In our
constitutional democracy the role of a judge is to decide cases by
applying the law, and never based on personal or political beliefs.
The reason is simple. Without commitment to the ideal that judges
must decide cases based on the law, there is no law, only power.
Indeed, requiring judges to follow the law diminishes the risk that
power will be abused. It insulates against corruption and
discrimination. On our conception of constitutional democracy it is
this that gives legal decision their legitimacy.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">If
this view of judges deciding cases by applying the rule of law is
true at all times and for all judges, then surely we could claim to
live in an oasis of equality with no discrimination.</span><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">
Sadly an alarming fact remains, judges face serious questions of bias
and their decisions questioned, even overturned, but without
consequence to the judge. Judges hold immense power affecting the
lives of individuals and the fall of that gavel can be as dramatic as
a large rock attached to an ankle of an individual dropped into the
ocean.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Justice Paciocco claims to view the
parties who have a legal interest in the litigation as people, he
refers to them as “faces” not “cases” and says, “In a
society that respects the integrity of persons, sheer human decency
requires that those who will be affected by the use of power be
spoken to, and not simply about. It requires that a judge who makes a
decision to absolve someone, or to impose a burden on someone, will
explain why this is being done.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">The judge isn't wrong in the fact
that those people who need to face the courts for whatever reason do
so with fear and worry. If one can afford a lawyer to manoeuvre the
twists and turns of the corridors of justice then their pressure is
somewhat relieved. Today, many have been forced to self-represent, to
try and learn the court's procedures and administrative nightmare.
True the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed a document called the
Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused
Persons, but the reality is that the discrimination self-represented
litigants face in all fronts of the legal system have not diminished
at all.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">A final worthy reference to the
judge's musings should possibly sound alarm bells in anyone who
listens. On the issue of the rule of law Justice Paciocco said, “that
the rule of law assumes that the law is known, when, in fact, there
is often controversy about what the law is. This enables judges to
manipulate precedents, or to choose a conclusion and then find a
reason for it. At the very least, it is said, the law is malleable
enough that judges, seeing things from their own perspective, will
choose to believe the law is what they want it to be. For this
reason, some are openly critical of the integrity and worth of the
rule of law. The reality, however, is that any power can be abused,
and any power can be used poorly.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">It is possible to write a whole
thesis on such a statement by someone considered to be a legal
scholar. At the same time these words by a judge beg the question
whether such sentiment comes from experience or witness. Either way,
any individual who believes that a judge has the right to command
automatic respect or trust in his or her position as impartial and
unbiased adjudicators has lost their standing.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Justice
Paciocco's words raise a high level of confidence in the kind of
judge he strives to be, but before comparing his actions in the real
arena of court and his decisions there is value to review another
judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Justice Peter Lauwers was
appointed to the Court of Appeal in December 2012 after serving as a
judge on the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario since July 2008.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Justice Lauwers comes across as a
thinker, he ponders on the Charter of Rights and its relevance in the
rule of law, he seems to bathe in the psychology of judgeship and has
even appeared to have some level of deference to the self-represented
litigant. In a decision, Lauwers wrote for the Court of Appeal for
Ontario cited as<a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca815/2021onca815.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQA7R3JhbmQgUml2ZXIgQ29uc2VydmF0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eSB2IFJhbWRhcywgMjAyMSBPTkNBIDgxNSwAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1" target="_blank"> Grand River Conservation Authority v Ramdas, 2021ONCA 815</a>, spending some eight paragraphs relaying his observations on
self-represented litigants.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">The numbers of self-represented in
the courts are growing monthly and the reason is simple, lawyers have
made it impossible for many to be able to afford them. Justice
Lauwers acknowledges that the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the
Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused
Persons in <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc23/2017scc23.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAdUGludGVhIHYgSm9obnMsIDIwMTcgU0NDIDIzLiAAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1" target="_blank">Pintea v Johns, 2017 SCC 23</a>. He provides advice to
apposing counsel on the treatment of self-represented opponents, even
makes reference to Canadian Code of Conduct for Trial Lawyers
Involved in Civil Actions Involving Unrepresented Litigants, Irvine:
American College of Trial Lawyers, 2009.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Possibly one of the most important
points Justice Lauwers raises is at paragraph 21 where he states that
it is, “open to a judge to engage in active adjudication in order
to obtain relevant evidence from a self-represented party who might
not fully understand what is relevant and what is not.” He goes on
to say that a judge is constrained by the principles of impartiality
in how he or she helps make the judicial process accessible stopping
short of becoming their advocate. Do the constraints of principles of
impartiality prohibit a judge from going in the opposite side of
being helpful to obstructive?, Justice Lauwers does not raise such a
prospect.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Besides his apparent appreciation
of the challenges that self-represented litigants face Lauwers has
delivered speeches reflecting on Charter Values, and even making a
call for Judicial Humility. In January 2018<a href="http://www.ruleoflaw.ca/reflections-on-charter-values-a-call-for-judicial-humility/" target="_blank"> Justice Lauwers delivered a speech at the Runnymede Society</a> which he entitled 'A Call for
Judicial Humility'. The Runnymede Society was founded by the Canadian
Constitution Foundation in 2016 as a national student membership
organisation dedicated to the ideas and ideals of constitutionalism,
liberty and the rule of law.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">In the opening to his speech
Lauwers says; "If Dicey was suspicious of administrative tribunals,
I am suspicious of judges, starting with myself. But so is the system
of justice. Knowing from experience how seductive the size of power
can be, the system of justice puts many constraints on judicial
decision making." The 'Dicey' that Justice Lauwers pays homage to
is Albert Venn Dicey (1835-1922), a British jurist and constitutional
law theorist who wrote An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the
Constitution (1885), and he fathered the belief that no one is above
the law.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Lauwers
goes on to say, “We are limited in what we can do by the issues in
the case we hear, and by the evidence the parties adduce.”
According to Justice Lauwers judges are “obliged to give reasons
for our decisions that display the qualities of accountability,
intelligibility, adequacy and transparency.” There is no mention of
any consequences if the “many constraints on judicial decision
making” are in fact breached by a judge. Are these “constraints”
simply there as threats or are they real? Who do judges answer to?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">The speech by Lauwers then evolves
into discussion of human cognition and judging. According to Justice Lauwers
there has been recent psychological research showing the need for
constraints on judicial powers. He says that modern psychology now
demonstrates that constraints are necessary, something “our
ancestors” intuited from observation and experience. Yet what is
the point of developing constraints when there is no one to enforce
breaches and consequences?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Continuing, Justice Lauwers touches
on a darker side of our system of justice, the psychology of judges.
He says, “We understand that judges are imperfect human beings.”
Is this to be taken as the beginning to an all encompassing excuse?
Further Lauwers drops what any clear thinking individual would be
alarmed over. “However, the evidence is that judges – like most
adults – do not easily convert their emotional reactions into
orderly, rational responses. When emotions take over, they distort
deliberative reasoning, which can be transformed into motivated
cognition or motivated reasoning. When that happens, instead of an
impartial assessment of the evidence and the arguments, the decision
maker looks for evidence and arguments that support the desired
outcome in a way that is not impartial.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">How much human imperfection is
society willing to accept in judges considering how much power is
given to judges without any real oversight? There are no code of
ethics for judges to follow and any complaints are handled by judges
against judges. Judicial independence is constantly pushed to a point
that a sitting government will not intervene when a judge breaks the
law.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Towards the end of his speech
Justice Lauwers says, “In our culture we do not understand judges
to be Plato's 'golden-souled philosopher kings', disinterested and
dispassionate. We understand that judges are imperfect human beings.
The psychological research demonstrates that the broader the range of
unbridled discretion open to a decision maker, the more likely it is
that cognitive illusions, personal biases and attachments, will play
a role in decisions. And that is just wrong.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Dale Carnegie said to pay less
attention to what men say and we have heard from both, Justice David
Paciocco and Justice Peter Lauwers. Both Judges sit on the Court of
Appeal for Ontario, the highest court of Ontario. It is time to
examine what they actually do.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif"><a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/03/judicial-cloak-of-protection.html" target="_blank">Both Justices sat on a Panel Motion at the Court of Appeal in December 2021.</a> This Panel Motion was an
appeal to overturn a decision made by a single judge who heard a
motion at the COA. </span><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">The grounds for the appeal
were very serious ones, breach of the Courts Justice Act s. 132,
breach of the Principles of Judicial Office, breach of Ethical
Principles for Judges as published by the Canadian Judicial Council
dealing with foundation principles of Impartiality and Conflict of
Interest, and breach of the Charter of Rights. The panel comprised of
Justice Peter Lauwers (president), Justice David Paciocco, and
Justice Thorburn JJ.A.</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Segoe UI, sans-serif">What was before this panel of
judges was very serious. Justice Michal Fairburn, Assistant Chief
Justice of Ontario, had willfully and with intent breached the law.
The material filed for the panel to consider was impossible to deny
or argue, and the moving party for the motion were self-represented
litigants.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Justice Paciocco has been quoted as
saying that “parties must be spoken to as real people,” and
Justice Lauwers in his decision at para 18, (Grand River ConservationAuthority v Ramdas 2021 ONCA 815) said “the court also has a duty
to ensure that self-represented litigants receive a fair hearing.”
He even refers to the court's obligations as outlined by the Canadian
Judicial Council. This motion was only permitted to last 19 minutes.
During that 19 minutes Justice Lauwers interrupted six (6) separate
times with statements such as “what are we here for.” Every 3.16
minutes Justice Lauwers interrupted the attempts by a
self-represented litigant to present his submission and evidence to
the court. Is that to be considered a fair hearing by anyone's terms?
Can anyone present a coherent complex legal argument with an
interruption every 3.16 minutes?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Every appeal, every motion when
filed has to have accompanying documents; a motion record, signed
affidavit, factum, exhibits and a book of authorities as precedents
cited. Each and every judge has to read all these materials before
the hearing. So when Justice Lauwers said “what are we here for,”
it was nothing more than an intentional insult. According to Justice
Paciocco, as quoted earlier, in Canada “judges decide cases by
applying the law, and never based on personal or political beliefs.”
He also said that this insulates against corruption and
discrimination giving legal decisions their legitimacy. Lauwers at
his Runnymede Society</span><b style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"> </b><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">speech said that “we (judges) are
guardians of the Rule of Law and are also bound by it.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">The rule of law expects that a
moving party to an appeal, whether self-represented or not be
permitted to make his submissions and present his evidence.
Principles of Judicial Conduct would not permit any judge to
interrupt a submission being made 6 times in 19 minutes. What
motivated Justice Lauwers and Justice Paciocco to show such disregard
to the Rule of Law and Judicial Conduct? Justice Fairburn who was the
centre and reason for the Panel Motion hearing in fact is the boss,
as the Assistant Chief Justice of Ontario to both Lauwers and
Paciocco, and for that matter Justice Thorburn JJ.A. Was that the
motivation for their actions?</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Segoe UI, sans-serif">Paciocco said “any power can be
abused,” and as a judge he has immense power. He not only abused
that power he helped to decimate the Rule of Law and proved by his
actions that his words are nothing but hypocrisy. At the Panel
Hearing he interrupted the attempted presentation of submissions
saying, in reference to Justice Fairburn, his boss, “it doesn't
matter if she was wrong or right.” A judge who willfully and with
premeditation breached the Courts of Justice Act was not an issue
that Justice Paciocco saw was wrong.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Justice Lauwers ending his speech
at the Runnymede Society said that we in our society understand that
judges are not “Plato's golden-souled philosopher kings,” that we
understand judges to be imperfect human beings. He added that
personal biases and attachments will play a role in decisions
finishing with “and this is just wrong.” Yet again Lauwers does
not say what the Rule of Law and its so called constraints on judges
actually does with a corrupt judge or his or her decision. The notion
of resting on the fact that appeals at the COA had overturned
decisions of lower courts, but what happens when the judges of the
Court of Appeal commit corrupt acts? Before serious indignation on
the uses of the word </span><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">corrupt</i><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif"> in reference to judges and the
Court of Appeal erupts, remember that it simply means making
something sound unsound. The Court of Appeal is the last port of call
for 'justice' in the province, pointing your finger towards the
Supreme Court is equivalent to buying a lotto ticket, unless your
issue revolves around condoms <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2022/2022scc33/2022scc33.html" target="_blank">(SCC 33 2022)</a> or constitutional
protection of sex offenders <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2022/2022scc38/2022scc38.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQALU0NDIDM4IDIwMjIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1" target="_blank">(SCC 38 2022)</a>.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Lauwers himself is a justice on the
Court of Appeal of Ontario and at no time in his version of the
sermon on the mount at Runnymede Society does he speak to the issue
of how these constraints in actuality work. What can be the
consequences that judges face if they breach the Rule of Law? Instead
he finishes his speech saying; “We judges cannot do whatever we
like. We are guardians of the Rule of Law and are also bound by it.
The system of justice expects we judges to honour our oaths and do
the right thing for the right reason, and in the right way, according
to law. But we need the support of the Rule of Law, in all the
mundane elements I have laid out earlier, to keep us on the right
track, and off the wrong track of embedding our subjective moral
commitments in law.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">This is when one realises that
whether one takes Mark Twain or Dale Carnegie's observation the
actions of an individual provide the real insight of the true nature
of that individual. The self-aggrandising speeches are equal to a
bald peacock strutting before your senses. If either Justice Lauwers
or Justice Paciocco see this as somewhat harsh or unfair then maybe
either Justice would like to comment on <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/03/judicial-cloak-of-protection.html" target="_blank">Court of Appeal file #M52839</a>,
Justice Thorburn would presumably remain silent as she did during the
actual hearing.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">From there a real strange event
from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, reported by both Maclean's
<a href="https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/oops-the-curious-case-of-the-wrong-judge/" target="_blank">(Oops: The curious case of the wrong judge, by Jason Markusoff, August 16, 2019)</a>, and by the National Post<a href="https://nationalpost.com/news/ruling-tossed-after-ontario-judge-signed-off-on-it-without-hearing-the-evidence" target="_blank"> (Ruling tossed after Ontario judge signed off on it without hearing the evidence, by J.Brean, August 16, 2019)</a>. It appeared that Justice Paciocco signed off
on a 25 page ruling without hearing the actual case. The Court of
Appeal in its usual mode of secrecy purged the file of many of the
documents and provided no explanation as to how did Justice Paciocco
sign a ruling with “I agree” when he did not hear the case.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Gore Vidal said, “On the throne
of the world, any delusion can become fact.” These words thrown
about by both Justices Lauwers and Paciocco show what may be considered
humility or reverence to the Rule of Law and all those who need its
protective embrace. Yet their actions proved something far more
alarming. Judges sit on a throne that we give them, they do not take
it by force or threat, and they sit there without consequence for
their actions.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Lauwers and Paciocco are not the
only examples of judicial corruption of the Rule of Law to suit their
subjective delusions of their power. Justice Paul R. Sweeny, Regional
Senior Judge for the Central South Region of the Superior Court in
St. Catharines, is a senior judge in the Niagara Region. Justice
Sweeny is fully aware of the Ethical Conduct for Judges as
recommended by the Canadian Judicial Council, he knows of what
constitutes issues of Conflict of Interest and Apprehension of Bias,
and he is fully aware of the Principles endorsed by the Supreme Court
on the treatment of self-represented litigants. Prior to becoming a
judge Paul Sweeny held the position of President of the Ontario Bar
Association. As president he was not an ordinary president, he was a
publicly loud and vocal protector of lawyers and their reputations. <a href="https://financialpost.com/legal-post/david-johnstons-speech-to-cba-gets-noticed" target="_blank">In an interview with the Financial Post Paul Sweeny said</a>, “I am not
a shark, a scumbag, mouthpiece or liar. Me and 99 of my colleagues
chained together at the bottom of the ocean is not a good start.”
This statement gave a good indication as to who Paul Sweeny was and
is.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif"><a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/09/self-represent-self-destruct.html" target="_blank">Justice Paul Sweeny decided on February 13, 2020 that he was going to hear a motion, in fact 5 motions, to strike claims by two self-represented litigants</a>. The
leading claim was against a lawyer, Rachel Goerz, for malicious
prosecution. Rachel Goerz was represented by a Toronto lawyer,
Michael Kestenberg of Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP. How could Justice
Paul Sweeny decide to hear a motion to strike a claim of malicious
prosecution against lawyer Rachel Goerz with his background? On this
alone the questions of bias and conflict of interest were huge. In
addition to questions of Apprehension of Bias, Justice Sweeny did not
disclose to the self-represented litigants the fact of his
background. Lawyer, Michael Kestenberg of Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus
LLP also knew of Sweeny's background, he too did not disclose the
facts. Full disclosure is a part of our Charter of Rights but it was
not of interest to Justice Sweeny.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Still this was not enough. Justice
Sweeny had a personal and business relationship with lawyer Michael
Kestenberg who was representing lawyer Rachel Goerz. Both Justice
Sweeny and lawyer Michael Kestenberg were directors on boards of
Fanconi Canada at the same time. Sweeny was a past director of
Fanconi Canada Inc. and Michael Kestenberg on the Board of Trustees.
If ever there was a clear example of conflict of interest that had to
be disclosed, this definitely was. Neither Justice Paul Sweeny nor
Officer of the Court, Lawyer Michael Kestenberg disclosed any of the
facts to the self-represented litigants. If either party wishes to
argue this, a transcript of the whole motion is available. </span><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">So there was no surprise as to Justice
Sweeny's decision on Superior Court file Davidoff v Paderewski 2020
ONSC 1171. Is it possible to say that a judge of the Superior Court
'fixed' a court hearing? Simply look at the evidence and decide.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif" style="background-color: red;"><b>Motion before Justice P. Sweeny, Superior Court of Justice, February 13, 2020</b></span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif"><br /></span></p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qS4vM5RJxeVONkUNnAwCCtv4c27Ft5EH/preview" width="640"></iframe>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b>
</b></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b>
<span face="Segoe UI, sans-serif">So much for Justice Lauwers and his
bloated hypocrisy that judges can't do what they want, that there are
constraints on the power of judges. Can Justice Lauwers answer how
was this possible if it is true that judges can't do what they want?</span></b></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">If
this is not enough then there is<a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/09/self-represent-self-destruct.html" target="_blank"> Court of Appeal for Ontario file numbers C68308 (Davidoff v Paderewski 2021 ONCA 194)</a> and file number
M52712. File number C68308 was an appeal of the decision by Justice
Sweeny The evidence provided to support the two major grounds for the
appeal of Apprehension of Bias and Non-Disclosure was undeniable and
absolutely conclusive. The appeal was heard by a panel consisting of
Justice Michal Fairburn, (president), van Rensburg and Huscroft JJ.A.
Justice Fairburn did all the talking and wrote the four sentence
decision. Fairburn simply said the case was not proven and dismissed
the appeal. No comment on the seriousness of the allegations or the
hard evidence. Justice Fairburn threw a protective blanket over a
fellow judge. Justices van Rensburg and Huscroft nodded in compliant
silence and indifference to law. This is power, power of corruption.
Later investigation revealed a personal connection between Justice
Fairburn and Justice Sweeny similar to Sweeny's and Kestenberg's.</span></p><b>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif"><a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-dark-face-of-canadas-justice.html" target="_blank">Court of Appeal file number M52712 was an astonishing breach of law by a judge</a> that simply has been permitted to have happen. It was a motion
to stay costs until a Leave to Appeal decision was made by the
Supreme Court. Courts of Justice Act s. 132 prohibits a judge to hear
a matter that the judge had previously heard and therefore has
self-interest in its outcome. Justice Fairburn decided to hear the
motion even though the Leave Application was related to an appeal
decision she made. Fairburn with premeditation breached the Courts of
Justice Act, principles of judicial conflict of interest, issues of
apprehension of bias, Charter of Rights, even Human Rights. Justice
Fairburn did not care.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">At the start the question asked was
whether one measures a judge by his or her own words or their
actions, and after examination the answer stands loud and clear.
Judges are given immense power over our lives and that power corrupts
even the most well intentioned. Society must find a middle ground
between judicial independence and the need to really constrain the
abuse of power providing real and tangible consequences for
identified abuses. Whether one listens to the sales pitch offered by
Justice Paciocco in his submission to the Judicial Advisory
Committee, or the bloated rhetoric of Justice Lauwers in his speech,
it becomes clear how empty each sounds. Associate Chief Justice for
Ontario, Justice Fairburn takes the abuse of power to a more
frightening level with premeditated breach of court of law. One could
possibly tip the hat and offer Kudos to Justice Sweeny, after all his
words were mirrored in his actions. As President of the OBA (Ontario
Bar Association) he stood for the protection of lawyers and their
reputations, and as a judge he was willing to breach all principles
and 'fix' a court hearing to that end.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">A quote by Abhijit Naskar, author
of The Art of Neuroscience in Everything may leave a seed to
germinate in the judicial sphere, or it may not. “It is easy to
fight power, when you have none, when you feel like the victim. The
real battle begins when you start to have a taste of power. It takes
an impossible character to stand by their principles till their last
breath, as well as the convenience of power.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Does such an “impossible
character” as a judge exist?</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif"><br /></span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">****</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Part 1 - <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/09/self-represent-self-destruct.html" target="_blank">Self Represent, Self Destruct</a></span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Part 2 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-dark-face-of-canadas-justice.html" target="_blank">Dark Face of Canada's Justice</a></span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Part 3 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/03/judicial-cloak-of-protection.html" target="_blank">Judicial Cloak of Protection</a></span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face=""Segoe UI", sans-serif">Part 4 - <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/07/supreme-court-of-canada-commits-highest.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court of Canada commits highest aberration of its own law</a></span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Part 6 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2023/02/are-there-consequences-for-judges.html" target="_blank">Are there consequences for a Judge's Breach of Law</a></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</p></b><p></p>mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-82114949769568541732022-07-24T19:25:00.002-04:002023-02-08T12:20:14.251-05:00Supreme Court of Canada commits highest aberration of its own law<p><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Supreme
Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of
Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate
application of Canadian Law. It was established in April 1875 and
authorised by the Constitution Act of 1867. On November 25<sup>th</sup>,
2021 the Supreme Court of Canada committed its greatest aberration of
its own previous decisions and work of two of decades.</i></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The
Supreme Court of Canada hears appeals from all over Canada, its
roster of nine judges is led by the Right Honourable Richard Wagner,
Chief Justice of Canada. Although applications for leave to appeal
come from all over the country, the SCC only hears approximately 2%
of those applying. Such low odds of approval for leave applications
leave many Canadians shattered as the Supreme Court of Canada is the
last and highest stage to attempt to redress 'judges' errors.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Prior
to 1949, the Supreme Court did not constitute the court of last
resort, litigants could appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council in London. Some cases could bypass the Supreme Court and go
directly to the Judicial Committee from the provincial courts of
appeal.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Criteria
at the Supreme Court for the acceptance of a leave application is
somewhat daunting. Most appeals are heard by the Court only if leave
is first given. Leave to appeal is granted by the Court if, for
example, the case involves a question of public importance or if it
raises an important issue of law (or an issue of both law and fact)
that warrants consideration by the Court. The Court's decision
whether to grant leave to appeal is based on its assessment of the
public importance of the legal issues raised in the case in question.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The
majority of applications for leave to appeal are decided by the Court
on the basis of written submissions filed by the parties. The Court
considers an average of 800 applications for leave to appeal each
year, and only approximately 2% are heard.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Canada's
Supreme Court is led by the Chief Justice of Canada, and currently it
is his Honourable Justice Richard Wagner who took office in December
2017. Justice Wagner was interviewed by Justice Michal Fairburn, of
the Court of Appeal for Ontario on June 8, 2018 at the Advocates
Society's annual End of Term dinner. At the informal Q&A by
Justice Michal Fairburn, Wagner said that one of his first
initiatives after being appointed Chief Justice of Canada in December
was to release summaries of legal decisions written in lay people's
language, along with full reasons in appeals. “We decided to find a
way to communicate better... to allow people to understand
decisions,” Wagner told Fairburn.<a href="https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/new-scc-chief-justice-speaks-at-advocates-end-of-term-dinner/275221"> (</a></span><a href="https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/new-scc-chief-justice-speaks-at-advocates-end-of-term-dinner/275221"><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">'New SCC chief justice speaks
at Advocates' End of Term dinner by Elizabeth Raymer, Canadian
Lawyer, June 8, 2018</i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">).</span></a></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Quoting
from the Supreme Court's <a href="https://www.scc-csc.ca/court-cour/role-eng.aspx">scc-csc.ca, Role of the Court</a> it states:
“The importance of the Court's decisions for Canadian society is
well recognised. The Court assures uniformity, consistency and
correctness in the articulation, development and interpretation of
legal principles throughout the Canadian judicial system.” These
are the Court's own words as published on their official site for all
to read. The Supreme Court assures us as Canadians “uniformity,
consistency and correctness” and this assurance is put in writing,
made public and not some hot rhetoric thrown about at a cocktail
party. All this uniformity and so forth is assured as a part of the
SCC's “articulation, development and interpretation of legal
principles throughout the Canadian judicial system.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">So
our Supreme Court of Canada assures, or guarantees us that it will
articulate, develop and interpret legal principles with </span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">uniformity,
consistency and correctness throughout</span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> </b><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">the Canadian
judicial system but what happens when it can be proven to be
absolutely not true? What if the evidence and proof is undeniable,
irrefutable and in the form its own documents and record? Who will
remedy the situation? Will the Chief Justice of Canada, the
Honourable Justice Wagner step forward? Our Supreme Court is the last
port of call for justice yet injustice appears to be its captain. If
injustice is proven beyond doubt, and assurances of uniformity,
consistency and correctness exposed as empty hollow sounds, then
should a remedy be immediate? A more alarming question comes forward
when one tries to understand where does one turn to get a remedy when
the evidence is undeniable? The Chief Justice of Canada, Honourable
Justice Richard Wagner would be the natural, logical individual who
would, or should investigate, but will he?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Our
Supreme Court has led the way to reinterpret legal principles and
develop a new set of principles. In cases such as <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc61/2009scc61.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQANZ3JhbnQgdG9yc3RhcgAAAAAB&resultIndex=1">Grant v Torstar</a> and
<a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc40/2008scc40.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQADd2ljAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1">WIC Radio Ltd v Simpson</a>, the law of Defamation was refined and new
defence was articulated. Issues of Apprehension of Bias relating to
decision makers had been discussed and standards of examination
advanced in <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc45/2003scc45.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAdd2V3YXlrdW0gaW5kaWFuIGJhbmQgdiBjYW5hZGEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1">Weywakum Indian Band v Canada</a>.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">One
question that has been brought before the Supreme Court is the issue
of Adequacy of Reasoning. The importance of this question cannot be
overstated. Just imagine presenting your case before a judge and that
judge tells you that you are wrong or you did not win, but did not
provide any reasons as to why your were wrong. The more serious an
issue before the judge the more serious the lack of adequate
reasoning becomes.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The
Supreme Court in its decision in <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc65/2019scc65.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAxY2FuYWRhIG1pbmlzdGVyIG9mIGNpdGl6ZW5zaGlwIHYgdmF2aWxvdiAyMDE5IHNjYwAAAAAB&resultIndex=1">Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov </a>2019 SCC 65, recognises the level of
importance of this at paragraph 4; “This area of the law concerns
matters which are fundamental to our legal and constitutional order,
and seeks to navigate the proper relationship between administrative
decision makers, the courts and individuals in our society.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">It
has been more than two decades since the Supreme Court has grappled
with the issue of procedural fairness as a legal obligation to
provide reasons for a decision. In <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii699/1999canlii699.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAOYmFrZXIgdiBjYW5hZGEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1">Baker v Canada</a> (Minister for
Citizenship and Immigration) 1999, 2 R.C.S. at paragraph 43
</span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">L'Heuruex-Dube J. writes: “In my opinion, it is now appropriate
to recognise that, in certain circumstances, the duty of procedural
fairness will require the provision of a written explanation for a
decision. The strong argument demonstrating the advantages of written
reasons suggest that, in cases such as this where the decision has
important significance for the individual, when there is statutory
right to appeal, or in other circumstances, some form of reasons
should be required. This requirement has been developing in common
law elsewhere. The circumstances at bar, in my opinion, constitute
one of the situations where reasons are necessary. The profound
importance of a decision to those affected, as with those at issue in
Orlowski, Cunningham and Doody, militates in favour of a requirement
that reasons be provided. It would be unfair for a person subject to
a decision such as this one which is so critical to their future</b><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">
</span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">not to be told why the result was reached.”</b></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">These two quotes from two decisions
of the Supreme Court some 20 years apart clearly point to the
importance the Court places on issues of reasoning being provided for
decisions. At least it seems that way.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The
Supreme Court's work on the issue of providing reasons for a decision
handed down had continued through over two decades. In another
Supreme Court decision, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc62/2011scc62.html">Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Council)</a> 2011 CSC 62 (2011) 3.
R.C.S. 708, </span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Abella J.A. wrote: “In Dunsmuir v New
Brunswick 2008 CSC 9 (2008) I.R.C.S. 190 which transformed
administrative law, this Court explained that the purpose of the
reasons, in cases where it is to be set out, is to establish “the
rationale for the decision (as well as) transparency and ...
intelligibility of the decision-making process.”</b><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">
(paragraph 47).</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Would it be difficult to understand
for anyone, an ordinary citizen or someone from the legal profession,
as to why reasons are required to be provided with a decision? In
case the clarity of the Supreme Court's efforts on this issue are
somehow missed, the Court in <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc51/2008scc51.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAMciB2IHJlbSAyMDA4AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1">R v R.E.M</a>. (2008) 3.5 C. R. at paragraph
11 provides three main functions for reasons:</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">“<span face="Calibri, sans-serif">1. Reasons tell the parties
affected by the decisions why the decision was made. As Lord Denning
[Lord Denning was a judge who sat on the highest court in the U.K,
the House of Lords] remarked on the desirability of giving reasons,
“by so doing (the judge) gives proof that he has heard and
considered the evidence and arguments that have been addressed before
him on each side; and also that he has taken extraneous
considerations into account.” The Road to Justice (1955) at
paragraph 29.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">2. Reasons provide public
accountability of the judicial decision; justice is not only done,
but is seen to be done. Thus it has been said that the main object of
a judgement, “is not only to do but to seem to do justice,” Lord
Macmillan, The Writing of Judgements (1948) 26 Can Bar Rev. 491 at p.
491.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">3. Reasons permit effective
appellate review. A clear articulation of the factual findings
facilitates the correction of errors and enables appeal courts to
discern the inferences drawn, while at the same inhibiting appeal
courts from making factual determinations from the lifeless
transcript of evidence, with the increased risk of factual error.”
M. Taggart 'Should Canadian judges be legally required to give
reasoned decisions in civil cases' (1983), 33 U.T.L.J. 1 at p.7”.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif">All these quotations and references
to previous cases are important to note. Cases heard, decisions made
by the Supreme Court become 'case law' for lower courts to follow,
and one would expect for the Supreme Court itself to follow. The
consistency, uniformity and correctness assured by this highest court
in the country is in fact nothing more than hypocrisy and a myth. All
these previous decisions quoted were in fact erased by the Court on
November 25, 2021 in their decision for SCC case file #39748, and
just as a final sale at Walmart there is no return or exchange.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">An
attempt has been made to reach out to the Chief Justice of Canada,
the Honourable Richard Wagner regarding this issue, but little is
expected regardless of the speeches on communication and transparency
by Justice Wagner.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKnk3ak0ZOgaTzaW6-xxmjoHZomN7Mbc5BabKj2U-dZvfBa7aNEXJS_K80AZJNAi0btTIIq8BMKBTp4BHN7w3A-a-CW_TBl-ko77Pa7HQ6t2GUlCnOgR5kzEflvkQW94kkbA-70VQGJyyUdd17f_zmVQQ9fxEFqxPdoeoLV-f3vCASrzxBEgIzImqvCQ/s3504/1.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKnk3ak0ZOgaTzaW6-xxmjoHZomN7Mbc5BabKj2U-dZvfBa7aNEXJS_K80AZJNAi0btTIIq8BMKBTp4BHN7w3A-a-CW_TBl-ko77Pa7HQ6t2GUlCnOgR5kzEflvkQW94kkbA-70VQGJyyUdd17f_zmVQQ9fxEFqxPdoeoLV-f3vCASrzxBEgIzImqvCQ/w464-h640/1.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br /></p><br /><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></span><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC_1fHmjKNzHLsYQ5SXSh0U6kDRTRgCzqOTEU6VS2mq93SUB_--EADXs-X21dtKMRmI8Mq0-pmJOg0B-gLIgnPmKZlD5DxvYryGhibcoILxsEvHexfxop4kOvFgSOdFhsfYJwQBvvuEFjPT6GUbsMbTbAxgvGqovNaaA_y0xICaiExaVL7q5FLwWYpvw/s3504/2.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC_1fHmjKNzHLsYQ5SXSh0U6kDRTRgCzqOTEU6VS2mq93SUB_--EADXs-X21dtKMRmI8Mq0-pmJOg0B-gLIgnPmKZlD5DxvYryGhibcoILxsEvHexfxop4kOvFgSOdFhsfYJwQBvvuEFjPT6GUbsMbTbAxgvGqovNaaA_y0xICaiExaVL7q5FLwWYpvw/w464-h640/2.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnTwFY7N3YrHqf7kUReZlxCD0uRFBAuIiXO-IOxaRzSsVpi4hG2YXXVFYYOxHk___z6xR3CgLWOiSdhtGoa67L25EGqaOMygTT5stZ4pCa9Pydc_pmZe4qcT-jjvHHYyLO-T_ZkgA9gWtGmpx0MhV5mIZxX9FaL9AQx_ZVJtJbWPPMg897K4fPD1F4ow/s3504/3.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnTwFY7N3YrHqf7kUReZlxCD0uRFBAuIiXO-IOxaRzSsVpi4hG2YXXVFYYOxHk___z6xR3CgLWOiSdhtGoa67L25EGqaOMygTT5stZ4pCa9Pydc_pmZe4qcT-jjvHHYyLO-T_ZkgA9gWtGmpx0MhV5mIZxX9FaL9AQx_ZVJtJbWPPMg897K4fPD1F4ow/w464-h640/3.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><br />
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Filing an Application for Leave to
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is not one full of confidence,
with the success rate only at 2% of all applications. Yet with the
Court's record on the issue of Adequate Reasoning we, my daughter and
I, felt that our application would have to be heard. Our main ground
for the appeal was the absolute lack of reasoning from a decision by
the Court of Appeal for Ontario.</span></p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cYkrKZE9qkSv62fJprUpyOW4gN51NM9J/preview" width="640"></iframe>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><b>Application for Leave to Appeal - Supreme Court of Canada File No. 39748</b></span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Justice Michal Fairburn, ACJO of the
COA wrote the decision, with Justice Katherine van Rensburg and
Justice Grant Huscroft JJ.A signing in agreement. That decision read;
“The appellants raise one ground of appeal. They are of the view
that the dismissal of their claims involves a reasonable apprehension
of bias. Although they correctly articulate the legal test for a
reasonable apprehension of bias, in our view, there is no basis to
support this very serious legal claim. Moreover, there is no basis to
support the suggestion made by the appellants that any counsel on
this matter behaved inappropriately.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">All three judges, Fairburn, van
Rensburg and Huscroft agreed that this was a “very serious legal
claim” that was put before them. Yet their decision defied every
concept of logic and stood in arrogant opposition to two decades of
work by the Supreme Court. Our application for leave was allocated a
file number and confidence grew that the Supreme Court would not,
could not allow this to pass without a full appeal to be heard.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The appeal that the COA dismissed
without providing any reasoning, without acknowledging the concrete
undeniable evidence was based on apprehension of bias. It was based
on a motion, in fact five motions, <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/09/self-represent-self-destruct.html">heard by Justice Paul Sweeny of the Superior Court in St. Catharines</a>.</span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> </b><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Justice Sweeny did not disclose his past position as president of
the OBA, (Ontario Bar Association) nor did Justice Sweeny disclose
his personal association to counsel Michael Kestenberg. Counsel
Michael Kestenberg did not disclose his personal association with
Justice Sweeny, nor did counsel Kestenberg disclose his knowledge of
Justice Sweeny's position with the OBA. A fair-minded individual,
given all the details of the situation may easily see this, in
colloquial terms, as a fixed court hearing. Could anyone excuse it as
a judge's error? On the other hand could any Canadian believe that
such a thing could happen in a Canadian court?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Whatever confidence we may have had
with a file number allocated, case laws that we studied and filed
with our leave application and trust we had in Canada's Supreme
Court, all of it was wiped away. On November 25, 2021 the Supreme
Court simply dismissed our leave application. Naturally this was done
in secret and we cannot know which of the nine judges chose to make
this decision, nor were we given any reasoning.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: normal; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGWmZ5IH0S9qaHDJ7uBehnVYgwGS2ohVTNIqXotel9MDAFIL0Kg7UPR96b-B_heU8GucIaXrs6DK3BzJ5Tc5HO6GcOTyhQBjrgR1_aCweS3GJNNufuSF1N7jysWtPFRS6FhB_7MfNpeRjiSVQtIEjwijaLCCqd05dAFHjUutrqvhtx5BTCJrsawpL0oA/s3504/Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Alexandra%20Davidoff%20v%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing%20.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGWmZ5IH0S9qaHDJ7uBehnVYgwGS2ohVTNIqXotel9MDAFIL0Kg7UPR96b-B_heU8GucIaXrs6DK3BzJ5Tc5HO6GcOTyhQBjrgR1_aCweS3GJNNufuSF1N7jysWtPFRS6FhB_7MfNpeRjiSVQtIEjwijaLCCqd05dAFHjUutrqvhtx5BTCJrsawpL0oA/w464-h640/Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Alexandra%20Davidoff%20v%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing%20.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><br /><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><b>Supreme Court of Canada Notice of Dismissal</b></span><p></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The
Supreme Court itself wrote in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) v Vavilov (2019), at paragraph 19; “On this point, we
recall the observations of Gibbs J, in Queensland v Commonwealth
(1977) 139 C.L.R. 585 (H.C.A) which this Court endorsed in Craig, at
para 26.</span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> No justice is to ignore the decisions and
reasoning of his predecessors, and to arrive at his own judgement as
though the pages of the law reports were blank, or as though the
authority of a decision did not survive beyond the rising of the
Court. A Justice, unlike a legislator, cannot introduce a programme
of reform which sets at nought decisions formerly made and principles
formerly established. It is only after the most careful and
respectful consideration of the earlier decision, and after giving
due weight to all the circumstances, that a Justice may give effort
to his own opinions in preference to an earlier decision of the
Court.”</b></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">This quote from the Supreme Court
decision in Vavilov came in 2019, and it was an agreed joint
reasoning for judgement, from paragraphs 1 to 197 by Justices;
Richard Wagner, Michael Moldaver, Clement Gascon, Suzanne Cote,
Russell Brown, Malcolm Rowe, and Sheilah Martin. Two other judges,
Justice Rosalie Abella and Justice Andromache Karakatsanis also wrote
a joint concurring reasoning spanning paragraphs 198 to 343.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">In the concurring reasoning Justices
Abella and Karakatsanis dealt with the issues of </span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Stare Decisis,</i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">
precedents or prior decisions, in greater depth. At paragraph 256;
“Apex courts in several jurisdictions outside Canada have similarly
stressed the need for caution and compelling justification before
departing from precedent. The United States Supreme Court refrains
from overruling its past decisions absent a “special
justification,” which must be over and above the belief that a
prior case was wrongly decided.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Paragraph 257; “Similarly, the
House of Lords “require[d] much more than doubts as to the
correctness of [a past decision] to justify departing form it.”
Then Paragraph 258: “New Zealand's Supreme Court views “caution,
often considerable caution” as the “touchstone” of its approach
to horizontal stare decisis, and has emphasized that it will not
depart from precedent “merely because, if the matter were being
decided a fresh, the Court might take a different view.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Paragraph 259; “Restraint and
respect for precedent also guide the High Court of Australia and
South Africa's Constitutional Court when applying stare decisis.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Paragraph 260; “The virtues of
horizontal stare decisis are widely recognized. This doctrine
“promotes the even handed, predictable, and consistent development
of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and
contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial
process.” (Kimble, at p. 2409, citing Payne v Tennesee, 501 U.S.
808 (1991). This Court has stressed the importance of stare decisis
for “[c]ertainty in the law.” Other courts have described stare
decisis as a “foundation stone of the rule of law.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Stare
Decisis</i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"> is a Latin term
meaning “to stand by things decided,” and a court doctrine not
only in Canada but in the United Kingdom, United States of America,
Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. It has been a guide for
judges for decades building uniformity in the rule of law and has
become a foundation stone of the rule of law. To ignore it is to
overturn all the work of the Court and open the flood gates to
questioning previous decisions.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Our
leave application was dismissed by a panel or maybe a single judge of
the Supreme Court and no one will identify the judge or judges. This
secret from the highest court in Canada further exposes the hypocrisy
of our justice system. Whether it is the current Chief Justice of
Canada, Justice Wagner or our past Chief Justice, Justice Beverley
McLachlin, rhetoric of transparency appears to be based on matters of
convenience. Not only are the decision makers shrouded in a cloak but
the decision is camouflaged by the fact that no reason is provided.
The decision to dismiss our application for leave to appeal by the
judges of the Supreme Court was an affront to the Court doctrine of
S</span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">tar Decisis</i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">.
Our leave application was based on the question of Adequacy of
Reasoning, in fact the complete absence of reason in a decision
written by Justice Fairburn, ACJO of the COA. Ample case law,
precedent, was filed in the form of a Book of Authorities. Cases such
as R v Sheppard, Clifford v The Attorney General of Ontario and
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Before the COA on appeal was an
extremely serious question on the Apprehension of Bias against a
judge of the Superior Court in St. Catharines, Justice Paul Sweeny.
Our appeal was based on absolute fact and undeniable evidence of the
facts of the matter, all were provided with the filing. The decision
written by Justice Fairburn did not acknowledge the damning evidence
in any form. Of equal importance is that Justice Fairburn completely
ignored the issue of Non- Disclosure by both Justice Sweeny and
Counsel Michael Kestenberg.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Justice Fairburn in her written
decision stated that we made only one ground of appeal – the
apprehension of bias. It is hard to understand such an error by a
judge who read the Factum, the filed evidence and listened to my oral
submission. The issue of non-disclosure was equally as important and
was highlighted in the Factum and in the oral submission. As evidence
a transcript was filed to ensure no denial was possible. A fully
informed and fair-minded individual upon examining all the evidence
may come to the conclusion that the deliberate decision made by
Justice Sweeny and Counsel Michael Kestenberg of their association,
and of Sweeny's past position might be an attempt to remove the
impartiality from the court hearing for personal gain. Was the
non-disclosure decided on because we are self-represented litigants?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Since Justice Fairburn 'erroneously'
stated in her written decision that we raised only one ground of
appeal, then can her fourth and final sentence be explained? She
wrote; “Moreover, there is no basis to support the suggestion made
by the appellants that any counsel on this matter behaved
inappropriately.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">We did not make any 'suggestion'.
The Oxford Dictionary describes suggestion as “an idea or plan put
forward for consideration.” We stated in our Factum and oral
submission that Counsel Michael Kestenberg had not disclosed his
association with Justice Sweeny nor did Michael Kestenberg as counsel
for Rachel Goerz disclose Justice Sweeny's association with the
Ontario Bar Association. It was a clear fact not an “idea”
supported with evidence in the form of a transcript of the hearing.
At the same time neither of the other two counsels disclosed
anything, both Kristen Bailey and Scott Crocco remained silent.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The
Supreme Court had before them what could be called an open and shut
case. It fell within the parameters of all the precedent setting
cases the Supreme Court had ruled on. Case law was filed in the form
of a Book of Authorities. If the Court's own decisions were not
enough than a COA decision <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca670/2009onca670.html">Clifford v The Attorney General of Ontario</a>
et al. at its opening page states;</span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> “Procedural
fairness imposed a legal obligation on the Tribunal to give reasons
for its decisions. The standard of review of the obligation to give
reasons is correctness. The sufficiency of reasons must be assessed
functionally. In the context of administrative law, reasons must be
sufficient to fulfill the purpose required of them, particularly to
let the individual whose rights, privileges or interests are affected
know why the decision was made and to permit effective judicial
review.”</b></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">What more did the Court need? </span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Stare
Decisis</i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"> would have expected, even demanded that leave application
be approved and such miscarriage of justice remedied. Justices Abella
and Karakatsanis had clearly and succinctly put the Court's position
on stare decisis publicly. It is the foundation of the Rule of Law.
So why did the Court dismiss our application for leave to appeal? Why
has the country's chief justice refused to respond as the Honourable
Justice Robert Wagner has?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">A more alarming and disturbing
question, when one examines the facts further our application was
dismissed on November 25, 2021 and the Vavilov judgement was rendered
on December 19, 2019. That is a little more than 18 months apart. All
nine judges of the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Wagner, and Justices
Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Cote, Brown, Rowe and Martin
agreed jointly on the Vavilov judgement, including the additional
reasoning by Justices Abella and Karakatsanis. When the application
for leave was dismissed two of the originating justices who signed
the Vavilov judgement had resigned. Justice Abella and Justice Gascon
were replaced by Justice Nicholas Kasirer and Justice Mahmud Jamal.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Now comes the question, of the nine
originating justices seven were left at the time of the dismissal of
our leave application. Which of the justices who agreed upon and
signed the Vavilov decision and its lengthy reasoning, then some 18
months later overturn that reasoning? Which of the same justices
decided to discard “clarity and certainty in the law”? (paragraph
263 from Vavilov).</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Aharon Barak described by Princeton
Press as, “one of the world's foremost judges and legal theorists,”
is a lawyer, former President of the Supreme Court of Israel,
(1995-2006) a justice of the Supreme Court of Israel (1978-1995), a
professor of law who taught at Yale Law School, Georgetown University
Law Centre and the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, published in
the Israel Law Review Journal 'Overruling Precedent' (1986). At page
275 he states; </span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">“overruling precedent damages the public's
conception of the judicial role, and undermines the respect in which
the public holds the courts and its faith in them. Precedent should
not resemble a ticket valid only for the day of purchase.”</b></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">To return to Vavilov again at
paragraph 261; “Respect for precedent also safeguards this Court's
institutional legitimacy. The precedential value of a judgement of
this Court does not expire with the tenure of the particular panel of
judges that decided it.” </span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">In this case the same judges who
provided these words overturned the very words they had provided! </b><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">In
paragraph 263; “The majority's reasons, in our view, disregard the
high threshold required to overturn one of this Court's decisions.”
</span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">What was the threshold reached in dismissing our application for
leave and overturning the Court's own precedent developed over years
of deliberation?</b></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Precedents were set by the Supreme
Court of Canada on the issue of providing adequate reasons for
decisions. Which of these past decisions did this panel disagree
with? Was it R v R.E.M. Or Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, or was it
Newfoundland & Labrador Nurses Union v Newfoundland &
Labrador Treasury Council, or maybe Baker v Canada (Minister for
Citizenship & Immigration?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Back to Vavilov and these judges'
own words in paragraph 266; “Overruling these judgements flouts
stare decisis principles, which prohibit courts from overturning past
decisions which “simply represent a preferred choice with which the
current bench does not agree.” (Couch at para 105). </span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Did the
current bench not like who was at the centre of the application for
leave to appeal? “The entire idea of stare decisis is that judges
do not get to reverse a decision just because they never liked it in
the first instance.”</b></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">What was the basis for the decision
to dismiss? How was the application seen not to fall completely and
succinctly into the form of precedents already dealt with by the
Court? Who made the decision to dismiss and why is the process for
decision making so sensitive? </span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Stare Decisis</i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"> as a revered court
practice had been wiped from existence by this dismissal and
hypocrisy put in its place.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Reading these quotes delivered by
learned men and women of our judiciary, justices who shape our
democratic rule of law and its interpretation, then examining the
dismissal of SCC file #39748 and one is left aghast. Justice Rosalie
Abella is quoted saying, “The good faith in Canada's judges, the
wisdom and intelligence is extraordinary. I don't have a slight
hesitation [in] their ability to deliver justice to the Canadian
public.” <a href="https://www.lerners.ca/lernx/examinations-2022-charting-a-course-through-challenging-appellate-terrain/">('Examinations 2022 – Changing a Course Through
Challenging Appellate Terrain, Lerners.ca, March 9, 2022)</a>.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFJBoDD9D8Pidc34FgK_McchvE-t-DMvXskWLsDBguFJRrQe582EYfc_fSuCUz3b6PxLqwg1PthdDkfGTAYsUlgOqBtTUW7saT1q5P0pXFhDHDTnmXbgMIHA7V78mXPS31PDe-NrWmfCkLSkG9GyI5oWLTNoFBzRCVmVVhwNvCA3B7-699NC-v6p9W2g/s3504/a.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFJBoDD9D8Pidc34FgK_McchvE-t-DMvXskWLsDBguFJRrQe582EYfc_fSuCUz3b6PxLqwg1PthdDkfGTAYsUlgOqBtTUW7saT1q5P0pXFhDHDTnmXbgMIHA7V78mXPS31PDe-NrWmfCkLSkG9GyI5oWLTNoFBzRCVmVVhwNvCA3B7-699NC-v6p9W2g/w464-h640/a.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2YUI5rVKJipXBLB8XxOHmP9-21s7y-eWYY0kZOgaDggdbDkkDvXAgO-04RFbQ5MK22PurLBoh10J38DN5y0G_ill6OMEnp5Eq0oClEQV2EpX82NUanQqywNrqw0Vo9VKeugMXtm1ZEsn-afyw_vvTVoJRLM_wvqS9w6SbW_CUUejd0vGCZt11aRoh8Q/s3504/b.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2YUI5rVKJipXBLB8XxOHmP9-21s7y-eWYY0kZOgaDggdbDkkDvXAgO-04RFbQ5MK22PurLBoh10J38DN5y0G_ill6OMEnp5Eq0oClEQV2EpX82NUanQqywNrqw0Vo9VKeugMXtm1ZEsn-afyw_vvTVoJRLM_wvqS9w6SbW_CUUejd0vGCZt11aRoh8Q/w464-h640/b.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><br /><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></span><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUSEJCXZVsULJlLS6vOa4OM3ZLOXIYJvhTKTKxR9fAV_JT9IdWqTfqx7MXbTVVlQbr9ZLfYZPqfodc7ssG0IkmppHLifRr5bZMN5eAemt-hDciIOczley9ktX6MoXk5VFxksLy-LFt7Lk0bo-2kwasv1Zko5nvZc6k66nDi4ut9drtMaB-b01h3LK9wQ/s3504/c.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUSEJCXZVsULJlLS6vOa4OM3ZLOXIYJvhTKTKxR9fAV_JT9IdWqTfqx7MXbTVVlQbr9ZLfYZPqfodc7ssG0IkmppHLifRr5bZMN5eAemt-hDciIOczley9ktX6MoXk5VFxksLy-LFt7Lk0bo-2kwasv1Zko5nvZc6k66nDi4ut9drtMaB-b01h3LK9wQ/w464-h640/c.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_xxw8sch7XfuC2i5VIyveZK-mRqXDY9V_ELZ3c7tY8uBwfEgmT4uCc8pB7C6o-GDPDwdKWBoW4BfLuf2hZ_rYGDPBkP2QkuLwdwHHP7vCdolqPVU_i4TKUutcasuDXW9rtbqJ13gUY3MwTy2EsrWj2XM_7UJXLdJGiiUTHAU7PROYPKrXvEoavooibA/s3504/d.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_xxw8sch7XfuC2i5VIyveZK-mRqXDY9V_ELZ3c7tY8uBwfEgmT4uCc8pB7C6o-GDPDwdKWBoW4BfLuf2hZ_rYGDPBkP2QkuLwdwHHP7vCdolqPVU_i4TKUutcasuDXW9rtbqJ13gUY3MwTy2EsrWj2XM_7UJXLdJGiiUTHAU7PROYPKrXvEoavooibA/w464-h640/d.%20Honourable%20Richard%20Wagner,%20Chief%20Justice%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Alexander%20Davidoff,%20Rachel%20Goerz,%20Paderewski%20Society%20Home%20(Niagara),%20Niagara%20Regional%20Housing.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><br /><div><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Another attempt has been made to
contact the Chief Justice of Canada, Justice Richard Wagner on June
6, 2022. To date of writing the only response has been an automated
acknowledgement of receipt and nothing else, then on July 13</span><sup style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">th</sup><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">
a letter from the Supreme Court arrived. Mind you it was only on
behalf of Chief Justice Wagner with an opening ... “This is further
to your letters to the Chief Justice of Canada of March 7, 2022 and
June 6, 2022.” This letter was signed by a Chantal Carbonneau a
registrar, not a senior registrar or a deputy but simply a registrar.</span></div><div><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOKsktdT8Xx3myX0nJ9MBqCfEhG0n9wTA8dv-sPNgMy-CPie63jzjb8Q7P-3L9FEM9jpaJl55YzrFVyrfguvqBJKhyt30VjROCbBFvdAyhb8t0sMYhTQS0kBZv_1K4oZia0ZsW3ugInEf0GE4JCIdTuFnvUK11cUeYhTbLd_LjEgUrYSxoFbBH-fb9BA/s3504/I.%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada%20Registry,%20Registrar,%20Chantal%20Carbonneau,%20Chief%20Justice%20of%20Canada,%20Justice%20Wagner.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOKsktdT8Xx3myX0nJ9MBqCfEhG0n9wTA8dv-sPNgMy-CPie63jzjb8Q7P-3L9FEM9jpaJl55YzrFVyrfguvqBJKhyt30VjROCbBFvdAyhb8t0sMYhTQS0kBZv_1K4oZia0ZsW3ugInEf0GE4JCIdTuFnvUK11cUeYhTbLd_LjEgUrYSxoFbBH-fb9BA/w464-h640/I.%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada%20Registry,%20Registrar,%20Chantal%20Carbonneau,%20Chief%20Justice%20of%20Canada,%20Justice%20Wagner.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2J9NkEwmWdkqPRaXWNuEJARRDKJJRMLHfRQgdai8kBBfpcR8MH095_1bEXxcZ-gXBumF4zHOT5xMQC3jUOf8REn86zsDKrZG42K0aJ-dvJG2Ti2glZRA5nyt3f6KMcja6Hd-ufTnKy5MbAxhtFvMsRG-3zOQgNEhuBkl1TOUgE3v51TWxfzs3hizBdg/s3504/II.%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Registrar,%20Chantal%20Carbonneau,%20Chief%20Justice%20Wagner.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2J9NkEwmWdkqPRaXWNuEJARRDKJJRMLHfRQgdai8kBBfpcR8MH095_1bEXxcZ-gXBumF4zHOT5xMQC3jUOf8REn86zsDKrZG42K0aJ-dvJG2Ti2glZRA5nyt3f6KMcja6Hd-ufTnKy5MbAxhtFvMsRG-3zOQgNEhuBkl1TOUgE3v51TWxfzs3hizBdg/w464-h640/II.%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Canada,%20Registrar,%20Chantal%20Carbonneau,%20Chief%20Justice%20Wagner.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><br /><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></span></div>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">There is no way of knowing who wrote
the letter but one fact is true, it is bedazzled with empty hollow
words that do not answer either of the letters to the Chief Justice
of Canada Wagner. Ms. Carbonneau again explains how many applications
are received by the Supreme Court and how many are granted. She then
states that the court does not reconsider decisions “unless there
are exceedingly rare circumstances in the case that warrant
consideration by the court.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The Chief Justice of Canada Richard
Wagner was asked how was it possible that he and his judges decided
to breach </span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">stare decisis </i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">with such disregard to their own, very
own words. He as the Chief Justice of this country had been given
direct evidence of a senior judge who decided to with premeditation
to break the law. The response was something that left a logical mind
numb with disbelief. Justice Wagner's mouthpiece said, “As for your
concerns pertaining to the practices of a judge, the Court is only
empowered to consider matters that have arisen on appeal from the
decisions of the highest courts of final resort of the provinces.”
These matters did arise on appeal from the highest court in Ontario
and were committed by the second highest judge in the province!</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">In the end, one can decide for
themselves if this reply was better received or not. Justice Wagner's
multitude of public statements on better communication, transparency
and accountability are shown for what they really are.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Part One - <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/09/self-represent-self-destruct.html">Self-Represent, Self Destruct</a></span>
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Part Two - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-dark-face-of-canadas-justice.html">The Dark Face of
Canada's Justice</a></span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Part Three - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/03/judicial-cloak-of-protection.html">Judicial Cloak of Protection</a></span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br /></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Part Five - <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/12/what-is-measure-of-judge.html" target="_blank">What is the Measure of a Judge</a></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br /></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Part Six - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2023/02/are-there-consequences-for-judges.html" target="_blank">Are there consequences for a Judge's Breach of Law</a></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> </div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> </div><br />mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-34455779141319063652022-06-11T13:48:00.000-04:002022-06-11T13:48:40.851-04:00Order UP!<p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcn1Ux0Bv7L0t6F6p4rkzqKp1m-SStl33WOW9iEec0cD3X2FoWgbB9F8bKjNZWWKIBXuXUotZpJcJCdol-jFkx8lbBnZgiqywMHpsnPGYhXPzb01PLtvuX7XkrDDb-GNWaQ77nJpd9Zu6whUGp3PMKLGSVEIre17tl9jgCKvHH61wnplYz8UGFH0IVnQ/s720/Court%20of%20Appeal%20for%20Ontario,%20Osgoode%20Hall,%20Toronto.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="528" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcn1Ux0Bv7L0t6F6p4rkzqKp1m-SStl33WOW9iEec0cD3X2FoWgbB9F8bKjNZWWKIBXuXUotZpJcJCdol-jFkx8lbBnZgiqywMHpsnPGYhXPzb01PLtvuX7XkrDDb-GNWaQ77nJpd9Zu6whUGp3PMKLGSVEIre17tl9jgCKvHH61wnplYz8UGFH0IVnQ/w470-h640/Court%20of%20Appeal%20for%20Ontario,%20Osgoode%20Hall,%20Toronto.jpeg" width="470" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: red;">Iron Palisade - Court of Appeal for Ontario,<br />Osgoode Hall, Toronto</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /> <i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Wikipedia
describes a Court Order as “an official proclamation by a judge
that defines the legal relationship between the parties to a hearing,
a trial, an appeal or other court proceedings.”</i></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">A
Court Order is the final step issued by a judge after a court matter
is concluded. That being said there are many different types of
orders including some that can be requested during the process of a
matter being heard. For instance Family Court can issue a temporary
Order relating to children's schooling whilst a divorce procedure is
in progress. Here for the purpose of this discussion or analysis it
is a relatively common order issued after the hearing of a motion by
the court.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The
Order that is required is from the Court of Appeal for Ontario after
a Panel Motion was heard by Justices Lauwers, Paciocco and Thorburn.
Although an oral decision had been provided at the conclusion of the
hearing, the written judgement was reserved until January 11, 2022.
After the written judgement is issued usually the winning side to the
action draws up a Draft Order. Each party to the action is first
provided with a copy of the draft order to examine and agree on form
and content. Once consent is obtained then the draft order is filed
with the court's Registrar to be issued.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Here
is when the whole process becomes convoluted in an apparent attempt
of distortion of the facts. As stated an order can only state the
facts from the actual hearing, nothing more or nothing less.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">A
panel motion was heard at the Court of Appeal for Ontario on December
8, 2021. The moving party were Alexander Davidoff and Alexandra
Davidoff, (my daughter and I). Responding party was Rachel Goerz,
represented by counsel Michael Kestenberg of Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus
LLP. Rachel Goerz and her counsel, Michael Kestenberg were the only
responding party who filed material in opposing the motion and had
made oral submissions at the motion hearing, and cost submissions at
the conclusion of the hearing. Appearing only as an observer was
counsel for the Paderewski Society Home (Niagara), Kristen Bailey, assistant to
Vanda Santini of Agro Zaffiro LLP. Kristen Bailey had appeared on
behalf of Ms. Santini from the beginning with the <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/09/self-represent-self-destruct.html">Motion heard in Superior Court in St. Catharines</a> by Justice Paul Sweeny in 2020. </span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Kristen
Bailey nor Vanda Santini opposed the motion, they had not filed any
material on behalf of their client, nor had Kristen Bailey made any
submissions. As a lawyer Bailey had enough experience, being called
to the Bar in 2017 to know what an observer is, for that matter
Michael Kestenberg with a great deal more experience than Kristen
Bailey, knew that Bailey was only an observer, he took part in the
hearing. Yet on January 19, 2022, Michael Kestenberg sent a copy of
the Draft Order seeking consent, that simply was astounding.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">In
his draft order, Michael Kestenberg said: “On Reading the
Applicants' Motion Record, Factum and Book of Authorities, the
Responding Factum, of the Responding Party, Rachel Goerz, and on
hearing submissions of the Applicants on their own behalf and counsel
on behalf of Responding Parties, Rachel Goerz and Paderewski Society
Home (Niagara).”</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdH_r18LXt8XLpFA34ZXRDqJfrYdoJbYd9ICnHh3Y8IMbfEmPSaGY1HhngBqIH9w4VTmFpSGXZXNQrqvr2pMxbOUoGxJGgaVAU-Q8feQ_OBGmPOE1sbjKxnppALTmnQ_ZCcTmvIkmQWbB6CpXzUCrH26Ur-Lp_NEv2JMEfzyb7MjDRX69hvY9er8_IwQ/s3504/1.%20Michael%20Kestenberg,%20Kestenberg%20Siegal%20Lipkus%20LLP.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdH_r18LXt8XLpFA34ZXRDqJfrYdoJbYd9ICnHh3Y8IMbfEmPSaGY1HhngBqIH9w4VTmFpSGXZXNQrqvr2pMxbOUoGxJGgaVAU-Q8feQ_OBGmPOE1sbjKxnppALTmnQ_ZCcTmvIkmQWbB6CpXzUCrH26Ur-Lp_NEv2JMEfzyb7MjDRX69hvY9er8_IwQ/w464-h640/1.%20Michael%20Kestenberg,%20Kestenberg%20Siegal%20Lipkus%20LLP.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><br /><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></span><p></p><p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz2EhR-73w1sxqsYU1kYv5acG79RMC9dSqYDlHOy5edmiQTO697apuFRmThZctOgrd-uEPGvHykbk6X1mb-M2YvAxmoTIxxcaZCwHDquys-WCA8MDMbWtt8EulnkpUN7OeCVIfuNE5VH5qypNgOkvIlAiFJcTrmgQPEghcpQadwQ02C39V0cESg9sgqg/s2948/1.%20Draft%20Order,%20Michael%20Kestenberg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2948" data-original-width="2516" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz2EhR-73w1sxqsYU1kYv5acG79RMC9dSqYDlHOy5edmiQTO697apuFRmThZctOgrd-uEPGvHykbk6X1mb-M2YvAxmoTIxxcaZCwHDquys-WCA8MDMbWtt8EulnkpUN7OeCVIfuNE5VH5qypNgOkvIlAiFJcTrmgQPEghcpQadwQ02C39V0cESg9sgqg/w546-h640/1.%20Draft%20Order,%20Michael%20Kestenberg.jpg" width="546" /></a></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9YItmA0roi22Vq_FMPMrXGn0qcJAOfdVRUTD0jTtx7gkO6tFSI2AGxucpC6uIfDmn4NjlTIZ70QCQwoxMBPcHZX59n73ADyR9zc7lvvtzW23xGVqXcEymSAAZBnGtAeVPoXRYQmhF7Zu-syvIY4CVwxi0V_iWonmlgqVzEN8yCPww_e4AcLcHT9kTqA/s2495/1.%20Draft%20Order,%20Michael%20Kestenberg,%20page%202.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1062" data-original-width="2495" height="170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9YItmA0roi22Vq_FMPMrXGn0qcJAOfdVRUTD0jTtx7gkO6tFSI2AGxucpC6uIfDmn4NjlTIZ70QCQwoxMBPcHZX59n73ADyR9zc7lvvtzW23xGVqXcEymSAAZBnGtAeVPoXRYQmhF7Zu-syvIY4CVwxi0V_iWonmlgqVzEN8yCPww_e4AcLcHT9kTqA/w400-h170/1.%20Draft%20Order,%20Michael%20Kestenberg,%20page%202.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: red;">Michael Kestenberg's Draft Order of January 19, 2022</span><br /><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>Kestenberg
knew that Kristen Bailey, counsel for the Paderewski Society Home
(Niagara) was only an observer, she made no submissions. Why would a
lawyer with years of experience misrepresent the truth? Justice
Lauwers had awarded Bailey $200.00 in costs as an observer!
Regardless of that fact an order cannot state something that is
untrue, and if it is not true then logically it is the opposite. This
same Draft Order had to be sent to Vanda Santini for approval and
consent to form and content. If Ms. Santini approved the Draft Order
then serious questions arise. Sandra Napier, Mr. Kestenberg's
assistant, did not divulge whether Ms. Santini was provided a copy of
the Draft Order as normal procedure would require. Nor did Ms.
Santini copy us with her consent if she gave it.<p></p><p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghhuk_noNrCWc1-Xx9Py5cdRTyOyHCxDi-QVaigzGnY4lU9swGIz1owMvfVZ76owPptAhzUv_JFHQBb9ukyrzNfQ7T4dPMGYuHwJ3jAtC5toviiI4bVTghtbZWUYfSTeeZAnCZ0z3J86o3o5IPQcJMcQbYIPiPn9IwlpK-Lyjto_jKz7ihajaJBuIkJQ/s908/2.%20reply,%20email%20,%20January%2021,%202022.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="226" data-original-width="908" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghhuk_noNrCWc1-Xx9Py5cdRTyOyHCxDi-QVaigzGnY4lU9swGIz1owMvfVZ76owPptAhzUv_JFHQBb9ukyrzNfQ7T4dPMGYuHwJ3jAtC5toviiI4bVTghtbZWUYfSTeeZAnCZ0z3J86o3o5IPQcJMcQbYIPiPn9IwlpK-Lyjto_jKz7ihajaJBuIkJQ/w640-h160/2.%20reply,%20email%20,%20January%2021,%202022.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">What
was the motivation for such an untruth? Did Kestenberg's assistant
Sandra Napier simply take it for granted that since Justice Lauwers
awarded costs to Kristen Bailey it had to be for a reason and not for
being simply an observer? Can Michael Kestenberg, a lawyer since 1976
and charging quite a hefty hourly fee simply didn't bother to read
what he put his name to? He was at the hearing and knew Kristen
Bailey made no submissions nor filed any material and only sat as an
observer.</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Leaving
a benefit of the doubt hang in the air we did not approve or consent.
Our email to Mr. Kestenberg stated that his Draft Order did not state
the facts. Revised Draft Orders were prepared. In the revised Draft Order it was made clear that counsel for the Paderewski Society Home
(Niagara), Kristen Bailey was only an observer. Counsel for Niagara
Regional Housing, Scott Crocco did not appear at all. Copies were
sent to Michael Kestenberg on January 25, 2022, which he approved for
form and content. On January 26</span><sup style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">th</sup><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"> the revised Draft Orders
were sent to the Court of Appeal Registrar for signature, with a copy
of Kestenberg's consent. Mind you Michael Kestenberg had copied his
consent to both Vanda Santini and Scott Crocco and neither appeared
to object.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeQDIgaZUaWeNyVr-7LvOOlpKS3Sbft3UVit1m2ju8VxeTBM0eoINj2Oc8DV9fY7INHk7aLRKcubqj_gC8ZAmxx2a3lyicXau0WGB-prr3fnnzCX8NXE6uHYBNtvzP9tQGuKDuJzd3isuepoZrmNx7v-1uezRbFItQ_Y_NC3Qt84tQZbQ62K3NEb-CBA/s2850/3.%20Alexander%20Davidoff%20Draft%20Order.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2850" data-original-width="2474" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeQDIgaZUaWeNyVr-7LvOOlpKS3Sbft3UVit1m2ju8VxeTBM0eoINj2Oc8DV9fY7INHk7aLRKcubqj_gC8ZAmxx2a3lyicXau0WGB-prr3fnnzCX8NXE6uHYBNtvzP9tQGuKDuJzd3isuepoZrmNx7v-1uezRbFItQ_Y_NC3Qt84tQZbQ62K3NEb-CBA/w556-h640/3.%20Alexander%20Davidoff%20Draft%20Order.jpg" width="556" /></a></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEkuDSK_wo7NgsBjQnWYRRFdokG26JRp6CtQgVuaaITLqPfurVRwSOCaR92YsvAprUTT0VKd8SvNnvUWhbykcbjIMb0QkkPDkU4XdYCc1pTF5X_ZCEuHFKDXk2tWpX5MoOhxgz-WOIpfWUo-IURRjoMSPFYyYZF62ENhahNDuSAidcmrntahuG_wIEJQ/s2432/3.%20Davidoff%20Draft%20Order%20page%202.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1182" data-original-width="2432" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEkuDSK_wo7NgsBjQnWYRRFdokG26JRp6CtQgVuaaITLqPfurVRwSOCaR92YsvAprUTT0VKd8SvNnvUWhbykcbjIMb0QkkPDkU4XdYCc1pTF5X_ZCEuHFKDXk2tWpX5MoOhxgz-WOIpfWUo-IURRjoMSPFYyYZF62ENhahNDuSAidcmrntahuG_wIEJQ/w640-h312/3.%20Davidoff%20Draft%20Order%20page%202.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: red;">Draft Order Amended to Reflect Facts of Panel Motion at Court of Appeal for Ontario</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixWmqQbn2UYshZsZKD7iFecP81y9QKWI9KcZoUeVgh1d13rQGyJTRZF1p6XcH3DcTQi7kQKQ3FlaJYGLO4gDOcOQoe3fdt4ip9jkOplFMDx1Ey9wt62ogMbsqABf5sXaWZCOsH2Bmku5lmbg-H5ThzFQq6_rh_vr-CJDoMnzkuhC5-pYuIZeqk3hM3_g/s3504/4.%20Michael%20Kestenberg%20consent%20of%20Draft%20Order.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixWmqQbn2UYshZsZKD7iFecP81y9QKWI9KcZoUeVgh1d13rQGyJTRZF1p6XcH3DcTQi7kQKQ3FlaJYGLO4gDOcOQoe3fdt4ip9jkOplFMDx1Ey9wt62ogMbsqABf5sXaWZCOsH2Bmku5lmbg-H5ThzFQq6_rh_vr-CJDoMnzkuhC5-pYuIZeqk3hM3_g/w464-h640/4.%20Michael%20Kestenberg%20consent%20of%20Draft%20Order.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5YHWpW9oDEi88YssxrVDUB_ms_H7uj6PV8kR_8LRhMpNBK0w3oiPdiOPPUQWIDVh-q_w8xP1ECGS7vl2l8DOtkF-pbkDN6LEfhBEeDBQeN7VFFoepg8A4zhCYdljZVqROrzMOShk016nyqVh8UCS0_B45JV4vvsNCVtRIb8RQ2Wg-DJjJyx3KvHDgrw/s2544/4.%20Kestenberg%20consent,%20pg2,%20Draft%20Order.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1379" data-original-width="2544" height="346" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5YHWpW9oDEi88YssxrVDUB_ms_H7uj6PV8kR_8LRhMpNBK0w3oiPdiOPPUQWIDVh-q_w8xP1ECGS7vl2l8DOtkF-pbkDN6LEfhBEeDBQeN7VFFoepg8A4zhCYdljZVqROrzMOShk016nyqVh8UCS0_B45JV4vvsNCVtRIb8RQ2Wg-DJjJyx3KvHDgrw/w640-h346/4.%20Kestenberg%20consent,%20pg2,%20Draft%20Order.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: red;">Michael Kestenberg's Consent to Form of the Davidoff Draft Order, copied to Vanda Santini, Counsel for Paderewski Society Home (Niagara) and Scott Crocco, Counsel for Niagara Regional Housing</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></span><p></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">On
February 28, 2022, just a month after the Revised Order was filed
with the Court's Registrar, together with a copy of the consent of
responding counsel, an email was received from the COA Registrar.
Registrar Tanasha Adams requested that the Draft Order sent to the
court just over a month ago be put onto a Word format. An email in
response was sent to Registrar Adams for clarification, being
self-represented I did not want to make any errors. No response came
forward from Registrar Adams until March 30, 2022. This email was
received from Michael Kestenberg's assistant, Sandra Napier. In her
email to Registrar Tanasha Adams, Ms. Napier confirms conversation of
the Draft Order to Word format. Ms. Napier also confirms consent from
counsel for Rachel Goerz and counsel for Paderewski Society Home
(Niagara) Vanda Santini.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Why
did COA Registrar Tanasha Adams ignore a request for clarification
for a month and then contact the assistant to the responding party's
counsel? Was it because I am a self-represented individual? What can
possibly be the reason to ignore a request for clarification from the
individual who wrote the Draft Order?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">After
contacting the assistant of counsel Michael Kestenberg, COA Registrar
Tanasha Adams sent an amended copy of the Draft Order to all parties
on April 8</span><sup style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">th</sup><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">. There were a few technical amendments
changing ordinary language to legal style language that were of no
consequence, but Registrar Adams decided to change the actual facts
of the hearing the Order was for. Registrar Tanasha Adams changed the
Order to read: “and on hearing the submissions of the Applicants on
their own behalf, counsel on behalf of the Responding Party, Rachel
Goerz, cost submissions of counsel of behalf of the Responding Party,
Paderewski Society Home (Niagara), ...”. Adams struck out, removed
or however you prefer to put this, the fact that counsel for the
Paderewski Society Home (Niagara), Kristen Bailey was only an
observer.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg6PIUYLiQfCNpxEbS44S8KoWOcGRNSr-88katpLFc3DBNfmjmC9NDs0Uan2ZZuzqwteXofzAARn-tTEQyKy-4pyddVleu-PMrIdnFRwGfSc0QHq7fLWBxA9DUCIDOrR6d5DlzYFdELveKNmfFaJuR7SgneroODNwKP2GJui8Zvviv69ZiDJt2IY55dw/s3504/5.%20Ontario%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Draft%20Order,%20Justice%20Lauwers,%20Justice%20Paciocco,%20Justice%20Thorburn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg6PIUYLiQfCNpxEbS44S8KoWOcGRNSr-88katpLFc3DBNfmjmC9NDs0Uan2ZZuzqwteXofzAARn-tTEQyKy-4pyddVleu-PMrIdnFRwGfSc0QHq7fLWBxA9DUCIDOrR6d5DlzYFdELveKNmfFaJuR7SgneroODNwKP2GJui8Zvviv69ZiDJt2IY55dw/w464-h640/5.%20Ontario%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Draft%20Order,%20Justice%20Lauwers,%20Justice%20Paciocco,%20Justice%20Thorburn.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxKuH4YGgDl2_ZS7pMrpTL0xF1m64PhZqsQASIXtLUR0YrylvCjegQDT-ABLTLXE0qbsoEtDeCrFk44y3bcAdLB5v4mRmS367Bg76OdCgPrtYkUGB4h1QqtJmtvz5ZqvWkXHXWhMvJssKYJdD5ZQzloR7sU-91YN17z16p4meb8JBprzMDiqQDU11S4A/s2530/5.%20page%202%20Ontario%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Draft%20Order,%20Justice%20Lauwers,%20Justice%20Paciocco,%20Justice%20Thorburn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2322" data-original-width="2530" height="588" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxKuH4YGgDl2_ZS7pMrpTL0xF1m64PhZqsQASIXtLUR0YrylvCjegQDT-ABLTLXE0qbsoEtDeCrFk44y3bcAdLB5v4mRmS367Bg76OdCgPrtYkUGB4h1QqtJmtvz5ZqvWkXHXWhMvJssKYJdD5ZQzloR7sU-91YN17z16p4meb8JBprzMDiqQDU11S4A/w640-h588/5.%20page%202%20Ontario%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Draft%20Order,%20Justice%20Lauwers,%20Justice%20Paciocco,%20Justice%20Thorburn.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: red;">Court of Appeal for Ontario Registrar makes amendments to Davidoff Draft Order, <br />removing crucial facts of Panel Motion Hearing</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></span><p></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">It
is difficult, in fact impossible, to understand why would a Registrar
who had nothing to do with the hearing, who was not present for the
hearing, change the facts of the hearing. There could only be one
possible explanation to this, the fact that Justice Lauwers had
awarded costs to Kristen Bailey. Observers do not get costs awarded,
they simply sit and watch, they do not file material and do not take
part in the matter as heard by the Court. Justice Lauwers' actions
are completely without reasoning or explanation.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Whatever
the reason for the COA Registrar changing a draft order that had
consent to form and content by all parties was difficult to
understand, and the fact that it was wrong brought an objection from
us. In my response to Tanasha Adams I told her she should listen to
the recording of the Panel Motion. I also quoted this directly from
the audio recording, as Michael Kestenberg finishes his cost
submission and Justice Lauwers says, “Thank you and Ms. Bailey.”
Kristen Bailey counsel for the Paderewski Society Home (Niagara) then
responds... “We advised Mr. Davidoff we do not take a position on
this Motion, um... so we do not file any material and do not have any
cost submissions however if the court does deem it, relying on Mr.
Kestenberg's submissions that the Supreme Court I would seek my costs
of attendance today at $200.00.” Justice Lauwers then says, “Sorry
how much?” and Kristen Bailey simply says, “$200.00”.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdJTlor-ZUfybbeLhuiu4vzSkJpfFU6r2MI7imuK-9xy0V1Nzuvt8U1ljHmSiVZjoI9gDZqVPrf5UiNCk3zqrmiBqzPjvn8cx1BHGP3Pe269ceudGRM51jY_iUlQnyoMP4wvP0oYM6iCNK4Z6QvUXZWlwW-LSgSXN_O-Xdi0sJcyVYucag1_cDb2fkOQ/s1038/6.%20email%20to%20Tanasha%20Adams,%20Registrar,%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20for%20Ontario.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="539" data-original-width="1038" height="332" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdJTlor-ZUfybbeLhuiu4vzSkJpfFU6r2MI7imuK-9xy0V1Nzuvt8U1ljHmSiVZjoI9gDZqVPrf5UiNCk3zqrmiBqzPjvn8cx1BHGP3Pe269ceudGRM51jY_iUlQnyoMP4wvP0oYM6iCNK4Z6QvUXZWlwW-LSgSXN_O-Xdi0sJcyVYucag1_cDb2fkOQ/w640-h332/6.%20email%20to%20Tanasha%20Adams,%20Registrar,%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20for%20Ontario.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></span><p></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">To
the credit of the COA Registrar Tanasha Adams, she did listen to the
recording of the Panel Motion and replied to my objection stating in
writing, “counsel for the Paderewski Society Home (Niagara) did
not make any costs submissions.” The Registrar then amended the
Order again to reflect that fact. All responding counsels approved
the form and content of the third amended Order.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">A
mountain of questions now arise from this exercise. First being, why
would Counsel Kestenberg state something totally untrue in his
version of the Draft Order when Kestenberg was present for the Motion
hearing? Of greater confusion is why would Vanda Santini, who knew
that her assistant Kristen Bailey made no cost submissions consent to
form and content when it stated that she did make cost submissions?
What was the motivation behind Vanda Santini's actions?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">A
greater set of questions arise from Kristen Bailey's short response
to Justice Lauwers on the issue of costs. She admits she does not
make any cost submissions, that she had not filed any material or
even had a position regarding the Motion. Yet, she put the hat out
for “costs of attendance.” As an Observer with no position in the
matter before the Court it is purely by choice that she sits to
observe. Counsel Scott Crocco did not bother to attend as he had no
position in the matter either. Kristen Bailey sat as an observer in
August when the <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-dark-face-of-canadas-justice.html">Stay of Costs Motion </a></span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-dark-face-of-canadas-justice.html">was heard by Justice Fairburn</a>, why did she not
ask for “cost of attendance” on that occasion?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">As
one analyses Kristen Bailey's short response to Justice Lauwers more
questions arise. After all, lawyers are expected to be masters of our
language, who frame their responses in a courtroom setting to have
impact, to have purpose. So what did Kristen Bailey mean when she
said, “relying on Mr. Kestenberg's submissions that the Supreme
Court...”? She had no position in this Motion on behalf of her
clients. In fact neither Vanda Santini nor Kristen Bailey made a
response to the Supreme Court in the first instance, it was only
Michael Kestenberg who provided a reply.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Or
should Kristen Bailey's words, “relying on Mr. Kestenberg's
submissions...” be examined further? In February 2020 when Justice
Paul Sweeny heard all five motions, to strike our claim, Michael
Kestenberg spoke on behalf of all three parties. Ms. Bailey barely
made submissions before Justice Sweeny that lasted 5 minutes. It was
the same case for Scott Crocco, Counsel for Niagara Regional Housing.
That hearing was the basis of the COA appeal and eventually leading
to the Supreme Court Leave to Appeal. </span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">In
2020, Kristen Bailey was a fresh face at the Bar, being called to the
Bar in 2017. Now the questions flood in. Did Kristen Bailey rely on
Kestenberg's submissions before Justice Sweeny? Kestenberg provided
the bulk of the submissions, and although he was supposed to be
speaking on behalf of all three lawyers he barely mentioned Bailey's
client Paderewski Society Home (Niagara) or Crocco's client, Niagara
Regional Housing. His submission was primarily on his client, a
lawyer, Rachel Goerz. Was Bailey made aware by Kestenberg of his past
association with Justice Sweeny through Fanconi Canada? Or was Bailey
made aware by Kestenberg of Justice Sweeny's past position as
President of the OBA (Ontario Bar Association) and his strong
proclivity in protecting the reputation of lawyers?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The
Motion heard by Justice Sweeny in the Superior Court in St.
Catharines in 2020 has become the catalyst for events that raise
alarming questions about the justice system. No less bewildering is
how a young lawyer, Kristen Bailey and her senior associate Vanda
Santini may have been involved with the series of events culminating
with Justice Lauwers' award. For now the Order had finally been
correctly drawn and signed. Counsel for the Paderewski Society Home
(Niagara) correctly recorded on the Court Order as only an Observer.
A copy of the Order has now been filed with the Supreme Court of
Canada in an application for Leave to Appeal.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpS4R0MynVSENBv730wM9QDoAXh6fk1ZkQT3M0AxfWyYZ52F_iFxkBnud6uKt0-kc5No0yQ3j2GjJB91OiyMC-UJ2DHiID8l4ETKmfS8SZab4_9ckhOy4vhKRU4QQorS9jnHFy-jCvsTLl3e9gzxfNwIYbylkMJoIhmWy7Mxkt1EsdvAZEAWMBHOmqCg/s3504/7.%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Final%20Order,%20Justice%20Lauwers,%20Justice%20Paciocco,%20Justice%20Thorburn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpS4R0MynVSENBv730wM9QDoAXh6fk1ZkQT3M0AxfWyYZ52F_iFxkBnud6uKt0-kc5No0yQ3j2GjJB91OiyMC-UJ2DHiID8l4ETKmfS8SZab4_9ckhOy4vhKRU4QQorS9jnHFy-jCvsTLl3e9gzxfNwIYbylkMJoIhmWy7Mxkt1EsdvAZEAWMBHOmqCg/w464-h640/7.%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Final%20Order,%20Justice%20Lauwers,%20Justice%20Paciocco,%20Justice%20Thorburn.jpg" width="464" /></a></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8lS4J-a25laj_qqorxIyjLe9UKq3s7TNdGic_QeUht6iDMOy6UkD0jQ8p0arijVuULuR3TrWXbqDJJe3v1CW9srvp9fHiaknMNTieDxXu5PXvRS5WlQTd-LU0_JWOj6UIceDCBqMCjiHpsGzevkAxytjJ66kAPwf9d06bCGF90GFI44B96bdfku_LQQ/s3504/7.%20page%202,%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Final%20Order,%20Justice%20Lauwers,%20Justice%20Paciocco,%20Justice%20Thorburn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3504" data-original-width="2544" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8lS4J-a25laj_qqorxIyjLe9UKq3s7TNdGic_QeUht6iDMOy6UkD0jQ8p0arijVuULuR3TrWXbqDJJe3v1CW9srvp9fHiaknMNTieDxXu5PXvRS5WlQTd-LU0_JWOj6UIceDCBqMCjiHpsGzevkAxytjJ66kAPwf9d06bCGF90GFI44B96bdfku_LQQ/w464-h640/7.%20page%202,%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Final%20Order,%20Justice%20Lauwers,%20Justice%20Paciocco,%20Justice%20Thorburn.jpg" width="464" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: red;">Court of Appeal for Ontario Final Sealed Order</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></span><p></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</p>mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-90558091874382015852022-03-21T21:33:00.009-04:002023-02-08T12:22:08.482-05:00Judicial Cloak of Protection<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgeOJyQExWLBXYniVcLrwMzDqYGo2C5pYoSSnqphWOgg7Vm_PxBwYW29JfWzDMmXGsDKzvrK-zwx3K-Vj71g0nFwS8T6av8bzZ4CHVRYFeKwLTpHKKViT9zv5s_QssfVvHnF4Am_POvQ6RM5040IcwN0RBPKAq9IYB3ed7OGzXagtphPwoktnUPJhqHdQ=s3900" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3900" data-original-width="2898" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgeOJyQExWLBXYniVcLrwMzDqYGo2C5pYoSSnqphWOgg7Vm_PxBwYW29JfWzDMmXGsDKzvrK-zwx3K-Vj71g0nFwS8T6av8bzZ4CHVRYFeKwLTpHKKViT9zv5s_QssfVvHnF4Am_POvQ6RM5040IcwN0RBPKAq9IYB3ed7OGzXagtphPwoktnUPJhqHdQ=w476-h640" width="476" /></a></div><br /><i>Ontario's
highest court is the Court of Appeal of Ontario, established in 1867.
As the Court of Appeal it is the last chance for justice, granted
one can appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada but only some 2% of
applications are heard. The Chief Justice of Ontario, Honourable
George R. Strathy is assisted by the Associate Chief Justice, the
Honourable Michal Fairburn in running the COA with some 3o judges on
its roster. What happens when questions of bias, even obstruction of
justice arise? Who will investigate a judge who broke the law
willingly? Justice Peter D. Lauwers, Justice David M. Paciocco, and
Justice Julie Thorburn, are a part of the COA roster and each face
serious questions on how they administer the rule of law.</i><div><i><br /></i><p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The
Court of Appeal for Ontario was established as the Appellate Court
for Ontario, it is the last place to seek justice. Issues from around
Ontario where possible errors of interpretation of law, even worse,
transgressions, are brought to the COA for its judges to determine
the fate of people's lives. Not one of the judges who sit on the
bench for the Court of Appeal does so without an ego. Let's be frank,
they are human beings and as human beings are fallible. Human
fallibility in some degree is understandable but personal bias,
protection of its own ilk or worse, intentional breach of law is
reprehensible. Yet what can be done even when undeniable evidence is
brought forward that a judge has crossed the line?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Yes,
there is the Supreme Court of Canada, headed by the Chief Justice of
Canada, the Honourable Richard Wagner, but out of all the
applications for leave to appeal from around the whole of Canada only
approximately two percent are heard. Then there is the Canadian
Judicial Council, chaired by none other than the Chief Justice of
Canada, the Honourable Richard Wagner, and its record far more
discouraging than the SCC.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">On
the Canadian Judicial Council's website there are a number of
statements explaining or trying to clarify its role in the justice
system. One of these statements refers to </span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">“Upholding the highest
ethical standards.” </i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">In this rhetoric it claims, “Judges are
the link between Canadians and their justice system. To maintain this
link of trust, judges must adopt and uphold the highest standards of
personal and professional conduct. Staying informed, inclusive and
free of prejudice is an ongoing process, that's why we have provided
them with guidelines to help them better to understand the challenges
faced by all and to make the right decisions.” At least this sounds
comforting.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Further
down the line of the list of goals of the CJC is “fostering public
confidence through increased transparency.” Our whole court system
claims to be built on transparency and impartiality so these words
are not new, still they come from the Canadian Judicial Council and
should stand for something. The CJC states, “Transparency is an
essential ingredient to ensure public confidence in our legal system.
By creating links between the justice system, judges and Canadians,
we are proud of the transparency of the communications, processes and
operation that are implemented. We also provide all judges with the
guidelines, tools and the best practices to help guide their work.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The
Canadian Judicial Council has 41 members, composed of chief justices
and associate chief justices, and is chaired by Justice Richard
Wagner. Sitting on the Council is Justice George Strathy of the Court
of Appeal for Ontario and Associate Chief Justice Michal Fairburn.
This fact alone destroys any confidence in the CJC's claims of
transparency or impartiality, then add the fact that in its 50 year
history the CJC has only ordered 11 public inquiries and only twice
recommended that a judge be removed from the bench.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Law
professor Alice Wooley of the University of Calgary Faculty of Law
has criticised the CJC for not clearly articulating what constitutes
misconduct worthy of sanctions. The CJC itself said that misconduct
should not guarantee the judge's removal, and the gravity of the
misconduct must be determined. Is there any surprise in the attitude
of the CJC, after all it is composed only of judges? In our over
zealous clambering for judicial independence we have installed our
judges as royalty with no possibility of consequence for their
breaches of law. Maybe it is time for all the supporters of
establishing a Canadian Republic to stop worrying about Liz in London
and look at our own backyard and the true meaning of equality and
justice.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">It
is difficult for even the most fair-minded individual to have high
confidence in a council such as the Canadian Judicial Council
comprised of only Judges investigating Judges. In addition to the
potential obstacle of a lack of confidence there is also the question
as to which judge in this situation should have to answer a formal
complaint to the CJC. The most egregious breach of the Charter of
Rights, the Courts of Justice Act and more appears to be by ACJO
Michal Fairburn. </span><a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/09/self-represent-self-destruct.html" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Yet it all started with a motion being heard at the Superior Court of Justice</a><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"> in St. Catharines, Ontario and Justice Paul
Sweeny presiding. Justice Sweeny decided to not disclose his past
position as President of the Ontario Bar Association and his very
public and overzealous defense of lawyers. Yet he was hearing a
motion to strike a claim of malicious prosecution against a lawyer.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">In
addition to his past position at the OBA, Justice Paul Sweeny did not
disclose his personal knowledge of counsel Michael Kestenberg of
Kestenberg, Lipkus, Siegal LLP. Both Justice Sweeny and counsel
Michael Kestenberg served on the boards of Fanconi Canada. This led
to an appeal filed at the Court of Appeal on the grounds of
Apprehension of Bias. Justice Michal Fairburn led the three panel of
judges who heard the appeal. Fairburn dismissed the appeal and
considering how serious the issue was, how much evidence was provided
to prove the bias </span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="color: black;">she</span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"> provided no
reasoning at all. Justice Fairburn basically said, you didn't prove
bias, go away.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Naturally
an application for leave to appeal was filed with the Supreme Court
of Canada, the grounds for the appeal were: Adequacy of Reasoning and
Non-Disclosure. In addition to reasoning Justice Sweeny had a
personal connection to Justice Fairburn as well. One might think
enough is enough but things only became more alarming. A motion to
stay costs was filed until the Supreme Court was to complete their
process. Any stay motion would require that the application for leave
would be assessed.</span><a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-dark-face-of-canadas-justice.html" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" target="_blank"> Justice Fairburn decided she would hear the stay motion</a><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">. Justice Fairburn decided she would assess the application to
appeal a decision she herself wrote. This was in breach of court law
dating back to the seventeenth century, in breach of the Charter of
Rights and Courts of Justice Act.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The
actions taken by Justice Fairburn should raise serious alarms in
judicial circles. Our Chief Justice of Canada, Justice Wagner speaks
of transparency and connectivity of the judiciary. Former Chief
Justice of Canada Justice Beverley McLachlin in February 2011, at the
Faculty of Law's Access to Civil Justice for Middle Income Canadians
Colloquium, said “Access to justice is an issue dear to my heart.
It is a fundamental right, not an accessory.” Believing that these
words actually mean something, anything at all, the whole set of
circumstances were sent to the Ontario Chief Justice, Honourable
George Strathy.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiNyGwSs3vszH1lviHv42KhkWHHJj8h_Yp2soZDlmi_-tW_40oCExLbeWHl5f80FKivY4l9xFqnJozemE27abvviB8XP9b1QXOiOxFfwgTX0nZHCQ_-JKxw8ghuMeEArk7XzpavaWoj_WkyZlSF1-5_r8byF7uYcwL-qkpgxdJAD_iEmdb1rk2R1MIKQA=s3232" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3232" data-original-width="2523" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiNyGwSs3vszH1lviHv42KhkWHHJj8h_Yp2soZDlmi_-tW_40oCExLbeWHl5f80FKivY4l9xFqnJozemE27abvviB8XP9b1QXOiOxFfwgTX0nZHCQ_-JKxw8ghuMeEArk7XzpavaWoj_WkyZlSF1-5_r8byF7uYcwL-qkpgxdJAD_iEmdb1rk2R1MIKQA=w500-h640" width="500" /></a></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhB3-N55Bvp6uaxlrDnMwe_IHd_0Kei5nz3VuwZoPMs1R7cXIXExPV16Wzvx30jTaAfQ1yOSlb1Fh9X2p26jZKoOWi2XqCXsh2vNglgYC2jW63WqjtxMglNd1m8N7UUIWtyXKpZn6ra0xgLVGQ1iyDherdJUkJTBpXFQcVApl6JrneM4MMlnjRNbINMpA=s3178" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3178" data-original-width="2503" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhB3-N55Bvp6uaxlrDnMwe_IHd_0Kei5nz3VuwZoPMs1R7cXIXExPV16Wzvx30jTaAfQ1yOSlb1Fh9X2p26jZKoOWi2XqCXsh2vNglgYC2jW63WqjtxMglNd1m8N7UUIWtyXKpZn6ra0xgLVGQ1iyDherdJUkJTBpXFQcVApl6JrneM4MMlnjRNbINMpA=w504-h640" width="504" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /><b style="background-color: red;">Follow up Email to Honourable Chief Justice George Strathy, Ontario Court of Appeal</b></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi5OzfhBEGyWFum87msiYKBG0o_-iyHv5v5sW88_JFVt0KJdhsNUYlzvk-p-OAYxvyq-6ktt-VrTMyfPMFiEyXWghqNVXuzRM6SU5cPrYSFhpZLjLTuNjqBClsit2E1IMiPSnQtQMy3PmFQazz_XxFZ9gzeuWEMBq2oFyWvVEnmE4fOfPEovTXLOkvWNA=s2550" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2525" data-original-width="2550" height="634" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi5OzfhBEGyWFum87msiYKBG0o_-iyHv5v5sW88_JFVt0KJdhsNUYlzvk-p-OAYxvyq-6ktt-VrTMyfPMFiEyXWghqNVXuzRM6SU5cPrYSFhpZLjLTuNjqBClsit2E1IMiPSnQtQMy3PmFQazz_XxFZ9gzeuWEMBq2oFyWvVEnmE4fOfPEovTXLOkvWNA=w640-h634" width="640" /></a></div>On
November 1, 2021 an email was sent to Justice George Strathy
detailing in full the breaches by his ACJO Justice Michal Fairburn.
There was no way to misunderstand what the email had said and
everything was supported by official court documentation attached
with the email. Not one word of acknowledgement came from Justice
George Strathy. As the Chief Justice, Honourable Justice George
Strathy was made aware of serious breaches of ethics and law. Justice
Strathy stayed silent. A follow-up email was sent to Justice Strathy
on January 4, 2022, to this date the Chief Justice of Ontario, George
Strathy has remained silent. The rule of law, our Charter of Rights
appear to have little bearing on the Chief Justice.<p></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">In
a search for justice a Panel Motion had been filed as an appeal
against the decision by Justice Fairburn. Granted there was a great
deal of skepticism as the panel of three judges were to be COA judges
and Fairburn their ACJO. Still there was a semblance of belief that
the rule of law has to be far more important than personal
connections and associations or this mantra of I'll protect you
simply because you wear a robe as well. Also there was a tiny degree
of hope that someone like the CJO Honourable George Strathy had been
informed of the situation then surely the rule of law will win out in
the end.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">According
to the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association (cscja.ca)
describing </span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">'The Role of the Judge' </i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">it states; “Judges play
many roles. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented,
and control how hearings and trials unfold in their courtrooms. Most
important of all judges are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit
of justice. We have what is known as an adversarial system of justice
– legal cases are contests between opposing sides, which ensures
that evidence and legal arguments will be fully and forcefully
presented. The judge, however, remains above the fray, providing an
independent and impartial assessment of the facts and how the law
applies to those facts.” Later the CSCJA states, “The judge is
the 'trier of facts' deciding whether the evidence is credible and
which witnesses are telling the truth.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">This
Association attempts to educate the public and what “they are
entitled to expect from judges in Canadian Courts and covers
principles fundamental to our Justice System; concepts such as
Judicial Independence and the Role of Law.” One of the
Association's teaching tools is a video titled 'Judges in Canada –
What they do and how they do it.' According to the Association,</span><b style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
“the video identifies the citizen's legal entitlement to a fair
hearing according to the evidence and the law regardless of age,
race, religion, sexual orientation, or cultural origin.”</b></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The CSCJA has a heading on their web
page titled, </span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">'How Judges are Held Accountable and by Whom'</i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">.
Here they claim; “Despite their independence, judges are
accountable for their actions and decisions. Hearings, trials and
rulings are open to public scrutiny, so justice is seen to be done
and citizens and the media can discuss and criticize the work of the
courts. A judge's ruling can be appealed to a higher court and, if an
error has been made, a new trial will be ordered or the decision will
be corrected.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Once again words that sound good,
even comforting and reassuring but reality raises a very different
set of circumstances. When the CSCJA say “upon open to public
scrutiny” how does that apply to the Court of Appeal of Ontario?
Public scrutiny would require the provision of transcripts of all
hearings yet the COA does not provide transcripts, not even to
litigants. An individual can ask for, and pay a fee for an audio of
the hearing but there is a catch. As a recipient of the recording you
have to sign an agreement that you will not allow any part of the
recording to be made public or duplicated, and a breach of that
agreement can result in a prison sentence. Is that how public
scrutiny works in the highest court in Ontario?</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Also the Canadian Superior Courts
Judges Association claim that “citizens and media can discuss and
criticize the work of the courts.” How true is this? Is the truth
true only part of the time, or is truth only considered to be truth
all the time? Now there is a question for a panel of judges to mull
over, and the reason for this jesting is this; an article in the
National Post by J. Brean dated August 16, 2019 titled </span><a href="https://nationalpost.com/news/ruling-tossed-after-ontario-judge-signed-off-on-it-without-hearing-the-evidence" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" target="_blank">'Ruling tossed
after Ontario judge signed off on it without hearing the evidence.</a>'<span face="Calibri, sans-serif"> In the article it states: “On Wednesday, the Post asked to see the
court's file, but was not given access until Thursday, by which time
the file has been purged of several documents, including anything
else that might explain what had gone wrong or why.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Is this what the CSCJA mean by
public scrutiny or media discussion? Among all the scrutiny and
discussion the CSCJA also say that “a judge's ruling can be
appealed to a higher court and if an error has been made the decision
will be corrected.” Then will the CSCJA call Justice Paul Sweeny
intentionally not disclosing vital facts to self-represented
litigants just an error? Those self-represented litigants appealed to
a higher court, the Court of Appeal where Justice Fairburn, who has a
personal history with Justice Sweeny, dismissed the appeal without
providing any reasoning.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Reality versus placating empty words
and the reality is truly alarming. The Court of Appeal in its
procedures provides for an appeal to be filed to a Panel Motion in
order to strike a decision by a single judge. After Justice
Fairburn's obscenity in deciding to hear the stay motion there was no
choice but to hang on to a belief that justice in Canada indeed can
provide impartiality. That all these words by all these judges do in
actuality mean something. Our appeal motion was heard by a panel of
three judges on December 8, 2021. Justice Lauwers was the lead or
president of the panel with Justice Paciocco and Justice Thorburn
assisting.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Justice Peter Lauwers was appointed
to the Court of Appeal for Ontario on December 13, 2012 after serving
on the Superior Court since July 2008. Before being appointed Justice
Lauwers was a partner at Miller Thomson LLP where he practised in all
areas on civil litigation, constitutional law, human rights, and
more. He has lectured in his areas of expertise to the Canadian Bar
Association, Ontario Bar Association, the Centre for Cultural
Renewal, McGill University, and as a judge has spoken to the Ontario
Human Rights Commission, the National Judicial Institute, among
others.</p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/18o0MKyeDGpSzXQ7oGk0mheUe_a_tswVO/preview" width="640"></iframe>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Justice David Paciocco was appointed
to the Court of Appeal for Ontario on April 7, 2017. Justice Paciocco
has authored a number of books on criminal law and is considered one
of Canada's foremost experts on the law of evidence. His book</span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
'Getting Away with Murder: The Canadian Criminal Justice System'
</i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">discusses the Canadian criminal justice system intended for the
public rather than for those who delve into inside theories. In 2010
a Toronto Star investigation surrounding Andre Marin revealed that
since becoming Ombudsman he had apparently awarded Paciocco over
$250,000 in untendered government contracts. Both Marin and Paciocco
complained to the Ontario Press Council that the implications were
unfounded, and the Council upheld the complaint.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Justice Julie Thorburn was appointed
to the Ontario Court of Appeal September 2, 2019. She has been a
sessional lecturer on Civil Procedure Workshops at Osgoode Hall Law
School and served on a number of charitable organisations as
director. She co-authored The Law of Confidential Business
Information and was contributing author of Digital Democracy, Policy
and Politics in the Wired World.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">After hearing all the rhetoric of
judges like Chief Justice Wagner, former Chief Justice Beverley
McLachlin, or the Judicial Council and its guidelines for judges, one
might have some confidence in our courts. In addition to these lofty
sentiments we have the Charter of Rights and court law such as the
Courts of Justice Act, surely we are in a secure frame of mind, armed
with such promise.</span></p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/15pKq42Z4kF0tdgp0M7u60H-IFt8NYAVj/preview" width="640"></iframe> <p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">The Panel hearing was December 8,
2021 and Justices Lauwers, Paciocco and Thorburn showed what Canadian
justice really meant. A transcript cannot be obtained and the audio
recording carries serious threat on how it can be used, so what is
provided here is a form of 'transcript' from notes and corrections
from the recording. There may be some 'ahs' missing but there is a
lack of desire to peer at the world through COA enforced bars, so
they stay missing.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">As court hearings stand the Panel
Motion came across more like a modern version of Abbott and
Costello's '</span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Who's on First</i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">'. All three judges before sitting
down had to have read the filed material. Our Factum was clear in its
coverage of the very serious issue at hand. Filed Authorities also
had to be reviewed by all three judges, and two of the Authorities
were </span><a href="https://learninglink.oup.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_155.htm" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate v Pinochet </a><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">and
the COA's own </span><a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2000/2000canlii16884/2000canlii16884.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQASQmVuZWRpY3QgdiBPbnRhcmlvAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" target="_blank">Benedict v Ontario</a><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"> stood out as most relevant. An oral
submission would simply expand on the important points of the Factum
which these judges 'supposedly' had reviewed.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">That being said, one stands before
these judges thinking they know why you are there, what you need of
them and now one only needs to make the final oral appeal. As I began
my oral submission Justice Lauwers interrupts with; “Mr. Davidoff
there is a problem with your case and I just wanted you to address
that if you would.” Justice Lauwers then says, “Your motion was
before Justice Fairburn to get a stay of costs order.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Under no circumstances was that
true, not in the literal nor fundamental sense. I had filed a motion
to stay costs pending our leave to appeal application and Justice
Fairburn chose to hear that motion in breach of the Courts of Justice
Act, the Charter of Rights and of court law. Justice Fairburn chose
to break the law, as an ACJO she has to know court law. Then Lauwers
says that our motion to stay costs till the leave application was
decided, and that was correct. He then said that the Supreme Court
had dismissed our leave application, and that was correct. Yet
Justice Lauwers decided to omit crucial facts.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Justice Lauwers omitted the fact
that Justice Fairburn heard the motion in August 2021. He omitted to
state that the Supreme Court decision was in late November 2021. Why
did Justice Lauwers omit those facts? He also said that our appeal
panel motion was so they decided on the “issue in front of us
whether her decision was right or not.” The issue in front of the
panel was that Justice Fairburn had illegally heard the motion. Our
factum was clear on that and if Justice Lauwers would allow me to
make my oral submission I would have emphasised that fact further.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">So Justice Lauwers finishes by
saying, “explain to us why are we hear today.” I begin again
admitting the Supreme Court dismissed the leave application, and then
raise the Courts of Justice Act s.132. Justice Lauwers interrupts
again saying this time; “I am sorry I am not understanding what
that has to do with what's in front of us, your appeal is for her
refusing a stay, you have to pay the cost orders.” I tried to
respond that I am not here to argue costs when Justice Lauwers
interrupts again with, “So what are we doing here.” I respond
with the fact that the motion shouldn't have been heard, and before I
could continue Justice Lauwers interrupts again.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">This time Lauwers says, “Your
argument is she shouldn't of heard the motion and the costs of that
motion you shouldn't have to pay. It's all about the costs before
Justice Fairburn, is that it?” I tried to stay calm and responded,
“It's not the judge who wrote the decision under appeal, she
shouldn't be assessing that appeal which is part of the courts of
justice.” My grammar was somewhat shaken but it didn't matter
anyhow because Justice Lauwers interrupted again with, “So the only
thing at issue here is, I just want to pin it down is that you don't
want to have to pay the costs of the motion before Justice Fairburn,
she shouldn't of heard the motion is that what it comes down to.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">I tried to respond with, “She
shouldn't have heard the motion, that's correct.” Justice Lauwers
interrupts again, “But the only consequence of that is that are the
costs, have I got that right.” Again I try and respond, “Because
of the fact,” and Lauwers again interrupts saying, “Anything
else, Mr. Kestenberg, I assume Miss Bailey.” That was it for me and
Michael Kestenberg, counsel for lawyer Rachel Goerz begins.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Now Kestenberg has been a lawyer for
quite a few years passing the bar in 1976. He is the founding partner
of his law firm Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP and is called the
“lawyers lawyer.” So Michael Kestenberg has been '</span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">lawyering</i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">'
(</span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Mater's word from Pixar's movie, Cars</i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">) for over 40 years, it
may be expected he would know or be aware of court law that's been in
place since the seventeenth century? That being said Michael
Kestenberg states, “She applied the correct principles, she did it.
This motion is to tilt at windmills. The appeal was denied, there was
no impropriety by Justice Fairburn to hear the motion </span><u style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">notwithstanding</u><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">
that she was on the panel that dismissed the substantive appeal.
Unless you have any question.”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">It would appear from this statement
by Michael Kestenberg that the Courts of Justice Act does not seem
relevant, especially section 132. In section 132 the 'principle' is
clear that a judge who is party to the decision under appeal cannot
assess that appeal. Yet it was the actions of Michael Kestenberg and
Justice Paul Sweeny that set all of this in motion. As Kestenberg
finished Justice Lauwers asked, “Miss Bailey any submissions?” It
is very important to highlight her reply, remember Kristen Bailey
assistant counsel for the Paderewski Society Home (Niagara) was only
an observer, she had not filed any material for the motion. Bailey
answered, “No submissions your honour.” Lauwers then gave me the
right to reply.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">I knew I could not be interrupted
making a reply to Kestenberg's submissions. So I tried to bring as
much forward as I could. I raised the Courts of Justice Act s.132,
the Charter of Rights s.11(d), I referenced two of the most relevant
authorities on this issue, but I was wrong. Justice Paciocco
interrupted. Justice Paciocco sat as a mute until now, he spoke to
Michael Kestenberg not to me, even though I was making my reply.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Justice
Paciocco said,<b> “Excuse me Mr. Kestenberg there are areas of law, so
you were seeking the principle you state is an important one given
the nature is a decision she was asked to make it was not clear that
she's wrong, today it doesn't matter if she was wrong or right.”</b>
This is a judge saying that it doesn't matter “if she was wrong or
right.” A judge who wrote a book titled '</span><i style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-weight: normal;">Getting
Away with Murder: The Canadian Criminal Justice System,</i><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-weight: normal;">'
and he truly helped with the murder of law and justice. Paciocco
continued, “There's no point in us hearing it, we don't hear
appeals that don't matter. And although a decision can be wrong it
can become unimportant because of later events, it doesn't matter
that an error occurred that's what Mr. Kestenberg said, do you
understand?”</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">Justice Paciocco said, “a decision
can be wrong, it can become unimportant because of later events.”
So if an individual is convicted of murder and sentenced to life, but
years later proof is brought forward he was innocent do we say it's
become unimportant. Can we leave that individual to remain in jail?
How does a judge say “it doesn't matter that an error occurred.”
These words came from a judge, that the law doesn't matter. A judge,
we are supposed to trust and respect, one who is paid several hundred
thousand dollars a year, to this judge the law didn't matter.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">All
three judges left and upon their return Justice Lauwers dismissed the
appeal and asked for submissions for costs. I made mine, then Michael
Kestenberg and then a shock, Kristen Bailey. It is important to
remember that Bailey had not made any submissions, she had not filed
any materials for this appeal motion, nor did she oppose the appeal
motion. Bailey had passed the bar only in 2017, and is an associate
at Agro Zaffiro LLP. So, when cost submissions by Kestenberg and
myself were made, Justice Lauwers asked Kristen Bailey for costs even
though he was aware that Bailey was only an observer. Then Kristen
Bailey asked for $200! She was an observer when Justice Fairburn
heard the stay motion and did not speak or put her hand out. Does
this 'associate' know what an observer is? How did she think she had
the right to be awarded costs for not being part of the appeal? Now
many questions arise. Was Kristen Bailey or Vanda Santini, (</span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="color: black;">her
superior) aware of Kestenberg's connection to Justice Sweeny? How
much has Kristen Bailey or Vanda Santini been aware of the whole
situation from the beginning? For a licensed lawyer who is an
observer to an action before a court and not a part of the action to
ask for costs is simply astounding!</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh1TmQwwq8q9--gevHZ-RnoMk41jt5LDXw4r4hslgEfbwVTZOyFCrwFKZcr665N8l1w2cWu5UIibyggZggPcb1g6gdDwLdM5Y2rUvux_z9bdsfnvNS0pFDSKUs_hiYmN-zKWisyMT_46Eot312FUGLGVesaSwa3Itl-ccKVqbwJ4LYu1KxUiB2yHW4AFA=s3057" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3057" data-original-width="2476" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh1TmQwwq8q9--gevHZ-RnoMk41jt5LDXw4r4hslgEfbwVTZOyFCrwFKZcr665N8l1w2cWu5UIibyggZggPcb1g6gdDwLdM5Y2rUvux_z9bdsfnvNS0pFDSKUs_hiYmN-zKWisyMT_46Eot312FUGLGVesaSwa3Itl-ccKVqbwJ4LYu1KxUiB2yHW4AFA=w518-h640" width="518" /></a></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhBOby5wKzXKwSMQbDsppG3WJ3gzOacVjB1Pbt9Dz058wLHKz3ip2FxgqvBv-FjLZEDMA7Uu5aZEtfi4ZwrG7LFmuT5T5EII-3KwZy5qL-n6S4KMXneCfKCUwH79IdAtGAQdKL1kXJQVadng2-HVCJ-h3MynJUOPbRJSdH2AGA6z-DEbAZEQB7t_LNIkQ=s2422" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2134" data-original-width="2422" height="564" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhBOby5wKzXKwSMQbDsppG3WJ3gzOacVjB1Pbt9Dz058wLHKz3ip2FxgqvBv-FjLZEDMA7Uu5aZEtfi4ZwrG7LFmuT5T5EII-3KwZy5qL-n6S4KMXneCfKCUwH79IdAtGAQdKL1kXJQVadng2-HVCJ-h3MynJUOPbRJSdH2AGA6z-DEbAZEQB7t_LNIkQ=w640-h564" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b style="background-color: red;">Decision of the Panel Motion Hearing,<br />heard by Justice Lauwers, Justice Paciocco, Justice Thorburn</b></td></tr></tbody></table><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></span><p></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">As members of society we are led to
believe that judges should be respected without question. There is
often great debate in democratic government to ensure the complete
independence of the judiciary. Impartiality of judges is paramount to
real justice, justice in its appearance and justice in its practice.
Yet these are hollow ideals, our</span><a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2019/10/trudeau-calls-it-mistake-criminal-code.html" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" target="_blank"> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau</a><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"> proved
that if an apparent need arises then pressure on a Federal Minister
of Justice was acceptable. Case after case is on record appealing the
bias of presiding judges. When these cases are heard and bias
identified it is simply referred to as error made by a judge.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">In our rush to ensure independence
and impartiality we as a society have allowed the actors who strut
the stage of justice to do so as peacocks. They are free of any
consequence regardless of any possible transgressions. Change is
needed and true equality brought to what we are led to believe is
justice.</span></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">I have waited for several months for
an Order of the decision by Justices Lauwers, Paciocco and Thorburn
to be provided. As of date of publishing no order has been delivered.
An application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court has been
filed.</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif">*************</span></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Part 1 - <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/09/self-represent-self-destruct.html" target="_blank"> Self Represent, Self Destruct</a> </p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Part 2 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-dark-face-of-canadas-justice.html" target="_blank">The Dark Face of Canada's Justice</a> </p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Part 4 - <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/07/supreme-court-of-canada-commits-highest.html">Supreme Court of Canada commits highest aberration of its own law</a></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Part 5 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/12/what-is-measure-of-judge.html">What is a Measure of a Judge</a></p><p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Part 6 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2023/02/are-there-consequences-for-judges.html" target="_blank"> Are there consequences for a Judge's Breach of Law</a></p>
<p style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</p></div>mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-41889628174239000842021-12-07T23:00:00.005-05:002023-02-08T12:23:38.419-05:00The Dark Face of Canada’s Justice<p> <b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">The Court of
Appeal for Ontario is the highest court in the province. It is headed by the
Chief Justice of Ontario, The Honourable George R. Strathy and Associate Chief
Justice for Ontario, the Honourable J. Michal Fairburn. What happens when the
Associate Justice of Ontario decides with apparent full intent to breach the
Courts of Justice Act s.132 the Charter of Rights s.11(d) and court law
established since the seventeenth century and where do the people of Ontario
go?</span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Canadians are
generally known to be polite and more willing than most to say please and thank
you. We are also people who believe that as citizens we are protected by our
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is a sense of trust in our judicial
system and although some in society may take a cynical view of lawyers, we
still don’t see them as with intent in breaking the law.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">We believe that
our courts are run by a justice system that demands absolute impartiality and
independence. All judges are guided by the Canadian Judicial Council and their
handbook - Ethical Principles for Judges - and the Canadian Justice Act.
Lawyers also have the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Rules of Professional
Conduct, (but more on that at another time), which according to the Law Society
express the high ethical ideals of lawyers.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Now what happens
when a judge decides that his robes give him or her the power to break the law
at will? What if the judge who sits in the highest court in the province and is
the Associate Chief Justice of Ontario, and her decision to break the law and
remove the rights from a Canadian citizen that the Canadian Charter guarantees,
is premeditated and calculated?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">As stated, earlier
judges can rely on the handbook Ethical Principles for Judges prepared by the
Canadian Judicial Council. In this ‘handbook’ there is advice on a number of
issues such as dealing with conflict of interest and impartiality. Also, there
is no judge wearing robes who would not be aware of the famous and universal
dictum attributed to Lord Denning of England’s House of Lords; “</span><i style="font-size: 12pt;">justice not
only has to be done, it must be seen to be done.” </i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There is no translation
needed for this, not for a judge or for any right-minded individual.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">It is with alarm
that the realisation that all these ideals fall from reality. An example can be
found on uofOWatch.blogspot.com. The masthead of this blog post states,
“UofOWatch exposes institutional behaviour that is not consistent with the
public good.” In a March 6, 2014, post titled ‘Supreme Court of Canada refuses
to address judicial bias - Complaint to UN Human Rights Committee to follow’
loudly rings very dangerous alarm bells as to how judges can cover up issues of
bias raised against them. The article states: “A judge of the Ontario Superior
Court in Ottawa had a financial and emotional connection with a party in a
lawsuit, and a family connection with the law firm representing that party.
When the defendant in the lawsuit requested to bring a motion regarding the
judge’s appearance of bias, the judge threatened him with contempt of court.”
It further states in the article that the defendant raised the issue of bias
with six more judges, including the Court of Appeal, but all of them refused to
consider the facts.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">According to the
article, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association made an attempt to come to
the aid of the defendant, but without success. It is important to stress that
the idea of bias in judges’ decisions is far from a rare event. The
apprehension of bias has been dealt with in a number of cases heard by the
Supreme Court of Canada, and cases such as <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii699/1999canlii699.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAOYmFrZXIgdiBjYW5hZGEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1">Baker v. Canada</a> (Minister for
Citizenship and Immigration) 1999, R v. S (R.D) and more. The Ontario Court of
Appeal in 2014 overturned a decision by Justice John A. McMunagle of the
Superior Court of Justice, the appeal citation was <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2014/2014onca294/2014onca294.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQATIExhdmVyIHYuIFN3cmplc2tpLgAAAAAB&resultIndex=1">Laver v. Swrjeski.</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In fairness it is
true that as human beings we are fallible and can make errors. Judges are no
less human, and misinterpretation of law is possible. Yet what happens when the
issue at question is not error, or misinterpretation but an apparent
premeditated act of breach of law? How do we explain a judge’s action when she
had with full intent and planning decided to strip Canadian citizens of their
Charter rights? Can such an act be permitted to go quietly out of public
attention?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Associate Chief
Justice for Ontario, Justice Michal Fairburn heard a Motion to Stay Costs until
the appeal process with the Supreme Court of Canada may reach a conclusion.
This motion was heard by Justice Fairburn on August 19, 2021, with her written
decision on August 20, 2021. Did Justice Michal Fairburn willfully and
intentionally breach the Charter of Rights s.11 (d), did Justice Fairburn with
full intent and purpose breach the Courts of Justice Act s.132? Justice
Fairburn could have recused herself from hearing this motion. </span><i style="font-size: 12pt;">Nemo judex in
causa sua </i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">developed and demanded since the seventeenth century, adhered to
in England, Canada and America, protects the judiciary from questions of bias.
Did Justice Fairburn err in deciding to hear the motion for stay?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">BACKGROUND:</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">We (my daughter
and I) filed a Motion to Stay Costs with the Court of Appeal for Ontario. This
motion was filed so that costs would be stayed until our application for leave
to appeal to the Supreme Court had been decided, and if appeal was granted then
until the final decision is provided by the Supreme Court. The leave
application was necessitated after an appeal filed at the Court of Appeal for
Ontario was dismissed. The appeal was based on two major grounds, first was the
apprehension of bias against Justice Paul Sweeny of the Superior Court in St.
Catharines. A second major set of grounds was non-disclosure by Justice Sweeny
and counsel Michael Kestenberg of Kestenberg Seigal Lipkus LLP of Toronto.</span></p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K27cBI2iVXdzj_ajm6wmoKCNTHZeGFXL/preview" width="640"></iframe>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Our appeal was
heard by a panel of three judges of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Michal
Fairburn. Fairburn’s decision was only four sentences with no reasoning
provided. Details of the appeal and Justice Fairburn’s decision were discussed
in Mayorgate’s article, <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/09/self-represent-self-destruct.html">‘Self Represent, Self Destruct’</a>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">ISSUE AT HAND: Can
a judge breach the Courts of Justice Act?</span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Only one of three
counsels, Michael Kestenberg forced the need for a Motion to Stay Costs, both
remaining two counsels were unopposed to the motion. We filed our Motion
Record, Factum, Book of Authorities and then a Supplementary Motion Record. Our
motion was heard on August 19, 2021, and the dark face of Canada’s justice
system stepped forward.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/179qo6A1n4dZY-nbbcVn-SVCEN79Yjn09/preview" width="640"></iframe>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I was taking part
in the motion via phone and had it on speaker for my daughter to hear
everything and my two witnesses. As the judge who was to hear the motion
identified herself absolute shock hit both of us. Justice Michal Fairburn
identified herself, she said she had read all our material and asked if I was
ready to make by submission. It is not possible to describe what went through
our minds. As a self-represented litigant if I refused to have Fairburn hear
the motion then my fear was, I would be held in contempt.</span></p>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C33T0onYXnHehTOz-xqNSrgIt208_XtL/preview" width="640"></iframe>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When filing a
Motion to Stay Costs pending completion of an appeal process, the applicant
must satisfy a three-part test. Part one requires an assessment of the grounds
of the appeal to determine whether the applicant has a good chance of having an
appeal granted. Then parts two and three deal with the balance of convenience
or potential harm that granting or not granting the motion to stay costs. The
motion judge may not be hearing the actual appeal nevertheless he/she needs to
understand the strength of the grounds, the material provided to support it and
make a judgement on the potential success of the appeal process.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Our appeal was
based on the Absense of Reasoning relating to a decision written by Justice
Fairburn. Now it was Justice Fairburn who decided that she would be hearing the
Stay Motion. It is like permitting a thief to sit as judge against himself for
theft charges. What would any right-minded individual think the result would
be?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Courts in Canada
claim that they are transparent, unbiased and above all else totally impartial.
According to the Ethical Principles For Judges, a guide assembled by the
Canadian Judicial Council at page 27, part 6 has a statement: “Judges must be
and should appear to be impartial with respect to their decisions and decision
making.” The heading is IMPARTIALITY and as part of the general principles it
further states; “Judges should strive to ensure that their conduct, both in and
out of court, maintains and enhances confidence in their impartiality and that
of the judiciary.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The Court of
Appeal for Ontario is headed by the Chief Justice of Ontario, the Honourable
George R. Strathy, Associate Chief Justice of Ontario, the Honourable Michal
Fairburn and 30 other judges. It is the last avenue of appeal for litigants in
the province as only 2% of appeals are heard in the Supreme Court. So, the COA
is the last stop where people’s lives are held in the balance by the judges who
preside there.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">As a final point
under its General Principles for Impartiality in the CJC Ethical Principles for
Judges it states: “The appearance of impartiality is to be assessed from the
perspective of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person.” One has to stop
and ask where does this mythical reasonable, fair minded and informed person
sit? Or is this all a farce spread to appease the naïve into thinking we truly
have a justice system that is impartial?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Cambridge
Dictionary explains impartial to be “able to judge or consider something fairly
without allowing your own interest to influence you.” Collins Dictionary
explains it as; “Someone who is impartial is not directly involved in a
particular situation and is therefore able to give a fair opinion or decision
about it.” How could Justice Fairburn claim impartiality in hearing our motion
to stay costs and why did she make the premeditated decision to hear it? There
are some 30 judges at the Court of Appeal, why did Justice Fairburn choose to
sit on this motion? Surely, she was fully aware of all the legal ramifications.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">The Courts of
Justice Act s.132 states; “A judge shall not sit as member of a court hearing
an appeal from his or her own decision”</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;"> R.S.O. 1990 c.C.43. This is court law; it is not an
online advice column. Justice Fairburn as the Assistant Chief Justice of
Ontario would be fully aware of this law. As a judge of the Court of Appeal for
Ontario, Fairburn broke that law but with what intent in mind? How does she
justify this? Can she claim judicial discretion? Can she claim that she was
going to be impartial?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There may be some
right-minded individuals who would question why had Justice Fairburn, an
Assistant Chief Justice of Ontario, decide to hear our stay motion in breach of
the Courts of Justice Act. Our application for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court was based on the grounds that the decision of the COA was completely
absent of reasoning and the potential of apprehension of bias. Justice Fairburn
wrote that decision as the lead judge of the COA panel who heard the appeal. A
quote from another decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 2000,
<a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2000/2000canlii16884/2000canlii16884.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQASYmVuZWRpY3QgdiBvbnRhcmlvAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1">Benedict v. Ontario</a> 51 O.R. (3</span><sup>rd</sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">) 147, this decision was written by
Justice Doherty of the Court of Appeal:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">“It is a finding
that must be carefully considered since it calls into question an element of
judicial integrity. Indeed, an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias
calls into question not simply the personal integrity of the judge, but the
integrity of the entire administration of justice.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">As previously
stated, a Motion for Stay of Costs has a three-part test which needs to be
satisfied, and part one is an assessment of the Supreme Court leave
application. Can a fair and right-minded individual think it possible that
Justice Fairburn had a clear and definite self-interest in our stay motion?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Courts greatly
rely on previous decisions made for guidance in their deliberations. Those case
laws not only guide a judge but they also put into perspective the direction of
the current law to ensure fairness and uniformity of decision making. Quoting
from <a href="https://learninglink.oup.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_155.htm">R. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate</a>, ex p. Pinochet Ugarte
(No.2) 1999 1 A11 E.R. 577 (H.L), Lord Browne-Wilkinson states under the
heading – Apparent Bias:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">“In my judgement,
this case falls within the category of case, viz where the judge is
disqualified because his is a judge in his own cause. In such a case, once it
is shown that a judge is himself a party to the cause or has a relevant
interest in its subject matter, he is disqualified without any investigation
into whether there was a likelihood or suspicion of bias. The mere fact of his
interest is sufficient to disqualify him unless he has made sufficient
disclosure.”</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Disclosure is a
key component to all legal hearings before any court and it applies equally to
all parties involved, including the judge presiding over the matter. This
concept, this law of full disclosure ensures fairness in a hearing and
eliminates so called justice by ambush. Fairburn made no disclosures of any
kind, again as already stated she simply said she read all our filed material.
Now here lies the secretive nature of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, no
transcript is available of any proceeding. No public scrutiny is permitted at
all. One can request an audio recording but you have to agree not to use it in
any way at all other than supplement your own notes. This agreement carries the
threat of a prison term if breached. So much for transparency and democracy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The legal
principle that no man should sit in judgement in his own cause is an accepted
principle in any democratic jurisdiction in the world. It has found its origins
in Latin from the seventeenth century: “</span><i style="font-size: 12pt;">nemo judex in causa sua debet esse.”
</i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In United States v. Morgan (1940) 313 US 409 at page 421, Mr. Justice
Frankfurter (an assistant justice of the United States Supreme Court 1939-1962)
states:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;">“In a wide range
of other situations the impression may be received that an adjudicator is
likely to be biased. A person ought not to participate or appear to participate
to an appeal against his own decision, or act or appear to act as both
prosecutor and judge: the general rule is that in such circumstances the
decision will be set aside.”</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This legal
principle has been echoed through the House of Lords with references by Lord
Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Denning and Lord Diplock. In Canada this most basic
principle is endorsed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Benedict v. Ontario
2000. One question remains, what was the motivation behind Justice Michal
Fairburn’s decision to hear our motion to stay costs?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Chief Justice of
Ontario Strathy set out the test for stay of proceedings pending an application
to the Supreme Court. In deciding this kind of motion, the court must consider
the following factors: 1) whether there is a serious question to be determined
on the proposed appeal; 2) whether the moving party will suffer irreparable
harm if a stay is not granted; 3) whether the balance of convenience favours a
stay. This test was set out by Strathy C.J.O. in<a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2016/2016onca395/2016onca395.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAebGl2ZW50IGluYyB2IGRlbG9pdHRlICYgdG91Y2hlAAAAAAE&resultIndex=3"> Livent Inc. v. Deloitte &
Touche</a>, 2016 ONCA 395, 131 O.R. (3</span><sup>rd</sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">) 784, at paras, 4-5.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Further in Livent
Inc. at para 7-8 it states, “Deciding whether there is a serious issue to be
determined requires a preliminary assessment of the proposed merits of the
appeal, as well as the proposed merits of the application for leave to appeal.
The threshold at this stage is low.”</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjEkFtHJmRKMojAy3TK343ohEhyNM5eGxNSRZ9rs5AgVJhecshtUxxmo35__EbBu-QEsNsgHmP4wVRiRfmHGLUiDRaeFchwDiCE-3yZcFOd36S7dT134oLXZ5yi2ts7S-Ss6Zz6FYuN_El_0vY2Ex1g5AW1M14P5Q5-M9tfI0G6Wz57swfPb-EMOLSGaQ=s2048" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1583" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjEkFtHJmRKMojAy3TK343ohEhyNM5eGxNSRZ9rs5AgVJhecshtUxxmo35__EbBu-QEsNsgHmP4wVRiRfmHGLUiDRaeFchwDiCE-3yZcFOd36S7dT134oLXZ5yi2ts7S-Ss6Zz6FYuN_El_0vY2Ex1g5AW1M14P5Q5-M9tfI0G6Wz57swfPb-EMOLSGaQ=w494-h640" width="494" /></a></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj8hs1JghrFi2uelykXyx41gd3LH4sGni1h4xUuGPj5A6khntrAjjyvFfm--nLhHYL4wXj8GWuVR9JMFCormRmA8qiA5ruPr5TyLDR_5NZR99vSmWSkznFMjd9mqUTN93auBZRgvW_JGBIVs47eSxQwfRe9XPAtzrw4PK1j4V5UCyKOxYDLNPUkcQYfGg=s2048" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1587" data-original-width="2048" height="496" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj8hs1JghrFi2uelykXyx41gd3LH4sGni1h4xUuGPj5A6khntrAjjyvFfm--nLhHYL4wXj8GWuVR9JMFCormRmA8qiA5ruPr5TyLDR_5NZR99vSmWSkznFMjd9mqUTN93auBZRgvW_JGBIVs47eSxQwfRe9XPAtzrw4PK1j4V5UCyKOxYDLNPUkcQYfGg=w640-h496" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: red;">Justice Fairburn, ACJO, Court of Appeal decision, file: C68308.M52712</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Justice Fairburn
in her decision to dismiss our stay motion wrote, “First, there is no serious
question to be determined on the proposed appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Fairburn also refers to Livent Inc. quoting the three-part test.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Would any
fair-minded individual see this statement from Fairburn agree that she had made
an assessment and judgement of an appeal against her own previous decision? I
repeat the Courts of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990, c.C 43 s.132; “A judge shall not
sit as a member of a court hearing an appeal from his or her own decision.”
Referring to Justice Michal Fairburn’s own words, would that same fair-minded
individual find that Fairburn breached the Courts of Justice Act?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Does the law
matter in Canada? Are judges permitted to do as they please and act as
demi-gods for the halls of justice? A panel motion had been filed to strike
Fairburn’s decision and it is to be heard on December 8</span><sup>th</sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;">. This
panel of three judges are of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and Justice
Fairburn is the Associate Chief Justice for Ontario. What is to be expected as
a result?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">************</p><p class="MsoNormal">Part 1 - <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/09/self-represent-self-destruct.html" target="_blank"> Self Represent, Self Destruct</a> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Part 3 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/03/judicial-cloak-of-protection.html" target="_blank">Judicial Cloak of Protection</a></p><p class="MsoNormal">Part 4 - <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/07/supreme-court-of-canada-commits-highest.html">Supreme Court of Canada commits highest aberration of its own law</a></p><p class="MsoNormal">Part 5 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/12/what-is-measure-of-judge.html">What is a Measure of a Judge</a></p><p class="MsoNormal">Part 6 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2023/02/are-there-consequences-for-judges.html" target="_blank">Are there consequences for a Judge's Breach of Law</a></p>mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-11677298430932899342021-09-06T19:13:00.008-04:002023-02-08T12:24:57.777-05:00Self Represent, Self Destruct <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA;">In
Canada our system of justice is considered to be amongst the best in the
democratic world. Equality is guaranteed to all Canadians by the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Enforcement of our laws is bound not only by the Charter
of Rights, but also by the various criminal and civil codes of procedure.
Equally our courts are bound by those same codes as well as the legal
expectation of procedural fairness. The judiciary in this country is free from
any outside influence or pressure, providing unbiased and fair decisions. Finally,
those who practice law, the lawyers and legal counsel, are also bound not only
by the various codes, but also by Professional Codes of Conduct.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">It
would seem that such ideals should bring us as near to perfection as possible,
and true that may be the case if reality was to be totally ignored. Reality
becomes the guillotine that separates the ideals from what actually happens day
to day in our justice system and aiding and abetting reality is human
fallibility. For the average individual access to the law is not an easy thing.
Lawyers charge insane amounts of money for their services, making it often
impossible for the average individual to find the funds to pay out. For that reason,
many do not even bother to fight for themselves regardless of how badly they
may have been wronged.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt;">There are those who will take on the challenge
to represent themselves, and that is the purpose of this article. Deciding to
self-represent is a truly daunting decision to make. A myriad of rules have to
be mastered together with dozens of forms that need to be served and filed.
Abraham Lincoln is attributed as saying, “A man who represents himself, has a
fool for a client.,” but then </span>Lincoln was a lawyer. Necessity is a strong motivator though there are times
during the legal process obstacles flown in the path become difficult to deal
with.</p><div><div>The most disturbing fact that anyone who represents themselves must come
to grips with is that equality is nothing more than idle chatter. I can go on
with analogies or opinion, but the best course of action is to provide an
ongoing current legal situation. All of which is spoken of is fully documented,
nothing comes as a sloppy allegation or accusation. Facts, documents are
presented and it’s up to the reader to decide if there is something very wrong
with Canada’s justice system. </div><div><br /></div><div>Background to this goes back to 2014 and an
article published in Mayorgate. That article spawned a lawsuit by the Paderewski
Society Home (Niagara) for defamation. Justice Henderson’s decision after trial
was somewhat uneven and that decision is still waiting for an appeal to be heard
at Divisional Court. It can be understood why the Building Manager Stella Fensom
and the President Sabina Glowacki did not want any of the facts discussed in the
article made public. </div><div><br /></div><div>Mayorgate’s article dealt with fraud of public money, the
fixing of an annual election for members of the Board of Directors and
President, and allegations of abuse of residents. At trial Forensic Auditor,
Robert Forsyth, named under oath Stella Fensom as the fraudster. Yet Stella
Fensom is still in the same position as building manager. During trial Robert
Forsyth was asked who the victim of the fraud was, and he answered, “Paderewski
Society House and Niagara Regional Housing, and therefore the public purse.” It
is incredulous to think that Fensom would still be in her position at the
Paderewski Society Home, but she is. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the end after several attempts to get an
investigation into the theft, now confirmed by a forensic audit and a Superior
Court justice who found the actions of Stella Fensom very suspicious, I decided
to file a lawsuit against the Paderewski. The lawsuit was for malicious
prosecution and filed against the Paderewski lawyer Rachel Slingerland, now
Goerz, the Paderewski Society Home and Niagara Regional Housing. My daughter
filed her lawsuit against Rachel Goerz (nee Slingerland) and the Paderewski
Society Home for what was done to her. At trial, the defamation action against
her was dismissed by Justice Henderson as being without probable cause.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now the
games were to begin. Both of us are self-represented but not uneducated in the
lay of the land legally speaking. We are aware of the rules of full disclosure,
torts, filing deadlines etc. Arriving in court on February 13, 2020, we were
expecting an adjournment for a long motion date. Justice Paul. J. Sweeny was the
presiding judge, Michael Kestenberg of Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus was representing
lawyer Rachel Goerz (nee Slingerland), Kristin Bailey for Vanda Santini of Agro
Zaffiro LLP were representing Paderewski Society Home (Niagara), and Scott
Crocco a Regional Niagara staff lawyer representing Niagara Regional Housing.
Then there were the two of us, self-represented. </div><div><br /></div><div>Justice Sweeny made the
appearance that he was going to adjourn it till Michael Kestenberg got up to
speak. Kestenberg said that discussions between all three teams of lawyers had
resulted in a decision that he, Kestenberg would speak for all three parties and
that this could be handled on that day. None of this was disclosed to us, the
self-represented, as it should prior to the motion. I objected and Justice
Sweeny ignored my objection. </div><div><br /></div><div>The motion was heard, and the ruling went against
us, striking our claims. There was no sense to be made of the hearing, nor
Justice Sweeny’s decision. As the supposed lead lawyer for all three teams, and
three individual parties with separate and individual interests, Kestenberg’s
submission only dealt with his own client, lawyer Rachel Goerz. He spoke of a
lawyer’s absolute right to privilege and the mantra of best interests of a
client. Nowhere in his submission did Kestenberg mention the NRH nor the
Paderewski. The Motion’s Transcript is a total of 45 pages, Kestenberg speaks
for 17 of those pages and only about his client, lawyer Rachel Goerz. It did not
make sense.</div><div><br /></div><div>Nothing made sense except that the decision had to be appealed. An
appeal required research especially for self-represented parties like us. This
is what provided the bomb that blew away thoughts of equality in our justice
system in Canada. All those comforting words of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, Rules of Civil Procedure and professional guidelines or codes of
conduct for lawyers and judges, are simply empty and hollow. </div><div><br /></div><div>Research first
surrounding Justice Paul Sweeny revealed that he held the position as president
of the Ontario Bar Association, whose main objective is to protect the
reputations of the legal profession. If Sweeny was simply a past OBA president,
then the impact may be a little less shocking. Yet as President Paul Sweeny
displayed even publicly a very zealous attitude towards lawyers and the
perception that he claimed the public had of the law profession. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IW2s8mOXyPg/YTaMM53eJII/AAAAAAAAqU8/9eOYOymvWMIukGHYf3RF703PDmSf49szACNcBGAsYHQ/s594/page%2B1%2Boba%2Bpresident%2BPaul%2BSweeny%2Bdefends%2Bthe%2Blegal%2Bprofession%252C%2Bfinancial%2Bpost.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="594" data-original-width="445" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IW2s8mOXyPg/YTaMM53eJII/AAAAAAAAqU8/9eOYOymvWMIukGHYf3RF703PDmSf49szACNcBGAsYHQ/w480-h640/page%2B1%2Boba%2Bpresident%2BPaul%2BSweeny%2Bdefends%2Bthe%2Blegal%2Bprofession%252C%2Bfinancial%2Bpost.png" width="480" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cU6bCbnDUNQ/YTaMW_46jZI/AAAAAAAAqVA/3jBChPj1VToE6kenJHD26XStjPKkB-ptACNcBGAsYHQ/s537/page%2B2%2Bpaul%2Bsweeny%2Bfinancial%2Bpost.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="418" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cU6bCbnDUNQ/YTaMW_46jZI/AAAAAAAAqVA/3jBChPj1VToE6kenJHD26XStjPKkB-ptACNcBGAsYHQ/w498-h640/page%2B2%2Bpaul%2Bsweeny%2Bfinancial%2Bpost.png" width="498" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Co5O1Kh8fV8/YTaMhJ5D64I/AAAAAAAAqVI/aMW87ggxp6IZjOb2sM3Wx6PZ2JjYACAVACNcBGAsYHQ/s607/page%2B3%2Bpaul%2Bsweeny%2Bfinancial%2Bpost.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="607" data-original-width="494" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Co5O1Kh8fV8/YTaMhJ5D64I/AAAAAAAAqVI/aMW87ggxp6IZjOb2sM3Wx6PZ2JjYACAVACNcBGAsYHQ/w520-h640/page%2B3%2Bpaul%2Bsweeny%2Bfinancial%2Bpost.png" width="520" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>When Paul
Sweeny was crowned as president of the OBA, the Financial Post published a story
and interview with Sweeny titled, “<a href="https://financialpost.com/legal-post/david-johnstons-speech-to-cba-gets-noticed">OBA president Paul Sweeny defends the legal profession</a>.” Under this title there is a quote from Sweeny, “I am not a shark,
scumbag, mouthpiece, or liar” says Paul Sweeny, president of the OBA, “Me and 99
of my colleagues chained together at the bottom of the ocean is not a good
start.” Further in the article it states, “Mr. Sweeny sees an alignment between
the viceregal’s message and his pledge to the OBA, which is to work to improve
the public perception of lawyers. If Mr. Sweeny’s got a chip on his shoulder,
it’s that the public seems to have a chip on its shoulder about lawyers.” In
another publication called Briefly Speaking published by the OBA, Sweeny
provided a lengthy interview. Much was said that further explored Sweeny’s
mindset on protecting the legal profession. One comment stood out though, “our
PR problem is the gap between the actual positive contributions of lawyers to
society and the public’s understanding of the value and benefit of what we do.”</div><div><br /></div><div>This was Paul Sweeny as president of the OBA, in addition to the OBA he was
president of the Advocates Society. Can anyone logically accept the concept that
former OBA president Sweeny changed his feverish beliefs now as Justice Paul
Sweeny? Justice Sweeny decided to hear a motion to strike two claims of
malicious prosecution against lawyer Rachel Goerz (nee Slingerland). With his
attitude in protecting lawyers and their reputations, his belief that the
“public seems to have a chip on its shoulder about lawyers,” Justice Sweeny was
able to strike the two claims without a defense being filed, without a trial
conducted where evidence is presented. Under no circumstances was Justice Sweeny
able to hear this motion without full disclosure of his position with the OBA
and the Advocates Society. Justice Sweeny did not disclose anything because he
knew we were self-represented and how could we know these facts. </div><div><br /></div><div>At the same
time lawyer Michael Kestenberg without any hesitation knew of Sweeny’s
background, and he too did not disclose any of these facts. In fact, that is why
it was only Kestenberg who really made any submissions out of all three parties
and concentrated his whole submission on his lawyer client. This alone is more
than enough to strike Justice Sweeny’s decision but there is far more alarming
evidence of the connection between Sweeny and Kestenberg. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PKblF1GbJFQ/YTaPAurcOrI/AAAAAAAAqVU/UfPJAAQXC30X0AwovR1DSjXCNrDru6J6ACNcBGAsYHQ/s933/Paul.%2BR.%2BSweeny%252C%2Bjudicial%2Bappointment%252C%2Bgovernment%2Bof%2Bcanada.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="554" data-original-width="933" height="380" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PKblF1GbJFQ/YTaPAurcOrI/AAAAAAAAqVU/UfPJAAQXC30X0AwovR1DSjXCNrDru6J6ACNcBGAsYHQ/w640-h380/Paul.%2BR.%2BSweeny%252C%2Bjudicial%2Bappointment%252C%2Bgovernment%2Bof%2Bcanada.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>The Ontario Judicial
Appointments Announcement by the Government of Canada, 2015, provides a short
bio on Paul Sweeny. In this bio is this statement: “He had been a director of
Fanconi Canada Inc. since 2006.” Research into Fanconi Canada provided a list of
members of their Board of Trustees, at the bottom of<a href="http://www.curefanconi.org/bios"> page 3 is the name of Michael Kestenberg</a>, a partner in Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP. Justice Sweeny is
confirmed by the Government of Canada as director at Fanconi, and Fanconi’s own
list of their Board of Trustees confirms Kestenberg’s position. Can anyone say
that a Director and a Member of a Board of Trustees of the same organisation are
complete strangers to each other? </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DKI3be0VSLA/YTaPSweXO3I/AAAAAAAAqVc/C0d1qQkwH5YKllgsEgakpEWxLIqzlwQBgCNcBGAsYHQ/s657/Michael%2BKestenberg%2BFanconi%252C%2BBoard%2Bof%2BTrustees.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="657" data-original-width="499" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DKI3be0VSLA/YTaPSweXO3I/AAAAAAAAqVc/C0d1qQkwH5YKllgsEgakpEWxLIqzlwQBgCNcBGAsYHQ/w486-h640/Michael%2BKestenberg%2BFanconi%252C%2BBoard%2Bof%2BTrustees.png" width="486" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>How was it possible that Justice Sweeny
permitted Michael Kestenberg of Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP stand before him to
argue a case to strike a claim against his client, a lawyer, Rachel Goerz?
Neither Justice Paul Sweeny nor Michael Kestenberg disclosed any of these facts,
and the alarming question is why? Is it possible that in a courtroom in Canada a
court hearing was fixed by a judge and a lawyer with full intent? As one reads
these facts and looks at the material or evidence provided what would be the
answer from that individual? </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GxuKp2hvwyfqsQkNrvkmGJTVrM2jmAza/preview" width="640"></iframe>
<div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>In our system of justice, our courts permit the
raising of a question of Apprehension of Bias against a judge. All such
allegations are discussed, dissected and all evidence or exhibits examined in
detail before any such decision is passed. The threshold to prove apprehension
of bias is extremely high. One of the most often referred to case law relating
to bias is<a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc45/2003scc45.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAeV2V3YXlrdW0gSW5kaWFuIEJhbmQgdiBDYW5hZGEgAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1"> Wewaykum Indian Band v Canada</a> where at paragraph 60 it states: “the
apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and
right-minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining therein
the required information. In other words of the Court of Appeal, that test is
“what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically
- and having thought the matter through - conclude. Would he think that it is
more likely than not that [decision maker], whether consciously or
unconsciously, would not decide fairly.” </div><div><br /></div><div>Would a reasonable, right minded, and
informed person viewing the matter of Justice Sweeny’s past position as
president of the OBA and Advocates Society, his very public outspoken position
on lawyers and the public, who is now hearing a request by a lawyer to strike a
claim of malicious prosecution against a lawyer, consider bias? In addition to
these facts Justice Sweeny has a personal and business association outside the
court arena with the lawyer making the submission to strike. Finally, neither
Justice Sweeny nor the lawyer Michael Kestenberg disclosed any of these facts to
the self-represented parties. Can a reasonable and right-minded person see the
potential of bias? Can a reasonable and right-minded person see the potential
for an illegal fixing of a court hearing in this matter? </div><div><br /></div><div>We served and filed a
Notice of Appeal with five points of error by Justice Sweeny. Our Factum set out
all the details and our Book of Authorities provided numerous case law. The
responding parties served their Factums and to an absolute unanimous shock none
of them commented on the issues of bias other than quote the test. Their factums
simply re-argued their motions. Michael Kestenberg in particular did not deny
his association to Justice Sweeny, nor did he in any way try to explain any
allegation. Kestenberg only quoted the test for Apprehension of Bias, nothing
more. </div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IfMq5jVjZJmIrycQeZ_i0QF47Zs2k8QN/preview" width="640"></iframe>
<div><br /></div><div>Quoting from the Canadian Judicial Council, “Ethical Principles for
Judges” at page 32: “The judge’s fundamental obligation is to strive to be and
to appear to be as impartial as is possible. This is not a counsel of
perfection. Rather it underlines the fundamental nature of the obligation of
impartiality which also extends to minimizing any reasonable apprehension of
bias.” Going to the Court of Appeal, the highest court in Ontario, we could not
accept or believe any possibility that the evidence, exhibits and facts complied
and filed can in any way be ignored. More so when all three responding parties
did not question the evidence or claims. Especially the silence of Michael
Kestenberg. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SJPxPmhxKhPdG1XVlDYWnH2KfBLC7mjc/preview" width="640"></iframe>
<div><br /></div><br div="" />On March 25th, 2021, the Court of Appeal for Ontario heard our
appeal. The presiding judges were Fairburn A.C.J.O, van Rensburg, and Huscroft
JJ.A, with Justice Michal Fairburn as the lead judge, and the bastardization of
our system of justice took a new, frightening, and alarming turn. <div><br /></div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Wx1fh1K2gniR6Zn_FAd8DLPFcH6x6VJV/preview" width="640"></iframe>
<div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The actual
appeal was heard via video conference. I made our submissions taking
approximately 30 minutes. At the end of my oral submission, I was asked by
Justice Michal Fairburn if the apprehension of bias was our only point of the
appeal. The question made no sense, I had just finished my submissions and
raised the bias and non-disclosure as the main issues, but there were three
other secondary points. A question such as the one asked by Justice Fairburn
made me feel like she did not bother to listen at all and that she had not read
any of our appeal material. A few moments later Justice Fairburn told the three
responding lawyers they did not need to make any oral submissions!</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>
<iframe allow="autoplay" height="480" src="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1878MCShC5SwdSJGd8xBo61KJ13MzOmzK/preview" width="640"></iframe>
<div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>It was like
being doused with ice cold water. All three responding lawyers filed factums
without a single mention of the five points or grounds for the appeal. Granted
we are self-represented, but we know that your factum is your full argument,
your side of the story, and the oral submission becomes the accompaniment. It is
also an opportunity for the appellant to be able to answer any inconsistencies
or false claims. I must stress here that the Court of Appeal for Ontario does
not provide transcripts of appeals or any actions before it. The registrar
called the COA a court without public record! All I can do is request an audio
recording and sign an agreement that I will not use the recording or any party
of it any way at all. I even have to agree to keep it in a safe location. If I
breach my agreement, I could face imprisonment for up to six months! This is the
Canadian version of transparency of our justice system.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J7XLngzlBpU/YTaRR6yAaCI/AAAAAAAAqVk/rxszWARREbQmGZIW6RgiNfr1DLFUiK9NwCNcBGAsYHQ/s2048/Access%2Bto%2BDigital%2BRecordings%252C%2BOntario%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAppeal%252C%2B1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1583" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J7XLngzlBpU/YTaRR6yAaCI/AAAAAAAAqVk/rxszWARREbQmGZIW6RgiNfr1DLFUiK9NwCNcBGAsYHQ/w494-h640/Access%2Bto%2BDigital%2BRecordings%252C%2BOntario%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAppeal%252C%2B1.jpg" width="494" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eLkW8Gwv8yY/YTaRa3NG3qI/AAAAAAAAqVo/uSYrrFcHAp02kjKXCbwpcFegA2rkf8r7wCNcBGAsYHQ/s2048/Access%2Bto%2BDigital%2BRecordings%252C%2BOntario%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAppeal%252C%2B2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1583" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eLkW8Gwv8yY/YTaRa3NG3qI/AAAAAAAAqVo/uSYrrFcHAp02kjKXCbwpcFegA2rkf8r7wCNcBGAsYHQ/w494-h640/Access%2Bto%2BDigital%2BRecordings%252C%2BOntario%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAppeal%252C%2B2.jpg" width="494" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>Justice Michal Fairburn
then turned her attention to me in our appeal. Fairburn said that we did not
prove the apprehension of bias and dismissed the appeal. Justice van Ransburg
and Justice Huscroft sat through all of this without a sound, not a squeal, or a
squeak, not even a light cough to clear their throats. It was as if they did not
exist or were too afraid to speak. Was it possible Justice Michal Fairburn made
her mind up on the decision before putting me through the patronizing act of
having to make an oral submission? </div><div><br /></div><div>How is it possible to accept such a decision
without any adequate reasoning provided? This matter before the court was of
such important significance. All the evidence presented raised the possibility
that a judge and a lawyer had fixed a court hearing. That same lawyer did not
deny anything in his factum. To play the childish game where Kestenberg would
not acknowledge the evidence because he didn’t want to give it credibility, only
works in the movies. Kestenberg and Sweeny could not deny the truth. </div><div><br /></div><div>Justice
Michal Fairburn did not make any comment on the evidence provided to justify her
decision. Both Justices, van Rensburg and Huscroft stayed silent. How was that
possible? The exhibits, the evidence could not be denied, and it wasn’t. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-205dg8dm8Ug/YTaR9L0ar3I/AAAAAAAAqVw/Og7ezkicdPYGkVcA9gg13tXJXxTcCEVRACNcBGAsYHQ/s2048/Davidoff%2Bv%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome%2B%2528Niagara%2529%252C%2BRachel%2BGoerz%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing%2B1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1583" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-205dg8dm8Ug/YTaR9L0ar3I/AAAAAAAAqVw/Og7ezkicdPYGkVcA9gg13tXJXxTcCEVRACNcBGAsYHQ/w494-h640/Davidoff%2Bv%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome%2B%2528Niagara%2529%252C%2BRachel%2BGoerz%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing%2B1.jpg" width="494" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kBphUHRX8FY/YTaSFucq06I/AAAAAAAAqV0/ksCKcCepSCYF45LwMphSFPwmUp0UgvGEwCNcBGAsYHQ/s2048/Davidoff%2Bv%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome%2B%2528Niagara%2529%252C%2BRachel%2BGoerz%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing%252C%2B2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1583" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kBphUHRX8FY/YTaSFucq06I/AAAAAAAAqV0/ksCKcCepSCYF45LwMphSFPwmUp0UgvGEwCNcBGAsYHQ/w494-h640/Davidoff%2Bv%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome%2B%2528Niagara%2529%252C%2BRachel%2BGoerz%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing%252C%2B2.jpg" width="494" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lwCzhXP0QhU/YTaSRItCo2I/AAAAAAAAqV8/Auv5cEHVeJ4c4z5YEvDB-ZOwbX_i4ylPQCNcBGAsYHQ/s2048/Davidoff%2Bv%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome%2B%2528Niagara%2529%252C%2BRachel%2BGoerz%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing%252C%2B3.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1583" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lwCzhXP0QhU/YTaSRItCo2I/AAAAAAAAqV8/Auv5cEHVeJ4c4z5YEvDB-ZOwbX_i4ylPQCNcBGAsYHQ/w494-h640/Davidoff%2Bv%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome%2B%2528Niagara%2529%252C%2BRachel%2BGoerz%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing%252C%2B3.jpg" width="494" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"> </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>Researching again, this time the centre of attention was Justice Fairburn and decisions provided without adequate reasoning. As it turned out the Supreme Court of Canada has grappled with this issue since the 90's. When a decision is handed down by the Ontario Court of Appeal there is little room to get a review. After all it is the highest court in Ontario and there is only the Supreme Court left. Getting the Supreme Court to listen is not easy.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Case after case was
discovered that provided some degree of confidence that our application for
leave to appeal had serious substance and reason to be heard. Some of the
notable cases were <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii699/1999canlii699.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAOYmFrZXIgdiBjYW5hZGEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1">Baker v. Canada</a>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2016/2016onca60/2016onca60.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAxc3R1YXJ0IGJ1ZGQgJiBzb25zIGx0ZCB2IElGUyB2ZWhpY2xlIGRpc3RyaWJ1dG9ycwAAAAAB&resultIndex=4">Stuart Budd & Sons Ltd v. IFS Vehicle
Distributors</a>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca670/2009onca670.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQASY2xpZmZvcmQgb25jYSA2NzAgAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1">Clifford v. The Attorney General of Ontario</a>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc9/2008scc9.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAYZHVuc211aXIgdiBuZXcgYnJ1bnN3aWNrAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1">Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick</a>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc51/2008scc51.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAHciB2IHJlbQAAAAAB&resultIndex=1">R. v. R.E.M</a>, <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc26/2002scc26.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAMciB2IHNoZXBwYXJkAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1">R v. Sheppard</a> and from 2019 <a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc65/2019scc65.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAxbWluaXN0ZXIgb2YgY2l0aXplbnNoaXAgYW5kIGltbWlncmF0aW9uIHYgdmF2aWxvdgAAAAAB&resultIndex=1">Canada (Minister for
Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov. </a></div><div><br /></div><div>Information uncovered relating to
Justice Michal Fairburn became frightening. Quoting once more from the Canadian
Judicial Council, ‘Ethical Principles For Judges’ at page 44: “Judicial
impartiality is concerned both with impartiality in fact and impartiality in the
perception of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person. In judicial
matters, the test for conflict of interest must include both actual conflicts
between the judge’s self-interest and the duty of impartial adjudication and
circumstances in which a reasonable fair minded and informed person would
reasonably apprehend a conflict.” </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ggjDinLwCU8/YTaXV8ObNhI/AAAAAAAAqWI/JlAmRIdQPFsi3J5BG8riOUmjTFzzEbZ4QCNcBGAsYHQ/s662/Civil%2BRules%2BCommittee%252C%2BJustice%2BFairburn%252C%2BJustice%2BSweeny.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="662" data-original-width="577" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ggjDinLwCU8/YTaXV8ObNhI/AAAAAAAAqWI/JlAmRIdQPFsi3J5BG8riOUmjTFzzEbZ4QCNcBGAsYHQ/w558-h640/Civil%2BRules%2BCommittee%252C%2BJustice%2BFairburn%252C%2BJustice%2BSweeny.png" width="558" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Justice Michal Fairburn is not an ordinary
judge, she is the Associate Chief Justice of Ontario. Before Justice Fairburn,
was a case of Apprehension of Bias against Senior Regional Justice Paul Sweeny,
and could Justice Fairburn permit any minute question about her own
impartiality? Fairburn sits on the <a href="https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/civil/civil_rules_committee.php">Civil Rules Committee</a> and this committee
makes rules of court for the Court of Appeal and Superior Court of Justice in
relation to the practice and procedure of those courts in all civil proceedings,
subject to approval of the Attorney General. Regional Senior Justice Paul Sweeny
also sits on the Civil Rules Committee, yet this in not the end. A<a href="http://stockwoods.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Michal-Fairburn-Short-Bio1.pdf"> bio from Stockwoods Barristers</a>, where Fairburn was a partner, states that she “served as
a Director of the Advocates Society from 2010 to 2013.” The Ontario Judicial
Appointments Announcement for March 2015 from the Department of Justice, Ottawa
shares a bio on Justice Paul Sweeny. Here it states: “He is a past director of
the Advocates Society 2006-2009.” </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9Ob-rhYrB28/YTaYWshc9EI/AAAAAAAAqWQ/eboHw5GkRiUmjGRQA9IheMh8gzXEf2DgACNcBGAsYHQ/s617/Michal%2BFairburn%252C%2BStockwoods%2BBarristers%252C%2BBiography%2B1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="617" data-original-width="534" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9Ob-rhYrB28/YTaYWshc9EI/AAAAAAAAqWQ/eboHw5GkRiUmjGRQA9IheMh8gzXEf2DgACNcBGAsYHQ/w554-h640/Michal%2BFairburn%252C%2BStockwoods%2BBarristers%252C%2BBiography%2B1.png" width="554" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FsjIxybf1g8/YTaYguq8J4I/AAAAAAAAqWU/p-SYgiSSoe4z021lIB63U_wXg8ENwqB0gCNcBGAsYHQ/s506/Michal%2BFairburn%252C%2BStockwoods%2BBarristers%252C%2BBiography%252C%2B2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="506" data-original-width="359" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FsjIxybf1g8/YTaYguq8J4I/AAAAAAAAqWU/p-SYgiSSoe4z021lIB63U_wXg8ENwqB0gCNcBGAsYHQ/w454-h640/Michal%2BFairburn%252C%2BStockwoods%2BBarristers%252C%2BBiography%252C%2B2.png" width="454" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Michal Fairburn was the incoming new director
and Paul Sweeny was the outgoing director. Can it be safe to assume that Michal
Fairburn worked closely with Paul Sweeny to ensure a smooth transition of power?
What legal acumen permitted Justice Michal Fairburn to hear a matter relating to
apprehension of bias against Justice Paul Sweeny? Not only did Justice Fairburn
take this on she gave a decision without any reasoning at all. What would a
fair, right-minded person say to this situation? </div><div><br /></div><div>It goes without saying that
none of them, not lawyer Michael Kestenberg, not Justice Sweeny, nor Michal
Fairburn expected self-represented individuals to uncover this cannibalisation
of our Canadian Justice System. The big question is what can be done about this?</div><div><br /></div><div>I’ll leave the final words in this matter to The Right Honourable Beverly
McLachlin, former Chief Justice of Canada, in her Forward for the Canadian
Judicial Council ‘Ethical Principles for Judges’: “The ability of Canada’s legal
system to function effectively and to deliver the kind of justice that Canadians
need and deserve depends in large part on the ethical standards of our judges.”</div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>**********</div><div><br /></div><div>Part 2 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-dark-face-of-canadas-justice.html" target="_blank">The Dark Face of Canada's Justice </a></div><div><br /></div><div>Part 3 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/03/judicial-cloak-of-protection.html" target="_blank"> Judicial Cloak of Protection</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Part 4 - <a href="https://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/07/supreme-court-of-canada-commits-highest.html">Supreme Court of Canada commits highest aberration of its own law</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Part 5 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2022/12/what-is-measure-of-judge.html">What is a Measure of a Judge </a></div><div><br /></div><div>Part 6 - <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2023/02/are-there-consequences-for-judges.html" target="_blank">Are there consequences for a Judge's Breach of Law</a></div>mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-51958785100075091052021-09-02T12:16:00.000-04:002021-09-02T12:16:01.776-04:00Silence is not an option – Mayorgate Reawakens <p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">To
all my Mayorgate readers I apologise for the lengthy absence, Mayorgate has
been silent for a reason. As author and publisher of Mayorgate I had been
thrown the challenge to survive a serious set of events that threatened my
health culminating in amputation. The road to recovery had taken time, for many
days it felt like I had been transported into the painting by Edvard Munch, and
I was simply screaming. According to Munch himself, </span><i style="font-size: 12pt;">The Scream </i><span style="font-size: 12pt;">was a
picture he painted to represent his soul, for me that inward scream became more
deafening and demanded the reawakening of Mayorgate. During recovery the legal
battles continued and there was no care that I was shorter on one side. Yet it
was not the battles that had an effect but what those battles revealed, and
that needs to be spoken about. All our values of equality and law are simply a
farce. The corruption and intimidation within our court system cannot be
allowed to continue in silence. The issues that Mayorgate had exposed relating
to the Paderewski Society Home (Niagara), its lawyer at the time, Rachel Goerz
(nee Slingerland) have compounded dramatically.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">We
Canadians believe that our courts are transparent in every aspect. We expect
our judges to be unbiased and free from all influence. Those of us who may
choose to self-represent ourselves before the courts believe that equality will
be a guarantee. Sadly, these lofty ideals are nothing more than pie-in-the-sky.
Traditional media rarely questions the status quo, but silence is not an option
for Mayorgate.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Mayorgate
has faced legal threats in the past for bringing the light of day on issues
that traditional media, in particular local Niagara media, had stayed silent
on. One such threat came in the form of a defamation lawsuit filed by Debbie
Zimmerman, a former Niagara Regional Councillor and previous Chair in the
Regional Municipality of Niagara, after allegations of an affair she had with
former St. Catharines Mayor Brian McMullan, who also had a seat on Niagara
Regional Council. Affairs and divorces are literally a dime a dozen but these
both sat on Regional Council and questions of possible conflict of interest
were troubling. The source of the allegations came to Mayorgate by way of copies
of the divorce papers filed by the former Mrs. Pat McMullan. As an update the
defamation claim filed by Debbie Zimmerman has been dismissed by the Superior
Court of Justice. Maybe Debbie became hesitant or concerned with what a trial
would make public.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IVAC3aWNOwg/YTD2Uh7u6MI/AAAAAAAAqSg/y02syp4ul_Q8ShVGaP9RWJdS5qfWqBg0QCNcBGAsYHQ/s2048/Debbie%2BZimmerman%252C%2BSuperior%2BCourt%2Bof%2BJustice.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1583" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IVAC3aWNOwg/YTD2Uh7u6MI/AAAAAAAAqSg/y02syp4ul_Q8ShVGaP9RWJdS5qfWqBg0QCNcBGAsYHQ/w494-h640/Debbie%2BZimmerman%252C%2BSuperior%2BCourt%2Bof%2BJustice.jpg" width="494" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></p>mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-62210245891928868602019-10-15T20:41:00.000-04:002019-10-15T20:41:30.171-04:00Trudeau calls it a “mistake,” the Criminal Code calls it Obstruction of Justice<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">As
publisher and author of Mayorgate I try to avoid expressing my
opinions during elections. Yet this is a time I believe no Canadian
can or should stay silent or ambivalent. This is not an election
based simply on party politics or party loyalty and for that reason I
could not stay silent.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">At
the center of this election Canadians face a question they had never
had to deal with. We have to decide whether a Prime Minister, the
leader of this country who represents us all, should be permitted to
run this country for another four years after facing allegations of
obstructing justice. True these are allegations and the charge has
not been proven, but then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has ensured
that no real investigation can be conducted by authorities. It is
possible Justin Trudeau himself has not personally interfered with
anyone on a face-to-face basis, but he has a whole team of willing
individuals who would play the proverbial middle man. If there was
any dignity in this situation the PM would step down and allow a
full, legal and independent investigation, but that as we all know
will never happen.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Obstruction
of justice is a felony under section 139(1) of the Criminal Code of
Canada. The Criminal Code states, “Everyone who willfully attempts
in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in
a judicial proceeding: a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a
surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or b) where he is
a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of
indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person
who is released or is to be released from custody, is guilty of c) an
indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">This
section continues with a more general interpretation of obstruction
of justice:</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">2)
“Every one who willfully attempts in any manner than a manner
described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course
of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment not exceeding ten years.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Can
anyone reading these words from the Criminal Code of Canada
describing what obstruction of justice is not comprehend the
seriousness of the allegations made against the Prime Minister of
Canada? Subsection 1 of section 139 of the Criminal Code uses the
word “indemnify,” and Wikipedia describes this as, “The duty to
indemnify is usually, but not always, coextensive with the
contractual duty to hold harmless or save harmless.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The
storm began with the allegation of political interference with the
justice system by the then Minister of Justice and Attorney General
Judy Wilson-Raybould. The Minister of Justice had claimed that Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau and the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) had
attempted to interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation against
a Quebec based construction company, SNC-Lavalin.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">In
February 2015 charges had been laid against SNC-Lavalin and two of
its subsidiaries, SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc and SNC-Lavalin
International Inc. Each of the firms was charged with one count of
fraud and one count of corruption alleging that SNC-Lavalin paid out
some $48 million Canadian dollars in bribes in Libya between 2001 and
2011. If SNC-Lavalin was found guilty and convicted they would be
banned from bidding on federal government contracts for ten years.
The result of such a ban would drive SNC-Lavalin into bankruptcy some
have claimed, providing the opening on the whole issue of saving
jobs.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">SNC-Lavalin
employs around 9000 people in Canada. The company's head office in
Montreal has 700 of them, there are about 3400 in Quebec, 3000 in
Ontario and about 1000 in British Columbia. It's important to note
that not all of these employees work on federal contracts. According
to Andrew Macklin, managing editor of ReNew Canada, a trade magazine
focusing on public sector infrastructure, “While some of the
employees at headquarters and other back-office functions might be
lost, the bulk of the company's Canadian employees and subcontractors
are working on infrastructure projects that still need to be done, no
matter which company's working on them.” It was Gerald Butts, Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau's former Chief of Staff who made this claim
of a job loss of 9000 in Canada during testimony to a House of
Commons committee investigating the allegations of pressure from the
PMO on the attorney general.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Industry
experts don't seem to see that scenario as being accurate. Though
another consideration raises more alarming questions relating to
SNC-Lavalin and the art of the political contribution. The
Commissioner of Elections investigation came to an abrupt end when 76
year-old Normand Morin a former vice-president with SNC-Lavalin
pleaded guilty to two charges of contravening Canada's election
financing rules. Another three charges were dropped by the public
prosecution. SCN-Lavalin managed to illegally funnel more than
$116,000 to federal political parties. The federal Liberal Party of
Canada filled their hat with over $83,000 and other Liberal ridings
another $13,500, that's a total of $96,000 with the Conservative
Party picking up around $8,000. Not too hard to see where
SNC-Lavalin's favours leaned, yet did Gerald Butts bring that up
during his testimony to the House of Commons committee?</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">First
Prime Minister Trudeau rid himself of his former attorney general
Jody Wilson-Raybould, even had her expelled from the party. Then 76
year-old Normand Morin helped to shut down the investigation into the
political contribution scam by pleading guilty and getting a $2,000
fine. Finally, Trudeau had to deal with Mario Dion the federal Ethics
Commissioner. Mr. Dion found that Justin Trudeau had tried to
influence the former attorney general in the SNC-Lavalin criminal
case and “improperly further the interests of SNC-Lavalin.” There
is that word from section 139(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada
“indemnify.” Still, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sees no reason
why he should apologise for any of this. </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">We
here in Canada listen to all the news about President Donald Trump.
As Canadians we say that such blatant corruption and disrespect for
the law cannot happen here. Yet what is the difference? Both Donald
Trump and Justin Trudeau are the elected leaders of their respective
countries. Both have committed acts that betray ethics and the
dignity of the office they hold. Trudeau's actions appear to border
on the criminal. Both have done everything possible to ensure that
full proper investigations could not happen. The difference is that
although senior Republicans back and cover-up for Trump, with the
impeachment inquiry, more Republican voices are raised against
Trump's actions. </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Although
Donald Trump is seeing more of his Republicans joining the call for
impeachment here in Canada there has only been one Liberal who voiced
their opinion in opposition to Justin Trudeau. The Honourable Jane
Philpott resigned her position as President of the Treasury Board on
March 4<sup>th</sup> 2019. On April 2<sup>nd</sup> 2019 both Jane
Philpott and Judy-Wilson Raybould were expelled from the Liberal
Caucus. Philpott's reason for resigning was that she believed her
constituents wanted her to uphold the highest ethical standard and
that she had no confidence in the prime minister's handling of the
SNC-Lavalin affair. No other Liberal MP or member of the PMO has come
forward to express their opinion other than like Chris Bittle stand
behind the Prime Minister and nod their head. Staying in power is the
only motivation that Liberals care for, they seem to care little for
law or dignity.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">These
same individuals are asking Canadians to trust them, to vote for
them. When Trudeau came to the Niagara area he faced questions,
handed out speeches, but what stands out is the arrogance of this
Prime Minister. During his visit, he was asked questions relating to
his statement that he takes responsibility. The Prime Minister was
asked for clarification in particular as the Ethics Commissioner had
released his report. Trudeau said that “What we did over the past
year wasn't good enough, but at the same time I can't apologise.”
He went on that “taking responsibility” means making sure things
of the past don't happen again and that “this mistake never happens
again.” Obstruction of justice is simply a mistake to Justin
Trudeau.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Because
I live here in St. Catharines what I found most disturbing was to
watch Chris Bittle, the Liberal Member of Parliament for St.
Catharines standing behind Trudeau during this categorisation of
obstruction of justice as “this mistake.” Chris Bittle is a
lawyer, and as a lawyer would be very aware what section 139(1) of
the Criminal Code describes. Bittle would also be very aware as a
lawyer that the actions alleged against Prime Minster Trudeau should
warrant a full investigation and resignation from office. Yet Chris
Bittle has not made any comment on such facts, rather he stood behind
his master nodding away. This is the same individual who is asking
the people of St. Catharines to vote for him.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Whether
it is Chris Bittle or any other Liberal MP the corruption stench
smears them all. The Clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Shugart invoked
cabinet confidence to block the RCMP from talking to people in their
attempt to investigate the SNC-Lavalin situation. The Prime Minister
claimed he had no role in that decision, yet the PM can waive the
issue of cabinet confidence. Since Trudeau makes no apology and if in
his words this was merely a mistake then why block access to the RCMP
to speak freely to people? Trudeau also backed the blocking of
witnesses from speaking to the Ethics Commissioner and the refusal of
providing documents for Dion's investigation. So if Chris Bittle,
Liberal MP for St. Catharines, agrees with his master's
interpretation of SNC-Lavalin as a mistake then how does he explain
away the obstruction to any investigation?</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Amongst
all the very alarming revelations relating to SNC-Lavalin, Justin
Trudeau was confronted with photos and even video of his antics in
blackface makeup. This was not a young Trudeau drunk or mindless in
university, but rather as a teacher and an adult. Putting on
blackface is an insult. His explanation was that he did not know how
offensive and insensitive it was. At the age of 29 and a school
teacher, coming from a family background like his he had no idea that
his actions were insulting? A more relevant question is, did he care?</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Regardless
of how disgusting and unacceptable these actions were, they still do
not compare to the ramifications of Trudeau's obstruction of justice.
Sadly in a fashion the blackface incident had taken over the public
discussion. I watched ordinary citizens being interviewed on the
streets of Toronto regarding the blackface and several said or
commented on the fact that it was from the past and one gentleman had
said, “I have a past, you have past, we all do.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">That
sentiment is exactly what Trudeau is using to play down the
situation. He has claimed that he did not know better, that he did
not realise that his actions were an insult. Yet had our PM faced an
accusation by the MeToo bunch then the past would all of a sudden
matter very much. If Trudeau was accused, mind you only accused
without photos or video, of a butt slap, a hug or a supposedly
unwanted kiss then his career would be over.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Canadians
are being asked by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to disregard his
arrogance, his hypocrisy and his disrespect for the law and put him
back in office to lead this country. Every member of his Liberal
government is out there with their signs asking for your vote, whilst
they stand silent in support of the actions of their master, some
even willing to take part in the cover-up. Yet each one of them is
asking for your trust in this election.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Yes,
non-elected individuals within the Liberal Party machine had been
involved in the obstruction of justice with Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau, but it is the elected who are at Canadian doorsteps asking
for our vote of trust, our vote of confidence. Prime Minister Trudeau
constantly pushes the fact he stood up for Canadian jobs, yet he has
never said how many jobs may have been at risk. No Liberal MP has
come forward to clarify how many jobs they saved by breaking the law.
One has to remember that SNC-Lavalin is a Montreal based company and
the PM's riding is Papineau.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">In
the latest debate, October 7<sup>th</sup> 2019, Trudeau said that the
Globe & Mail had published false allegations when they broke the
scandal about the SNC-Lavalin affair. Standing in front of Canadian
voters Justin Trudeau lied and accused journalists of presenting
false allegations. How can we vote for Justin Trudeau, how can we
vote for any of the Liberal candidates? </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">It
is an election where Canadians have to vote for what are the true
values of this country. No promises made by candidates matter, and we
know most of them will not be honoured anyhow. No claims of
accomplishments matter. The fact that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
stood before the people of Canada and in his arrogance lied about the
most alarming scandal in Canadian history and about his personal
involvement is what we should vote on.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Chris
Bittle, Liberal MP for St. Catharines has been given an opportunity
to provide a comment, to answer questions relating to the SNC-Lavalin
scandal. An email was sent to his parliamentary office and another to
his campaign office. In addition, to the two emails, a message was
posted with the questions on his Facebook fan page, which was seen on
Saturday, October 12<sup>th</sup> at 7:22. Regardless of how many
attempts were made to obtain comment from Liberal MP Chris Bittle, no
response has been provided. I guess 'ask me anything' notion in this
candidate has conditions on what is asked. Perhaps the same applies
to all Liberal candidates in this election.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EOmQbrggb3w/XaZkCooX8UI/AAAAAAAAeKA/m-yfXcyZ8H8KLxuOquWHJwSncG3tRbv7QCNcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Chris%2BBittle%252C%2BLiberal%2BMP%252C%2Belection%2B2019%252C%2BMayorgate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="927" data-original-width="1600" height="369" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EOmQbrggb3w/XaZkCooX8UI/AAAAAAAAeKA/m-yfXcyZ8H8KLxuOquWHJwSncG3tRbv7QCNcBGAsYHQ/s640/Chris%2BBittle%252C%2BLiberal%2BMP%252C%2Belection%2B2019%252C%2BMayorgate.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<br />mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-26902720657975770432019-09-10T13:16:00.000-04:002019-09-10T13:16:59.467-04:00Debbie Zimmerman's SLAPP suit fizzles!<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Debbie
Zimmerman is a well-known individual around the Niagara area and she
has worked hard at trying to remain so. She is seen popping up at the
Roundtable for CKTB, at the Niagara District Council of Women, or
making speeches at A Better Niagara, a non-profit citizens group with
executive director Ed Smith. From time to time you may see a letter
to the editor published by Ms. Zimmerman. Her curriculum vitae can be
considered fairly impressive: from 1989 to 2014 she represented
Grimsby on Niagara Regional Council, and for two terms, 1997 through
to 2003, as Regional Chair. Currently, she is the CEO of the Grape
Growers of Ontario. In addition to these impressive achievements
Debbie Zimmerman might be called a SLAPPer.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Today
most have heard the term SLAPP suits or the Strategic Lawsuit
Against Public Participation. It is a weapon used to shut down public
discussion on matters of public interest by those usually who fear
the truth. Often it is journalists and publishers who find themselves
slammed with SLAPP suits to shut down and withdraw any article which
raises uncomfortable questions or uncovers information which is
preferred to remain in a closet.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The
Ontario government passed the Protection of Public Participation Act
in 2015. This was an attempt to help defendants of these lawsuits to
seek to have those actions dismissed in a relatively expedient and
less expensive manner. Sadly the operative word though is
“relatively,” as the cost of any legal action is extremely high.
Journalists working in the traditional hemisphere of publishing
giants are protected by their publishers. They can now argue a new
defense called “responsible communication” provided by the
Supreme Court of Canada in two rulings in 2008 and 2009, WIC Radio
Ltd. v Simpson and Grant v Torstar Corp.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Yet
the threat of a lawsuit still is a difficult and a daunting issue to
deal with, even with a publisher at one's back with deep pockets.
Winning a lawsuit such as this only brings potential relief for legal
costs and nothing else. The plaintiff who files the SLAPP suit faces
no other consequences for their allegations. So the independent
journalist, the blogger, faces a greater risk when slammed with a
lawsuit. Whether mainstream journalists like it or not it is a fact
that serious bloggers or independent journalists are providing real
news and sometimes news that the mainstream scribes decide to censor.
As such these individuals are at a greater risk to the threat of a
SLAPP suit.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">One
independent journalist, Jessie Brown, who had established CANADALAND
in 2013, a news site and podcast breaking stories that traditional or
mainstream journalists would not, understands the looming threat of
SLAPP suits. In an interview with Columbia Journalism Review,
('Jessie Brown punctures Canada's media bubble', by Simon Liem
Jan/Feb 2015), Jessie Brown spoke of a decision he had to make
whether to publish or not. Brown had been given information by an
anonymous source alleging that CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi had been
using his fame to lure and sexually assault women. Without hesitation
Brown knew that if he published what he had uncovered he would be
sued and “characterized as a crackpot blogger.” Rather than risk
a crippling lawsuit Jessie Brown took all his information to Keven
Donovan a leading investigative journalist with <i>The Toronto Star.</i>
Eventually, an article by Brown and Donovan regarding Ghomeshi was
published, and the rest is history. There was an ensuing trial and in
2016 Ghomeshi was acquitted of five of the charges and he signed a
peace bond and aplogised to his accuser on the sixth. Jessie Brown
knew what a SLAPP suit would do to him, his family and the story
itself. </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">As
publisher and journalist of my website, Mayorgate, I have on several
occasions broken stories that local media refused to do. I have also
often spoken loudly against the self-imposed censorship of news by
the only real newspaper in this town, the St. Catharines <i>Standard</i>.
Granted there is <i>Niagara This Week</i>, a paper which is delivered
free to homes once a week, but the real news is expected to be
provided by <i>The Standard</i>. Simply put the public has the
absolute right to know what is happening in their community from a
free and unbiased press, and that is a cornerstone to a true
democracy. Mayorgate's goal is to provide news, information, and
commentary; to stimulate discussion and questions without allegiance
to anyone's policies or agenda. </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Rumours
had been floating of an alleged affair between the Mayor of St.
Catharines at the time, Brian McMullan and Regional Councillor Debbie
Zimmerman. As rumors are often unverifiable Mayorgate avoided paying
attention, until in early 2014 a brown paper envelope was left at my
work station whilst I was at lunch. The contents of this envelope
were a shock to read. It was a copy of the divorce papers filed by
Patricia Ruth McMullan, the now ex-wife of Mayor Brian McMullan.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">What
were rumours now found absolute and undeniable substance in legal
fact as per filed court papers. The questions this raised were
enormous. Both Brian McMullan as Mayor and Councillor Zimmerman sat
on regional council, just the issue of conflict of interest was
alarming. Reading those divorce papers and the allegations by Mrs.
McMullan raised even more dangerously alarming questions.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">I
published an article titled 'Degradation of Public Office' on May
19<sup>th</sup> 2014. In early June a Notice of Action in the form of
a letter, dated June 2<sup>nd,</sup> 2014 from Sack Goldblatt Mitchell
LLP, signed by Jordan Goldblatt on behalf of his client Debbie
Zimmerman was received. This is where I should clarify what I meant
as being a SLAPPer. It was never anything so gauche or kinky as
slapping literally. Debbie Zimmerman now joined the myriad of
individuals who find the need to remove the public's ability to know
the truth and to discuss or question events. This was news, real news
and without a doubt of public interest. This action was simply
designed to threaten, harass and intimidate so that the article was
removed and an apology provided to Debbie Zimmerman. Though it was no
ordinary threat or accusation of defamation, it went further to
threaten with a Criminal Code complaint under S. 298.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The
Criminal Code of Canada under s. 298(1) – Defamatory Libel states,
“A defamatory libel is a matter published, without lawful
justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of
any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that
is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is
published.” Further as s. 300 – Punishment of Libel know to be
false, states, “Everyone who publishes a defamatory libel that he
knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Debbie
Zimmerman threatened me with potential imprisonment for raising
questions that any reasonable individual would have a right to ask.
These questions were not based on rumours but on court-filed
documents. This made me wonder if I was in Egypt or Saudi Arabia and
Zimmerman was a princess. The threat in writing was followed by a
Statement of Claim, to which I responded with a Statement of Defense,
and an article on Mayorgate, not an apology.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Mayorgate's
article 'Debbie Zimmerman Attacks Mayorgate' made the threat public.
After the claim by Zimmerman and my defence were filed the following
five years remained silent. There was no exchange of affidavits of
documents, no discoveries or court dates for trial. Silence remained
until the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sent me an Order
Dismissing Action for Delay dated the 11<sup>th</sup> of June 2019. </span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FXyFcpY5vL4/XXfW41L4sNI/AAAAAAAAcPg/903g2k2ZS6Q4PGc1snPROKQvuObI7LpDgCEwYBhgL/s1600/Letter%2Bof%2BAbandonment%252C%2Bdebbie%2Bzimmerman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1237" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FXyFcpY5vL4/XXfW41L4sNI/AAAAAAAAcPg/903g2k2ZS6Q4PGc1snPROKQvuObI7LpDgCEwYBhgL/s640/Letter%2Bof%2BAbandonment%252C%2Bdebbie%2Bzimmerman.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Threat
of potential imprisonment hung over me for five years. The Protection
of Public Participation Act as useful as taking an aspirin for a
broken leg. Zimmerman's fear of the truth or public questioning
reached a crescendo only to fizzle out like a pricked balloon. To
add, Zimmerman's five years of silence after the commencement of
legal action was also <i>The Standard</i>'s censorship of the news.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Much
later the <i>Standard</i> did publish a <a href="https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/opinion-story/8971742-niagara-letters-to-the-editor/" target="_blank">letter to the editor</a> written by
Debbie Zimmerman which begins with “Abraham Lincoln once compared
elections to a fire.” One might think this a slightly ambiguous
phrase possibly, or maybe President Lincoln said more to put it into
context? Maybe Zimmerman extracted her shortened version from these
words by Abraham Lincoln; “Elections belong to the people. It's
their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and
burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their
blisters.” No ambiguity here, none at all. Whatever quote she got
it from she continues in her letter to say that women in politics
“faced a heightened scrutiny our male counterparts did not,” and
finished “women in politics became more effective leaders because
the electorate was so closely scrutinizing who we were.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Zimmerman's
letter was published on October 17<sup>th,</sup> 2018 and a nagging
question remains, is it the scrutiny or the fire that she fears? That
fear took another step towards the sublime by naming a local activist
Fred Bracken as a co-defendant in her legal claim against me. It
appeared that Mr. Bracken besides posting a comment on my article, as
anyone may, had tweeted several times questioning the alleged affair,
and linked my article to it. Now anyone in Canada for that matter,
even China, has the legal right to read any article that I had
written and if they wish attach it anywhere. As long as they don't
claim they wrote it. Zimmerman decided that through his actions Mr.
Bracken had republished my Mayorgate article.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Naming
Mr. Bracken as a co-defendant to me, especially as I had no
association with him whatsoever, had me wonder what kind of fixation
did Zimmerman have on him? Really it was not an odd question as
Maryanne Firth of <i>The Standard</i> gave it more credence with her
article, 'Trespass notice ruled a charter violation' published
November 26<sup>th,</sup> 2015. Maryanne Firth writes, “In her
affidavit Zimmerman alleged Bracken also made unfounded allegations
regarding her personal life,” Firth further claims that court
documents allege that Bracken was standing in the public gallery and
“asked Zimmerman why she was suing him personally because of an
article he had written about her.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Bracken
had not written any article about Zimmerman and was being sued as a
co-defendant in my lawsuit as already explained. Who gave this
information to Maryanne Firth of <i>The Standard?</i> Firth eludes to
some “court documents” but what does she mean? Was it the
lawsuit? Was it a simple empty affidavit? Exactly what was Maryanne
Firth saying here? People rely on clarity from a newspaper, facts
that are verifiable, something tangible. All of that may be true, but
the <i>Standard</i> was the newspaper that ensured not a word of the
alleged affair or divorce of former Mayor Brian McMullan reached the
public's ears. If that's not censorship than someone please explain
what is the English meaning of the word.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Before
any yelping squeezes from the <i>Standard'</i>s editors or 'journos'
for my comments, I will impart more information. I interviewed
Patricia McMullan, the ex-Mrs. Brian McMullan, in a Tim Hortons in
Thorold with a witness present. This interview took place on the 9<sup>th</sup>
of January 2016, lasting one hour, 54 minutes and 33 seconds. How am
I so precise? The interview was recorded. Patricia McMullan provided
some disturbing information, and one thing that she said was that she
went to see Doug Herod of <i>The Standard</i>. Doug always thought he
was clever or funny in his style of commentary, but here he listened
to all Patricia McMullan had to say, looked at all she had brought
him and then said, there was nothing he could do. These were the
words of the ex-Mrs. McMullan to me.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Debbie
Zimmerman's panic or desire to shut down any public comment
apparently still exists today. On May of 2019 something popped up on
Twitter. The handle was @HarajukuNiagara – Niagara4Now, and the
tweet read: “Grant's claim to fame: an award for “investigative
journalism” err publishing illegally supplied closed session info.
Debbie's claim to fame? Turner? Expensing hotel bills to taxpayers
for a lover's tryst? #sad #nobailout.” This tweet had Zimmerman
tagged.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-catKxPu880o/XXfWqm8n0jI/AAAAAAAAcPc/vTxWrLGGPEkKam9AJYtbFsY9y7PpVYVjACEwYBhgL/s1600/Debbie%2BZimmerman%2Btweet.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="233" data-original-width="314" height="296" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-catKxPu880o/XXfWqm8n0jI/AAAAAAAAcPc/vTxWrLGGPEkKam9AJYtbFsY9y7PpVYVjACEwYBhgL/s400/Debbie%2BZimmerman%2Btweet.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Within
a very short time Niagara4Now's tweet was removed and was not seen
again, and under the handle @HarajukuNiagara the account had been
renamed HND. Now these are only presumptions and who knows what is
fact here. Is the Grant referred to Grant Lafleche of the <i>Standard</i>?
Did Grant LaFleche threaten the mysterious Niagara4Now? Or was the
Debbie referred to in the tweet Debbie Zimmerman? What hotel bills
could have been “expensing” to taxpayers? There is a tag
@dzimmermangrap1, is that a possible clue? Since Niagara4Now has
disappeared was he or she threatened by Debbie Zimmerman just like I
was? Questions without answers, or at least none that Debbie
Zimmerman will provide if asked.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Zimmerman
through her lawyer Jordan Goldblatt of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
issued, served and filed a threat through the courts. Zimmerman used
the justice system as her personal threat tool she pulled out of her
handbag, as she might a stick of lipstick. I did not aplogise. I
wanted to go into court. I wanted to gather all the evidence needed
to defend myself against Debbie Zimmerman's allegations and threats.
Zimmerman decided to let the court dismiss her action after five
years. Now the question is, does our justice system provide
consequences for such intentional threats?</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Zimmerman
paraphrases President Lincoln but I prefer this quote from Marie
Henein, (Senior partner at Henein Hutchinson LLP), a very well known
Canadian lawyer when she appeared at IdeaCity's annual conference in
June 2019. Ms. Henein said: “That's what its about, all under the
guise that this, an elected official is the true voice of the people.
That's a scam, friends, a complete and utter scam, snake oil.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<br />mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-51739349734599110392018-10-14T15:42:00.000-04:002018-10-14T15:42:35.349-04:00Niagara Regional Housing: another regional authority under question<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Public housing struggles to meet the needs of the community in every part of Canada. In the Niagara Region the Niagara Regional Housing Authority, NRH, oversees this task. The NRH is an arm of the Regional Municipality of Niagara even though it operates as an authority with its own board of directors. Funding for the NRH is primarily provided by the Niagara Region at approximately 60%, and both provincial and federal governments provide some 17% with a balance coming from its own operations through rents. At the end of the day 80% of the NRH operating budget is public money; taxpayers' dollars.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The NRH mission statement as read on its website claims “to expand opportunities that make affordable housing an integral part of building healthy and sustainable communities in Niagara.” Its strategic plan for 2013-2016 states that the “NRH demonstrates our commitment to this vision and to Regional Council's focus on Niagara as a healthy community, that supports a safe, healthy, diverse culturally rich community where people of all ages and incomes enjoy a high quality of life.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Seniors' residences comprise approximately 45% of the public housing the NRH oversees, some they own and operate but the majority are semi-private and are funded by the NRH. Staff at the NRH whether management or not are public employees paid by the public purse. So an authority such as the NRH funded by the taxpayers' dollars would be expected to be answerable to public scrutiny, and to be diligent in overseeing its responsibility in shepherding public money. Well, in theory, yes, in practice it has left serious and alarming questions needing answers.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The Paderewski Society Home in St. Catharines is one such semi-private seniors home. It's life began as a vision of one man, Leopold Skorski, and is a registered non-profit society with a set of by-laws and an elected volunteer board of directors. Although it is a registered non-profit organisation its operational funding is entirely provided by Niagara Regional Housing, which is public money. Much as been written on this website relating to the Paderewski, with the most <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2018/07/paderewski-society-home-battle-continues.html" target="_blank">recent article detailing the trial completed late 2017</a>.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">As members of a society, we are aware that if we unlawfully take something that does not belong to us we will face an investigation and consequences. In the case of the Paderewski, a Superior Court justice said in his decision that the Purchasing and Tendering Policy had been breached. That same justice said the by-laws of the Society had been breached and the policies of the NRH. He called this very suspicious. A Forensic Auditor, Robert Forsyth, stated under oath fraud had been committed. Should this not be enough for a full police investigation and the guilty face consequences? Public money had been stolen and the NRH fully aware of this fact and nothing has happened.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PCQt1utvhPA/W8OPytZ6jyI/AAAAAAAAU_o/ceiGFMhk7Xw0IdvtoqeIFOawWB3-20OgQCEwYBhgL/s1600/Niagara%2BRegion%252C%2BChair%2BAllan%2BCaslin%252C%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1547" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PCQt1utvhPA/W8OPytZ6jyI/AAAAAAAAU_o/ceiGFMhk7Xw0IdvtoqeIFOawWB3-20OgQCEwYBhgL/s640/Niagara%2BRegion%252C%2BChair%2BAllan%2BCaslin%252C%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing.jpg" width="617" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">After the trial, emails were sent to Niagara Regional Chair Alan Caslin and the current Chair of the NRH, Henry D'Angela advising them of the Superior Court's Justice decision and the testimony of Auditor Robert Forsyth. Remember the NRH is predominately funded by Niagara Region's tax dollars. Chair Alan Caslin has never responded, Chair of NRH Henry D'Angela on July 10</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"> 2018 confirmed by email that he had forwarded the concerns regarding fraud to staff. His email had two names which he had c.c'd: Donna Woiceshyn, CEO and Shelly Upton. On July 12</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"> 2018, Shelly Upton, Manager Housing Programs responded stating: “I have had an opportunity to review the Superior Court decision attached to your email as well as our files and records involving the Paderewski Society Home.” She continued that the NRH “has investigated allegations of improper spending at Paderewski on several occasions since 2009. Following each investigation NRH wrote to the Board of Directors of Paderewski confirming that no financial irregularities had been found.” Shelly Upton finished by saying that NRH “considers the complaint regarding the purchasing and tendering processes related to the fencing installed in 2011 closed.” Chair D'Angela referred to Shelly Upton July 10</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"> at 1:13 pm., Shelly Upton closed the files July 12 at 7:20 pm. This had to have been a truly exhaustive review of records and files, although Upton did not surprise anyone.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Regional Chair Caslin's lack of interest in the fraud of public money is not so surprising with all he has had hang over him. First, there was the information of Alan Caslin's personal association with Justice Edwards who had heard a Motion filed against the Niagara Region, and a ruling in favour of the Region. Then there was the feeding frenzy by regional councillors in grabbing personal property belonging to a journalist and a private citizen. In this case, the Ombudsman slammed the Region after its investigation. Finally, there is the whole question of the hiring of Region's CEO Carmen D'Angelo. Yet Caslin and the NRH not caring about fraud is hard to accept, unless one reviews evidence put forward during the trial.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FS_apNxiibc/W8OP6yEBYcI/AAAAAAAAU_w/v5E6ZBMh49I0cVs0346ed3Qm6NLwYhXjwCEwYBhgL/s1600/Chair%252C%2BHenry%2BD%2527Angela%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1368" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FS_apNxiibc/W8OP6yEBYcI/AAAAAAAAU_w/v5E6ZBMh49I0cVs0346ed3Qm6NLwYhXjwCEwYBhgL/s640/Chair%252C%2BHenry%2BD%2527Angela%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing.jpg" width="546" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vuph_pSDCog/W8OQCvohx1I/AAAAAAAAU_0/v6q9C8_hF10vvjeRUAnyERVLVLttBBlTACEwYBhgL/s1600/Shelly%2BUpton%252C%2BManager%2BHousing%2BPrograms%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1346" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vuph_pSDCog/W8OQCvohx1I/AAAAAAAAU_0/v6q9C8_hF10vvjeRUAnyERVLVLttBBlTACEwYBhgL/s640/Shelly%2BUpton%252C%2BManager%2BHousing%2BPrograms%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing.jpg" width="538" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Entered into public record were minutes of the Paderewski Society Home board meeting on November 13</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"> 2013. Present at the meeting was Lorraine Small, a manager with the NRH, and a manager who had supposedly looked into allegations of financial irregularities. Ms. Small advised the Board in November of 2013 to take legal action against Leopold Skorski to shut him up and stop him from asking any more questions. Lorraine Small is a public employee, paid with public money yet how did she have the legal right to provide such advice? Legal action was taken by the Board of the Paderewski against Leopold Skorski, Alexander Davidoff and Alexandra Davidoff in February of 2014.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Further testimony was provided by Stella Fensom, building manager at the Paderewski during the trial in 2017 who is the center of the questions of fraud, that Laura Beckwith another manager at the NRH at the time, handed over a copy of a letter written to the RHRA by defendant Alexander Davidoff. The Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority is a provincial body established to assist seniors in many facets of their lives. This provincial authority sent a copy of the letter they received to the NRH so that they look into the issues raised. Under no circumstances was anyone at the NRH permitted by law to provide a copy of the letter to a private non-government body who they advised to take legal action to silence questions being asked. Chair of the NRH at the time, Shirley Cordiner admitted to sharing the letter and then said she ordered all files to be deleted. Does that smell a little of the provincial Liberals and McGuinty? Paderewski lawyer at the time, Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard, refers to the illegally obtained letter in her Notice of Action dated February 27<sup>th</sup> 2014. </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Shirley Cordiner, former NRH Chair went further writing a letter dated December 18<sup>th</sup> 2013 in which she stated that all the allegations made, in particular relating to two contracts: the Gale Force Fencing and Glen Paul, who had been investigated and no irregularities found. Both the judge at trial in 2017 and the Forensic Auditor Robert Forsyth found massive irregularities. Robert Forsyth called it fraud and Justice Henderson called it very suspicious and a breach of the Purchasing & Tendering Policy.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The timeline in all of these actions by the NRH staff is of crucial legal importance and raises the possibility of questions of complicity in the fraud. Can there be another explanation and can there be an explanation of why no investigation has been conducted of the fraud? Niagara regional staff had become involved directly in a legal action by a third party who is financed by public money. This same third party was improperly investigated by the NRH staff for fraud. </span>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6fcHhANvrwU/W8OR19oF9jI/AAAAAAAAVAI/5UfJHMF-7wI7AXd-1TDTbwMtht3vubXXQCEwYBhgL/s1600/Malte%2Bvon%2BAnrep%252C%2BLancaster%2BBrooks%2Band%2BWelch%252C%2BMayor%2BWalter%2BSendzik%252C%2BNRH%252C%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1158" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6fcHhANvrwU/W8OR19oF9jI/AAAAAAAAVAI/5UfJHMF-7wI7AXd-1TDTbwMtht3vubXXQCEwYBhgL/s640/Malte%2Bvon%2BAnrep%252C%2BLancaster%2BBrooks%2Band%2BWelch%252C%2BMayor%2BWalter%2BSendzik%252C%2BNRH%252C%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome.jpg" width="462" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Questions relating to the absolute lack of interest in fraud of public money do not stop with the NRH or the regional government of Niagara. Malte von Anrep, Q.C, with Lancaster, Brooks and Welch LLP, and the lawyer for the Paderewski founder, Leo Skorski, wrote Mayor Walter Sendzik of St. Catharines on May 11<sup>th</sup> 2018. Mayor Sendzik did not bother to reply.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Chris Bittle is the federal representative for the Trudeau Liberals in St. Catharines, and a former<b> </b>lawyer with Lancaster, Brooks and Welch. An email was sent July 3<sup>rd</sup> 2018, stating out the details of the fraud and offering to make available all the legal documents. Niagara Regional Housing is in part funded by the federal government, MP Chris Bittle pops his face into photo-ops, and more importantly, Chris Bittle does not shy from public comment about local issues. Several months ago when a public storm broke in relation to a regional councillor from Niagara, MP Bittle played out his attack against the councillor publicly. That issue had nothing to do with a federal politician. Now he is silent, why?</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V_xgKSj3zsc/W8OR6L8vgyI/AAAAAAAAVAM/cewCiEecAY4dWOUO5fwA0kP18fyRZAdxACEwYBhgL/s1600/Chris%2BBittle%252C%2BMP%252C%2BSt.%2BCatharines%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing%252C%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1196" data-original-width="1575" height="484" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V_xgKSj3zsc/W8OR6L8vgyI/AAAAAAAAVAM/cewCiEecAY4dWOUO5fwA0kP18fyRZAdxACEwYBhgL/s640/Chris%2BBittle%252C%2BMP%252C%2BSt.%2BCatharines%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing%252C%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">The provincial elections swept the Liberals out of Queens' Park and brought forward two local former St. Catharines councillors into the glamour of provincial politics. Both Jeff Burch and Jenny Stevens were Merritton Ward Councillors and both have been elected as NDP representatives, and both have been featured in articles in Mayorgate.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Jeff Burch as a councillor found himself under<a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2013/11/integrity-commissioner-suzanne-craig.html" target="_blank"> investigation by Integrity Commissioner </a>Suzanne Craig for lying to City Council. Craig was not able to complete her investigation but in her final report she clearly stated that she had not cleared Jeff Burch of these very serious allegations. Today Burch struts as the NDP Municipal Affairs Critic and on August 7<sup>th</sup> 2018 an email was sent to him relating to the fraud with a link to Justice Henderson's decision. The NDP, the New Democratic Party, which attacks the sitting Conservative government of Doug Ford has shown no care at all for fraud of the public purse. Burch has not responded to the email.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5QABjWSQfUU/W8OR_lu-8nI/AAAAAAAAVAU/-_sUhhqUIkMSHy8aBrQdMKPRZeiMu6ZsQCEwYBhgL/s1600/Jeff%2BBurch%252C%2BMPP%2BMunicipal%2BAffairs%2BCritic%252C%2BJenny%2BStevens%2BMPP%252C%2BSt.%2BCatharines%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing%252C%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="1592" height="568" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5QABjWSQfUU/W8OR_lu-8nI/AAAAAAAAVAU/-_sUhhqUIkMSHy8aBrQdMKPRZeiMu6ZsQCEwYBhgL/s640/Jeff%2BBurch%252C%2BMPP%2BMunicipal%2BAffairs%2BCritic%252C%2BJenny%2BStevens%2BMPP%252C%2BSt.%2BCatharines%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing%252C%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Fellow NDP representative Jenny Stevens, like Burch, was a former St. Catharines councillor, and in the 2010 municipal elections claimed to go out at night to fix plumbing for constituents. Jenny Stevens is also rather famous for <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-neighbourhood-pays-as-developer.html" target="_blank">her telephone answering machine message </a>where she confirmed that the former Mayor of St. Catharines, Brian McMullan had fixed a fine for a resident. Stevens is Veterans Legions, and Military Affairs Critic and like compadre Burch she manages to pop out of her seat now and again to poke at the Ford government. She also received an email on August 7</span><sup><span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">th</span></sup><span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"> 2018, and like Burch, Stevens ignored everything. The NDP is the official opposition in Ontario and it has much to say about the government, yet the NDP has shown that public money is not an issue of concern.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">As a last resort, a letter was sent to Premier Doug Ford with the Justice Henderson Ruling and Robert Forsyth Testimony. Little expectation remained as previously both the NDP's Jeff Burch and Jenny Stevens, and the Federal Liberals through Chris Bittle ignored this very serious situation.<b> A letter arrived dated September 17</b><sup><b>th</b></sup><b> 2018 signed by MPP Steve Clark, the Minister for Municipal Affairs. Minister Clark begins his letter with, “Premier Doug Ford has forwarded to me your letter regarding your concerns with the Niagara Regional Housing Authority.” </b>Premier Ford had not ignored the material sent to him and through his minister, Steve Clark provided guidance and confirmation for the next steps to be taken.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gCCeYvBxaHE/W8OSMc7DVSI/AAAAAAAAVAc/02_63tFde7s5dNYTOnBhv5mb2VkAJVmHgCEwYBhgL/s1600/Steve%2BClark%252C%2BMinister%2Bfor%2BMunicipal%2BAffairs%2Band%2BHousing%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing%252C%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1211" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gCCeYvBxaHE/W8OSMc7DVSI/AAAAAAAAVAc/02_63tFde7s5dNYTOnBhv5mb2VkAJVmHgCEwYBhgL/s640/Steve%2BClark%252C%2BMinister%2Bfor%2BMunicipal%2BAffairs%2Band%2BHousing%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegional%2BHousing%252C%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome.jpg" width="484" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ptL9nA01mno/W8OSQIfMPPI/AAAAAAAAVAg/L4RAHWwQo28_tUHcZvSh-ZEANeZdOAd-wCEwYBhgL/s1600/Minister%2Bfor%2BMunicipal%2BAffairs%252C%2BSteve%2BClark%252C%2BPremier%2BDoug%2BFord.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: inline !important; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: white;"> </span><img border="0" data-original-height="521" data-original-width="1406" height="147" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ptL9nA01mno/W8OSQIfMPPI/AAAAAAAAVAg/L4RAHWwQo28_tUHcZvSh-ZEANeZdOAd-wCEwYBhgL/s400/Minister%2Bfor%2BMunicipal%2BAffairs%252C%2BSteve%2BClark%252C%2BPremier%2BDoug%2BFord.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">It is difficult to understand how fraud by a non-profit seniors' housing provider be ignored, particularly when identified by a Superior Court Justice and a Forensic Auditor. The local newspapers <i>The Standard</i>, <i>Niagara this Week</i> and its editors have decided to censor all information relating to this, local regional government and its housing authority have closed their files, provincial opposition and the federal representative simply ignore everything; yet the Charter of Rights guarantees equality of law and this cannot be permitted to simply fade. Answers are demanded to serious questions and they need to be sought out.</span></div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-33866147213944317252018-07-06T18:04:00.000-04:002018-07-06T18:04:52.142-04:00Paderewski Society Home battle continues<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The Paderewski Society Home for seniors in St. Catharines, Ontario, is a nicely kept residence where seniors from Polish background can spend their twilight years. It was the dream of one man, Mr. Leo Skorski, a Polish immigrant to Canada, who worked hard and did well for his family. Leo wanted to find a way to give back to the community which gave him and his family so much. As a result,</span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"> the Paderewski Society Home came to life providing a clean well run seniors residence.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">Today Leo Skorski, a man in his early 90's, sharp and full of life as ever, continues a fight which began in February of 2014. After the Paderewski was built and all the legalities completed Skorski served as the Board President for several years, transferring his uncompromising integrity and honesty from his personal and business life to the running of the seniors home. Eventually, Skorski became a resident at the Home and as the by-laws of the Home required, he had to step down from his position as the President of the Board of Directors.</span><b style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;"> </b><span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">Although he stepped down as president he had not relinquished his concerns as to how the Home was run.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t0nrj4jQOgM/Wz_P-2kb8VI/AAAAAAAARD4/xY4q504SnDcqT0ANLZVrf-T9-ZsJshsxACKgBGAs/s1600/20180622_131702.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t0nrj4jQOgM/Wz_P-2kb8VI/AAAAAAAARD4/xY4q504SnDcqT0ANLZVrf-T9-ZsJshsxACKgBGAs/s640/20180622_131702.jpg" width="480" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">By 2009 the questions surrounding the actions of the Board of Directors of the Paderewski and the building manager Stella Fensom had grown immensely for Skorski, he enlisted the help of friend and Queen's Council, Mr. Malte von Anrep from the law firm of Lancaster, Brooks and Welch to find satisfactory answers. For some five years, Malte von Anrep on behalf of his friend and client made attempts to find satisfactory answers to the serious questions raised. The solicitor representing the Paderewski, Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP, provided responses that to Skorski seemed ambiguous at best. Numerous attempts at communication with Niagara Regional Housing who funds over 90% of the operating budget of the Paderewski Society Home equally proved fruitless to Malte von Anrep and Leo Skorski.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">Finally, in late 2013 Skorski was introduced to me, publisher of Mayorgate by Niagara Regional Councillor Andy Petrowski. Interviews with Leo Skorski and his lawyer Malte von Anrep, </span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">attempts at obtaining comment from Paderewski Building Manager, Stella Fensom which had been left unanswered, reviewing dozens of documents including responses by Niagara Regional Housing; all provided the basis for an article. Prior to publishing, I had contacted the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority – a provincial body – relating to matters affecting seniors and the operation of seniors' residences. In addition to the RHRA, I contacted the Minister for Seniors Affairs seeking advice on the issues raised by Leo Skorski.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">An article titled, 'Seniors Languish in Intimidation' was published in late January 2014. February saw three Notice of Action documents prepared and served by lawyer, </span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP claiming defamation. The three recipients were: Leo Skorski, Alexandra Davidoff, daughter of Alexander Davidoff, and Alexander Davidoff, publisher of Mayorgate. It was no surprise that questions raised in the article by Leo Skorski needed to be silenced but Alexandra Davidoff had no connection to the article. Her only connection to this website – Mayorgate – was to produce as an artist on occasion caricatures to articles. This was a clear attempt at intimidation and nothing else.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Once the Notice of Action was delivered the games began and continued for over three and a half years. Paderewski's lawyer, Rachel Slingerland, attempted to stall or stop a forensic audit from being conducted, she attempted to refuse to have Paderewski Board President, Sabina Glowacki from being questioned under the Examination procedure. Most notable of all was the refusal by Rachel Slingerland to examine Alexandra Davidoff as part of the Examination for Discovery process. And the refusal was clear, Slingerland knew that no evidence existed against Alexandra Davidoff.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Then in 2017, Rachel Slingerland, of Martens Lingard LLP walked away from the Paderewski as clients and a new lawyer took over the baton. Taking over the carnival was lawyer Zijad Saskin of Broderick and Partners LLP. A trial date was finally set and the trial judge was Justice J.R. Henderson.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">It was a trial that lasted nine days, beginning on July </span>31<sup style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">st</sup><span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;"> 2017 with testimony provided by President of the Board Sabina Glowacki, Board Member Tony Sotola, Building Manager Stella Fensom and </span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">Forensic Auditor Robert Forsyth. At question was the issue of Defamation and did the defendants harm the reputation of the Paderewski Society Home by making comments that were absolutely untrue in the article published on Mayorgate.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Defamation Law has changed dramatically since the Supreme Court decision in Grant v. Torstar Corp, 2009. Until this decision, the protection of reputation was the key to defamation action. Now a new defense had been brought forward that of responsible communication about matters of public interest.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">A trial is pretty much like a game, and that is not said with any disrespect for the law or our system of justice; Law and its administration is a key component to a democratic society, still, the analogy presented is hard to ignore. The key players are the lawyers who do not play for any permanent team, their companies are nothing more than agents. Their mantra is in the best interest of the client, and as long as they are paid that is apparently the only rulebook.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In this case, the best interest of the client involved the malicious and vexatious prosecution of an individual even when both lawyers were fully aware that no evidence existed. Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard issued her Notice of Action in February 2014 and was immediately told that the defendant, Alexandra Davidoff, had no involvement with the Mayorgate website or the articles written and published. Rachel Slingerland had to have a motive for this act, after all, she is supposedly university trained and had passed the Bar.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Rachel Slingerland left the firm Martens Lingard and another lawyer from Broderick & Partners LLP, Zijad Saskin took over the file as the Paderewski lawyer. Saskin in taking the file would have had to review everything and would be fully aware that the action against one of the defendants was nothing more than intimidation but apparently the law mattered little to Zijad Saskin. <b>On August 3</b><sup><b>rd</b></sup><b> 2017 the morning of the fourth day of the trial Justice J.R. Henderson said, “First of all, with respect to the Plaintiff's case against Alexandra Davidoff, in my view, there is no evidence that has been presented by the Plaintiff at this trial that would justify the claim against this defendant. Therefore the action against Alexandra Davidoff is dismissed.”</b> (as per official transcript by Carol A. MacLean, Certified Court Transcriptionist).</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Moments prior to dismissing the action Justice J.R. Henderson said, “I certainly have a question as to the evidence against Miss Davidoff,” to which Zijad Saskin representing the Paderewski Society Home responded. “As, I mean, as far as I'm concerned Your Honour, I, I would agree with your finding that there is no evidence against Miss Davidoff and as far as I am concerned, I would consent to an order dismissing the action against Miss Davidoff.” (from trial transcript by Carol A. MacLean, Certified Court Transcriptionist).</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D9manzyasgc/Wz_ajiRsyKI/AAAAAAAAREo/Q6kUSHUyGmIRDq_fpsqpWABUHTSWEXa1QCEwYBhgL/s1600/Justice%2BHenerson%252C%2BZijad%2BSaskin%252C%2Bcourt%2Btranscript.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1264" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D9manzyasgc/Wz_ajiRsyKI/AAAAAAAAREo/Q6kUSHUyGmIRDq_fpsqpWABUHTSWEXa1QCEwYBhgL/s640/Justice%2BHenerson%252C%2BZijad%2BSaskin%252C%2Bcourt%2Btranscript.jpg" width="504" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The trial continued with a<a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc6594/2017onsc6594.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAXcGFkZXJld3NraSBzb2NpZXR5IGhvbWUAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1" target="_blank"> judgment by Justice J.R. Henderson </a>provided on the 3<sup>rd</sup> of November 2017.<b> </b>After reading the reasoning for judgment one can't help but burst into a rendition of the well-known song by Meatloaf, “Two Out of Three Aint Bad.” In this case, the plaintiff is a non-profit corporation, run by a volunteer board of directors, and “funding for the operation comes from NRH,” (page 3, paragraph 11, Justice J.R. Henderson, Reasons for Judgment – Introduction). Simply put the plaintiff, Paderewski Society Home, is a non-profit organisation solely funded by public money granted through a regional government body, the Niagara Regional Housing Authority.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">At trial were three defendants: first was Leopold Skorski, a retired and successful businessman, who came up with the concept of a seniors' home for individuals of Polish heritage. He raised the financing, completed all the government red tape and built the Paderewski. He then served as the first president of the Board from its opening in 1991 to July 2007. Defendant Alexander Davidoff, the publisher of Mayorgate, interviewed Leo Skorski, then his lawyer Malte von Anrep, Q.C., of Lancaster, Brooks & Welch, gathered documents from various sources particularly the NRH and the plaintiff's legal representative. The third defendant; Alexandra Davidoff, had the action dismissed against her by Justice Henderson. </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Skorski raised a number of questions about the monthly financial statements, tenant concerns, and the operation of the Paderewski Home. He enlisted the aid of Malte von Anrep, Q.C., and took these concerns to Niagara Regional Housing. At best he saw the responses he got as inadequate, Skorski then turned to Mayorgate in an attempt to bring public attention to the serious issues he felt were left unanswered. Justice Henderson at paragraph 6 in his decision states, “The Mayorgate article is the essence of the complaint in this action.” </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Defamation Law is based on the principle that the plaintiff must prove that the words were reasonably capable of a meaning that can injure a plaintiff's reputation, and Justice Henderson says as much in paragraph 20 of his decision. <b>At paragraph 147, Justice J.R. Henderson states: “I must consider the nature of the reputation that has been lost. In my view, given the financial irregularities, the Board's mishandling of Skorski's complaints, and the Board's questionable conduct at the AGM, the reputation of the Paderewski Home has been tarnished by its own actions. This was not a pristine well-run organisation at the time of the publication of the Mayorgate article.”</b></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><b>Further at paragraph 146, Justice Henderson writes, “I must look at the conduct of the plaintiff. In my view, Skorski was right to confront the Board about financial irregularities, but the Board mishandled and ignored his complaints. If the Board had reasonably considered Skorski's criticism, these matters may not have escalated to the point of the Mayorgate article. That is, Skorski went to the media only after his criticisms, some of which were accurate, had been ignored by the Board and the public authority.”</b></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Then at paragraph 144, Justice Henderson writes, “given that there is public funding of the Paderewski Home, the allegations of tenant abuse may affect the plaintiff's source of public funds, and may also affect its reputation in the community to the extent that possible private fundraising may be suppressed.” What private fundraising is Justice Henderson eluding to when at paragraph 11 he confirms that the funding of the operation is provided by Niagara Regional Housing? At paragraph 146 he writes that Skorski had been ignored by public authorities, and by “public authorities” he meant the NRH, (Niagara Regional Housing). Several exhibits had been provided at trial, such as the letter from NRH Chair Shirley Cordiner where supposedly NRH staff conducted investigations and found nothing wrong at the Paderewski. The most alarming of all was a copy of the Paderewski Home Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting of November 13<sup>th</sup> 2013, where it states, “Ms. L. Small from NRH visited the office on November 6, 2013” and then on page two, “Ms. Small suggested that the board again consider taking legal action against Mr. L. Skorski for harassment.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TwOzUiII2MU/Wz_awGEfJdI/AAAAAAAAREs/i87h0snlyX4EluYio0sBgtE0SRtGxs8bwCEwYBhgL/s1600/page%2B1%2BPaderewski%2BBoard%2Bof%2BDirectors%2BMinutes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1151" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TwOzUiII2MU/Wz_awGEfJdI/AAAAAAAAREs/i87h0snlyX4EluYio0sBgtE0SRtGxs8bwCEwYBhgL/s640/page%2B1%2BPaderewski%2BBoard%2Bof%2BDirectors%2BMinutes.jpg" width="460" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K-7xdWiqv_8/Wz_ay2YaytI/AAAAAAAAREw/pp8n2ltEFtYm4QsWEmqbkn6ul6qvisyKgCEwYBhgL/s1600/Page%2B2%252C%2BPaderewski%2BBoard%2Bof%2BDirectors%252C%2BMinutes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1170" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K-7xdWiqv_8/Wz_ay2YaytI/AAAAAAAAREw/pp8n2ltEFtYm4QsWEmqbkn6ul6qvisyKgCEwYBhgL/s640/Page%2B2%252C%2BPaderewski%2BBoard%2Bof%2BDirectors%252C%2BMinutes.jpg" width="468" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Paderewski Society Home Minutes, November 13, 2013, part of trial exhibit #3, at tab L and on public record</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">There is a great deal more to question in the </span><a href="https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc6594/2017onsc6594.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAXcGFkZXJld3NraSBzb2NpZXR5IGhvbWUAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1" style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;" target="_blank">Justice Henderson decision.</a><span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;"> At trial, evidence had been provided by Forensic Auditor Robert Forsyth who had conducted an audit of the Paderewski Home. Forsyth testified that he felt on a balance of probabilities that there had been civil fraud, and in the opening to paragraph 66 Justice Henderson writes, “I specifically accept Forsyth's opinion that the Board violated its own internal Purchasing and Tendering Policy (PTP) in relation to the GFC contract.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Through paragraphs 68 to 72 Justice Henderson discusses the GFC contract that spiraled to some $30,000. At paragraph 69 Justice Henderson writes, “I agree with Forsyth that this transaction is very suspicious.” Then further, “I also agree that the acceptance of the original GFC repair bid constitutes a violation of the plaintiff's own PTP.”<b> </b>At paragraph 70, “This again is a violation of the PTP of the plaintiff.” then again in paragraph 71, “Again the Board violated the plaintiff's own PTP” and finally paragraph 72, “Accordingly, I find the plaintiff violated its own internal regulations and failed to operate as directed by the NRH, with respect to the GFC contract.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Following discussions of the GFC contract, Justice Henderson moved to the issues of Glen Paul, “the manager's carpenter”. In paragraphs 76 to 86 Justice Henderson dissects the contract which amounted to over $10,000. He begins writing again, “This is a clear violation of the PTP” at paragraph 76, then he says that Stella Fensom, the building manager, claimed that the privacy screen contract was a custom job and could only be done by Paul, to which Justice Henderson adds, “but those reasons were never recorded, and in fact are clearly untrue.” Further at paragraph 78, Justice Henderson writes that Fensom “deviated from the proper rules in so many ways, and then failed to disclose that she had a connection to the contractor is extremely suspicious.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Justice Henderson raises the fact that the directives of the NRH were violated by Stella Fensom and the Board of the plaintiff in paragraphs 79 and 80. In paragraph 81 he begins with, “there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the payment to Paul,” then he writes at paragraph 84, “Finally, and significantly, the entire Paul contract is suspect because Paul is the brother of Fensom's daughter-in-law. Moreover, despite questions from Skorski and from Forsyth during the investigation, Fensom denied that she had a family connection to Paul until shortly before the start of the trial. I accept Forsyth's view that the fact that Fensom deviated from the proper rules in so many ways, and then failed to disclose that she had a connection to the contractor is extremely suspicious.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Justice Henderson states Forsyth testified that there had been civil fraud but that he did not accept Forsyth's ultimate conclusion that fraud occurred. He said, “the missing elements of civil fraud are the proof of a loss to the victim (plaintiff) and the benefit to the fraudster (Fensom).” It can be taken then that Justice Henderson saw the Board of the Paderewski as the possible victim and building manager Stella Fensom as the fraudster.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Robert Forsyth provided lengthy testimony at the trial, and on page 9 of the trial's transcript it reads: “A Supreme Court case, a judge summarized four elements of civil fraud. Here I'm going to use the words Paderewski and Ms. Fentom [sic], Fensom. So a false representation was made by Ms. Fensom or somebody else in, in Paderewski. Some knowledge of that, that representation being false was known to, they call them the defendant. The false representation caused someone to act and there was a loss.” The Supreme Court case Forsyth referred to was from Bruno Appliance and Hryniak. Further at page 40 of the transcript, Forsyth says, “As a civil expert, I can deal with what I'm given but I don't have the power to compel bank statements. I don't have the power to, to speak to all of the contractees and distant people. I could only speak to Ms. Fensom and the Board so I could not follow up on things that I might otherwise have done.” He continued in response to a question by Malte von Anrep, “What I had was consistently being told he was met at the Royal Canadian Legion. There was no connection. There had been no situation where they met socially other than I think it was at Cat's Caboose, and at other places. That, that's what I was given to understand. Well, now there's a connection, a connection that seemingly was denied. So, first of all, that tends to make me even more dubious of any explanations offered by Ms. Fensom. Secondly, if, as I understand it, Ms. Fensom's son was married to the sister of Paul, that in a way provides motivation. It supplies the missing link.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Forsyth further said, “on the balance of probabilities, makes me conclude that there was fraud, using my earlier definition of fraud, where now – excuse for me for one second – for now I, I know that there's a false representation. I know that, that Ms. Fensom knew or ought to know that, that there is some facts, material facts that weren't there. Paderewski did the contract because of Ms. Fensom's providing the information and that there was a loss. So I have apparently all the elements of a civil fraud.” </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Robert Forsyth has a Masters in Social Psychology, an MBA in Management Science. He is a Certified General Accountant, a CFI, and in 2000 was certified as a forensic investigator. Since 2003 all his work has been in forensic accounting. He has been involved in ninety investigations or consulting assignments either for the Government of Ontario Ministries or for various lawyers in private practice, and an expert witness in ten court or arbitration cases. Forsyth was contracted by Niagara Regional Housing to prepare and deliver seminars on fraud and ways to prevent it and how to audit and investigate for fraud. Justice Henderson did not accept Forsyth's conclusion on fraud at the Paderewski.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Justice Henderson would not accept the word fraud, he preferred to say that the transactions were very suspicious and that the PTP<b> </b>had been breached. Then he turned his attention to the Annual General Meeting in his decision. Beginning with paragraph 92 through to 95 he dissects the By-Law of the plaintiff, the Paderewski, and the process that provides for the election of the Board. At paragraph 96 Justice Henderson says, “Accordingly, I accept that Skorski and his group had reason to believe that they were eligible to participate in the meeting, vote in the election, and run for office, provided they were not tenants of the Paderewski Home.” This has been said by Leo Skorski for several years and the facts he provided for the original article.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The conclusion to paragraph 96 was more of an eye-opener, “I do not make any finding as to whether the results of the 2013 election were valid, but I find that the decision by Glowacki to terminate the meeting, and prohibit Skorski and his group from participation was an irregularity in the process.” So once again Justice Henderson agrees with Skorski and now that's two out of three, and Meatloaf is about to sing... but wait, this is Justice Henderson.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In relation to potential tenant abuse or neglect, paragraph 97 shows where Justice Henderson was going. He writes, “The only tenant of Paderewski who testified at this trial was Skorski, and he testified that he did not live in fear at the Paderewski Home and that he had not been the subject of any abuse. Thus, any evidence of abuse of tenants by a Board member or by Fensom is hearsay evidence, and must be treated with caution.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Hearsay evidence is tricky and when a judge makes such a statement it would be expected the statement is carried to both sides, here in this case, it did not appear to be by Justice Henderson. First, Skorski had fought for over ten years to bring the truth to the surface, and at age 91, he was threatened with eviction. Three main individuals: Mr. Janusz Zelichowski, Ms. Helen Cholawski and Mr. Dolbaczuk who spoke out and provided written statements, had all passed away before the trial had begun, others were hesitant to speak to an outsider.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Tony Sotola testified regarding the incident with tenant Zelichowski. At paragraph 104 Justice Henderson writes, “I find that Sotola did not do anything wrong to start the confrontation and that Zelichowski inappropriately responded by striking Sotola with his cane.” During his testimony Board Member Tony Sotola was asked by Malte von Anrep, “I'm not asking whether they convinced you to call the police or not, I'm saying to you, suggesting to you that nowhere in either your version of the events or Mr. Zelichowski's version of the, of the events, is there any mention of you being struck by a cane. Isn't that a fact?” Tony Sotola responded with, “That's a fact.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z-8KWuvvBwY/Wz_aeY0IQQI/AAAAAAAAREc/GUcZWhAhuVI0lCJo7_jL55Z2mv3POZM8wCEwYBhgL/s1600/Tony%2BSotola%252C%2BBoard%2BMember%252C%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome%252C%2Bcourt%2Btranscript.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1256" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z-8KWuvvBwY/Wz_aeY0IQQI/AAAAAAAAREc/GUcZWhAhuVI0lCJo7_jL55Z2mv3POZM8wCEwYBhgL/s640/Tony%2BSotola%252C%2BBoard%2BMember%252C%2BPaderewski%2BSociety%2BHome%252C%2Bcourt%2Btranscript.jpg" width="502" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In the end, Justice Henderson says at paragraph 116, “the statements in the Mayorgate article about tenant abuse and neglect are not substantially true,” and at 117 “I also find the statements in the Gestapo letter are not justified.” The meaning of the word substantially used by Justice Henderson implies that he saw some truth but not largely, mainly or greatly. Yet more alarming was the label Justice Henderson put on a plea for help from a 91-year-old for his fellow senior tenants.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Henderson is a Justice within the Canadian judicial system, a system built on the principles of the Charter of Rights. Canada does not accept any form of labelling in our society; be it on race, religion, or beliefs. Justice Henderson took that plea or help by seniors and labelled it “the Gestapo letter,” and then used that label eight times throughout his written judgment. Was it for effect or impact? In paragraph 6 Justice Henderson writes, “the plaintiff relies on one letter written by Skorski to NRH in early 2012, hereinafter called “the Gestapo letter”.” That statement by Justice Henderson is not “substantially” true as the letter is addressed to “Mr. Mayor, Mrs. Beckwith,” and its content primarily refers to the Mayor.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The mere connotation of the label “the Gestapo letter” brings to mind the horror of Nazi Germany, antisemitism and the most horrific abuse of human rights and murder. In the Statement of Claim by the plaintiff there is no mention of the letter at all. During trial the lawyer for the plaintiff, Zijad Saskin, referred to the letter and did not call it a “Gestapo letter.” Defendant Leo Skorski explained that many of the tenants are survivors of the Nazi occupation of Poland. He explained that it referred to in the sentence, “We have a genuine complaint and proof of the “Gestapo” style of treating helpless seniors,” actions taken by the Manager and a questionnaire circulated among tenants.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Out of the five paragraphs of this letter four begin with Mr. Mayor, and reading the letter there was no expression of anger or hatred which would be associated with such a label as Justice Henderson slapped on it. The letter finishes, “You have [You refers to Mrs. Beckwith of the NRH] the power to intervene in our situation and restore a healthy atmosphere and let us seniors live the rest of our lives in dignity and happiness.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">At the end of his decision Justice Henderson writes, “I find that Skorski in particular had good intentions” and “similarly, I find that Davidoff had good intentions as he believed that Skorski had raised issues of public concern.” The real crunch comes in paragraph 147 as Justice Henderson writes, “In my view given the Board's questionable conduct at the AGM, the reputation of the Paderewski Home has been tarnished by its own actions. This was not a pristine, well-run organisation at the time of publication of the Mayorgate article. I find that the unfounded complaints of tenant abuse reduced Paderewski's reputation, but other conduct by the plaintiff has also undermined its reputation.”</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><b>With such a conclusion defendant Leo Skorski who fought for well over ten years for the truth was asked for a comment, his response was: “I was very disappointed, because the opposite side was under oath did not tell the truth, regardless that I presented three written proofs and a forensic audit proof that fraud was committed, Justice was not served.” </b>An opportunity for comment was provided to Skorski's lawyer, Malte von Anrep, who refused to respond. The lawyer for the plaintiff, Zijad Saskin was sent an email with a number of questions for his clients and an opportunity to provide comment on the proceedings completed before Justice Henderson. No response has been made available by the plaintiff lawyer Zijad Saskin, Stella Fensom nor by any member of the Paderewski Board of Directors.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mYBEg8KfEio/Wz_abMxaCLI/AAAAAAAAREY/FyzabVIpqwIHf0voPLENBLw7IstSmHkHwCEwYBhgL/s1600/Zijad%2BSaskin%252C%2BMayorgate%2Barticle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1126" data-original-width="1600" height="450" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mYBEg8KfEio/Wz_abMxaCLI/AAAAAAAAREY/FyzabVIpqwIHf0voPLENBLw7IstSmHkHwCEwYBhgL/s640/Zijad%2BSaskin%252C%2BMayorgate%2Barticle.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Justice Henderson ruled in favour of the plaintiff and Meatloaf left the building with the lyrics of his song, 'Two Out of Three Aint Bad' in his hands. The ruling by Justice J.R. Henderson is under appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal and this saga has not found an end as yet.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-85081707645462326092018-05-06T14:47:00.000-04:002018-05-06T17:04:27.107-04:00#WeToo<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Vengeance is referenced in the bible, yet from experience how often has the act of revenge been accompanied with unexpected consequences. All too often as human beings, we feel that payback is sweet and at times it may be. Our society has treated women, on the whole, less than fairly. Many will say that it is a gross understatement and one can shout out example after example of the unfairness through our history. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">It is difficult to comprehend today what makes a woman less deserving of the right to vote or access to basic education. Today these wild barriers have become a thing of the past, yet society still has treated women in a less than comparable manner to men. Although women move within the circles of academia and politics equally to men they still find so many doors of so-called equal opportunity if not shut, very difficult to open. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Although the idea of inequality is reprehensible in any form it is the manner in which women had been treated by men in a moral even legal sense that has brought greater attention today. The inequality had manifested in our justice system as much as in society. Too often a woman who had been assaulted found herself facing a disbelieving legal machine where she is forced to prove that she had not in fact mitigated the circumstances of the assault. </span></span>
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">This inequality brought to life a spark in a young woman born in The Bronx, New York. Tarana Burke, at the age of fourteen, joined the 21st Century Youth Leadership Movement whose purpose was to create grassroots community organisers, and to this day has remained an activist in the community. After graduating college Burke developed an African-centered all-girls programme titled <i>Just Be </i>with its ultimate goal to "ensure that young women move through adolescence and into adulthood with a strong sense of self-worth and healthy self-esteem." (Wikipedia, Tarana Burke).</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In 2006 Tarana Burke still eager to find a resource that would help young girls heal created the <i>Me Too My Space </i>page, and the response was almost immediate with young women wanting to know how to be a part of the movement. It was not until October 2017 that Burke had become aware of the MeToo hashtag being used without credit to her. Actress Alyssa Milano started using #MeToo as an internet hashtag partially as a response to the accusations surfacing against Harvey Weinstein. Later Milano acknowledged Burke's much earlier use of the phrase and the movement that it had created, and Burke has remained supportive of the #MeToo hashtag.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Tarana Burke's goal was to help young women heal and to develop a sense of self-esteem and self-worth, she had been quoted as saying that the movement was about “empowermental empathy.” Now it is a fair question to ask if the #MeToo movement has shifted from Burke's original ideals? After all, the word empathy does not equate with a presumption of guilt simply based on accusation alone. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Hashtag MeToo appears to have become a mighty weapon, a divine sword of vengeance. Should an imperfect or as some say even broken system of justice where procedural fairness has been ignored be replaced by another extreme version? Whether it is popular to ask that question particularly by a male should not silence the need to seek an answer. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Today we are faced with a smothering blanket of fear wielded and manipulated by the MeToo Movement, where a mere accusation is enough to end everything. This new system of justice where an accusation is enough to exact consequence is not only gripped the world of entertainment but has spread across the board of society into government and all corners of the business world. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">No one can deny that harassment of any kind must be fought and that sexual harassment has been a silent weapon used by predators for a long time. The unveiling of Harvey Weinstein was a good thing and needed to be done, but what has followed has gone to an extreme that threatens the very foundation of justice or procedural fairness. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">An accusation of sexual harassment or any form of sexual impropriety is enough to have an individual removed from his job and face a public storm. In most cases, the accusation or allegation is not accompanied by evidence and all too often is based on something that happened in the past. Even words spoken in an inappropriate manner are enough for the MeToo banners and T-shirts to start waving in the air. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">One such example comes from Canada when Steve Paikin, host of the TVO political show Agenda, was accused by a formal mayoral candidate Sara Thompson of sexual impropriety. Thompson, a candidate in the 2010 mayoral campaign for Toronto, accused Paikin of asking her if she would sleep with him. The allegation by Thompson claims that Steve Paikin made this advance in exchange for putting Sara Thompson on his show. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Thompson sent Steve Paikin an email outlining her position which he provided to the TVO executives. To their credit, TVO did not cave into the hysteria created by MeToo and did not remove Steve Paikin as host of the programme. Lisa de Wilde, CEO, in a press release stated that Paikin will remain as host until an independent investigator Rachel Turnpenny – a lawyer specialising in workplace investigations – completes her inquiry. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The investigation took eleven weeks and twenty-one witnesses were interviewed at the end of which a 27 page report was released by Rachel Turnpenny of the law firm Turnpenny Milne LLP. Steve Paikin had been cleared of any wrongdoing. A CBC article by Kristin Tushony and Samantha Beattie, (Steve Paikin cleared after investigation into allegation of inappropriate comment, April 27, 2018) quotes from the report, “At times, the investigation had some serious concerns with Thompson's approach to the investigation. The investigator learned that Thompson was contacting potential witnesses in what appeared to be either a fishing expedition to secure other potential complainants against Paikin or to garner support for her recollection. Thompson also demonstrated a tendency to suggest to witness a version of events (in line with her own perspective) prior to their interviews with the investigator.” The full report and appendix were released on <a href="https://tvo.org/sites/default/files/media-library/About-TVO/HM%20TVO%20Report%20-%20April%2026%2C%202018.PDF" target="_blank">tvo.org. </a></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">MeToo has become a powerful weapon and most corporations cave in, TVO in this situation did not see that an accusation alone was enough. It takes courage to stand up against any form of pressure which attempts to exact actions otherwise not contemplated, as it takes immense courage to publicly critique and examine the realities of a phenomenon like MeToo. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Margaret Atwood, an extremely well known Canadian author wrote an opinion piece titled 'Am I a bad feminist?' for the Globe and Mail, published January 13th 2018. Atwood wrote this in response to being labelled what she refers to as a “Bad Feminist.” This label had found itself justified in part for an Open Letter called UBC Accountable that Atwood had signed in November 2016.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">"In November of 2016, I signed - as a matter of priniciple, as I have signed many petitions - an Open Letter called UBC Accountable, which calls for holding the University of British Columbia accountable for its failed process in its treatment of one of its former employees, Steve Galloway, the former chair of the department of creative writing, as well as its treatment of those who became ancillary complainants in the case," Atwood's own words from the Globe and Mail article.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Steven Galloway was a UBC professor who had been accused of sexual misconduct. He did not know who his accusers were and was forced to sign a confidentiality agreement so he could not even defend himself. After an inquiry conducted by a judge found that there had been no sexual assault, Galloway was fired anyway. Atwood had signed this petition with a number of other prominent people, several of who have withdrawn their signatures after a frenzy of pressure. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In her article Atwood says that the MeToo Movement is a symptom of a broken legal system that found a new tool on the internet, she adds: “If the legal system is bypassed because it is seen as ineffectual, what will take its place? Who will be the new power brokers?” That is the danger now society faces and these new power brokers appear to care little for a fair procedure or legal rights. It has become a new religion, a fever-pitched shrill which marches on the warpath. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Europe in many ways has seen the MeToo Movement in a different fashion. French actress Catherine Deneuve along with some 100 french writers, performers and academics had written an Open Letter which appeared in <i>Le Monde</i>, saying gallantry is not “macho aggression.” <i>Euronews</i> published a translated version of the Letter on January 10th 2018, 'Catherine Deneuve says “flirting is not a crime," criticises #MeToo movement' where the Open Letter states: “Rape is a crime. But insistent or clumsy flirting is not an offence, nor is gallantry a macho aggression.” Out of all the sentiment expressed in this letter the most powerful was, “#metoo has defacto led to, in the press and on social networks, a campaign of public denunciations and indictments of individuals who, without being given the opportunity to respond or defend themselves, have been put on exactly the same level as convicted offenders.” </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Deneuve faced a backlash of attack for signing this letter and on January 15th 2018, in an article by Christopher Hooton for the <i>Independent</i> said, “Yes, I like freedom, I don't like this characteristic of our times whereby everyone feels they have the right to judge, to arbitrate, to condemn. A time where simple denunciations on social media generate punishment, resignation and sometimes, and often, lynching by the media.” Deneuve, on the other hand, finished by saying, “I am a free woman and I will continue to be. I warmly salute all the victims of odious acts who may have felt offended by the letter published in Le Monde, it's to them and them alone that I apologize.” </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">To disagree with MeToo is to face a potential backlash of accusation and attack for taking an anti-feminist stand, yet our democratic society is anchored in the freedom of speech for all and a belief that justice is equal to all. Somehow MeToo forgets that and appears to demand punishment purely on an accusation, is that justice? </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">There is no denying that MeToo had brought to public attention some serious predators like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey. Through this Movement five women had made public the actions of famous New York architect Richard Meier, a partner in Richard Meier & Partners. One of his accusers was paid $150,000 as a settlement which adds more credibility to the accusations. Hadley Keller for his article in <i>Architectural Digest</i>, March 13th 2018 published Meier's apology: “I am deeply troubled and embarrassed by the accounts of several women who were offended by my words and actions. While our recollections may differ I sincerely apologise to anyone who was offended by my behaviour.” Richard Meier has stepped down from the company carrying his name until a full HR investigation is complete. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Charitable organisations such as the Red Cross, Oxfam and Plan International UK have come face-to-face with allegations of inappropriate behaviour and more. The need to dump staff and place promissory notes of pending investigations have found their way into collection boxes. Of all organisations facing this tsunami is the Vatican. Nuns are describing how they are mere slaves to bishops and cardinals. After all the cleaning, washing, cooking and serving they are not permitted to sit at the same table </span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">repast.</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Still, for all the publicised victories the MeToo Movement seems to roll through the landscape of society with the air of intimidation of sexual misconduct stemming from alleged incidents committed ten or more years in the past. One such example comes from the Los Angeles County district attorney's office where five cases of sexual harassment against filmmaker James Toback were dropped. Even though there were several hundred allegations made against Toback, the five which the police brought to the D.A. had fallen beyond the statute of limitations. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Statue of Limitations could have played an important role in the Bill Cosby situation but justice, as broken as it is,</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b> </b></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">claimed to be, found the crimes that Cosby was accused of could not go free</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>. </b></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Bill Cosby had been called a raping monster by one accuser, and it was the courage of one woman, Andrea Constand, to endure a retrial and heavy examination by the Cosby defence lawyer which brought him to justice. Cosby was convicted of three counts of sexual assault, (each carrying a conviction of 10 years imprisonment); his lawyer has said that Cosby will appeal. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Time is not only the issue that some of the women have had to deal with, although that can be a completely separate topic of discussion. No investigation into any allegation can ignore the motivation behind the accusation. Indian-American comedic actor Aziz Ansari who won a Golden Globe award for his Netflix series 'Master of None' has had to face these questions.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">According to all accounts, Aziz Ansari met a young woman at a party which later led to the two of them going on a date. After the date the young woman, anonymously, provided the website <i>Babe </i>an account of her encounter with Ansari claiming sexual assault. Ansari has not denied the date or of engaging in sexual activity, only that he thought everything was completely consensual. If Ansari was a surburban fella who took a girl to a restaurant and later to his apartment, no dissatisfaction of either party would be made public. Aziz Ansari is not a suburban fella; he is a Golden Globe winner and the topic for all talk show hosts to dissect and discuss his life and reputation, while the young woman remains anonymous.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>Washington Post </i>and <i>Variety </i>had reported that allegations of inappropriate overtures had been made by veteran broadcast journalist Tom Brokaw in mid-1990's. The accuser is a former NBC News and Fox News correspondent Linda Vester. Brokaw denies these allegations and wrote an emotional letter to friends and associates from which CBC News quotes: "She couldn't pick up the phone and say I'd like to talk. I have issues from those two meetings 20 years ago. Instead she became a character assassin. Strip away all the hyperbole and what has she achieved? What was her goal?" (Tom Brokaw 'hurt and unmoored' by sex harassment allegations, Associated Press, April 27, 2018).</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">Then there is Paul Bliss who was CTV's Queen's Park Bureau Chief, a veteran reporter </span>and<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;"> news anchor. As Postmedia's Christie Blatchford said, “he did the truly modern death.” (Christie Blatchford: There was no other way this story could end but in Paul Bliss being disappeared, National Post, March 8, 2018).</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Paul Bliss found himself at the opposite end of this new justice stick. He had been accused of sexual abuse. The accuser was a former CTV employee, Bridget Brown, and the incident of sexual abuse had happened in 2006. Blatchford states, “she wasn't hurt, … disgusted and traumatized, yes. Hurt no,” and went on to have “an excellent career at CTV.” Then why such an allegation twelve years later? According to the article “Brown was struggling with CTV's coverage of MeToo. In particular the slightly smug reporting of some of their reporters on the Patrick Brown story.” Blatchford further writes Bliss was “done in by publicly made allegations of sexual abuse and the climate of corporate fear wrought by #MeToo.” A career shattered by allegation alone, now Bliss has launched a 7.5 million dollar lawsuit over the dismissal; suing the broadcaster, its parent company, and the woman who made these public allegations. “Bliss claims that he and Brown had a consensual encounter and that she had defamed him.” None of this has been proven in court yet. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The matter which had upset Bridget Brown so much was the public allegation of sexual misconduct by two women against former Ontario PC Leader Patrick Brown. Former yes, as the public allegations had been the reason his leadership of the PC Party ended. One of the women originally claimed she was in high school and under the legal drinking age, later changing her story that she was out of high school and of legal drinking age at the time of the incident. Again the alleged incident occurred several years ago when Brown was a federal MP representing the Barrie, Ontario area. </span></span>
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Patrick Brown has denied these allegations from the beginning calling them false and malicious. Still, it is the power wielded by the MeToo fever that brought an end to his leadership of the political party. Now Patrick Brown has filed a statement of claim that seeks damages of $8 million and an order that CTV remove all material in its possession that alleges sexual misconduct to CTV News. Yet again the action has not been proved in court, and regardless of whether Brown wins his action, the allegation will haunt his name after the gavel falls.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">MeToo's power comes from making the allegation public and forcing life-changing consequences purely based on the allegation. Requiring an investigation and evidence to prove the allegation does not make one insensitive to women, nor does it mean that requiring such basic rights makes one complicitous with a potential offender.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In England Bill C 51</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b> </b></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">is almost law heading for a second reading in their Senate. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner in London, Cressida Dick is quoted by Christie Blatchford for National Post, in 'Unlike Canada, U.K. has learned sex assault victims' aren't always victims' (National Post, April 2, 2018) as, “What seems so elementary - that the first job of police isn't to support victims or anyone else, but rather to investigate complaints – got lost in 2014, when the national acceptance of victims as inherently being truthful went to a flat-out recommendation that the presumption that a victim should always be believed should be institutionalized.” </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Police Commissioner Cressida Dick was referring to Operation Midland where accusations of a VIP pedophile ring were brought forward by one alleged victim, who was known as Nick. A number of prominent men had their reputations and lives ruined even though no criminal charges were laid. Later a report into the 'Operation' by retired high court judge, Sir Richard Henriques, found that “the presumption of innocence was set aside by detectives in their eagerness, and what they felt was their duty, to believe Nick.” Blatchford further quotes Henriques: “this protocol of automatically believing victims perverts our system of justice, strikes at the very core of the criminal justice process, will generate miscarriages of justice on a considerable scale, and should be scrapped.” According to Blatchford “And scrapped, thanks to Dick, it has been.” </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The British may re-enforce the principles of a justice system where the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof of guilt is “elementary” before any sentencing. MeToo does not use the justice system rather it has developed its own form of justice through social media and traditional journalism hungry for headlines; all of this whilst claiming that the justice system is broken. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">An example of this new justice system comes in the form of a letter sent to the National Post, the writer is anonymous of course. This letter had a copy of an email attached which the writer claims was sent by a male supervisor, and which the writer claims to be “a sexually explicit message about a female colleague's lingerie.” The writer further claims that the male supervisor encouraged “all recipients of the email to approach the female colleague about it.” </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Once again quoting Christie Blatchford, (Anonymous letter shows #MeToo has spread to ranks of ordinary workplaces too, National Post, February 1, 2018), “Clearly the expectation that accusers must and should and will always be believed – mouthed with nauseating regularity by every political leader in the country, among others – has permeated the ordinary workplace.” That offending email was examined and parts quoted in the article leaving one questioning the mental state of the writer of the complaint. Blatchford said, “There isn't an adult in the world, male or female, who should have taken offence at that email, there was nothing offensive about it.” What has become amazing is that both #MeToo and #Ibelieve demand that every person who makes any allegation relating to sexual misconduct is telling the truth. No evidence is required, no proof only the accuser's words. This is not fixing a broken justice system. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Finally after all the discussion of the benefits that MeToo has had on today's society and the examination of the shocking effect its followers have forced on the democratic belief of procedural fairness comes this article for the CBC. It is an Opinion piece written by Michael Spratt, titled 'The presumption of innocence is for courtrooms, not politics', (January 30, 2018). Spratt appears to have the opinion that political figures are lesser Canadian citizens and therefore should not expect any procedural fairness. He also seems to approve the system of exacting consequence on accusation alone. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Micheal Spratt tells the reader that he is going to let them in on “a little secret: that the “presumption of innocence is a legal construct.” Apparently, this legal construct was designed to protect individuals charged with a crime so as to prevent unfair deprivation of their liberty. If that is the case then the rest of society, and it is quite a big chunk of it, has no right to have an accuser prove their accusation past the raised pointing finger. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Spratt goes on to say, “To insist on the strict application of the presumption of innocence in everyday life is an absurd and insidious act of complicity to the realities exposed by the #MeToo movement.” Then several paragraphs later he says, “there is no question that as a society we should strive to be fair – to both the accusers and accused.” Is there a contradiction between these two sentences? Or is it that presumption of innocence is absurd and bordering on complicity with the accused only in MeToo situations? </span></span>
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">"As a practicing lawyer... [Yes, Michael Spratt indeed is a lawyer!], I know allegations can destroy lives. I know that false allegations do happen. I have seen them. And it is true that we need to be vigilant against any fraying of one of the golden thread that holds our justice system together." The very same writer in the article states, "the presumption of innocence does not mean someone is factually blameless until proven otherwise. In short the presumption of innocence is a procedural protection to ensure fairness - not a moral imperative." Don't you love lawyers? The question is, has MeToo and all its offspring empowered women or simply powered up women to be the new bully?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-62751628372496073282018-03-07T16:51:00.000-05:002018-03-07T16:52:54.453-05:00Niagara Region Disembowels the Charter<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The Regional Municipality of Niagara has eviscerated the
heart of our Charter of Rights and it has done this with willing accomplices
from the Niagara Regional Police and the Office of the Ombudsman. Regional
Chair Alan Caslin cannot be permitted to shrug off the responsibility we call
Regional Council and Regional Government. His leadership should have ended with
the public knowledge of his personal association with Justice Edwards but this
is Niagara, where truth, news and facts were filtered through a cheesecloth of
censorship.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">On December 7<sup>th</sup> 2017 a storm exploded at Niagara’s
regional council meeting. The consequences of this storm spilled out of the
teacup to affect the very foundation of our Canadian Democracy and our rights
as Canadian citizens.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">During a council meeting open to the public and media, it was
announced that a closed door meeting was to be conducted. In many municipal
council chambers that means the council and municipal members leave to another
room and have that portion of the meeting. At Niagara’s Regional Council the
public and media are asked to leave the chamber and only return once that
portion of the meeting is over. On December 7<sup>th</sup> 2017 Fort Erie Regional
Councillor Sandy Annunziata claimed that Preston Haskell, who was sitting at
the media table, had hidden his voice recorder under his cap and left the
chamber. The implication here is that Preston Haskell wanted to secretly record
the closed-door portion of the council meeting.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Sitting next to Preston Haskell was reporter Bill Sawchuk from
The Standard, with his laptop open and note pad. Bill Sawchuk also left the
council chamber, leaving behind his laptop on the media table.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Councillor Annunziata’s apparent panic resulted in the
seizure of Bill Sawchuk’s laptop, notes, and Preston Haskell’s personal
recorder. In addition Sawchuk was told by Region’s General Manager Chris Carter
to leave the building, and if he did not comply he would have to deal with
Niagara Regional Police (NRP) officers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It has to be made clear from the beginning that the seizure
of private property was by Niagara Regional Staff not by the Niagara Regional
Police. This was an unlawful seizure of personal property by Regional Staff. No
law in the Criminal Code of Canada had been broken by either Haskell or
Sawchuk, no section of legislation from the Municipal Act had been breached,
and no municipal by-law exists that prohibits the recording of council. Who
provided the legal authority to anyone at Region to seize personal property?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Bill Sawchuk called his newspaper, The Standard called their
lawyer, and Sawchuk’s laptop and notes were returned to him four hours later.
Preston Haskell on the other hand is a blogger and private citizen and if he
called anyone it may have been his wife. His recorder was kept by Region and
turned over to Niagara Regional Police the next day.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Now the destruction of the very basic principles as
guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms really becomes alarming. No
crime of any kind had been committed, not by Sawchuk nor Haskell. Haskell’s
recorder was seen on the desk clearly in the open and in the livestream
recording of the meeting until the closed-door meeting was called. Since the
seizure by Region of the recorder, Regional Councillor Tony Quirk from Fort
Erie had posted on Facebook as saying that it is “a violation of the criminal
code to attempt to record a conversation or deliberation to which the party
attempting to record does not have standing." That is absolutely false and
Councillor Quirk has been asked to explain his statement. Councillor Annunziata
laid claim to “political skullduggery,” and has since refused to comment. All
of this points to an insane overreaction by Regional Councillors and the
mindless response by Regional Employees. The Director of Legal and Court
Services, Donna Gibbs, was present; surely she is aware of the law? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-z4WfdbBOOsI/WqBa1Ha5nWI/AAAAAAAAL9Q/tBsl6Xk30s0bCUM-S7iBOua2W3Ozd1YVgCEwYBhgL/s1600/Niagara%2BRegion%252C%2BChair%2BCaslin%252C%2BDonna%2BGibbs%252C%2BFrank%2BFabiano%252C%2Bsearch%2Band%2Bseizure.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1005" data-original-width="1600" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-z4WfdbBOOsI/WqBa1Ha5nWI/AAAAAAAAL9Q/tBsl6Xk30s0bCUM-S7iBOua2W3Ozd1YVgCEwYBhgL/s640/Niagara%2BRegion%252C%2BChair%2BCaslin%252C%2BDonna%2BGibbs%252C%2BFrank%2BFabiano%252C%2Bsearch%2Band%2Bseizure.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The seizure had been committed by a private individual; yes
this person is in the employ of the Regional Municipality of Niagara but still
a private individual. This seizure was unlawful and may even be considered as
theft. Niagara Regional Police had been called but only to bully Bill Sawchuk
to leave the building. Those police officers did not speak to Preston Haskell,<b> </b>who had left<b> </b>the building before the police arrived, nor did they seize any
other property or search anyone. After returning Sawchuk’s personal property
Regional Staff kept Haskell’s recorder and later handed it to Niagara Regional
Police. The first screaming question is what did the regional employee say to
the police? Police officers are expected to have a fundamental understanding of
the law and if in doubt then it would be expected that an officer would
approach someone with more stripes for clarification. What was the
justification or motivation for NRPS to accept this piece of personal property?
Did they ask how did it become the possession of Regional Staff, and why?
Regional staff had no lawful authority to seize personal property when no crime
had been committed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Researching the law surrounding seizure of property in the
Criminal Code of Canada and the Canadian Criminal Law Notebook written by Peter
Dostal, a lawyer with the Public Prosecution Service of Nova Scotia, only more
alarming questions arise. As Peter Dosal states, “The Canadian Criminal Law
Notebook is a legal reference covering the principals and rules set out by the
Criminal Code and case law. The Canadian Criminal Code and the years of
accompanying case law have created a dense field of law full of rules and
expectations that are not always readily known to most people including
practitioners.” These last words appear to hold a great deal of weight. Mr.
Dostal finishes his introduction with: “It is divided into five essential
areas, substantive criminal law, criminal procedure, search and seizure,
evidence and sentencing.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 8
states, “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or
seizure.” The Canadian<b> </b>Criminal Law
Notebook<b> </b>(CCN) expands further on
section 8 of the Charter when there appears to be an intrusion on a person’s
reasonable expectation of privacy. “An expectation of privacy is a normative
rather than a descriptive standard. It is concerned with the degree of privacy
needed to maintain a free and open society, not necessarily the degree of
privacy expected by the individual or respected by the state in a given
situation.” The CCN continues, “the determination of privacy rights is made
from the independent perspective of the reasonable and informed person who is
concerned about the long-term consequences of government action for the
protection of privacy.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Did Bill Sawchuk and Preston Haskell, both sitting at the
media table, side-by-side, have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Sections in
the Criminal Code, such as s.487 and s.489, provide the rules for Search and
Seizure. Further, s.490 provides a comprehensive scheme for the management,
return or disposition of items that have been seized. Ideally in any situation
any seizure of property should occur after a Warrant to Search and Seize has
been approved by a justice. There are circumstances where Warrantless Seizure
is permitted under s.489, depending on specific circumstances of an incident. The
whole issue of seizure with or without warrant has to be based on a peace
officer’s belief of reasonable grounds that the item seized was a) obtained by
crime, b) used in a crime or, c) affords evidence of a crime.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">“This provision permits an officer who is executing a warrant
to make a warrantless seizure of anything he believes on reasonable grounds has
been used in the commission of an offence. The legal test for reasonable
grounds to believe should be the same as that for Warrantless Arrests. It must
involve an objective basis for the belief which is based on compelling and
credible information. It is something more than mere suspicion, but less than
the standard applicable in civil matters of proof on the balance of
probabilities.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">As stated, the rules surrounding search and seizure – with or
without a warrant – are intricate and legally extensive. On December 7<sup>th</sup>
2017 no police officer seized any item of personal property belonging to either
Bill Sawchuk or Preston Haskell. In fact the NRP were called on the advice of
Regional Councillor Dave Augustyn. Those NRP officers were only used to bully
Sawchuk into leaving the building without his personal property. The seizure
had already occurred behind closed doors, with no witnesses other than
self-interested regional staff. If Sawchuk had not agreed to leave the building
on what grounds could the NRP physically escort or arrest him? How can anyone
behind those closed doors be trusted as a witness to the facts? Were cameras
still recording after the doors were closed as a record of the closed door<b> </b>meeting?<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Rules relating to seizure without a warrant state, “Every
peace officer and every public officer who has been appointed or designated to
administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include
the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, who is lawfully present
in a place pursuant to a warrant or otherwise in the execution of duties may
without a warrant, seize anything that the officer believes on reasonable grounds, </span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">a) has been obtained by the commission of an offence
against this at any other Act of Parliament;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">b) has been used in the commission of an offence against
this or any other Act of Parliament; or<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">c) will afford evidence in respect of an offence against
this or any other Act of Parliament.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Who at Region was the public officer appointed or designated
to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law? It appears Regional
Councillor Sandy Annunziata did the search of private property claiming,
“heightened awareness of the presence of political skullduggery,” and
Councillor Dave Augustyn advised to call the police in the panic. Are either of
these two councilors qualified under this rule? A regional employee was then
instructed to physically take Sawchuk’s computer, notes and Haskell’s recorder,
and take them somewhere. Who gave this direction, was it Regional Chair Alan
Caslin? All of this was done behind closed doors and under the nose of Donna
Gibbs, Director of Legal and Court Services.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Sawchuk’s computer and notes were returned to him after four
hours as the newspaper unleashed its legal people onto Region, but not the
recorder belonging to Haskell as previously stated. It was not until the
following day that Region took the recorder to the NRP. Where was it held? Who
had access to the recorder all those hours? What was said to the police to
justify the unlawful seizure and custody of personal property?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">As with Arrests and Search and Seizure there are rules under
the Criminal Code for the detention of seized items. Under s.490 a Report to
Justice must be provided as soon as possible regarding the thing seized.
Normally this report is brought to the justice who signed the search warrant, in
this case no warrant existed: a third unlawful party had seized the voice
recorder, not the NRP. What did the NRP provide to a justice as reasoning why
the thing was seized? What crime did the NRP claim was committed and by who?
Sections 489 and 487 provide the parameters for any seizure yet how did this
unlawful seizure by a third party satisfy those sections and the justice? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">In R v Garcia-Machado, 2015 ONCA 569, “the judge found that
Garcia-Machado had “a high expectation of privacy in the items seized, both of
which contain a high level of personal and private information.” He concluded
that “police failure to report to a justice as soon as practicable rendered the
otherwise valid search unlawful and unreasonable, contrary to S.8 of the
Charter.” He then excluded the evidence under s.24(2) and acquitted
Garcia-Machado.” (Blue Line, ‘Untimely report to justice breached charter’ by Mike
Novakowski, September 8<sup>th</sup> 2015)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">This was the result when the initial search was valid and
conducted by a police officer. The Crown appealed to the Ontario Court of
Appeal arguing that s.8 of the Charter had not been breached but the court
rejected the Crown’s submission. It is difficult to understand what the NRP
used in the report to justice in this issue, and what crime was claimed to have
been committed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It was interesting to read Regional Councillor Tony Quirk’s comment
thread on Facebook when he said, it is “a violation of the criminal code to
attempt to record a conversation or deliberation to which the party attempting
to record does not have standing.” This sounded like official or formal
language but sadly it was only Councillor Quirk’s paraphrasing technique.
Councillor Quirk was asked where did he find this quote in the Criminal Code
and his first response was short and simply stated a reference to Section 184. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Section 184 of the Criminal Code has a heading which reads
Interception of Communication, with subsection (1) stating: “Everyone who, by
means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, willfully
intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence.” It is
this that Regional Councillor Quirk paraphrased and posted on Facebook. At this
point it should be noted that some sections of the Criminal Code require
cross-referencing to other rules and common practices leaving the language of
the Code somewhat dated. One such section relates to Duelling and in today’s
society might be outdated, unless street racing somehow loosely falls under its
jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Still subsection (1) Interception has directly below it
“Saving provision,” a get out of jail free card so to speak. Here it states,
“Subsection (1) does not apply to, (a) a person who has the consent to
intercept, or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the
person intended by the originator thereof to receive it.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">As Preston Haskell had his recorder sit on the media table in
front of him in full view of any and all council members, with permission to
record the council meetings, Councillor Quirk was asked if he read this
subsection. Like a politician anywhere Councillor Quirk ignored that question.
Instead Councillor Quirk said in his second email, “Those Search and seizure
provisions don’t apply to equipment left behind and abandoned. Which is what
happened. The owners forfeited those rights when they left the equipment behind
in closed doors.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LQMjudg_p3c/WqBa88QdMLI/AAAAAAAAL9U/HZcM3w20hr8A99am_EEYPN04wR5fqnm2ACEwYBhgL/s1600/Councillor%2BTony%2BQuirk%252C%2Bsearch%2Band%2Bseizure%252C%2Bpart%2Bone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1424" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LQMjudg_p3c/WqBa88QdMLI/AAAAAAAAL9U/HZcM3w20hr8A99am_EEYPN04wR5fqnm2ACEwYBhgL/s640/Councillor%2BTony%2BQuirk%252C%2Bsearch%2Band%2Bseizure%252C%2Bpart%2Bone.jpg" width="568" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DbO6yM5AqDs/WqBa_W3lUYI/AAAAAAAAL9s/z627lQCaLgwJ5sFhPUqQlkCyu35H2J1FwCEwYBhgL/s1600/Councillor%2BTony%2BQuirk%252C%2Bsearch%2Band%2Bseizure%252C%2Bp2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="286" data-original-width="1600" height="112" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DbO6yM5AqDs/WqBa_W3lUYI/AAAAAAAAL9s/z627lQCaLgwJ5sFhPUqQlkCyu35H2J1FwCEwYBhgL/s640/Councillor%2BTony%2BQuirk%252C%2Bsearch%2Band%2Bseizure%252C%2Bp2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">According to Regional Councillor Tony Quirk any individual
who may leave to go the washroom, or leave for any other reason expecting to
return and find the doors close behind them lose ownership rights and
protection of the law. Councillor Quirk seems to only paraphrase the Code and ignore
little things like Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, as discussed earlier. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Preston Haskell published this statement on his blog in
relation to the seizure incident at Region: “It turned out that security had my
hat, scarf, coat, camera and even the recorder pouch but no recorder. Dangling
the recorder pouch in my face security asked if the recorder for the pouch was
mine. I answered in the affirmative. He said it was too bad because it was
confiscated and I wouldn’t be getting it back.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Haskell repeatedly said that he left the council chamber to
go to the washroom before the closed door meeting was called. This can be
easily verified by the video recording of the meeting as to the truth of
Haskell’s statement. It also explains why security came out to give him back
his property, namely the hat, scarf, coat and camera. Yet it does not explain
why Councillor Quirk would say in writing ”…equipment left behind and
abandoned. Which is what happened.” Why would Councillor Quirk make a statement
such as this which is false?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The seizure of personal property by regional staff was
clearly unlawful. Handing over of the illegally seized item to the Niagara
Regional Police continually raises the question as to why did the NRP take this
illegally seized thing. In an email dated February 14<sup>th</sup> 2018, Stephanie
Sabourin, NRP Media Relations Specialist said, “The recording device remains in
the possession of the NRPS pending a determination by the Ombudsman. We
maintain possession of the device under a detention order made following a
Report to Justice. This allows us to maintain possession during our investigation,
other proceedings and while determining lawful ownership.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BS-df8GwO6g/WqBbChH-UpI/AAAAAAAAL9c/FQqR_2MMxTsefkPFesvjs1-640uKYP7SACEwYBhgL/s1600/Acting%2BInspector%2BLuigi%2BGreco%252C%2BExecutive%2BOfficer%2Bto%2Bthe%2BChief%2Bof%2BPolice%252C%2BNRPS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1136" data-original-width="1600" height="454" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BS-df8GwO6g/WqBbChH-UpI/AAAAAAAAL9c/FQqR_2MMxTsefkPFesvjs1-640uKYP7SACEwYBhgL/s640/Acting%2BInspector%2BLuigi%2BGreco%252C%2BExecutive%2BOfficer%2Bto%2Bthe%2BChief%2Bof%2BPolice%252C%2BNRPS.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">This response by Stephanie Sabourin for the NRP was
bewildering as the device was illegally seized, no crime had been committed nor
any law broken, at least not by Haskell, and its legal ownership was clearly
stated from the moment it was seized.<b> </b>All
of this simply did not make sense so further clarification was sought from NRP’s
Chief of Police. Acting Inspector Luigi Greco, Executive Officer to the Chief
of Police responded with an email on February 15<sup>th</sup> 2018. Acting
Inspector Luigi Greco supported the information provided by Stephanie Sabourin
and added, “I can confirm that the property in question is in the lawful
possession of the Niagara Regional Police Service to ensure the continuity of
the item in respect of the ongoing investigation by the Office of the
Ombudsman.” Preston Haskell had never been charged by the NRP for a crime, nor
was there any crime committed by Preston Haskell. The Ombudsman has no power or
authority to do anything but make recommendations to government bodies, he has
no authority over private citizens or their personal property.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Ontario’s Ombudsman has an Act in the Legislature<b> </b>which sets out its powers and
authority. The Municipal Act under sections 238 and 239, and in particular
239.1 also sets out procedures for meetings, procedural by-laws and investigations.
All of this simply details the process of the investigation by the Ombudsman,
and even that authority is limited over the members of government not private
individuals. No Ombudsman has any authority to seize personal property, compel
a private citizen to provide any information or testimony, nor to instruct the
police to have possession of personal property on their behalf.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">“Ombudsman to Investigate Incident At Niagara Council
Meeting” was the title of a press release dated December 14<sup>th</sup> 2017.
According to the press release provided by Linda Williamson, Director of
Communications, there had been “several complaints related to the incident”
received by the Ombudsman. In response SORT was unleashed, the Special
Ombudsman Response Team, leaving images of suited individuals sliding down ropes
from choppers in the sky. Somehow this vision is deflated like with the last
paragraph of the release by Linda Williamson.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">“The investigation will be completed as quickly as possible,
Mr. Dube said. Under the Ombudsman Act, he may find the actions of a public
sector body to be (among other things) contrary to law, unreasonable, unjust,
oppressive, improperly discriminating or wrong – and make recommendations for
improvement. Although the Ombudsman’s recommendations are not binding, they are
almost always accepted.” These words leave a warm fuzzy feeling of confidence
that everything is going to be alright now.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oCSQJU3s9EA/WqBbIHLDGlI/AAAAAAAAL9g/5YTayK3paOYl2exFEnqQTmKSMWjl47segCEwYBhgL/s1600/Linda%2BWilliamson%252C%2BOffice%2Bof%2Bthe%2BOmbudsman%252C%2Bsearch%2Bseizure%2Binvestigation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1030" data-original-width="1600" height="412" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oCSQJU3s9EA/WqBbIHLDGlI/AAAAAAAAL9g/5YTayK3paOYl2exFEnqQTmKSMWjl47segCEwYBhgL/s640/Linda%2BWilliamson%252C%2BOffice%2Bof%2Bthe%2BOmbudsman%252C%2Bsearch%2Bseizure%2Binvestigation.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Linda Williamson was asked in an email dated February 16<sup>th</sup>
2018 whether or not the Ombudsman’s Office had requested Niagara Regional Police
to maintain possession of the Haskell recorder. Her response was “our office
cannot comment until our investigation is completed and the Ombudsman’s report
is issued.” The secrecy of a report that is nothing more than a non-binding
recommendation is almost comical.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Bill Sawchuk was asked if he had been questioned about what
he saw that night in December of 2017, after all he was sitting next to Preston
Haskell. Sawchuk’s response arrived with a cute cat emoji, “I was asked about
what happened by both the ombudsman and police. The ombudsman has asked me not
to talk about my interview until their report is issued.” Preston Haskell was
asked if he had been questioned by the Ombudsman’s Office but he refused to
answer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hlnp2837xqs/WqBbSogfyOI/AAAAAAAAL9k/qttai4ga1ZUits9EnAjKsmLRx1JLfc7EwCEwYBhgL/s1600/Mayorgate%2Bquestions%2Bjournalist%2BBill%2BSawchuk%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegion%2Binvestigation.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="479" data-original-width="415" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hlnp2837xqs/WqBbSogfyOI/AAAAAAAAL9k/qttai4ga1ZUits9EnAjKsmLRx1JLfc7EwCEwYBhgL/s640/Mayorgate%2Bquestions%2Bjournalist%2BBill%2BSawchuk%252C%2BNiagara%2BRegion%2Binvestigation.png" width="553" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uxJkA7oXOBM/WqBbU2WpKsI/AAAAAAAAL9o/vqscDl-Na5UUkTCc_z99zz3S-ijNwOgNACEwYBhgL/s1600/bill%2Bsawchuk%252C%2Bthe%2Bstandard%2B.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="330" data-original-width="605" height="347" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uxJkA7oXOBM/WqBbU2WpKsI/AAAAAAAAL9o/vqscDl-Na5UUkTCc_z99zz3S-ijNwOgNACEwYBhgL/s640/bill%2Bsawchuk%252C%2Bthe%2Bstandard%2B.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">At the end of all this nothing will happen and no one will
face any consequences for their illegal actions. Regional staff simply stole
personal property in plain sight and handed it to Niagara Regional Police, who
are aware of the ownership of the property but claim to retain possession for
Mr. Dube, the Ontario Ombudsman and his investigation. No laws had been broken
by the owner of the property, namely a voice recorder, and the Ombudsman’s
report is nothing more than a pompous folly.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Finally one thought pops up like teenage pimples. What would
be the result if one was to take a handheld voice recorder, put a hat over it,
and attempt to record a group of a dozen or more individuals speaking some 15
to 20 feet away? <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">What was this all really about?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;"></span></span>mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-65794291953648722412017-11-29T10:54:00.000-05:002017-11-29T10:54:53.736-05:00Hypocrisy: A Human Trait or an Acquired Accessory?<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Wow, now this could start a loud discussion leading off to all kinds of
tangents relating to humanity and our endeavours. Most of us know
what hypocrisy is, Webster's describes it as “pretending to be what
one is not or to feel what one does not feel, a pretense of virtue or
piety etc.” Is this something many of us have come face to face
with at one time or another? Of course the answer is yes. Can we
say it was a pleasant experience, usually no, as we are left angry
and disappointed.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">As a
publisher and journalist, meeting and interacting with a wide variety
of people is a necessity. Each article has a life of its own, a
purpose. For a journalist the right to freedom of speech is as
important as breathing. At the same time this right has to be
exercised with the acceptance of the consequences if taken too far.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">There
well be some who claim that such acceptance is hypocritical in
itself. How can freedom be fenced in with conditions? In response
one can ask then if hate speech is to be accepted as free expression
without consequence? At times this debate tethers on a tight rope
attempting to find an acceptable middle ground.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Social
media and the world of the Internet provides a different angle to the
debate of free speech. Today anyone can open a Twitter account and
post any comment on any subject at any time. Knowledge or experience
no longer are prerequisites; an armchair quarterback is able to
dissect the latest Bills game from his lounger, bed or the washroom's
comfy chair for all to see. At the same time social media can
provide an open world to exchange thoughts and opinions with others
who would not be reachable in normal daily travels.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">So is
it a pretense of virtue or piety to expect, even demand, restraint or
consequence for one's words while still believing in freedom of
speech? No one said this was an easy debate, even if the question of
the nature of hypocrisy will bring many to opposite sides.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">To
answer at least one question, hypocrisy is within all of us and
usually it is not intended. How easy is it to say one thing and for
whatever reason do the opposite? True there are professions which
require the skill almost as a prerequisite, such as politics.
Children are open and honest, it is rare in natural circumstances to
find a child pretending other than in a game. Hypocrisy is
definitely a honed skill we pick up through the ascension from
childhood to responsible and mature adulthood. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Now
that being said the tie into the hand ringing question of free speech
and consequence comes in the form of a living example. It is a
situation unfolding at this very time revolving around Twitter.
Social media in its various forms can be entertaining, it can be
informative, and it can be a tool used to attack and damage the
character and reputation of others. More alarming is when this
attack is aimed at a total stranger. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">On
Twitter, acting Captain Andrew Gill, a member of the Niagara Falls
Fire Department, posts a great deal about the Buffalo Bills football
team, information and news relating to the fire department and
personal tidbits. Gill also at times sees himself as a
socio-political commentator and will throw out posts relating to
local political events. Prior to his uniform days at the Niagara
Falls Fire Department, Andrew Gill had traveled through varying
career paths. One of these adventures brought Gill to the City of
St. Catharines City Council as an elected City Councillor. This
lasted only for one term, and although he tried to stay in the
political arena, any attempts made had failed.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">In
2011 Andrew Gill appeared on the pages of the local newspaper <i>The
Standard, </i>as he had sued Preston
Haskell for defamation. At the time Haskell published the newsletter
<i>Niagara Winners Circle</i> and had made comments relating
to Gill whilst he was still a City Councillor. Gill took offense to
the comments by Haskell claiming they were not true, sued and won.
<i>The Standard's </i>article by
Marlene Bergsma, who no longer works for the paper, wrote that Deputy
Judge Brian Marotta had said that Haskell displayed “reckless
disregard for the truth.” On the witness stand Andrew Gill spoke
emotionally about how this article affected his father and the pain
it caused his family.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Gill
had a lot to say after the trial. He claimed that he filed the legal
action against Haskell to protect other civic minded people who may
want to run for public office but would be afraid to make themselves
vulnerable somehow. Bergsma quoted Andrew Gill saying: “This was
never about money. This was about someone taking a shot at my
integrity and my credibility and you can't put a price on that”,
and that “The judge sent a strong
message you can't say whatever you want where you want, and when you
do say something, it has to be based on facts.” These are
wonderful strong sentiments expressed by the winner Andrew Gill in
2011.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">That
was 2011. Now in 2017 Andrew Gill had done a complete turnaround.
Gill made two tweets on July 27<sup>th</sup>,
2017, the first at 8:37am and then again at 8:51am, attacking an
individual he had no personal business dealings with at any time.
First he said, “Just heard Niagara Truth Warrior Davidoff hit
another home run today!” with a “What a Loser” GIF.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">First
of all Gill posted this at 8:37am; no courts begin before 10:00 am.
More importantly the Davidoff Gill refers to is Alexander Davidoff,
who was not scheduled for court on the 27<sup>th</sup>
of July. Andrew Gill lied! There was another Davidoff scheduled for
court on that day, <u>not</u>
Alexander Davidoff. Court lists are available on the web, did Gill
have trouble reading English? Or was this information passed on to
him by another individual?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lUw9nn3gigU/Wh7Xcx-syXI/AAAAAAAALoA/GdxxIacUjKMVBhmcHhJvhfIgI_VwW6pRQCLcBGAs/s1600/ice_screenshot_20170728-163908.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="617" height="530" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lUw9nn3gigU/Wh7Xcx-syXI/AAAAAAAALoA/GdxxIacUjKMVBhmcHhJvhfIgI_VwW6pRQCLcBGAs/s640/ice_screenshot_20170728-163908.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Not all issues brought before a
judge end in one party winning or losing; there are many times when a
judge will simply hear motions as an impartial adjudicator. So how
could Gill predict any outcome, especially at 8:37am before court
even begins? Did he hold onto crystal balls to consult or was it
someone else who had them? Mixed in with the lie and other glaring
questions that test anyone's sanity, there is the label of “Niagara
Truth Warrior.” Where did this come from? Clearly it is done in
an insulting manner, but who came up with it?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">This was not enough for Acting
Niagara Falls Fire Captain Andrew Gill. Fourteen minutes later, at
8:51am, he tweeted again, “Always entertaining when Niagara Truth
Warriors Petrowski, Bracken, Haskell and Davidoff go to court!
#Losers.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Andrew Gill had proven that to lie
publicly is not a problem for him, and he did so again in the second
post, literally minutes later. The second post also has a GIF with
an individual sitting at the side of some machinery and being
repeatedly hit on the head. Here Gill expands his tag of 'Niagara
Truth Warriors' to include three other people. One question begs for
an answer, why include [Alexander] Davidoff with the other three and
that tag?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6kKTjh61Jls/Wh7XqFvpfEI/AAAAAAAALoE/JjTyiqGFmD4kYvB7gNZUlDfRhH38qCGgACLcBGAs/s1600/ice_screenshot_20170728-173134.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="574" data-original-width="469" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6kKTjh61Jls/Wh7XqFvpfEI/AAAAAAAALoE/JjTyiqGFmD4kYvB7gNZUlDfRhH38qCGgACLcBGAs/s640/ice_screenshot_20170728-173134.jpeg" width="522" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">A
written notice was sent to Andrew Gill informing him that legal
action was being prepared. On August 24<sup>th</sup>
2017 Gill responded with an email. He first confirms receipt of the
notice and then proceeds with this, “As a gesture of good will and
without prejudice or acceptance of wrongdoing. I will remove the two
tweets in question and offer my apologies to you for all the hard
feelings my tweets may have caused you.”</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">An astounding “gesture of
goodwill,” but mind you “without prejudice or acceptance of
wrongdoing,” and he removed the two tweets. These posts were
public and intended for one purpose; this 'apology' by Gill was in a
private email. Not only was the apology laughable, he accepted no
wrongdoing. He lied with the intent to damage the reputation of a
stranger but he did no wrong.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Being
the individual that Andrew Gill had apparently shown to be he did not
disappoint. On September 1<sup>st</sup>
2017 he could not resist and posted again: “This is what the
Niagara Truth Warriors do to me” with a GIF of a Minion vomiting.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YoSTTQVWP90/Wh7XVUokO0I/AAAAAAAALn8/Qp05ykEBcZE5WD8L-nvjyCSQgg4P6qnRACEwYBhgL/s1600/Andrew%2BGill%2Bapology%2Bemail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="678" data-original-width="1600" height="270" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YoSTTQVWP90/Wh7XVUokO0I/AAAAAAAALn8/Qp05ykEBcZE5WD8L-nvjyCSQgg4P6qnRACEwYBhgL/s640/Andrew%2BGill%2Bapology%2Bemail.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">As
he had provided the names of the other so called </span><span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><i>Truth
Warriors </i></span><span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">it
was easy to check the web if any of these individuals had made any
comment regarding Gill or on any community matter. No, the web was
silent and the target of this post was quite clear.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Now one can come to some conclusion
on the issues raised. Should Andrew Gill's actions be considered to
be simply the exercise of free speech or should there be consequences
and restraints? Gill himself went to court against Preston Haskell
in 2011 for what he claimed was commentary published which was not
based in truth. In addition to the issue of free speech Gill has
displayed a perfect example of hypocrisy in action. Simply refer to
the words attributed to Gill by the reporter after the trial in 2011,
and compare them to his actions and words in 2017.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Andrew Gill now sits in the same
chair as he put Preston Haskell in back in 2011. His defense will be
extremely interesting to hear.</span></div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-62755102149486977532017-10-03T11:57:00.000-04:002017-10-03T11:57:30.560-04:00Mixology of the English Language<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Integrity,
what is it? Webster's describes integrity as “the quality or state
of being of sound moral principle, uprightness, honesty and
sincerity.” An admirable quality in any human being without a
doubt. Can we expect this quality in our elected officials? If
integrity is too much to look for in those we elect then what can we
look for as possible standards? If these qualities are too high a
standard to use as a benchmark for those in public office certain
codes governing acceptable and non-acceptable conduct are then
designed.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">When
codes are designed to govern professional ethics and conduct, or
procedural equality and fairness then without a doubt we will find
someone in breach of these rules, and alleged breaches need to be
examined and investigated. Now ordinarily, this investigator can be
the head of a particular organisation or a senior individual within a
human resource division. In politics most often an outside
adjudicator is appointed who is required to be completely impartial
and immune to any bias. These individuals are provided with the
title of Integrity Commissioner, lending an air of authority and
power.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Slap
together Integrity and Commissioner and you have a political
watchdog. These ICs come in all shapes and sizes like the varying
levels of government. At the municipal level they have their
authority outlined in the Municipal Act though they are limited in
any consequences they can impose on politicians found to have
breached the code.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">In
the Niagara Region much has been discussed in relation to the benefit
of an Integrity Commissioner. Regional Chair Alan Caslin cried that
he had been bombarded with too many complaints against his
councillors that he could not cope with it. For that reason the
Regional Municipality of Niagara appointed one John Mascarin of Aird
& Berlis, a Toronto law firm, as its interim-Integrity
Commissioner. John Mascarin was at the time the permanent IC for the
City of St. Catharines.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Controversy
surrounded the appointment of John Mascarin around potential conflict
of interest. Mascarin's law firm Aird & Berlis just so happened
to represent Chinese developers in negotiation with the Niagara
Region for a possible $1.5 billion land development. Still it was
John Mascarin's shining star status that appeared to have blinded all
on this minor inconvenience. After all he is a scholar in Municipal
Law and teaches at Osgoode Hall! He had written chapter after
chapter on municipal matters, specifically on the OMB and land
development regulations, in addition to being a practicing lawyer in
the field who has appeared on television and other media to comment
on all manners of the subject.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">It is
important to note here that Integrity Commissioners have no set rules
or procedures to follow. The Municipal Act only provides the
description of their authority and nothing else. Plumbers,
journalists, lawyers – they all have codes of professional ethics.
Even politicians do; after all if the politician breaches his or her
code they face off with the Integrity Commissioner. Yet the
Integrity Commissioner has no codes or procedural rules at all. If
there was an association for these watchdogs it probably would have
as a motto, 'Come as you are, Do as you please'.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Chair
Alan Caslin unloaded the heavy burden of some six or seven complaints
that he could not handle upon the broad shoulders of this certified
expert. This expert cleared two councillors and dismissed the
complaints as smoke and mirrors, while stepping away from a third
against Alan Caslin himself. The remaining three found the expert
with rolled sleeves and dug in. All three were against Niagara's
favourite son, Regional Councillor Andy Petrowski. On May 18<sup>th</sup>
2017 John Mascarin rode into a public meeting of Regional Council to
present his report. These words uttered by John Mascarin of Aird &
Berlis are of great importance; they were on record and cannot be
denied.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Not
long after the May 18<sup>th</sup> public meeting two mayors, Jim
Diodati of Niagara Falls and Frank Campion of Welland, found
themselves revealed on Facebook hurling out the Nazi salute. This
thoughtful gesture was performed during a Niagara Peninsula
Conservation Authority Board Meeting, of which both are board
members. For two mayors to do something like this was mind boggling.
Yet this incident together with Mascarin's May public appearance
became the motivation for an exercise.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Each
case had a clear and specific reason on its own to require an
investigation. The first centred around two mayors: Jim Diodati of
Niagara Falls and Frank Campion of Welland. These two public
servants decided that a Nazi salute was somehow a thing of jest.
Thinking it was a joke they hurled their arms out during an official
meeting of the Board of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.
A second request was in relation to City of St. Catharines council
member David Haywood and an incident revolving around his conduct on
social media.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">In
the case of the two mayors the reasoning was simple: as both mayors
are sitting members of Regional Council, both would be under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Code of Conduct. As it turned out that
was an error in thinking and John Mascarin responded on July 12<sup>th</sup>
2017. It was a four page report to simply say at the end, “Based
on the foregoing, the Request has not been filed in the proper forum.
My jurisdiction does not extend to the NPCA, which is a separate
corporate body with its own code of conduct. Accordingly, I suggest
that you may seek to modify your Request and submit it to the
appropriate oversight officer at the NPCA for consideration.”
Modification was indeed conducted and the request forwarded onto the
Chair of the NPCA, Sandy Annunziata.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Now
the second investigation request had a different outcome, the
exercise provided tangible results. This case revolved around
Merritton Ward, City of St. Catharines Councillor David Haywood and
an exchange with him on Facebook. At the May 18<sup>th</sup>
Regional Council meeting John Mascarin had a great deal to say on a
number of issues, one being the whole social media thing. This is a
good time to note that of the three complaints John Mascarin chose to
investigate, two centred on Councillor Petrowski's outings in the
world of social media.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">On
May 18<sup>th</sup>
John Mascarin stood before a public meeting of Regional Council and
said a number of things. He was there in what appeared to be a role
of educator or an expert, as he made a point of how he had helped
dysfunctional councils. He also stood there with a price tag
dangling out from the edge of his sleeve. Aside from the cost it is
important to ascertain just how much does a lawyer believe in the
words he utters, more so when that lawyer parades as an Integrity
Commissioner. Does he fit the description of the title of <i>Integrity</i>
as described in the opening paragraph?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">John
Mascarin said, “The whole purpose of social media is to impose your
views, if you're tweeting onto other people.” If this is true it
is a very narrow minded view of social media. Just prior to this
statement Mascarin had this to say: “I looked at the word impose
and thought it meant foist, inflict, press, urge all these sorts of
synonyms, the fact that someone tweets something, you're
distributing, you're making communication. To me that's putting it
out there, that's imposing, you are sending it out in the
Twittersphere, you're imposing, you're propagating your view, that's
the whole purpose of social media.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">As
stated the motivation behind the exercise was to test John Mascarin
himself and his rhetoric used to justify his position and his
actions. The investigation request brought to his attention was
about a Facebook exchange with a City of St. Catharines Merritton
Ward Councillor David Haywood, accompanied by four photographs.
Remember according to John Mascarin the whole purpose of social
media, Facebook being a big chunk of it, is “to impose, to foist,
to inflict, to press, to urge.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MCv5uKRXazg/WdOs5_RJA2I/AAAAAAAALiU/lEprSDK68DIqkPKafvviLb9BEoe5bM57QCLcBGAs/s1600/haywood%252C%2Bbring%2Bit%2Bon%2Bno.1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="482" data-original-width="359" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MCv5uKRXazg/WdOs5_RJA2I/AAAAAAAALiU/lEprSDK68DIqkPKafvviLb9BEoe5bM57QCLcBGAs/s640/haywood%252C%2Bbring%2Bit%2Bon%2Bno.1.jpeg" width="476" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
“<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">St.
Catharines once bragged it was the Garden City, today it is full of
weeds. Look at the garden city at the intersection of Glendale Ave.,
and Almond St., in Merritton. Weeds reach up to 4 feet and more in
height, their seeds are blown into yards throughout the
neighbourhood. Dogwood insanely planted obscures the intersection to
a point that the crosswalk is dangerous to use and traffic entering
Glendale from Almond always at a risk of collision. Mayor Walter
Sendzik could not give a damn, and the Merritton Ward Councillors
Haywood and Stevens nowhere to be seen. Yet try and let this happen
in your own front yard and see what the city will do.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">This
post did not tag anyone. The mayor's name was clear and in full, the
two councillors just mentioned by last name the way it is done in
general conversation, not intended to be specific or personal. A
short time after the original post Councillor David Haywood came with
this first comment, sounding annoyed with the post. Haywood said:
“the first I have heard of this Alexander. Nowhere to be seen???
Try calling me or emailing me I can tell you
I haven't heard from you so please try using the same energy to pick
up the phone as you used to complain. We share the same passion for
the local environment but I cannot read minds.” </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ci8K_19P0FE/WdOtixm2W3I/AAAAAAAALic/g9ZCePed0M0cIH51Eu7xQO1C8d1YFTuOgCLcBGAs/s1600/haywood%252C%2Bbring%2Bit%2Bon%2Bno.3.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="485" data-original-width="366" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ci8K_19P0FE/WdOtixm2W3I/AAAAAAAALic/g9ZCePed0M0cIH51Eu7xQO1C8d1YFTuOgCLcBGAs/s640/haywood%252C%2Bbring%2Bit%2Bon%2Bno.3.jpeg" width="482" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Young
Councillor David Haywood seemed to take a Facebook post very
personally which was not aimed directly at him. Maybe the whole
'Facebook Friend' is taken to mean something more by Haywood. His
first comment was ignored, there were other people who had made
comments, but Haywood's little stomp was also ignored.</span><b style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">
</b><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Haywood then came back again,
and said “I will have the areas looked at. We represent you
Merritton residents. We are your voice. To expect us to just know
things or to say for us to 'look' around doesn't help anyone. It is
condescending to state it in that fashion. Counterproductive.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Wow,
Councillor David Haywood, the voice of the residents seemed a little
more annoyed. Was it because he was ignored by the original poster?
This time he got his response. “I thoroughly enjoy a public
servant with a soft skin. First of all for several years I have
spoken to the supervisors who used to come and look at this garden
with no result. This 'garden' has been like this since the early
days of Spring. Shame is on the public servant who is too busy
shifting responsibility on a member of the public. You Councillor
Haywood want examples of the actions of councillors representing
Merritton. I suggest you think twice before you as a newbie open
that Pandora's Box. You have city crews pass weekly I guess that is
not a problem for you either. Do not start something you can't
finish. If you really care than DO something about it if not do the
usual and blame someone else.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Now
Merritton Ward, St. Catharines Councillor David Haywood lost his cool
completely. He turned a general post on social media into something
personal. That post was never made to be personal, nor was it aimed
at Councillor David Haywood specifically. He decided to prod twice
and when a response was provided only after his second prodding he
lost his composure. </span><b style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"> Yet it is important to listen to
Haywood's words in the opening, and when you do it gives an
indication that he intended this to be personal from the beginning.
Haywood's third comment read: “Nothing about soft skin. </b><u style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"><b>Just</b></u><b style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">
</b><u style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"><b>tired</b></u><b style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">
</b><u style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"><b>of</b></u><b style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">
</b><u style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"><b>you</b></u><b style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">
automatically taking the position as a foe to your representative in
the Merritton Ward. How immature to tar the new representative based
on how you feel past reps have acted. Sorry I am more rational than
you and mature than you. I am not an armchair quarterback like
yourself. I have emailed staff concerning this. As for starting
something I cannot finish, bring it on!!! You will not scare or
bully me. Looking forward to see what you can do – wonder what I
will look in your cartoon.”</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">After posting his first comment he
came back again when no response was given, why? Integrity
Commissioner John Mascarin clearly expressed his interpretation of
social media. He said, “the whole purpose of social media is to
impose your views” and with the word impose he explained that he
thought it meant to “foist, inflict, press and urge.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">An investigation request was
prepared and filed against St. Catharines Councillor David Haywood.
All documentation was prepared, copies of screen captures together
with a signed Affidavit and handed to the City Clerk who as per the
City's Complaints Process provides it to the Integrity Commissioner.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">A great deal was said at the May
Regional Council meeting by John Mascarin. He provided his
interpretations on the whole purpose of social media. At one time he
admitted that he was not very good with social media and didn't
really understand it nor use it much. Mascarin was asked by Regional
Councillor Burroughs how he treated complainants: “In each case I
have written what I call a short ruling and I do attempt to explain
why I did not proceed to a full investigation... I do communicate
with the complainant um... in some cases the complainant will say I
don't agree with you but I respect that you have given me some
indication.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N3pkNxc1OgM/WdOunHUDEVI/AAAAAAAALis/IduFiB-IXWAKDrF4Ld9XmU0jVZLqtqdbgCLcBGAs/s1600/Bonnie%2BNistico%2B-Dunk%252C%2BCity%2BClerk%252C%2BCity%2Bof%2BSt.%2BCatharines.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1237" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N3pkNxc1OgM/WdOunHUDEVI/AAAAAAAALis/IduFiB-IXWAKDrF4Ld9XmU0jVZLqtqdbgCLcBGAs/s640/Bonnie%2BNistico%2B-Dunk%252C%2BCity%2BClerk%252C%2BCity%2Bof%2BSt.%2BCatharines.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">City
Clerk Bonnie Nistico-Dunk for the City of St. Catharines sent a
letter via email dated August 9</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">
2017. She stated that “Mr. Mascarin felt that your allegations
appear to contravene the following part of the Code,” then she
quoted the pertinent section of the code. Nistico-Dunk then
continued with, “Mr. Mascarin states that “the complaint, viewed
objectively, does not set out reasonable and probable ground to
support the allegation that the Councillor engaged in discredible
conduct in contravention of the Code. It is my determination that
the Complaint is frivolous and vexatious and that no investigation is
warranted.” And yet, each of the three investigations that John
Mascarin completed related to one regional councillor, two of which
centred on social media. He chose to investigate a tweet by the
councillor where he referred to the Mayor of Pelham David Augustyn as
“plastic face.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">So a request for investigation
relating to two mayors and a Nazi salute resulted in a four page
response directly from John Mascarin to simply say 'no I can't'. An
investigation request against City Councillor David Haywood brought a
censored or selective report from City Clerk Bonnie Nistico-Dunk. So
much for communicating with the complainant.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">An
email was sent to John Mascarin requesting clarification regarding
his report and an explanation. Serious questions were asked relating
to the short quote Bonnie Nistico-Dunk provided in her letter.
Mascarin responded on August 14<sup>th</sup>
2017 several hours later and his response proved clearly he did not
like to be asked uncomfortable questions. He may say one thing in
public but what he really does appears to be very different.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Not one question was answered by
John Mascarin, he simply said that he provided his report to the City
Clerk as per the Complaint Protocol. He did attach a copy of his
report and made one statement that was alarming, he said “I have
briefly discussed this matter with the City Clerk and attach here to
my complete formal response.” What did the Integrity Commissioner
discuss with the City Clerk? Was the discussion prior to Mascarin
providing his formal response? The City Clerk has no jurisdiction
nor authority to discuss anything in relation to any complaint, all
that Nistico-Dunk could do is receive the complaint and forward it
on. The issue of who John Mascarin speaks with came up during the
May Regional Council meeting. At the time he first admitted to
speaking to people then back-tracked and claimed he had not.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DEhGbcZq0No/WdOvM-oC2LI/AAAAAAAALi0/o2NP98ku5PEhj2PNYyB2nNgnfYlwtzQ_gCLcBGAs/s1600/Integrity%2BCommissioner%252C%2BJohn%2BMascarin%252C%2BAird%2B%2526%2BBerlis%252C%2BInvestigation%2BRuling%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1237" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DEhGbcZq0No/WdOvM-oC2LI/AAAAAAAALi0/o2NP98ku5PEhj2PNYyB2nNgnfYlwtzQ_gCLcBGAs/s640/Integrity%2BCommissioner%252C%2BJohn%2BMascarin%252C%2BAird%2B%2526%2BBerlis%252C%2BInvestigation%2BRuling%2B1.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Vb8niSs6b9o/WdOvtqaLWNI/AAAAAAAALi8/uuapB50XtXQHOii9vqWT14sACSHiNpamgCLcBGAs/s1600/Integrity%2BCommissioner%252C%2BJohn%2BMascarin%252C%2BAird%2B%2526%2BBerlis%252C%2BInvestigation%2BRuling%2B2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1237" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Vb8niSs6b9o/WdOvtqaLWNI/AAAAAAAALi8/uuapB50XtXQHOii9vqWT14sACSHiNpamgCLcBGAs/s640/Integrity%2BCommissioner%252C%2BJohn%2BMascarin%252C%2BAird%2B%2526%2BBerlis%252C%2BInvestigation%2BRuling%2B2.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7JthODCSQQ8/WdOv1RnbLkI/AAAAAAAALjA/FQdUe4sx2B03TD4yAmXfQqALVI7baiciACLcBGAs/s1600/Integrity%2BCommissioner%252C%2BJohn%2BMascarin%252C%2BAird%2B%2526%2BBerlis%252C%2BInvestigation%2BRuling%2B3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1237" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7JthODCSQQ8/WdOv1RnbLkI/AAAAAAAALjA/FQdUe4sx2B03TD4yAmXfQqALVI7baiciACLcBGAs/s640/Integrity%2BCommissioner%252C%2BJohn%2BMascarin%252C%2BAird%2B%2526%2BBerlis%252C%2BInvestigation%2BRuling%2B3.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Reading
the report the number of questions ballooned, so many that no
quarterback, armchair or not, could catch them all. City Clerk
Bonnie Nistico-Dunk stated in her August 9</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">
letter that “Mr. Mascarin felt...” yet Mascarin at no time refers
to feelings in his report. Nistico-Dunk then took two sentences,
combined them into one paragraph, and left out the core of Mascarin's
report, why?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">In his 'Assessment & Analysis'
Mascarin quotes only selective words out of the complaint. Usually
lawyers play this trick to intentionally misdirect meaning. Taking
quotes that are limited and out of the proper context of the sentence
is intentional, but what did the Integrity Commissioner intend here?
Mascarin finished with this: “The complaint uses the word “attack”
or variations of the term no less than six (6) times.” Was this
simply a keen eye or was Mascarin acting like the Councillor's
defense lawyer rather than impartial judge and jury he proclaims to
be?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Paragraph two is the real gem and
defense lawyer Mascarin truly shines. He says, “Admittedly, the
Councillor uses a somewhat sarcastic tone in responding to the
complainant...” It would seem that clear and literally black and
white evidence in the original complaint was a waste of time on this
IC. The Councillor did not respond, he initiated the conversation
with intent. When no response was provided by the complainant to his
first post then he came on again. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The very best from Mascarin is
this, and no one on the courtroom drama series <i>The Good Wife </i>could
do better: “the specific words used in the Councillor's remarks
must be viewed in context to the posting made by the complainant
which appear to be clearly intended to bait and prod the Councillor.”
Here it is, lawyer Mascarin to Judge Mascarin, 'Your honour the
councillor shot the guy but it was not the councillor's fault, he
happened to be standing there'. As insane as this analogy sounds it
does not come close to IC John Mascarin's. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">So
Mascarin claims that the original post baited and prodded poor young
Councillor David Haywood. How? Haywood chose to come onto the
conversation, when ignored he came again. He got a response which
basically said to leave well enough alone. <b>
</b>Councillor
Haywood did not like that and said, “Just tired of you...,” and
then went onto a verbal attack. As an elected member of government
Haywood does not have the luxury of claiming he lost his temper, but
at least in this case he had a good defense lawyer.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Just
when one would think it is enough and the winning words had been
spoken Mascarin continues, “I have taken into account that the
facts giving rise to the Complaint occurred <u>more</u>
<u>than</u>
<u>two</u>
<u>years</u>
<u>ago</u>”,
claiming that the complaint was filed on June 27<sup>th</sup>
2017. John Mascarin of Aird & Berlis lied! No publisher says
anything like this easily in print, but IC John Mascarin lied in his
final report. The original posting on Facebook was on July 12<sup>th</sup>
2015 and the complaint filed on June 20<sup>th</sup>
2017. Maybe Mascarin needs all his fingers and toes to calculate
this?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Two years had not yet passed and
the facts glaringly prove that Mascarin lied? Why? He said “In
making my ruling I have taken into account...” It seems that the
IC took into account a lie of his own making to make his decision.
How much of his report is based on real facts rather than convenient
interpretations? </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uhmYp6oyOhs/WdOwF7OEoEI/AAAAAAAALjE/L7Q9ynAa9k4prpRi08oSqkNz7VSZSSOyACLcBGAs/s1600/Email%2Bto%2BIntegrity%2BCommissioner%252C%2BJohn%2BMascarin%252C%2BAird%2B%2526%2BBerlis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1519" data-original-width="1600" height="603" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uhmYp6oyOhs/WdOwF7OEoEI/AAAAAAAALjE/L7Q9ynAa9k4prpRi08oSqkNz7VSZSSOyACLcBGAs/s640/Email%2Bto%2BIntegrity%2BCommissioner%252C%2BJohn%2BMascarin%252C%2BAird%2B%2526%2BBerlis.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PiHbdUmZdEA/WdOwi_-N-7I/AAAAAAAALjI/i-30p3wI3gwKhzUbz0xAbcKmPwM9uQoqACLcBGAs/s1600/Email%2Bto%2BIntegrity%2BCommissioner%2Band%2BJohn%2BMascarin%252C%2BAird%2B%2526%2BBerlis%2Breply.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1440" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PiHbdUmZdEA/WdOwi_-N-7I/AAAAAAAALjI/i-30p3wI3gwKhzUbz0xAbcKmPwM9uQoqACLcBGAs/s640/Email%2Bto%2BIntegrity%2BCommissioner%2Band%2BJohn%2BMascarin%252C%2BAird%2B%2526%2BBerlis%2Breply.jpg" width="576" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">An
email was sent to John Mascarin and many questions were asked, in
particular why did he lie. His response on August 17</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">
2017 truly shows how John Mascarin epitomizes the title 'Integrity'.
This is the same individual who stood before regional council and the
public throwing out his empty words. In his response he said, “My
ruling speaks for itself. You may disagree with certain points or
with the entire ruling but I am not prepared to respond further.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Integrity Commissioner and lawyer
John Mascarin of Aird & Berlis lied, then said that he took into
account that lie in the making of his ruling. When asked to explain
his lie John Mascarin said that he was “not prepared to respond
further.” Maybe this is his way of taking the Fifth, even if it
doesn't exist in this country.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">John Mascarin has proven that the
concept of Integrity Commissioners without a definitive code of
conduct and set procedural guidelines are only a farce. These ICs
are only tools for governments to either defame the reputation of a
complainant or to attack an unpopular councillor. If one of those
commissioners is caught lying and he or she simply refuses to explain
themselves then what trust can be placed in them? Mascarin and his
law firm Aird & Berlis pocketed public money for this, how is it
possible for him to refuse to answer questions? </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Still
the insanity doesn't end here. Since Mascarin refused to explain
anything, including his lie, some questions were sent to City Clerk
Bonnie Nistico-Dunk on August 21</span><sup><span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">st</span></sup><span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">.
It was asked of her if the report by Mascarin was provided to
Council, whether Councillor Haywood was provided a copy of the
Mascarin report and/or the request for investigation, and if anyone
else had access to the report.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Nistico-Dunk responded the same day
stating that “there is no report to go to Council on the matter.”
She said “Councillor Haywood was advised of the complaint and was
provided with a copy of the ruling,” and that she was not aware of
anyone else who had been provided with a copy of the Mascarin ruling.
On August 22<sup>nd</sup> one more question was sent. The question
was simple; asking Nistico-Dunk who provided the Councillor with a
copy of the ruling. On August 29<sup>th</sup> this response was
received from the City Clerk: “Your original complaint was not
provided to Councillor Haywood. The response was not forwarded to
him from this office.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Now the plot thickens and some
confusion arises. First the City Clerk says that the Councillor “was
advised of the complaint” but later that the “original complaint
was not provided.” Nistico-Dunk also said that he was “provided
with a copy of the ruling” and then later “the response was not
forwarded to him from this office.” An email of August 30<sup>th</sup>
was sent to attempt to find some clarity. The response was far from
the expected.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-43Brd1dP5tU/WdOx2aqQpjI/AAAAAAAALjY/apWwCs9ltdUkd5YuNT0BOpmVAiMaxzzagCLcBGAs/s1600/Integrity%2BCommissioner%252C%2BJohn%2BMascarin%252C%2BAird%2B%2526%2BBerlis%2Bemail%2Bresponse%2Bfor%2BCity%2BClerk%2Bof%2BSt.%2BCatharines%252C%2BBonnie%2BNistico-Dunk.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1385" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-43Brd1dP5tU/WdOx2aqQpjI/AAAAAAAALjY/apWwCs9ltdUkd5YuNT0BOpmVAiMaxzzagCLcBGAs/s640/Integrity%2BCommissioner%252C%2BJohn%2BMascarin%252C%2BAird%2B%2526%2BBerlis%2Bemail%2Bresponse%2Bfor%2BCity%2BClerk%2Bof%2BSt.%2BCatharines%252C%2BBonnie%2BNistico-Dunk.jpg" width="552" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">John Mascarin on September 1</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">st</sup><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"> sent an email beginning with “I have been made aware that you have been corresponding with the Clerk regarding your recent complainant.” On August 17</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"> the same John Mascarin ended his email when asked why he had lied in his ruling with, “I am not prepared to respond further.” Yet here he was holding City Clerk's Nistico-Dunk's hand and responding to questions asked of her! Maybe a resident of any city or town would expect that their communications with a senior city employee would have a little confidentiality. A 'Confidentiality Notice' appears at the bottom of every email from the City, including those of Nistico-Dunk's. In this case public servant Bonnie Nistico-Dunk went running to Integrity Commissioner John Mascarin to respond on her behalf!</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The Municipal Act under Section 223.3(1) clearly outlines the role of any Integrity Commissioner. It states that “an Integrity Commissioner who reports to council and who is responsible for performing in an independent manner the functions assigned by the municipality with respect to:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">a) the application of the code of conduct for members of council</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">b) the application of any rules, procedures and policies of the municipality governing the ethical behaviour of members of council</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">St. Catharines Complaints Protocol describes the Integrity Commissioner and his/her responsibilities on page 8. Nowhere in either of these two documents does it say the IC is the personal assistant of a public servant.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Mascarin says, “I understand that you are seeking clarification of certain questions that you have asked the Clerk,” and then provides four bullet replies or answers. He was asked to provide some clarification on why he lied in his report and how did he take into account making his ruling a lie of his own making. On that he refused to provide clarification.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Bullet number one from Mascarin states that “The council member was advised by the Clerk that a complaint had been filed against him and that he could make inquiries with me regarding it. The Clerk advised me that it has been the historical practice at the City for a council member to be made aware of any complaint filed against him or her.” Why didn't Nistico-Dunk say this from the beginning? Instead she played with semantics, evasion and omission. Nowhere in the Complaints Protocol does it inform the complainant that the complaint once filed is relayed to the councilor. Is it possible to believe anything Nistico-Dunk might say on this matter?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Bullets two and three are even more exiting. Number two states: “The council member introduced himself to me while I was at City Hall and asked me to verify that a complaint had been made against him.” Then number three: “The council member also asked if he could be kept apprised of the matter and I advised him that I would either be in contact to make inquiries of him or he would be notified of any disposition respecting the complaint.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">On May 18<sup>th</sup> John Mascarin was questioned by a Regional Councillor as to who he spoke with during any process of an investigation. At first Mascarin admitted to speaking with members of the public and then did an about turn and denied the fact. In this matter on August 14<sup>th</sup> Mascarin says, “I have briefly discussed the matter with the City Clerk.” On September 1<sup>st</sup> he says, “The council member introduced himself to me...”, and then “I advised him.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Still the best was bullet number 4: “My ruling was provided to the Clerk in accordance with the Complaint Procedure and I advised her I would forward a copy of the ruling to the council member to discharge my undertaking to notify him.” Lawyer's language, don't you just love it. Words like “discharge” and “undertaking” sound almost official and correct somehow.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">On August 14<sup>th</sup>, explaining why he did not provide a copy of his report to the complainant, Mascarin stated “My advisement to the City Clerk was provided in accordance with Section 4(4) of the City's Complaint Protocol in Part 3 of the Code.” From the City's Complaint Protocol page 11 heading 4, Refusal to Conduct Investigation, (4) “The Integrity Commissioner will inform the Clerk when an investigation is terminated or not advanced for reason cited above. The Clerk in turn will notify the complainant of this decision.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Any possible procedural fairness has been destroyed by the City Clerk Bonnie Nistico-Dunk and Integrity Commissioner John Mascarin. It is impossible to understand how or why an IC would respond to a communication sent to a public servant. The Clerk is not a member of City Council nor has she got anything to do with the Code of Conduct. Mascarin refused to deal with the issue of the two mayors and their Nazi salute simply because they were part of a board with its own code. What code is Nistico-Dunk a part of?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">As an Integrity Commissioner, John Mascarin made a public 'undertaking' on May 18<sup>th</sup>. He said that he always provides his reasoning on a matter and answers questions from any complainant. Mascarin was asked why he lied in his report – he refused to answer. He was asked to clarify points in his report, he refused to answer. He breached the City's Complaint Protocol by making a promise to a Councillor he had no right to.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">What really happened here? It was a simple exercise questioning the stupid actions of a City Councillor on social media. This Integrity Commissioner had already set his own precedent on the issue. The result has been a mountain of unanswered questions. A City Clerk who intentionally evaded answering questions. This same Clerk carried out actions which put the 'integrity' of the complaints process in jeopardy. At the same time the IC lied in his final report and refused to clarify why he lied, making his report invalid. Taking things further, the IC admitted to breaching the City's Complaints Protocol and took on the part of a secretary to a public servant.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">This notion of an Integrity Commissioner acting as a personal secretary for a City Clerk is both alarming and dangerous. Everything about an IC sits on the balance of complete and total independence and impartiality. The actions of Integrity Commissioner John Mascarin and City of St. Catharines City Clerk, Ms. Nistico-Dunk raise questions which must be answered.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">This last communication from 'Integrity' Commissioner John Mascarin leaves a mountain of questions. City Clerk Bonnie Nistico-Dunk through her actions has raised issues surrounding</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">the Complaint Protocol in St. Catharines to a new level. Meanwhile Mayor Walter Sendzik sits on his hands and brags how his city has the best code of conduct and complaint protocol in the province.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">All of this on the taxpayer's dollar, and maybe Regional Councillor Gale's comment on May 18<sup>th</sup> describes the whole process well, that it is a farce. This one has not ended yet, watch for more to come on Mayorgate.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-52864158732310249622017-08-21T12:19:00.000-04:002017-08-21T12:19:08.454-04:00A Voice Refusing Silence<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Mayorgate's
monkeys have found themselves on the couch like the forgetful husband
who somehow managed to let his mind slip past the anniversary date.
Although the occupation of the couch in this situation is not due to
forgetfulness, it was<b>
</b>rather a need to bring forth two articles shedding light against
a tide of destruction of both equality of law and the basic rights
all Canadians expect.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Silence
has not been comfortable at Mayorgate and it had not occurred as a
result of a loss of interest. Ill health had got in the way and the
pen stopped moving, though the mind itched for the scratch again. So
this look back at the year past may be later than usual but the
tradition could not be forgotten or let slip into the nether realm.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">May
of 2016 glanced back at the year past through<a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/05/yearsix-has-been-one-of-true-challenges.html" target="_blank"> </a><i><a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/05/yearsix-has-been-one-of-true-challenges.html" target="_blank">Battles won, battles lost, the game continues</a>.</i> As
much as any anniversary piece remembers articles of the last year, it
is also the cleansing of the plate for the coming year. First out
for year 8 an article dealing with local issues, <i><a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/06/are-by-laws-real-not-in-st-catharines.html" target="_blank">Are By-Laws Real?Not in St. Catharines</a></i>. The City of St. Catharines, Ontario isn't
big nor is it small, yet it is a canvas that mirrors so many of the
issues which are relevant to all of us regardless of our home base.
For Mayorgate the roots which bind us to reality are never forgotten,
in fact the title of that article is a question which will resonate
even louder soon.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Democratic
society is built on a foundation of law and the law has many tiers.
This foundation is held together with a belief, and expectation that
all the laws of this land are equally applicable to every Canadian.
When this expectation of equality is lost we not only should ask for
explanation, but demand it. Journalists hold a powerful position to
inform the people of what unfolds before them, and that is why for a
long time they have been thought of as watchers. These individuals
use the art of language, and their acumen for both investigation and
interpretation of information to bring light where darkness festers.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">In
Canada the world of journalism and traditional media slammed the
panic button. This sound managed to grab the attention of the
federal government resulting with a Commission being set up under
Chair MP Hedy Fry to investigate the future of traditional
journalism. Media giants like Paul Godfrey of Postmedia and John
Honderich of Torstar shed tears over falling revenues, newspaper
closures and the evil encroachment of a changing world and the
Internet.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Journalism
must remain independent of government influence yet here we had
multi-millionaires crying for government handouts. A three part
series: <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/06/who-watches-watchers-part-one.html" target="_blank">Who Watches the Watchers</a>, attempted to sift through
the theories of purveyors of think tanks, media advertising
campaigns, the tears of media moguls and interfering government
officials. At the time of publishing part three in this series the
Canadian Heritage Standing Committee was promising to release its
report. After all the roundtable meetings were finished and
presentations completed, nothing really changed. Trust in the media
and its journalists is still at an all time low, newspaper sales
still dropping and cost cutting measures rising. The Heritage
Committee has now released its report; Disruption: Change and
Churning in Canada's Media Landscape, and it will be interesting to
peak through its pages of wisdom. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">After
the journey into the world of media and journalism Mayorgate swung
over to the retail world. Today's economies are struggling
regardless of what politician's claim. In North America a whole new
class in the workforce is growing larger than any other, and that is
the Part-time Employee. Part-timers are a favourite especially
within the retail industry, although banking and other commercial
enterprises are following suit. These workers are not covered by any
benefits, making them a cheaper workforce, and are often on minimum
wage. Parts 1 and 2 of <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/10/modern-societys-reboot-of-indentured.html" target="_blank">Modern Society's Reboot of Indentured Servitude</a><i> </i>not only discussed the near impossible task of
surviving as a part-time employee, but also at the attitudes of
corporations towards their employees.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Roadblocks
appeared on the path and they took some time to steer through, yet
Mayorgate sprung from a belief that silent acceptance is not the
answer to anything. Strength and power comes from the courage to
raise one's voice against what is wrong. The monkeys of Mayorgate
will never accept as truth that silence is golden, well maybe when
they wish to sleep.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The
coming year promises to bring some thought provoking issues to deal
with, and maybe some closures. In 2014 a lawsuit had been launched
against Mayorgate and its publisher. An article from January 2014,
<i><a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2014/01/seniors-languish-in-intimidation.html" target="_blank">Seniors Languish in Intimidation</a></i> brought anger from the Board
of the Paderewski Society Home. Lawyer Rachel Slingerland for the
board played all kinds of tricks, and then jumped ship. Zijad Saskin
of the law firm Broderick & Partners LLP took over the steering.
Now all of Zijad Saskin's stalling tactics finally fell on deaf
judicial ears and the trial was set for July 31<sup>st</sup> 2017.
The trial lasted five days but had not reached an end and adjourned
to a possible restart date of September 11<sup>th</sup>.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">So
remember that silence is not golden and keep on reading, and having
said that, don't be silent with any of your comments. Maybe now the
monkeys can get off the couch, but then knowing what monkeys are like
they are more likely to continue to fool around.</span></div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-7066718515023020802017-07-26T16:34:00.000-04:002017-07-27T11:39:22.348-04:00Oh Lord, the Old Goose and Gander Thing<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In
our democratic society we elect our leaders and all the various
levels of government. As the general public we expect a certain
amount of humility in theses individuals after all they ask to be
chosen by us in service of the people. Maybe now is a good time to
end the fantasy before it gets out of hand. True we do elect all the
politicians on all levels of government but the humility thing, well
it is simply a utopian version of politics.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Then
if a utopian version of politics is out of the realm of
possibilities, what then? Remember that in old England the sovereign
bestowed the title of Lord Mayor to a city mayor. If that's not a
fast jolt to an ego what is, especially as municipal politics is at
the bottom step of the stairway to heaven.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">So
what if we jump over to the animal kingdom and to a proverb dating
back to 1670, 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander'.
It would not matter in what language this proverb is translated its
meaning is never lost. Basically it is saying that what is good for
one then it is good for, or equally good for another.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Sadly
the breaks on reality need to screech to a halt here again. We
started talking about politics and elected office so if the
implication that an ancient proverb may apply then a reality check is
definitely needed. If respect and honour of office do not seem to
apply and the ideals of equality left to historical reference, or
worse, proverbs, then what is left?</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In
order to provide at least the appearance of consequential
responsibility for their actions our politicos had developed an array
of varying Codes of Conduct. Each of these codes set out boundaries
within which elected officials are expected to conduct their business
of politics and ethical governance. Once one of these characters
steps outside and breaks the strings that supposedly bind actions to
ethics then a public enquiry is launched. The inquisitor in Ontario
has the formidable title of Integrity Commissioner. Yes the title
has a resonating sound of grandeur, though reality sadly can taint
the whole performance.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Recent
months had found the Niagara Region under the shroud of one of these
inquisitors, his target predominately one regional councillor.
Although John Mascarin, a lawyer from a Toronto law firm Aird &
Berlis LLP, had come first to the City of St. Catharines as an
Integrity Commissioner, he agreed to fill the same duties for Niagara
Region till a permanent individual was chosen. Mascarin not only
looked at three complaints filed against Regional Councillor Andy
Petrowski, but also two other councillors. In addition to conducting
these investigations his mandate included the revamping of the Code
of Conduct for Members of Regional Council. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Councillor
Petrowski is no virgin as far as investigations by an integrity
commissioner is concerned, nor is he new to facing a political storm
locally. He is loud and brash, often stands against the old boys
club style of politics. At the same time his personal views are less
palatable to many and he does not feel shy in expressing them which
had found him in the sights of more than one integrity commissioner.
Not only has he found himself facing a number of complaints regarding
his conduct, the Councillor had become a target for the local
newspaper The Standard, and particularly reporter Grant LaFleche.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Here
comes the whole goose and the gander thing. Petrowski is a staunch
supporter of US President Donald Trump and in a tweet he linked to a
website run by a Brother Nathaniel.<b> </b>He did not check out this
website and its contents or anything relating to this Brother
Nathaniel, he simply saw a headline he liked and linked to it.
Nathaniel Kapner, himself a Jew, operates a website titled, 'Real Jew
News' and because of his personal views is labelled as anti-semitic.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Grant
LaFleche who 'follows' Petrowski's twitter account took this to
Harold Nash, President of B'nai Israel in St. Catharines. Nash knew
nothing of this till Grant LaFleche brought it to his attention; once
Nash became aware of the tweet his comments against the councillor
were filled with accusations of anti-semitism demanding Petrowski be
censured.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">This
was not enough for Grant LaFleche, after Harold Nash and B'nai Israel
he sought out comment from St. Catharines Mayor Walter Sendzik. Once
again, as with Nash, Mayor Sendzik knew nothing of the tweet on
Councillor Petrowski's twitter account till LaFleche raised it.
Sendzik's attacks labelled the Councillor as anti-semitic and called
for his resignation. To complete his trifecta LaFleche contacted
Regional Chair Alan Caslin, who was also unaware of the tweet.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">No
matter how much Councillor Petrowski would apologise or explain that
he had not been aware what was the content on the website he linked
to, the label of anti-semitic was stitched on. Grant LaFleche and
The Standard successfully created a story where none existed.
Regional Council devoted a whole session of public condemnation of
Petrowski. A gang of non-politicians from the public raised their
voices to speak out against the Councillor and denounce his
anti-semitism, such as Jeff Burch, Executive Director of Niagara Folk
Arts Multicultural Centre. Jeff Burch, once a St. Catharines
Councillor and failed candidate in an attempt to become mayor, was
quoted as having extreme disappointment with Petrowski's behaviour
including posting “what are clearly anti-semitic remarks on his
social media account.” This was a quote Maryanne Firth of The
Standard published on November 25<sup>th</sup> 2016, 'Caslin raps
Petrowski over latest tweet'.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">To
label anything a lie immediately makes some individuals jump up and
down bang the drum of honesty. So may we call this a
misrepresentation of the truth? Petrowski in fact, which is
witnessed by direct copy reprinted by The Standard, had only made
'remarks' to Donald Trump and Obama in his tweet. He had no remarks
made towards or at the Jewish community as a whole or anyone
individual Jewish person living or dead. Still it was The Standard
and Maryanne Firth will say that she did not say that, but only
quoted Jeff Burch.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The
circus went on from November 24<sup>th</sup> 2016 with the news story
created by Grant LaFleche through to December 15<sup>th</sup> 2016,
with a total of six articles and editorials. In addition to this
barrage, Niagara this Week joined in and culminated with an editorial
in December which boggled the mind on how editorials can twist the
truth. Even the Canadian Jewish News published an article on the
subject December 5<sup>th</sup> 2016.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rKtRcZjUIdo/WXjprPM37dI/AAAAAAAALaQ/9Kl_IrW4Wx8sgGgtcGF9mlAIkKtzW-9AQCEwYBhgL/s1600/1a.%2BCampion%2BNazi%2BSalute.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="530" data-original-width="838" height="404" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rKtRcZjUIdo/WXjprPM37dI/AAAAAAAALaQ/9Kl_IrW4Wx8sgGgtcGF9mlAIkKtzW-9AQCEwYBhgL/s640/1a.%2BCampion%2BNazi%2BSalute.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Welland Mayor Frank Campion at NPCA Board meeting</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Now
fast forward to June 2017 and a YouTube video on a Niagara Peninsula
Conservation Authority Board (NPCA) meeting, posted on Facebook by
Niagara Falls Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni. In this video you can
watch the Mayor of Niagara Falls and the Mayor of Welland, also both
Regional Councillors, raise their hands in a Nazi salute. Both Mayor
of Niagara Falls Jim Diodati and Welland Mayor Frank Campion raise
their hands in what they claimed later was a joke. </span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">The
video is of a January 18</span><sup style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;"> 2017 NPCA Board meeting and it
is a record of the official business of the board, not a social
gathering. This video came to public attention in June, both Mayors
Jim Diodati and Frank Campion made public apologies with that claim,
that they only did it as mocking fellow Councillor Douglas Joyner on
how he raises his hand to get attention.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DiI7zAmho5o/WXjpvNUKSgI/AAAAAAAALaQ/0slkHuSwNzIKiYZuuHVI1tvsPp4Hx957wCEwYBhgL/s1600/1b.%2BDiodati%2BNazi%2BSalute.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="482" data-original-width="837" height="368" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DiI7zAmho5o/WXjpvNUKSgI/AAAAAAAALaQ/0slkHuSwNzIKiYZuuHVI1tvsPp4Hx957wCEwYBhgL/s640/1b.%2BDiodati%2BNazi%2BSalute.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Niagara Falls Mayor Jim Diodati at NPCA Board meeting</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Grant
LaFleche and The Standard jump forward on June 12</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"> 2017
with an article titled 'Mayors' Nazi salute to be removed from NPCA
video'. LaFleche writes, “If nothing else, Diodati said the
incident shows how mindful elected officials must be about what they
say or do. Even if they don't intend to say something hurtful, they
sometimes can do so without realizing it at the moment.”
LaFleche's article finishes with a joint statement made by Mayor Jim
Diodati and Mayor Frank Campion.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mnCYn_8Y2pM/WXjtXQ0cNHI/AAAAAAAALak/2b801MTZQvortZEb9ws5xIIL21_8pzTEACLcBGAs/s1600/2.%2BJoyner%2BNPCA.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="838" height="410" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mnCYn_8Y2pM/WXjtXQ0cNHI/AAAAAAAALak/2b801MTZQvortZEb9ws5xIIL21_8pzTEACLcBGAs/s640/2.%2BJoyner%2BNPCA.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mayor of West Lincoln Douglas Joyner raising his hand first at NPCA Board meeting</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
“<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Unfortunately,
our actions were gestures meant in light and a silly imitation of
another councillor's unique handraising style. They were not meant
as anti-semitic. Our actions in no way represent our genuine views
and values. We have both apologized to those who felt offended. We
feel strongly that we would never want our actions to be taken out of
context or misinterpreted. This weekend, we reached out to members
of the Jewish community to share our sentiments as well. We both say
that we certainly feel this to be a learning experience and
appreciate the comments of the community, but want to be clear that
we don't want the intentions of our action to be misconstrued.”</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Mayors
Jim Diodati and Frank Campion issued their statement of apology,
LaFleche tags it at the end of his article with a few words of wisdom
and humility from Diodati before the apology, and that's it. Three
days later LaFleche writes another article, although the focus of
that is separate to the anti-semitic Nazi salute.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">So
here it is the old goose and gander thing stripped bare wanting
explanation. It's important to understand this old proverb is not
some joke, it is the foundation of democracy. Nothing is more vital
in a true democracy than equality. It should not matter what one's
economic situation is, nor should gender, race or religion be a
consideration when application of our laws or our governing
procedures be applied. Then if Petrowski is the goose, what about
the gander here?</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">This
is where the proverb and all that we supposedly as Canadians value
falls dramatically apart. Serious questions demand to be answered by
Grant LaFleche and The Standard, after all the world of journalism
claims to bring all the truth without bias. Still it's not the
ethics of a journalist and his newspaper alone that should explain
themselves.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">A
Nazi salute is quite possibly the most detested physical act in
today's society. Throw a birdie finger today and even an 80 year old
grandma will be likely to throw one right back at you, especially if
you are on the road. Not with a Nazi salute, and to have two mayors,
professional politicians paid with public money claim it was a joke,
that it was done in jest during an official board meeting, is simply
unacceptable. It is important to note that the video was of the
January 18<sup>th</sup> 2017 meeting and was only made public June
12<sup>th</sup>; Diodati and Campion only apologised in June and only
when publicly caught.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">When
Petrowski pressed the button on his infamous tweet, Clark Kent of The
Standard's newsroom, LaFleche, grabbed his cape and plucked it out of
the air. He held it tight and flew to Harold Nash, President of
B'nai Israel of St. Catharines. Clark – sorry, Grant - then made a
stop at the door of Walter Sendzik, Mayor of St. Catharines and even
knocked on the door of the Regional Chair, Alan Caslin. Yet with the
two gander, Diodati and Campion,<b> </b>the caped crusader of
Niagara's journalism for some reason sought out no real comment other
than from Perry Schlanger, a member of the public. Mr. Schlanger is
a regular cast member in City Council's gallery of extras. During
The Standard's frenzy on the Petrowski tweet it was reported that
Perry Schlanger, along with Haley Bateman and Jeff Burch, made pleas
as 'concerned citizens' for action to be taken against the
Councillor. A Nazi hand salute brought this response form Schlanger
as quoted by LaFleche: “I am willing to accept their mea culpa.”
Maybe the question to Mr. Schlanger should be this, does he see a
tweet with no reference to an individual Jew or the Jewish community
worse than the hand salute during official business by two mayors,
who only apologise five months later, when caught? This is the
Austin Powers moment with the finger on chin and the “hmm.”</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Harold
Nash, President B'nai Israel St. Catharines, after being woken up by
LaFleche went into attack mode demanding censure of the Councillor
after his tweet. Harold made no comment in relation to the hand
salute, so an email was sent to him providing an opportunity to stand
against all forms of anti-semitism. Harold Nash has refused to
respond, he has made no comment on the hand salute, not even an
attempted eloquent “mea culpa.” Now with Nash's silence
questions begin to buzz and they are not pleasant. </span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jmg2adEyGqs/WXj4QCKOfWI/AAAAAAAALa4/9AX2Fb8Mrxk4GV11GXY7_xwc0BbUHPfUQCLcBGAs/s1600/No.%2B3%2Brescan%2BNash%2Bemail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="735" data-original-width="1600" height="292" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jmg2adEyGqs/WXj4QCKOfWI/AAAAAAAALa4/9AX2Fb8Mrxk4GV11GXY7_xwc0BbUHPfUQCLcBGAs/s640/No.%2B3%2Brescan%2BNash%2Bemail.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">It is not only Nash of B'nai Isreal who raises question through silence. Judy Haiven wrote a long letter of opinion which The Standard published
June 27</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"> 2017. The letter by Judy Haiven, titled, 'Many
Jews support BDS Movement' and was written on behalf of the steering
committee of the Independent Jewish Voices of Canada,
(IJVCanada.org).</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Haiven's
letter is in support of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions)
Movement. The first paragraph provides a brief description of what
Independent Jewish Voices Canada is about, then paragraph two slams
into this, “We, too, condemn St. Catharines regional counc. Andy
Petrowski clearly anti-semitic... tweets. We agree with Synagogue
B'Nai Israel and the multicultural councils calls for regional
council to censure him.”</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Judy
Haiven writing from Halifax apparently is fully knowledgeable of
local Niagara politics. Paragraph three of Haiven's letter states,
“At IJV Canada we know a great deal about anti-Semitism” and
later, “IJV abhors anti-Semitism.” So since Haiven makes one
think that she is aware of the situation in Niagara it is difficult
to understand why she and the Independent Jewish Voices Canada
remained silent about the Nazi hand salute. After all IJV knows so
much about anti-semitism and abhors it so. An opportunity was
provided for both Judy Haiven and the Independent Jewish Voices of
Canada to comment. No response has come from either of the two
emails sent.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fAcFRUvRiFc/WXj4YAI3bJI/AAAAAAAALa8/AGZXivPRG88G4lX3LjWotqlLuwSX-62kQCLcBGAs/s1600/No%2B4%2Brescan%2BHaiven%2Bemail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1453" data-original-width="1600" height="580" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fAcFRUvRiFc/WXj4YAI3bJI/AAAAAAAALa8/AGZXivPRG88G4lX3LjWotqlLuwSX-62kQCLcBGAs/s640/No%2B4%2Brescan%2BHaiven%2Bemail.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Can
it be fair to ask what prompted Judy Haiven to make the attack on
Councillor Petrowski in a letter where 98% of its content was to
support the BDS Movement? Why has the IJV Canada and Haiven stayed
silent on the Nazi hand salute by Diodati and Campion? Why has
Harold Nash and B'nai Israel St. Catharines stayed silent? Asking
such questions of Jeff Burch and his Niagara Folk Arts Multicultural
Centre would be a waste of time. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Amongst
all the silenced Jewish voices<b> </b>the plot thickens and questions
scream out for answers. Is it possible that the abhorrence of
anti-semitism has taken a back seat to politics? After all even the
Canadian Jewish News (CJN) who wrote a whole expose on the innocuous
tweet has stayed silent on a Nazi hand salute. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">It
has been said that the Nazi hand salute is most likely the most
detestable physical action in modern society. There are no possible
excuses which take away the connotation of anti-semitism and an
absolute disrespect for millions of victims of the Holocaust. In
February of 2011, a Canadian tourist standing outside the German
parliament raised his hand in a Nazi salute<b> </b>whilst his
girlfriend photographed him, was immediately arrested, memory card
taken from the camera, and was lucky not to be jailed.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In
May 2016 a Scottish man was arrested after posting a video on YouTube
of his girlfriend's pet dog, a Pug, doing the Nazi salute with its
paw. In March 2013 a Greek footballer was banned for life from
playing for his national team – he even claimed he did not know or
understand the meaning of the gesture. A British businessman found
himself arrested at the Cologne airport for his raised hand in 2008. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">B'nai
Brith Canada, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, and Centre for
Israel and Jewish Affairs have remained silent on this incident with
Diodati and Campion. Why? Seeking clarification, an email was sent
to NPCA Chair Sandy Annunziata. Sandy Annunziata did not respond but
on his behalf Mayorgate received an email from Michael Reles,
Communciations Specialist at the NPCA. Michael Reles said in his
response, “The section of the video was removed at the request of
our partners in the Jewish community.” Wait a moment, how can any
individual or group have the power to force the editing or doctoring
of any government records? The same Michael Reles refused to respond
when asked who specifically were the “partners in the Jewish
community.” Why the secrecy? What has Michael Reles or Sandy
Annunziata got to hide?</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_7J8lREC-rk/WXj4ZvTZ5hI/AAAAAAAALbA/mAeRFaNrJYQ2M8doi_EHZ52z9OdE-V4mQCLcBGAs/s1600/No.%2B5%2Brescan%2BReles%2Bemail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1444" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_7J8lREC-rk/WXj4ZvTZ5hI/AAAAAAAALbA/mAeRFaNrJYQ2M8doi_EHZ52z9OdE-V4mQCLcBGAs/s640/No.%2B5%2Brescan%2BReles%2Bemail.jpg" width="576" /></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Well
then, which of the big three Jewish organisations is the 'silent'
partner with the NPCA and Chair Sandy Annunziata, or is it all of the
above? Regional Chair Alan Caslin said after the overwhelming vote
by Regional Council to condemn the BDS Movement that it “was based
on information provided by those organisations.” Alan Caslin was
referring to B'nai Brith Canada, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre,
and Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs as “those organisations.”
The Motion brought before Regional Council, which garnished both
publicity and accusations against MPP Cindy Forster and the NDP, was
by NPCA Chair Sandy Annunziata. Can it be that the big three made a
silent deal with NPCA Chair Sandy Annunziata so as to not drop nasty
publicity on his board? Now watch for the anti-semitic label to be
stitched onto Mayorgate. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">On
May 18<sup>th</sup> 2017, during the titillating presentation of his
findings by Integrity Commissioner John Mascarin, St. Catharines
Mayor Walter Sendzik wanted to know what had happened to a Motion
from December 8<sup>th</sup> 2016. Minutes from the meeting reveal
that a Motion was moved by Councillor Augustyn and seconded by
Sendzik. This Motion requested council to deny Councillor Petrowski
from serving on Committees, Subcommittees, Agency Boards and
Commission meetings until he aplogises in writing at a Council
meeting for his tweet that was found to be offensive by the
community. Finally this Motion was referred to the Integrity
Commissioner and yet in May of 2017, John Mascarin had said that he
had not seen it. <b> </b>An email was sent to the Regional Clerk
asking for some clarification on this issue. It took several days
but a response came from the Deputy Regional Clerk, Natasha Devos, to
her reply she attached a copy of a letter dated June 20<sup>th</sup>
2017 from former interim Integrity Commissioner John Mascarin. Mr.
Mascarin states, “My view on the aforementioned minute item may now
be moot given the decision made by Regional Council on June 8, 2017.”</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-87FvEgmb9HY/WXj4bULC56I/AAAAAAAALbE/Kk3LsT5A4A8zzYFskxulj5nJjYuh4gJCACLcBGAs/s1600/No.%2B6%2Brescan%2BMascarin%2Bletter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1546" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-87FvEgmb9HY/WXj4bULC56I/AAAAAAAALbE/Kk3LsT5A4A8zzYFskxulj5nJjYuh4gJCACLcBGAs/s640/No.%2B6%2Brescan%2BMascarin%2Bletter.jpg" width="618" /></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Mayor
Sendzik had made a great deal of noise about the tweet from the time
that LaFleche contacted him. Seeking some understanding Mayor
Sendzik was asked whether the Nazi salute was less serious an act
compared to a tweet. Sendzik's first response opened with, “I will
say there is a big difference between what Councillor Petrowski has
repeatedly done to offend many people in our community and what
occurred at a meeting of the NPCA.” He ignored the question asked
and attacked the Councillor on past actions. Sendzik also defended
the two mayors on the grounds that they were only mocking another
fellow councillor and had done so many times. He said that both had
apologised “for offenses that were mistaken as a Nazi salute.”</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">It
is extremely hard to mistake a physical gesture with the arm
stretched straight out from the body, the hand flat and pointing out
as anything but a Nazi salute. Individuals do not do this kind of
gesture to hail a cab, or waive to a friend or seek attention of any
kind, at least not the kind they would want. A second email was sent
to Mayor Sendzik and his response confirmed the need to examine
another consequence of the actions by Diodati and Campion.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In
his second response Mayor Sendzik said, “Its actions like these
displayed at the board that lead to bullying and harassment if left
unchecked in today's society.” Whether it's the Ministry of
Labour, the Human Rights Code, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or
any municipality, none permit or condone bullying or harassment. The
law stamps down on a bully regardless if he is in cyberspace or on
the ground. Mayor Sendzik confirmed in his first email that Mayor
Diodati and Mayor Campion had been mocking a fellow Councillor, a
co-worker, for a long time. Yet no one found reason to mention this.
The Standard and Grant LaFleche said nothing, and since Mayor Walter
Sendzik had known about this and clearly found it distasteful, why
did he remain silent? It was only through an email exchange with
Mayorgate that he made this clear. As far as Diodati and Campion are
concerned they made no apologies on this issue even when caught.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y94LwBG9eXU/WXj4gs-RKRI/AAAAAAAALbI/8j_XLuiSGiQ9A4SPQ5sqxDbWdP789cIkwCLcBGAs/s1600/No%2B7a.%2BSenzik%2B1st%2Breply%2Bemail%2Brescan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1474" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y94LwBG9eXU/WXj4gs-RKRI/AAAAAAAALbI/8j_XLuiSGiQ9A4SPQ5sqxDbWdP789cIkwCLcBGAs/s640/No%2B7a.%2BSenzik%2B1st%2Breply%2Bemail%2Brescan.jpg" width="588" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0TDmXF-HSmY/WXj4hjZxjEI/AAAAAAAALbM/BTt4zhV31RIa5_92S8XjY5efUb2ZYcLCwCLcBGAs/s1600/No%2B7b.%2BDavidoff%2Bquestion%2Bno%2B2%2Bto%2BSendzik%2Brescan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="683" data-original-width="1600" height="272" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0TDmXF-HSmY/WXj4hjZxjEI/AAAAAAAALbM/BTt4zhV31RIa5_92S8XjY5efUb2ZYcLCwCLcBGAs/s640/No%2B7b.%2BDavidoff%2Bquestion%2Bno%2B2%2Bto%2BSendzik%2Brescan.jpg" width="640" /></a><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JtMkaUuRO58/WXj4iQeLIGI/AAAAAAAALbQ/GVTlj0D9CQwhyS_As1mbtUaLTl72PnB8ACLcBGAs/s1600/No%2B7c.%2BDavidoff%2Bquestion%2Bno%2B2%2Brescan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="561" data-original-width="1600" height="224" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JtMkaUuRO58/WXj4iQeLIGI/AAAAAAAALbQ/GVTlj0D9CQwhyS_As1mbtUaLTl72PnB8ACLcBGAs/s640/No%2B7c.%2BDavidoff%2Bquestion%2Bno%2B2%2Brescan.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zdYlYXomeFo/WXj4kGqZviI/AAAAAAAALbU/ON2QpKPLzr8OkTwmkwKRXoGa2F7uBVh3wCLcBGAs/s1600/7d.%2BSendzik%2Bfinal%2Banswer%2Bemail%2Brescan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="811" data-original-width="1600" height="324" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zdYlYXomeFo/WXj4kGqZviI/AAAAAAAALbU/ON2QpKPLzr8OkTwmkwKRXoGa2F7uBVh3wCLcBGAs/s640/7d.%2BSendzik%2Bfinal%2Banswer%2Bemail%2Brescan.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">So
not only has the Nazi hand salute found itself waived on through with
no consequence, evidence of workplace harassment has simply been
ignored. To add further to this impressive list of transgressions is
the openly admitted fact by NPCA Chair Annunziata that government
records, in the form of the video had been edited. Michael Reles of
the NPCA claims in his email that the video is not an official
government record, that the only official record of the board meeting
are the Minutes. Webster's describes official as, “by, from or
with the proper authority, authorized or authoritative.” Examining
the seventeen pages of the 58</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"> Annual General Meeting
Minutes there is no mention of any kind of hand raising. The video
is made by the NPCA for the NPCA with their authority and only with
their authority. Now 'silent' partners have been able to wield
outside pressure to doctor that government record. How is this
possible? A better question is what happens when there is an
investigation or inquiry and the evidence had been intentionally
altered and destroyed?</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Grant
LaFleche wrote a second article titled 'NPCA on slippery slope by
editing video, says Brock prof', June 15<sup>th</sup> 2017. Brock
University Political Science Professor David Siegel was also
contacted by Mayorgate for comment on something other than a slippery
slope. Professor David Siegel said that he was “...not a lawyer, so [he doesn't] have any expertise about the rules of evidence. However, it seems logical that the best evidence would be a complete unedited recording of an event. Any deviation from that would raise questions about what was edited out and why was it edited?” </span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Chair
Annunziata had erased the section of video which proved the Nazi
salute, it was an official government record, so now what happens in
an investigation or inquiry? Was this because he made a silent deal
with the Jewish organisations or did Annunziata have his own reasons?
Doctoring records is wrong no matter who you are, as former Premier
McGuinty found out clearly. For the NPCA and its Chair Annunziata,
the 'what if' is in fact a reality - an investigation request had
been filed with the Region. John Mascarin, interim Integrity
Commissioner, had responded to the investigation request stating that
it was out of his jurisdiction because the NPCA is a separate
corporate body with its own Code of Conduct. He had advised the
investigation request be filed with the NPCA, which it will be, and
it will be an interesting exercise considering Chair Annunziata's
actions to date.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In
the end the goose paid a very heavy price. Those regular cast
members in the extras gallery of councils, the social warriors: Jeff
Burch, Haley Bateman, Perry Schlanger, had faded behind the curtain
of duplicity it appears. Grant LaFleche proved the case on the issue
of faux news, and The Standard is after all the standard. Councillor
Petrowski still faces jabs; on July 7<sup>th</sup> 2017, The Standard
published the article 'Regional council can't agree on code of
conduct' by Bill Sawchuk, who writes: “The social media activity of
St. Catharines Coun. Andy Petrowski over an anti-semitic video the
councillor posted on Twitter in December, Petrowski – who removed
the tweet in question – denied he intended any attack on the Jewish
Community.”</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Bill
Sawchuk is the Standard's journalist who in May sat through the court
hearing of a Motion by Petrowski and Fred Bracken totally ignorant of
court procedures. Bill tweeted, took notes and reported the he
said/she said version, and Bill missed a great deal. He missed the
fact that the lawyer for the Region intentionally kept information
from the judge. He missed the question of intentional and willful
obstruction of justice. He also missed how a judge makes a ruling
towards one party to an action but then ignores the other party's
identical breach. Bill Sawchuk also has not made a sound on the Nazi
hand salute and that is a curiosity. Even an old proverb seems to
have faltered in Niagara.</span></div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-56296117520009098872017-06-30T21:50:00.000-04:002017-06-30T21:50:00.604-04:00Opportunity Lost<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">If
one was to take a stroll down the corridors of power what questions
would beg to be answered? Then, depending on which house one enters,
whether it be where authority wields armies or international
economies, or the budget decor of local municipal politics, do those
questions lose or gain volume and prominence. Integrity and equality
have been lost in their translation form the pages of documents which
supposedly guarantee our dignity and freedom, regardless of which
house you choose to tour.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">So
what do we do to overcome the shortcomings of reality, when a desire
for power seduces individuals away from the lofty ideals of
integrity, honesty, etc. We institute various governing bodies and
authorities with powers to investigate and adjudicate on complaints
received. One such individual comes in the guise of an Integrity
Commissioner. That title alone resonates with virtue and fairness,
does it not? In fact by 2018 the Provincial Government lead by
Premier Wynne will mandate that all municipalities hire an Integrity
Commissioner.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">This
Integrity Commissioner has the power to investigate any and all
complaints raised against local government and those we elect to
represent us at the most basic level. The powers and authority of
the Integrity Commissioner have been set out in the Municipal Act
under Part V – Accountability and Transparency, subsection 223.3.
In this subsection all the powers and authorities are fully described
as to what the commissioner can do. Yet the Municipal Act falls
drastically short on one important issue, and the recent Modernising
Ontario's Municipal Legislation,<b> </b>Bill 68 with its
amendments does nothing at all to remedy the situation.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The
issue in question is procedure, there are no common set of procedural
boundaries. It is difficult to comprehend how all the lawyers and
experts who sat to thrash out the Municipal Act with its typical
government language forgot to set into subsection 223.3 any rules for
an investigation by an integrity commissioner.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Our
criminal system of justice works within a framework of rules and
boundaries. Our judicial system, whether criminal or civil, with its
Rules of Civil Procedure, operate within clear boundaries. Yet the
integrity commissioner, who is the investigator, judge and jury, has
no clear procedural rules. Each one of these commissioners can
conduct themselves as they see fit.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Since
there are no rules set out in the Municipal Act and no 'How To'
handbook for integrity commissioners then only expectations exist.
First, naturally,<b> </b>would be
that the individual chosen will understand law, the Municipal Act and
codes of conduct. Second and equally important is that the chosen
commissioner will be completely impartial. He or she cannot have any
business ties or associations to the municipality nor any political
associations locally. There can be no questions raised as to the
motivation of the chosen commissioner.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">All
this being said the Regional Municipality of Niagara found itself and
its Chair, Alan Caslin unable to cope with the number of complaints
against regional councillors. Previously the Regional Council had
voted against the cost of an integrity commissioner and believed that
its Chair could handle any investigations. Now with its Chair Caslin
faltering with the volume of complaints and 2018 looming in the
distance, an interim integrity commissioner was chosen.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">John
Mascarin, lawyer and partner in Aird & Berlis LLP, was chosen.
Mr. Mascarin was called to the bar in 1989, certified by the Law
Society of Upper Canada as a specialist in Municipal Law, and teaches
at Osgoode Hall. Criteria number one appears to be comfortably
satisfied. In addition to his credentials John Mascarin had also
conducted an investigation in the City of St. Catharines and most
likely had a good recommendation from the Mayor of St. Catharines,
Walter Sendzik. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">So
although his credentials appear nice enough, he carried with him
baggage that should have disqualified him as the integrity
commissioner of choice for Niagara, at least logic would definitely
suggest that. John Mascarin's law firm of which he is a partner,
Aird & Berlis LLP, represents the Chinese developers who are
planning a large residential and commercial development in Niagara
Falls.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Niagara
Falls is, at this stage, the 'it' place in the Niagara Region for
development. The obvious reasons are its visibility with its Falls,
entertainment values such as the Casino, and its proximity to the US
border, all of which had not been lost on the Chinese. Developer Ted
Zhou, President of Evertrust Development is throwing up a condo
complex worth some $100 million. The other planned project called
Paradise is somewhat more ambitious. Here the estimate is $1.5
billion, and GR (Can) Investment Co. Ltd. from Hong Kong has CEO
Zhiying Chang promising residential, commercial and even a wetland
thrown in.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">It
is easy to understand why the Niagara Region and its government would
be hungry for both. John Mascarin as a partner in Aird & Berlis
LLP would be privy to all kinds of information in the negotiations on
behalf his of clients, the developers, and the Regional Municipality
of Niagara. Regardless of whether Mascarin's law firm represents
$100 million or $1.5 billion how can he sit in judgment of any
government member in the Niagara Region?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Regional
Chair Alan Caslin had said that the process of selecting a permanent
integrity commissioner was a lengthy one. For that reason John
Mascarin was chosen as interim integrity commissioner so as to
expedite the leftover investigations. Yet when a complaint was filed
against Chair Alan Caslin, John Mascarin excused himself on the point
of conflict. A substitute commissioner, Harold Elston, was found
rather quickly enough who presented his report and clearance of Alan
Caslin at the same time as Mascarin's departure. Now here is the
nagging and alarming question: if Mascarin found himself in conflict
to investigate Chair Alan Caslin how is it that no conflict arose in
investigating any other member of Niagara's government? Who is to
say that as Chair, Caslin would have greater knowledge or impact on
negotiations than the rest of Niagara's council? In a democracy, and
we still are a democracy one would think, the whole of government
votes on approvals for any development, not the Chair alone.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The
investigation against Caslin related to a communication he had with
Premier Wynne regarding the development by Aird & Berlis LLP's
Chinese clients. John Mascarin could not allow even a plausible
question which would hint at conflict, yet how can the same point not
apply to any other regional councillor?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Another
question begs attention, and questions here pop up like skin
blemishes after the Clearasil dries up. If a complaint was lodged
against the Mayor of Niagara Falls Jim Diodati, would Mascarin as
Niagara's Integrity Commissioner excuse himself again for conflict?
Yet Diodati is only a Councillor on Regional Council, equal standing
to all regional councillors. He may be the Mayor of Niagara Falls
but here he is just one of the boys and girls. Will John Mascarin
invoke a selective conflict of interest? Is that what the Municipal
Act would permit?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">How
is this possible to continue? John Mascarin clearly has conflict
issues and all of Niagara's Regional Government members seem to
simply choose silence. Maybe a bigger question should be aimed at
the brilliant journalists here in Niagara. Bill Sawchuk of <i>The
Standard </i>and
Paul Forsyth of <i>Niagara
this Week </i>drop
a sentence at least once in their articles mentioning Mascarin's
conflict issue, but as journalists do not find reason to ask any
further questions.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The whole issue of integrity
commissioners extends even further than this conflict question. What
is the real value of their investigations beyond the dollars and
cents they rake in from taxpayers pockets? Bill 68 brings forth some
amendments to the Municipal Act, claiming to modernise it to some
degree. Yet it still won't deal with the most crucial part, that
integrity commissioners have no set rules to how their investigations
are conducted. Their powers are explained in subsection 223.3 of the
Act, but no procedural outline is laid out. In the end it is up to
each commissioner to interpret his or own methodology. Is that then
what can be considered procedural fairness?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Then picture this: a police officer
views a security video which shows a break-in. The thief is clearly
identified as not wearing a mask, only gloves. This police officer
arrests the culprit, drags him to a judge, does not question him. In
front of the judge the prosecutor recommends a penalty and brings
forward the record of the culprit. As a result the judge passes
sentence. Remember the integrity commissioner is the investigator,
prosecutor and judge; talk about inflated power. This scenario has
not ended, the police officer, prosecutor and judge discover the
culprit has an identical twin. Remember the security video only
exposed the face and no prints because of the gloves. In the
criminal justice system there are procedures and although a fun
scenario this would not happen. Questions would be asked and
information gathered before any sentence is handed down. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The whole system of integrity
commissioners and their investigations is not simply flawed, it is in
fact a fraud at this point. It truly is a cash grab for the selected
few and a game of smoke and mirrors. Here in Niagara John Mascarin
had arrived with no procedural guidelines and only his own
interpretations in his briefcase. The law firm, Aird & Berlis,
which he is a partner of, is acting on behalf Chinese clients
involved in multi-million dollar developments in the Niagara Region,
yet neither Regional Chair Alan Caslin nor St. Catharines Mayor
Walter Sendzik saw anything amiss with that.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Regional Councillor Andy Petrowski
had three pending complaints against him. Mascarin conducted his
investigation of Councillor Petrowski, the accused, without speaking
to him. He spoke with the accusers and claimed he had enough factual
evidence to make his decisions and draft his reports. After making
his decisions, as a throw-away line he offered the accused an
opportunity to comment. What was the point of such benevolence? The
decisions were made; can Mascarin with a straight face say he would
change his mind?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Mascarin also conducted
investigations of two other Regional Councillors, but did he speak to
both the accuser and the accused? Regional Councillors Heit and
Edgar were contacted by email regarding this issue. Both Councillors
responded, Councillor Heit stated, “Since he didn't find any wrong
doing. The only contact I had was after his report was complete,”
and Councillor Edgar said “I learned about the complaint after he
had dispensed with it and before the results were made public.” In
both these cases Mascarin saw no basis in the individual complaints
and could reason that there was no constructive purpose to speak to
Councillor Heit or Councillor Edgar. Petrowski's three complaints
were seen to be legitimate enough for investigation yet Mascarin saw
no reason to speak to the Councillor prior to drafting his report.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Integrity Commissioners are needed
and codes of conduct for our elected members of government are
definitely required. At the same time a definitive set of rules must
be put in place under which each investigation can proceed to ensure
each and everyone accused of misconduct is treated equally and
fairly. Otherwise our tax dollars go into the pockets of
commissioners like John Mascarin who leave more unanswered questions
than any draft or report filed.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wxIG7oBSRFM/WVb_WC05WFI/AAAAAAAALZU/Dvdh8PWgTBwoAkZhmW8G1EaTLVj-0TqwQCLcBGAs/s1600/Region%252C%2BMay%2B10th.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1556" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wxIG7oBSRFM/WVb_WC05WFI/AAAAAAAALZU/Dvdh8PWgTBwoAkZhmW8G1EaTLVj-0TqwQCLcBGAs/s640/Region%252C%2BMay%2B10th.jpg" width="622" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">At this time it would be prudent to
make reference to Di Biase v. Vaughan (City), Divisional Court File
#309/15JR 2016. This action revolved around questions of
administrative law, natural justice, duty of fairness, procedural
fairness and more, all centered on an integrity commissioner's
investigation and report accepted by Vaughan's City Council. Deputy
Mayor Di Biase objected to the investigation and final decision. One
major point that comes through the decision by the Justices' of the
Divisional Court is heading (vi) The choice of procedure. Quoting
paragraph 131, “Indeed, the members of the City of Vaughan Council
are the persons investigated by the Integrity Commissioner. The
Councillors have codified the procedure or protocol for
investigations of complaints about themselves in a bylaw entitled
Complaint Protocol for Council Code of Conduct.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">How much of the taxpayer dollars
had been spent on revamping the Code of Conduct by Integrity
Commissioner John Mascarin? Value for dollars does not exist here
not for council members, the only value visible is in the revenue
column of Aird & Berlis LLP. Councillors need to know how an
investigation is conducted, within what procedural boundaries and not
simply open to the whims of interpretation. Otherwise any councillor
is open to a political machine ready to demonstrate its power, and
influence. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X72RVSC-nNk/WVb88GkaCmI/AAAAAAAALZE/JzxGsr9QeNoPQowxS8t2TiTNUCgMXovUQCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_20170510_175018_490.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X72RVSC-nNk/WVb88GkaCmI/AAAAAAAALZE/JzxGsr9QeNoPQowxS8t2TiTNUCgMXovUQCLcBGAs/s640/IMG_20170510_175018_490.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Welland Courthouse - Welland, Ontario</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Regional Councillor Petrowski,
preparing for the inevitable fallout of Mascarin's 'investigations',
believed that his freedoms and rights guaranteed under the Charter of
Rights had been diminished by the Code of Conduct for Members of
Council. He filed an application challenging the code of conduct on
constitutional grounds and had filed for a Motion to be heard
requesting an injunction to be placed on the release of the Mascarin
reports.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">It
is irrelevant what any opinion there was as to the motivation behind
the actions of the Councillor. As a Canadian citizen he had made a
request to be heard before the court of this great land. Doing so,
as any Canadian should, he had an expectation of absolute equality
before the law. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Filing a Motion requesting an
injunction requires some rudimentary understanding of civil
procedures, unfortunately Councillor Petrowski had little, if any.
As a co-applicant he had chosen a local Niagara activist Fred
Bracken. Frankly there was no understanding why Fred Bracken was
attached to the Motion or application challenging the Regional Code
of Conduct.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Fred Bracken is a local voice who
has challenged Regional Government, the Niagara Regional Police
Service and others. He had successfully fought against a false
arrest and maybe that was the reasoning behind his attachment to the
application and the motion. Bracken had never been on any municipal
council nor had he been employed by a municipal government.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The
Motion hearing was set for May 10<sup>th</sup>
2017 and it was to be heard by Justice David L. Edwards at the
Welland Courthouse. Both Councillor Andy Petrowski and Fred Bracken
were self-represented. The Regional Municipality of Niagara was
represented by a Toronto lawyer Sachin Persaud from Boghosian &
Allen LLP.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Councillor
Petrowski and Fred Bracken had chosen the Regional Municipality of
Niagara, Integrity Commissioner John Mascarin and some twenty-four
individual Regional Councillors, as respondents to their Motion. It
is difficult to understand why the individual councillors were named
as respondents, equally at question why some of the regional
councillors had been left off the list.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">In
all civil legal action The Rules of Civil Procedure govern every step
from the opening Notice of Motion, advising intended motion to be
filed through to the final stages in court. This meant the
Councillor and Bracken had to serve each individual chosen respondent
with the full set of documents. The service has to be in person to
each respondent, ten days prior to the hearing date, and an Affidavit
of Service has to be filed at the Courthouse. All of this is simple:
the clerk at the court's office would have to review each Affidavit
of Service before accepting them into record.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">It
has been confirmed through the Clerk's Office at the Robert S.K.
Welch Courthouse in St. Catharines that the Rules cannot change. A
motion filed before the court must have each respondent served in
person and an Affidavit of Service separately prepared for each
respondent. This is not the Bulk Barn section of the courthouse, nor
are the Rules ever accommodating towards anyone. In addition to
proper service Form 37B Confirmation of Motion must be prepared by
the moving party. This document estimates the time each side will
need to present their motions before the judge and it also releases
all the material related to the matter to the judge. None of these
steps can be avoided, nor are they negotiable. How was it possible
to have this Motion pass the Clerk's Office is very difficult to
explain.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">However
it was possible, this Motion found itself slide past the Welland
Court's Clerk's Office and be listed for hearing. Hearing this
Motion was Justice David L. Edwards, at the Welland Courthouse on May
10<sup>th</sup>. Justice Edwards had been called to the Bar in 1977
and after spending time with Lancaster, Brooks & Welch LLP he was
chosen to replace Madam Justice B. Wein in 2012. He had held
positions on the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, the Board of
Trustees of Brock University from 1994 to 2005, and is deeply
connected to arguably the most important annual event in Niagara, the
Rankin Cancer Run. Justice Edwards is rooted in the social fabric of
the Niagara area.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The
Niagara Region hired a Toronto lawyer Sachin Persaud, a seasoned
lawyer called to the Bar in 2006, joining Boghosian & Allen LLP
in 2014. Niagara's Regional Solicitor H. Sterling Wood, himself a
lawyer with more than a quarter of a century of legal experience, was
nowhere to be seen on May 10<sup>th</sup>.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Standing
before Justice David L. Edwards were Regional Councillor Andy
Petrowski and Fred Bracken, they were self-represented. The opening
half hour of the hearing set the tone for what was to be the finale.
Justice Edwards questioned Fred Bracken's position as a co-moving
party to the Motion. After all the purpose of this Motion was to
request an injunction so as to stop the public release of three
integrity commissioner reports prepared by John Mascarin against
Councillor Petrowski.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Justice
Edwards questioned the validity of Bracken's position as he was not a
Regional Councillor nor had he ever been. It was impossible to
understand how the Regional Code of Conduct for Members of Council
could affect in any way a member of the public. Bracken tried to
argue repeatedly that he may at some point in the future wish to run
for council and the code of conduct would have relevance then. When
that failed Bracken tried to argue a position as a public litigant.
That failed equally and Fred Bracken was dismissed from the Motion
Hearing. He was told by the judge to remain in court for the final
cost allocation but Fred Bracken left the courthouse, leaving his pal
Councillor Petrowski on his own.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">All
civil action through the Superior Court of Justice is governed by the
Rules of Civil Procedure. This is the bible, it is the baker's
recipe book and no improvisation is permitted not even an ounce,
otherwise it all falls flat. As publisher of this website there is
first-hand knowledge and experience with the Rules. Councillor
Petrowski was completely ignorant of the Rules and their absolute and
crucial relevance to each step he had to take to reach the courtroom
where he stood.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">First
in any civil action, this being a motion hearing, is the service of
the Motion Record by the moving party. Councillor Petrowski and Fred
Bracken were the moving party and they had named the Regional
Municipality of Niagara, Integrity Commissioner John Mascarin, and
twenty-four Regional Councillors individually as respondents. This
meant that each and every one of these respondents had to be served
individually and in person. For each of these respondents an
Affidavit of Service had to be prepared outlining the individual
served and where service had been completed. Each of these
Affidavits of Service have to be certified and witnessed at the
clerk's office, in this case at the Welland Courthouse. Petrowski
would had to have filed twenty-six individual Affidavits of Service
with the court's clerk and examination of the court file #11599/17 at
the Welland Courthouse shows only two affidavits by Petrowski: one
for Integrity Commissioner John Mascarin and another which made no
sense with Councillor names, and the Region of Niagara.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Here
is an alarming question, how was it possible for Councillor Petrowski
to file his material without the proper Affidavits of Service? A
lengthy conversation with a clerk from the St. Catharines courthouse
confirmed what was already known. No material will be accepted to be
filed without proof of service. In Canada regardless of which
province, our justice system is expected, and guaranteed to be fully
open and transparent. We do not permit any action before the court,
any court, on an ambush basis.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Proper
service of all material is critical and unequivocal in all actions
before the Civil Court, as is another document Form 37B, Confirmation
of Motion. This is not a requirement in Small Claims Court but it is
required in Civil Court. Confirmation of Motion is prepared by the
moving party and it has two functions. First, it provides an
estimation of time to be taken presenting their motion and responding
motion. Second, it opens the material to the presiding judge as all
the material for his or her consideration must be listed. Although
the moving party is required to file Form 37B, it is only done so
after consultation with the lawyer for the respondents. Sachin
Persaud was fully aware of this requirement even though Councillor
Petrowski obviously was not, yet Sachin Persaud remained silent. In
fact it was not brought to light by the presiding judge, Justice
David L. Edwards.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AC5kPxjRaXw/WVb-VSxRsnI/AAAAAAAALZM/r64-wHZGMNQ-5JRRcHPhAXj-a5jhc5SQwCLcBGAs/s1600/Persaud%2BMay%2B10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1111" data-original-width="1600" height="444" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AC5kPxjRaXw/WVb-VSxRsnI/AAAAAAAALZM/r64-wHZGMNQ-5JRRcHPhAXj-a5jhc5SQwCLcBGAs/s640/Persaud%2BMay%2B10.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">It
is difficult to understand how this action could possibly proceed in
court and yet the most disturbing legal questions result from the
actual hearing. After the first thirty minutes when Fred Bracken was
dismissed from the motion, Councillor Petrowski was left to face what
was to come on his own. His lack of understanding of the basic
procedures opened the door for atrocities to be committed against our
justice system, but only for the day.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Sachin
Persaud of Boghosian & Allen LLP in his Factum of the Respondent,
The Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Niagara stated on
page 18 in bold print, “Issue #4: The application materials were
not served pursuant to the rules and the applicants had sufficient
time to do so.” Persaud was correct to raise this issue,
Councillor Petrowski had not properly served all the respondents. As
already stated each respondent had to be served in person and a
separate affidavit filed.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5-1OQeX5uik/WVb-pF4UbLI/AAAAAAAALZQ/qLpYbDQ53aU-blzMoMLccbvyXADOTfqRQCLcBGAs/s1600/affidavit%2Bof%2Bservice%252C%2Bpetrowski%252C%2BMay%2B10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1283" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5-1OQeX5uik/WVb-pF4UbLI/AAAAAAAALZQ/qLpYbDQ53aU-blzMoMLccbvyXADOTfqRQCLcBGAs/s640/affidavit%2Bof%2Bservice%252C%2Bpetrowski%252C%2BMay%2B10.jpg" width="512" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Justice
Edwards brought this issue forward and after listening to Petrowski's
explanation and Persaud's response had only one choice open to him.
Justice Edwards dismissed the action against all the twenty-four
individually listed Regional Councillors. Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 38.06(1) state, “the notice of application shall be served on
all parties.” Further at 38.06 (2) it states, “Where it appears
to the judge hearing the application that the notice of application
ought to have been served on a person who has not been served the
judge may, </span><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">a)
dismiss the application or dismiss it only against who was not served; </span><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">b)
adjourn the application and direct that the notice application be
served on the person; </span><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">c)
direct that any judgment made on the application be served on the
person”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Half
of Petrowski's Motion now had been dismissed and the rest of the
hearing proceeded in much the same manner. At the end Justice David
L. Edwards ruled against the Motion by Councillor Petrowski. It was
the final stage now with the cost allocation. One of the listed
costs by the Toronto lawyer, Sachin Persaud, confused the Councillor
and he requested clarification. Persaud stood to explain it was the
cost of service of material.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">At
this stage, our judicial system, our guarantee of equality before the
law, everything that we value in our democratic society was burned to
the ground. Councillor Petrowski stated that he had not been served
any material by Sachin Persaud. Persaud admitted that his process
server had attempted to serve the Councillor at 8:00 p.m. on May 8<sup>th</sup>
2017 but was not successful. He referred to his Affidavit of Service
which had recorded this to be true, he also said that he had
successfully served Fred Bracken. Justice David L. Edwards rummaged
through the material and found the affidavit by Persaud but made no
comment.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Back
to the Rules of Civil Procedure, which Sachin Persaud had referred to
in his Factum on page 18. Now it is 38.07 Notice of Appearance (1)
“A respondent who has been served with a notice of application
shall forthwith deliver a notice of appearance. (2) a respondent who
has not delivered a notice of appearance is not entitled to: </span><span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">a)
receive notice of any step in the application; </span><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">b)
receive any further document in the application; </span><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">c)
file material, examine a witness or cross-examine on an affidavit on
the application; </span><span style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">d)
be heard at the hearing of the application”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Justice
David L. Edwards had earlier dismissed half of the Councillor's
Motion on the grounds of the Rules section 38.06. He took time to
publicly chastise the Councillor in open court on the process within
the judicial system. Now Justice Edwards was made aware that the
lawyer representing the Region of Niagara, Sachin Persaud of
Boghasian & Allen LLP had withheld information that he had not
complied with the Rules, subsection 38.07. Yet Justice Edwards
ignored this fact and simply proceeded with costs.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">How
could Justice Edwards ignore this? Sachin Persaud, an experienced
lawyer intentionally withheld from the court information relevant to
the matter being heard. He even argued against the applicant on the
identical issue before the judge. Can this be considered as
intentional obstruction by lawyer Sachin Persaud? Is Justice David
L. Edwards equally culpable? </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Journalists
who sat through the hearing, Bill Sawchuk of <i>The Standard</i> and
Melinda Cheevers of <i>Niagara this Week</i> simply parroted the
'he-said-she-said' version. None of these journalists understood
anything of court procedures and did not comment on this.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">All
Regional Councillors had been given an opportunity to comment, not
one has responded. Chair Alan Caslin was asked to comment, he has
stayed silent. Lawyer Sachin Persaud was given an opportunity to
comment and it's not surprising that silence is his response at this
time.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">How
was this possible in Canada? How can our system of justice, which
claims to support the ideals of equality and transparency permit
this? Is it possible that a judge was more concerned with his own
words of wisdom in his ruling, over the very rules that govern every
action before him? So many questions scream for attention for an
answer. How was this Motion able to proceed with so many breaches of
the Rules of Civil Procedure? A more alarming question is why did
it?</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-77611269846724506482016-11-03T21:53:00.001-04:002016-11-03T22:24:08.041-04:00Modern Society's Reboot of Indentured Servitude - Part 2<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>The
second part of this article is a little more lengthy than most yet
the material revealed required both depth and description with the
posting of relevant documents.</b></i></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xu3ld1Vlma4/WBvxBcFIrTI/AAAAAAAAK9w/6JNgKx14r6ADNPgHTUiIrVRbIgcHnQTCQCLcB/s1600/san0001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xu3ld1Vlma4/WBvxBcFIrTI/AAAAAAAAK9w/6JNgKx14r6ADNPgHTUiIrVRbIgcHnQTCQCLcB/s640/san0001.jpg" width="464" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Following
the interrogation by Human Resource Manager Kelly Turner and
Christine Argue of Loss Prevention on August 24</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">
2015, I was approached by Seafood Manager Kirsten Aplin with a wild
request. In her hands Aplin had several UPC labels folded, she said
that it was particularly a bad week and if I could put some items
through even though I had not used them. She said that she had done
this herself before on my invoices but this time asked me to do it.
To ask me to commit fraud knowingly was a criminal act of conspiracy
– it was intentional entrapment. This was even worse than the
fraud committed by Produce Manager Angela Ciestak.
It came the day after the interrogation and the first search of my
station; such coincidences I don't believe in.</span><b style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">
</b><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">I
took four of the UPC labels and photocopied them.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">On the next day I told Assistant
Manager Lynn Walbourne that I had something serious to talk to her
about. In the office I dropped the four UPC labels on the desk and
recounted the whole thing with Kirsten Aplin. I explained how I had
given Store Manager David Camilleri copies of all the invoices
regarding the fraudulent invoices by the produce manager. Walbourne
then told me she did not know that I had given Camilleri those
invoices. Questions were mounting up and smelling worse than rotting
apples so I told Walbourne that I had sent all the information to
Vice President of Operations Tom White. Walbourne's eyes stared at
me for several uncomfortable seconds, then said she would investigate
this herself now and get back to me. With all that had happened I
expected this to be nothing more than a lie.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">My
work environment became very, very tense on a daily basis from this
point on. Staff were told not to speak to me, others were questioned
after they were seen talking to me by department managers. In early
September of 2015 I was called into the office, this time with David
Camilleri and District Operator Craig Gawley. As I sat down I took
my recorder out in front of Craig Gawley's face. Gawley said that I
brought a very serious issue to their attention, that it took courage
to do it, but now it was no longer my business, they would handle it.
He also said that he was the D.O. and if I need to speak to anyone I
should speak to him not the V.P., Tom White.<b> </b>Craig
Gawley had also said that there would be nothing on my record
relating to this matter. As I walked out of the office I could smell
the cans of white wash yet I simply could not understand why.
Produce Manager Angela Ciestak committed fraud and Seafood Manager
Kirsten Aplin had gone further; not only had she committed fraud she
had attempted to have me commit an act I would immediately be
terminated for. It was a criminal act, Craig Gawley knew it, David
Camilleri and Lynn Walbourne knew it, and both Human Resources and
Loss Prevention would have known it. Nothing made any sense at all.
Sobeys' Code of Business Conduct and Ethics had been breached, in
fact more than breached, it was mangled. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Each
day I came to work with Marilyn Manson's <i>The</i>
<i>Pale Emperor </i>pumping
into my ears. The defiance in both the singer's voice and lyrics
helped to strengthen my mind to handle the stress of the coming nine
hours. On October 6<sup>th</sup>
2015 I came into work several hours earlier as we were to have a
school tour and I would need time to prepare the special treat for
the kids. A very somber David Camilleri asked me to come to his
office, in the office was another individual. I was introduced to a
Tim Gingrich, Director of Human Resources, he said that I was
terminated by Sobeys and as he read out the letter all I heard in my
head was absolute relief that I outlasted everything. Tim Gingrich
handed me the letter, Camilleri looked as if he was going to put his
hand out to me. I grinned and walked out the door. I looked at the
letter handed to be by the Director of Human Resources and noticed
there was no letterhead, it was a blank sheet of paper with some
words on it and Camilleri's signature. True professionalism at its
best. I walked downstairs, threw my apron into the air, collected my
recipes, said good-bye to some friends and walked out the door
feeling relief and freedom.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The termination letter had
conditions attached to it so I was somewhat handcuffed till January
2016. Within days of being terminated the steps of my response were
discussed and formulated. As far as wrongful dismissal went I had
all that I needed: recordings, documentation proving fraud, customer
statements, witness statements and staff testimonials. Yet I wanted
more and now seeing how far the management of Sobeys was willing to
go I knew I would get more.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">As the constraints of the
termination were lifted in January, I prepared phase one. First to
come was a complaint filed with the Human Resource Professional
Association (HRPA), of which Kelly Turner had to be a member of.
Kelly Turner's actions were irregular enough to warrant the
complaint. I fully understood<b> </b>that the process with an
industry self-regulatory entity would take some months to complete.
In addition to this being time consuming I had no real trust in any
self-regulating organisation. Experience had proven that these
self-regulating entities rarely take the high road which I had stated
in the opening of my complaint letter. Yet I hoped to get something
for my investment and at the end of it I found myself grinning like a
green suited leprechaun sitting at the end of a rainbow.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">My
original complaint form with attachments to the Human Resource
Professional Association was signed a few days after Valentine's Day,
on February 18<sup>th</sup>
2016. It took a little time but I received a response from the HRPA
dated March 18<sup>th</sup>
2016, signed by Alicia Lockey, CHRL, Regulatory Process and Special
Projects Specialist. Ms. Lockey also sent a complaints process FAQ,
and a copy of the HRPA's Rules of Professional Conduct, which I
already had. And so the games began. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The complaint before the HRPA was
relatively simple in nature. Supporting evidence was provided so as
not to present a hollow or baseless set of allegations. At the core
of the complaint was the fact that Kelly Turner, HR Manager for
Sobeys breached the rules of professional conduct in the manner which
she claimed to have conducted an investigation relating to reports of
workplace harassment. In addition to the harassment issue,
descriptions of the fraud committed by the two department managers
had been presented, explaining the lack of action by the Store
Manager, his Assistant Manager, District Operator or even the VP
(although we know what VP's do, they de-li-gate, not do).</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">I
understood from the beginning that a copy of my complaint would be
sent to Kelly Turner and for that reason I had to ensure that I did
not give too much away. After reviewing my complaint Turner would
have thirty days to respond. It was that response that I anticipated
would provide additional material to what I had already stockpiled.
My anticipation was paid for in aces, (I have probably messed up that
popular saying). As a complaint mine was five pages long; their
response 97 pages. It was a document with one goal, to destroy the
reputation of an individual, and as one respected friend with twenty
five years in the Human Resource field said, “</span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>WOW!
They (Sobeys) sure know how to spin things … that document must of
cost them $$$$ even though a lot of it was fabricated</i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">.”</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Kelly
Turner did not use a private lawyer as I would have expected, instead
she gave me a monstrous gift. This response was prepared by one Alix
Herber of Fasken Martineau, a Toronto law firm. In her opening Alix
Herber states, “</span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>We
are counsel for Sobeys Ontario (Sobeys) the former employer of Mr.
Alexander Davidoff, the Complainant, and write on behalf of Ms. Kelly
Turner of Sobeys in response of your letter dated March 18, 2016
addressed to Ms. Kelly Turner.” </i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Now
it was no longer Turner or Craig Gawley or David Camilleri acting as
individuals, it was the corporation of Sobeys Ontario and therefore
the corporation of Empire Company Limited.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><b>Alix
Herber of Fasken Martineau continues in paragraph 3, </b></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>“We
would also respectively request that the Complainant be advised of
the confidentiality of this process and </b></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><u><b>not</b></u></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>
</b></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><u><b>permitted</b></u></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>
</b></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><u><b>to</b></u></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>
</b></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><u><b>post</b></u></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>
these documents on his blog or anywhere publicly, including on social
media.” </b></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><b>It
would seem that Alix Herber had not reviewed the the HRPA Complaint
form, there is no written mention of confidentiality anywhere. Alix
Herber as a lawyer would also be aware of freedom of speech and
freedom of the press, but then Ms. Herber and Ms. Turner had other
things on their minds I guess. Alix Herber finishes this paragraph
with, “</b></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>We
would also recommend that any new issues be canvassed with the
Complainant directly </b></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><u><b>without</b></u></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>
</b></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><u><b>providing</b></u></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>
</b></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><u><b>a</b></u></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>
</b></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><u><b>copy</b></u></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>
of this written Response.” </b></i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>
</i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">It
is quite understandable why Ms. Herber and Ms. Turner would not want
me to have a copy of the response. In relation to being “permitted
to post,” the opening page of the response follows this paragraph,
and more to come.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cogCMAtZ_zY/WBvmqacFbaI/AAAAAAAAK88/S0OYuTtkbS8p_Tx2-msl0N-vYjK1JlJCgCLcB/s1600/san0002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cogCMAtZ_zY/WBvmqacFbaI/AAAAAAAAK88/S0OYuTtkbS8p_Tx2-msl0N-vYjK1JlJCgCLcB/s640/san0002.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Sobeys
painted a picture of an aggressive mental case running around their
store frightening staff and threatening management. The goal of
Kelly Turner and Alix Herber for Sobeys was plain and simple which
explained the reasoning behind submitting material which had no
relevance to my complaint. Yet in a court of law it is the evidence
that I would need but would not normally have access to even through
an Affidavit of Documents, and for that reason I thank both Ms.
Turner and Ms. Herber of Fasken Martineau.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">A ten page letter began the
defamation and attack on my character, followed by 87 more pages
under Tabs 1 through to 17. Issues outside my workplace were brought
forward which had no bearing on my work or my performance, in fact no
employer has a right to comment on an employee's activities outside
their work environment. Still that was not anything Turner, Herber
or Sobeys cared about.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">It is understandable that such a
high priced lawyer would look to smear my reputation when potential
evidence against her client was as strong as mine. Heck you see it
in the movies all the time, this was real life though with real
consequences, after all an actor will walk away even after the
execution of a death penalty. In the rush to smear me, in Tab 5,
Turner and the Sobeys lawyer released private and personal
information relating to two employees of the Scott Street Sobeys
store.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The
Employment Standards Act, under the Protecting Employee Privacy,
states, </span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>“Do
not disclose an employee's information to anyone (other than
government agencies and benefits providers) without first securing
the employee's permission.” (Keeping and protecting employee
records. The Ontario Employment Standards Act, MaRS). </i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">I
would expect Kelly Turner has some understanding of this Act, and if
not definitely Alix Herber should, being from such a prestigious law
firm. Maybe I am wrong in such an assumption.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Tab 5 has personal information on
one past employee and one current employee, the latter relating to
his alleged mental health. This individual made it clear that under
no circumstances was he aware of this breach of his personal
information. He has been given copies of the pages that relate to
him, which are hand-written notes by Kelly Turner. This information
has been shared by Turner in this response with a third party, namely
the HRPA, who have no legal right of access to this information.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a7FMROr9IvY/WBvm0RgvU5I/AAAAAAAAK9A/cWcoecNFVBos12J-WKcFumUILIJ6Pz5XACLcB/s1600/san0003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-a7FMROr9IvY/WBvm0RgvU5I/AAAAAAAAK9A/cWcoecNFVBos12J-WKcFumUILIJ6Pz5XACLcB/s640/san0003.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Things
don't end with this breach of the Employee Standards Act, actually
Tab 5 has a wealth of information, of evidence. All the material in
this Tab relates to an investigation that Kelly Turner did in 2014
over a harassment issue with a silly young man trying to impress his
equally silly girlfriend. During that investigation Turner has notes
on interviews with supposed witnesses. One such witness was Lori
Marsh, the Engagement Champ, the same one who walks around the store
telling staff that all discussions with her are confidential. Lori
Marsh, it appears, volunteered information to Turner and Store
Manager Camilleri regarding what she claims to be things discussed
with her, a copy of the notes by Turner are posted here. In addition
to Lori Marsh another so-called witness was spoken with who said her
statements were only </span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>“second
hand.” </i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">How
does such an 'experienced' Human Resource professional put on record
a second hand account of anything? As you can see though, Turner
did.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">As one reads Tab 5 through many
questions arise, but one in particular has always intrigued me. Did
Turner and Camilleri go out to canvas staff to see who was willing to
provide statements, or did these people, like Lori Marsh, voluntarily
come to Turner and Camilleri? It is an interesting question and has
serious bearing on this response later. There are two other points
in Tab 5 that relate further down the line. First is the fact that I
was watched and details of who I spoke with, even for how long are on
record. Staff had been questioned as to what I was talking to them
about and even advised by department managers not to speak with me –
I have statements<b> </b>on that. Yet after I was terminated I had
become a customer, a member of the public. To have this continue is
a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CKoMnWrjOYg/WBvm-LjakZI/AAAAAAAAK9I/Fbjfgtn7usAJho3AtjbcgxyzIFAQ2PstQCLcB/s1600/san0004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CKoMnWrjOYg/WBvm-LjakZI/AAAAAAAAK9I/Fbjfgtn7usAJho3AtjbcgxyzIFAQ2PstQCLcB/s640/san0004.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Although Tab 5 had provided a
plethora of usable information that I would not have had otherwise,
some points do stand out and scream for attention. The next point
has serious ramifications on the issues of the August 2015
interrogation and eventual dismissal. Turner's notes in Tab 5 state
she reviewed the video of the Chef's Station, it appears from the
formatting of the notes that Turner even formulated questions after
viewing the video. Everything here indicates that the security video
had a good line of sight around the Chef's Station. Even when Bakery
Manager Shari Chastelet commented later in August 2015 that she
thought she was looking for a shoplifter she had not stated any
obstacles to the line of sight. Yet contradictory statements were
later made relating to the harassment report by me.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Aside from Tab 5 one other stands
out, with statements made by Assistant Manager Lynn Walbourne which
are presented in Tab 15. Here Lynn Walbourne makes comments relating
to August 26<sup>th</sup> 2015 where she claims, “<i>I questioned
Alex about the binders and folders he had in his chef's station
drawers.” </i>The first question that comes to mind is where did
this statement by Walbourne appear prior to the response? Was it on
my employee file which I was not given access to even when I made a
written request to review it? More alarming is the intentional
omission of fact about the situation.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Walbourne's statement is in two
parts, on two pages one signed, the other not signed. She claims on
the signed paged that she questioned me about binders and folders
then claims I had said or made a statement to her. On the unsigned
page the date is incorrect, the fact that she searched my station and
the reason changed, Walbourne also claimed that I made a statement
relating to Human Rights that is wrong. The facts were simple, on
August 26<sup>th</sup> 2015, after the interrogation by Turner and
company, Lynn Walbourne at 12:42 pm came to search my station in full
view of customers and staff. On the same day at approximately 1:09
pm she came back down and said, “<i>they told you not to have it on
the floor.” </i>Thursday August 27<sup>th</sup>, Walbourne called
me at approximately 11:43 am and asked whether I had any papers “down
there.” Then on Friday August 28<sup>th</sup> 2015 I did give her
a “booklet of papers”, it was a revised copy of the Motion Record
which Turner claimed that her legal people had called the court about
prior to this date. Finally, is it reasonable to ask whether the
second unsigned page was added some time later, explaining the lack
of signature and serious inconsistencies.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YSd3wn46k-k/WBvnMoiVU5I/AAAAAAAAK9Q/6TFDoL1oGL0iaaZq9nYcao5FUfiHDHP4ACLcB/s1600/san0005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YSd3wn46k-k/WBvnMoiVU5I/AAAAAAAAK9Q/6TFDoL1oGL0iaaZq9nYcao5FUfiHDHP4ACLcB/s640/san0005.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5g2UHhWfbbw/WBvnM-WIKlI/AAAAAAAAK9M/4AXSLp_X1JAg_25xTt1uHaIw-HFEoI4gwCLcB/s1600/san0006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5g2UHhWfbbw/WBvnM-WIKlI/AAAAAAAAK9M/4AXSLp_X1JAg_25xTt1uHaIw-HFEoI4gwCLcB/s640/san0006.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Lynn Walbourne decided to omit from
her statement the fact that she searched my station and that as she
first began the search she lied as to what she was doing. She also
omitted as to who instructed her to search my station and for what
reason. Walbourne did not find the need to mention that “the
binders” were my temperature logs, and except for one folder the
others were recipes which I cooked and worked on. Neither did Lynn
Walbourne bother to state that she searched my station for several
days or the fact that witnesses told me, who will provide testimony,
that Walbourne searched my station even before I started my shift.
When I questioned her about this her response was that she was only
signing the log binders.<b> </b>Were these the same “binders”
she claimed to have questioned me about? It would appear Lynn
Walbourne needs her memory refreshed by listening to her own voice.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">On August 29<sup>th</sup> 2015 a
senior staff member said to me, “<i>My God they are trying to
ostracise you.” </i>I knew that I was in a hostile and poisoned
work environment designed to make me want to resign. The daily
stress and pressure was immense but under no circumstances would I
give in, instead, for months I made sure to record conversations and
encounters for my protection as Lynn Walbourne proved supposed
'reporting' was extremely erroneous and lacking truth or even fact,
much not even being recorded at all. In the case of Lynn Walbourne
there is no report on the morning when I gave her the UPC labels and
recounted what happened. I knew where I was working and was fully
prepared for the outcome that was ahead.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c0x3oFHxaxQ/WBvn70kfE3I/AAAAAAAAK9c/x3df1Mez7iYUwH1nLlJz17wgpO0q4EnkwCLcB/s1600/san0007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c0x3oFHxaxQ/WBvn70kfE3I/AAAAAAAAK9c/x3df1Mez7iYUwH1nLlJz17wgpO0q4EnkwCLcB/s640/san0007.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t-7wglONHq8/WBvn7426s9I/AAAAAAAAK9g/QLVrUGf2U5gHEdUFvoO0OxF5RI6_1of6QCLcB/s1600/san0008.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t-7wglONHq8/WBvn7426s9I/AAAAAAAAK9g/QLVrUGf2U5gHEdUFvoO0OxF5RI6_1of6QCLcB/s640/san0008.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_kvgDLhhY70/WBvn6nQleuI/AAAAAAAAK9Y/yx5pvhHXVBYm1kQqBrpRX6DymNcS7rI4QCLcB/s1600/san0009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_kvgDLhhY70/WBvn6nQleuI/AAAAAAAAK9Y/yx5pvhHXVBYm1kQqBrpRX6DymNcS7rI4QCLcB/s640/san0009.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">After termination I served out my
'parole' period and forwarded my complaint to the HRPA. The reason
behind my complaint has already been mentioned and the result
dissected, yet the gifts did not end there. The HRPA decided to take
the matter to a panel for review, and their final decision turned out
to be an even greater gift in some respect. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">To review the final decision by the
HRPA would take a great deal of time, yet to ignore it for expediency
alone would be an injustice to this article and to a long phase of a
battle to expose the truth. As a governing body over an industry
with powers to censure and fine its members the HRPA is bound by the
responsibility of procedural fairness. The Human Resources
Professionals Association of Ontario Act, 1990, under Section 4(1)(c)
gives the Board of the HRPA the specific statutory authority to
regulate and govern the conduct of members of the association in the
practice of their profession.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Its Chair, Debbie Bennett stated,
<i>“Self-regulation is a privilege. It is our responsibility as a
regulatory body, and as individual members of HRPA, to ensure that we
regulate ourselves effectively.”</i> These are mighty fine words
but how much do they really mean?<b> </b>Self-regulatory bodies have
proven time and time again that their apparent main goal is to
protect their own members rather than investigate the truth. In this
case my semblance of procedural fairness disappeared at the
Complaints Committee Panel chaired by Jennifer Cooper.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Jennifer Cooper was given an
opportunity to answer some questions but she refused to respond. In
the final decision the HRPA and Chair of the Complaints Committee
Panel basically decided that Kelly Turner had not breached their
professional standards. This panel simply took what Turner and
Sobey's lawyer had presented in the 97 page response, very little
else was of importance to Jennifer Cooper and the panel. According
to the HRPA's FAQ sheet provided by Alicia Lockey, Regulatory Process
and Special Projects Specialist, under the heading 'What process does
the CIC Panel follow?', on page 2, it states <i>“the CIC Panel may
decide the matter requires further investigation. The Panel may
interview witnesses, to assist in the determination of facts or to
bring clarity to the circumstances. The Panel may also engage an
investigator to conduct an investigation on their behalf.” </i>What
was brought to the HRPA as a complaint was a serious issue and my
complaint was clear and on point; the response that was submitted was
aimed to damage my reputation with most of the material irrelevant to
the complaint.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">A landmark federal court decision
in Ottawa on September 2<sup>nd</sup> 2016 has provided the benchmark
that now can be referenced to in such matters. Federal Justice
Russel W. Zinn wrote in his decision under Standard of Review page 9,
paragraph 35: “<i>Commissioner Shoan submits, and I agree, that a
harassment investigation has significant consequences for all parties
involved, and thus procedural fairness is required.”</i></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Examining the final document from
the HRPA leaves one bemused even at some of the language, such as the
fact that I did not agree with the summary of David Camilleri's
actions as outlined in Kelly Turner's letter and that an adequate
investigation was conducted. For Jennifer Cooper, Chair of the
Panel, to make such a statement only proves ignorance of the English
language used in my complaint. Yet that on its own is not the real
issue at question. As part of the decision summary a section is
labelled 'Information Considered', and it is here that the test of
procedural fairness fails.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In paragraph 46 of the decision by
Federal Justice Zinn, he states, “<i>in determining whether an
investigation was procedurally fair and proper. </i></span><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Justice Richard in Bell Canada
v Communication, Energy and Paperworks Union </i><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">[1997] FCS No 207, 1997 Caswell
Nat 347 at para 31 (FCTD) articulated the test as </i><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">follows: The standard of
conduct which is applicable to those preforming an </i><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">adjudicative function is
different from those performing a purely administrative or </i><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">investigative function. In the
case of an administrative or investigative function, the </i><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">standard is not whether there
is a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the </i><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">investigator, but rather
whether the investigator maintained an open mind, that is </i><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">whether the investigator has
not predetermined the issue.”</i></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">It is near impossible to understand
how the HRPA decided not to review key evidence in order to make
their decision. Key to all of the issues surrounding the supposed
investigation by Kelly Turner is the audio recording of the whole
session, yet that is not part of the list of material considered by
the Panel and Jennifer Cooper. There are serious legal questions
that will require answering relating to the Analysis of Issues as
stated in the HRPA summary, some of which are best not brought up
here. Others left me with a grin such as the need to have this
heading number 3, <i>“Did Ms. Turner engage in a retaliatory
conduct against Mr. Davidoff for initiating the harassment complaint
and for raising concerns about the conduct of other employee?”</i><b>
</b>Here and now I challenge Ms. Jennifer Cooper to corroborate my
words anywhere in the complaint process where I made this allegation
regarding Kelly Turner. How or why Jennifer Cooper came up with this
as an investigative point for consideration is difficult to
understand for now.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Further in point 3 it states,
<i>“Documentation from Ms. Turner confirms that Mr. Davidoff was
cautioned about his food safety practices on at least one occasion
prior to his meeting with Ms. Turner on August 26 2015.”</i> Here
is the key to it all. After two years of coming into work five days
a week, for eight hours a day, on one day I forgot, for some reason,
to put on my hairnet. Yes, a hairnet! This is omitted by Jennifer
Cooper as to what <i>“food safety practices” </i>I did not
follow.<i> </i>Yet this is somehow insignificant to Ms. Cooper.
Cooper labels this as “documentation from Ms. Turner.” What
documentation, other than a sentence in the response provided by Alix
Herber as Sobeys' counsel? This made me understand O.J. and the
black glove absurdity.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Point 3 continues to shine with
statements made by Jennifer Cooper which raise serious questions of
motivation let alone procedural fairness. Paragraph four begins
with, <i>“Mr. Davidoff alleges that Sobeys management and human
resources staff, including Ms. Turner, harassed or intimidated him by
talking to him about concerns of the invoicing of products to his
workstation and searching his workstation.” </i>Here Cooper takes
two separate issues – one is fraud by department managers, the
other relating to the search of my workstation – throws them
together as a mismatched sandwich and asks that it be digested
without any resulting upset.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">I
had brought to the attention of management the issue of fraud
committed by two department managers. Craig Gawley, Sobeys District
Operator, was recorded calling this “</span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>a
very serious issue.</i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">”
One manager went a little further, Kirsten Aplin tried to involve me
in the fraud. Sobeys' lawyer, Alix Herber, in the response called it
an </span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>“erroneous
allocation,” </i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">although
just like a lawyer she is careful not to name which manager this
referred to, Aplin or Ciestak</span><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">.
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Again,
I challenge Jennifer Cooper to point out somewhere in my words that I
alleged any intimidation or harassment by anyone relating to this.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In
relation to the search, Assistant Store Manager Lynn Walbourne
somehow forgot the facts and left all of it out in her teeny
statement used by Herber in the response by, and on behalf of, Turner
and Sobeys. Cooper explains this away as, “</span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>Ms.
Turner denies the allegation and submits that Mr. Davidoff has
mischaracterized the conversations and the supervision of his
workstation.” </i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">I
have to ask which conversations did I mischaracterize, the one with
Kirsten Aplin and the UPC labels or Lynn Walbourne opening all my
cupboards and drawers with the lie of looking for napkins?</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In the end the HRPA decision
summary simply leaves a multitude of questions. As a statutory body
the HRPA has an absolute obligation to conduct themselves in a manner
which cannot be questioned on issues of procedural fairness. Quoting
once again Federal Justice Zinn from paragraph 53 of his decision:</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"> “A lack of even-mindedness
has also been found when relevant material</i> <i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">information was omitted in the
investigation report. Canadian Broadcasting </i><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Corp v. Paul [1998] FCS No
1823. [1999] 2FC3 (FCTD0). The court there held </i><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">that the failure was of such
significance that it provided evidence of bias </i><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">rendering an investigation
procedurally unfair.”</i></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">There are no explanations or
excuses that Jennifer Cooper, Panel Chair, can provide to justify the
actions of the HRPA. It has been through experience that trust or
faith in self-governing bodies has dissipated over the years. At the
same time corporations in general<b> </b>have proven that procedural
fairness is nothing but a joke.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In recent months two other
employees of Sobeys had been terminated; one from the Fonthill store,
the other from Scott Street in St. Catharines. Both employees have
asked not to publish their names at this time for privacy reasons.
Olga worked at Scott Street Sobeys for a year, and then transferred
to Fonthill to get better hours. This individual was a hard working
woman in her mind 50's with a work ethic which had her stay longer
after clocking out for the day to get the work done. Olga was accused
of stealing a piece of chicken worth between $4– $5. Such an
accusation was devastating to this person whose honesty and integrity
was never questioned.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">She was suspended from her duties,
then Loss Prevention was brought in to question her. Theft would
never be an option for Olga even if she was hungry. During
questioning she was able to prove that she paid for the chicken
piece. Front end security video proved it and the fact she used her
bank ATM card to pay for it proved it. The loss prevention
individual, who Olga remembers as Christine, even demanded her bank
card, something that the police can't do, but the intimidation used
by this individual had no concern for what was legal or not. Even
though Olga proved without any doubt that she paid for the chicken
she was terminated. Upon termination she was also served with a No
Trespass Order for any Sobeys property, this too was an illegal act.
Her termination letter states that she breached “<i>Employee
Shopping Policy found on page 37 of your employee handbook.” </i></span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The second incident revolves around
an employee from the Scott Street Store who had began employment with
Sobeys in May 2008. Ingrid was a cashier and also staffed the
customer service counter. Her termination also centred around a
similar reason. When I interviewed her, she explained why she was
terminated: “<i>I took coupons off a product I didn't end up buying
and I bought it while I was working. I said so I'm being fired for
taking a coupon and they (I believe it was the loss prevention lady)
said that no it was because I no longer can be trusted.” </i>I
asked her what was the value of the coupons, her reply, <i>“it was
3 coupons for $2.50 I believe then – buy 3 get one free.”</i></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">No verbal or written warnings were
given to either of these two women. Yet in the response by Turner
and Sobeys lawyer Alix Herber, on page 8 it states that the issue of
fraud identified by me was investigated by <i>“Ms. Argue from Loss
Prevention, Mr. Gawley the Director of Operations and Mr. Camilleri,
Store Manager</i>.” It further states that <i>“this employee
received a final warning letter.” </i>So fraud by a department
manager is labelled as “erroneously, but improperly” assigning
cost of certain products, is rewarded with a final warning letter,
and a promotion as Manager of the Beamsville store Bakery department.
Yet two part-time, minimum wage women are immediately terminated for
a $4 piece of chicken and some two plus dollars worth of coupons.
Both women are labelled as not trustworthy by Christine Argue from
Loss Prevention. Procedural fairness did not appear to be
consideration for Sobeys or Christine Argue from Loss Prevention.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The issues outlined in these two
parts relating to Sobeys are not just systemic with this corporation
alone. A flight attendant, Mandalena Lewis, with WestJet had
reported sexual assault by a pilot. WestJet claims to have
investigated the report, although nothing had appeared to have been
done with the pilot. The flight attendant requested her employment
record, and when three months passed without response, she sent an
angry email which contained a swear word, demanding her record. She
was fired later that day for insubordination. In Hawaii, where the
assault occurred, there remains an outstanding police arrest warrant,
yet WestJet ensures the pilot does not fly any routes which would
require stopovers in Hawaii.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Raj Shoan, former CRTC
Commissioner, had filed an action with the federal court after a
mishandled harassment investigation of which he was the target. As a
result, Federal Justice Russel W. Zinn provided a landmark decision
in relation to procedural fairness which did not exist in such a
concise form in the past. Corporations had rarely shown concern for
their employers, although it is not easy to understand the motivation
behind their actions. In the end it is up to individuals to stand up
and fight for the truth.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The action taken by Sobeys is clear
for its intent, Kelly Turner and Sobeys' counsel Alix Herber of
Fasken Martineau, set on a course to maliciously attack and tarnish
my reputation. Their response to my complaint submitted to the HRPA
was not only harsh and vindictive, it was reprehensible. All the
hard work, the achievements and loyalty had been wiped out, maybe
Alix Herber should have read the <a href="http://www.fasken.com/wrongful-dismissal-punitive-damages/" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">Fasken Martineau blog post</span></a> 'Punitive
Damages Awards in Wrongful Dismissals Being Aggravated? The HR
Space', by David T. McDonald, Vancouver, April 4, 2013. The opening
paragraph states: “<i>The employer's conduct in the course of
termination must be proven to be harsh, vindictive, reprehensible and
malicious. Despite this high ground a number of recent trial
decisions show how courts are becoming more open to providing
plaintiff employees with awards of punitive damages.”</i></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/10/modern-societys-reboot-of-indentured.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">Part One</span></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-12182796380113406322016-10-14T11:38:00.004-04:002016-11-03T22:01:48.074-04:00Modern Society's Reboot of Indentured Servitude - Part 1<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>Mayorgate
has, over the years, focused on many serious and important issues
dealing with law, legislation, environment, community, and much more.
This article examines the most base human traits, which when
identified and brought to the light leave little to be proud of. Yet
there is no shortage of government officials who's actions are never
questioned, businessmen who cut corners for profit at the expense of
law and legislation, or greedy poachers butchering animals for
demands based on superstition. In this article the stage is a
supermarket – Sobeys to be exact – and what has played out leaves
much to be questioned. Due to the volume of material present, a
two-part format has been necessitated to do the situation justice.
Unlike previous articles, voice recordings, documents, even names of
witnesses have been left out due to legal requirements ahead.</b></i></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Surviving
in today's economy is not an easy thing, and Canada is not the land
of milk and honey that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau likes to paint.
An ever increasing portion of the workforce is becoming a part-time
workforce. For employers this is something quite beneficial as they
do not have to provide any of the costly benefits such as paid
vacation or sick leave. Yet the workers who keep business moving are
mainly left to the mercy of the employer.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Statistics
Canada puts the number of part-time employees in Canada at 3,387,300
as of 2015. As a part-time employee, hours are cut by managers at
will to reduce weekly operating costs. Staff are hired, even
over-hired, so that there are too many people on the roster to be
able to give an adequate number of hours to any one individual. The
retail and hospitality industries are predominately staffed by
part-time employees, and these industries are the backbone of any
thriving economy.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">I
walked onto this playing field as a novice, never before having
experienced life as a part-timer nor had I worked in a supermarket
environment prior to this. The position I had taken was as an
In-Store Chef at Sobeys; what lured me to this was a concept that
Sobeys had which was unique and in many ways exciting. As the
in-store chef my task was to present food and ideas to customers
directly, not from corporate printed recipe cards or famous
television personality cooks on weekly flyers. My station was
located directly on the floor of the supermarket between three of the
major departments: produce, meat and deli. Customer traffic was
guaranteed although soon enough it did not matter whether an
individual passed my station or went by another route; the aromas of
cooking permeating the store brought people to the Chef's Station.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">At
the time that I had started, the store manager David Camilleri at
Sobeys Scott Street in St. Catharines took a gamble and gave me full
carte blanche as far as what I cooked. We had often spoken how
statistics in Canada revealed that only two out of five households
cooked full meals regularly on a weekly basis. I wanted to change
that, at least in the small corner of the city I lived. On any given
day, Sobeys customers would walk into the store welcomed by aromas of
apple cider infused with fresh peach and pear bubbling on the
portable cook top, Jamaican Jerk Chicken, Cuban Sandwiches or
Moroccan Kefka Kebabs. It was a success and it only took a few
months to make it so. At times I would hand out recipes to a couple
of hundred people in a single day, prompting the opening of a food
website, www.unleashyourtaste.com, so as to provide a better service
to the customer base. I represented Sobeys, as Team Sobeys, in local
chili cook-offs and school tours of youngsters, providing an
opportunity to speak on the value of good nutritional choices without
sacrificing great flavour for a healthy body. All with the continued
support of store manager David Camilleri, who had surpassed my
expectations and goals for the Chef's Station.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SZgltCFsnhU/WAD3Kpyon1I/AAAAAAAAK4Y/NpWCGxk2nRIGoO8s7eevNRNK3t26bL8jACLcB/s1600/chili%2Bcookoff%2Bpics%2B%25283%2529.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SZgltCFsnhU/WAD3Kpyon1I/AAAAAAAAK4Y/NpWCGxk2nRIGoO8s7eevNRNK3t26bL8jACLcB/s640/chili%2Bcookoff%2Bpics%2B%25283%2529.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Shannon Munro, Community Care, & Alexander Davidoff, Team Sobeys, at The Annual St Catharines Chili Cook-off.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Although
my success guaranteed that my hours were regular and high enough in
volume, the longer I worked in this environment the more I came to
realise it was the modern day reboot of indentured servitude. Few of
the part-time staff were safe from hours being cut, the concept of
over-hiring was ripe, and complaining could find repercussions.
Sobeys as a corporation has this idea of Engagement; in theory not so
bad, in practice something else. Representatives are chosen from
each department to the Engagement Committee headed by an Engagement
Champion. At Sobeys Scott Street the Engagement Champion was Lori
Marsh. Overall the concept was simple, as a committee issues
relating to morale, health and safety, staff concerns of any kind,
and on the reverse, company concerns would be discussed. Lori Marsh
would try and let all staff know that anyone could speak to her in
confidence without fear of reprisal from management. I was a member
of the committee as staff trusted me and would speak to me on many
issues.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Things
changed dramatically in June 2015. My chef's station was becoming
more popular, drawing in regular customers. I had created a network
of cross-selling with all departments in the store as a result of my
recipes. By then I had represented the Sobeys brand name and
specifically the Scott Street store in three chili cook-offs, outside
any job description or expectation. I believed that I had proven the
value of my work and the value of being a member of a team, the
Sobeys' team.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Outside
my work as a chef I have published this website for several years.
My articles span the cobweb of society delving into environmental
issues, conservation, politics and more. Store Manager David
Camilleri was fully aware of my website and my community involvement
commenting more that once how his wish was to bring his store closer
to the community. All of this was completely separate to my work as
a chef and completely removed from my position as a member of the
Sobeys team. Yet whilst I was on duty at my place of work, at the
Sobeys store, I became the target of harassment.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Workplace
harassment is normally a very serious issue for any employer. The
Ministry of Labour, through Bill 168, instructs that all employers
formulate a separate harassment policy and post a copy in a position
where all staff may have access to it. Sobeys Inc. has a “Violence
and Harassment in the Workplace Prevention Policy,” and at the
Scott Street store it is posted on a notice board leading to the
staff room. One of the guidelines it describes as prohibited conduct
is, “<i>Using aggressive or hostile language, or engaging in
conduct that would be offensive or intimidating to a reasonable
person.”</i> Further, under the heading Management Obligations it
states, “<i>Contact immediately either Human Resources, Health and
Safety or Loss Prevention for confirmed breaches of this Policy and
when appropriate contact the local Police agency.” </i>Whether it
is Bill 168, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, or Sobeys' own
harassment policy, one point is clear: any reports of harassment are
taken seriously and investigated immediately. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-igA2Wb4Ng-w/WAD3fw8maUI/AAAAAAAAK4c/IqO3IKAJdRoWqLmss9mT5fsFqqLDXwxMwCLcB/s1600/Health%2Band%2BSafety%2BCommittee%2Bdouments0001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-igA2Wb4Ng-w/WAD3fw8maUI/AAAAAAAAK4c/IqO3IKAJdRoWqLmss9mT5fsFqqLDXwxMwCLcB/s640/Health%2Band%2BSafety%2BCommittee%2Bdouments0001.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--a0dVEoQrVo/WAD3gHcpiBI/AAAAAAAAK4g/s57miS7yVpA17ySywURTQl1jU537_wpTACLcB/s1600/Health%2Band%2BSafety%2BCommittee%2Bdouments0002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--a0dVEoQrVo/WAD3gHcpiBI/AAAAAAAAK4g/s57miS7yVpA17ySywURTQl1jU537_wpTACLcB/s640/Health%2Band%2BSafety%2BCommittee%2Bdouments0002.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">On
June 20</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"> 2015, as I was working at my chef's station, an
individual came into the store. He stood some ten feet away from me
holding a bag of cherries and simply stared at me with an angry look
for some eight minutes without taking his eyes off me. He then moved
to another position some ten feet away and continued to stare
directly at me. I knew who the individual was as I had serious
issues with him. Brian McMullan was the former mayor of St.
Catharines and his intent on the day was clear. Whilst Brian
McMullan played out his game of harassment he was witnessed by senior
staff. One of the individuals who witnessed this bizarre incident
said she felt so uncomfortable about it that she wanted to call the
police.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In
addition to witnesses there are security cameras placed throughout
the store for obvious reasons. As my chef's station was situated at
the junction of three departments, there were several cameras which
would have my station in their line of sight. I reported this to the
Store Manager as is required by both Ministry of Labour regulations
and Sobeys' own policy. In addition to reporting the harassment I
requested access to the security video as it would legally be my
right, and that was when the insanity began.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">On
July 5<sup>th</sup> 2015 another equally bizarre incident occurred.
Again whilst working at my chef's station, I was approached by an
individual from the meat department. He told me that he saw a man
standing at an angle behind me take what appeared to be photos of me
with his cell phone. The individual from the meat department was the
Assistant Department Manager, a man not known for any flights of
fancy, so I took him very seriously. As he pointed out the fellow I
approached him and asked if he took photos of me. I did not get any
indignant response or denial, only a cold simple “<i>nope</i>.”</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">At
that time I knew that I recognised his face but I could not put a
name to that face. I then saw him walk around the deli counter and
speak to the Assistant Store Manager Lynn Walbourne. Then he walked
past the chef's station and without stopping said to me that he spoke
to my store manager. He then walked two produce isles and then stood
there, watching me for more than five minutes. I spoke with the
Assistant Meat Manager who confirmed what he saw. Then I spoke to
Lynn Walbourne who said that this person had stopped next to her,
showed her the home screen on his cell phone and said that he did not
take any photos of staff. Lynn Walbourne described him as “<i>kinda
creepy.</i>” Later that evening I went through some files and put
a name to the face, it was Christopher Bittle, a lawyer with
Lancaster, Brooks & Welch – Brian McMullan's lawyer. The
following day I brought a photo of him to show the Assistant Meat
Manager and Lynn Walbourne who both confirmed it was the individual
from the previous day.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Once
again I reported this to Store Manager David Camilleri and once again
I requested access to the security video. Camilleri said that he
would review the video and talk to me then. Several weeks went by
and no response on the issue came from Camilleri. Finally, towards
the end of July, I was called into the Manager's office. I went up
with my recorder on. In the office sitting at the monitor was Bakery
Manager Shari Chastelet. David Camilleri said he was too busy so he
asked Shari Chastelet to view the video, Chastelet turned to me and
said she had no idea who she was looking for, she thought she was
looking for a shoplifter, all of which I recorded. Camilleri then
said that I would need a court order to get access to the security
video. At no time was I given an opportunity to sit with Camilleri
or Walbourne to view the video, as a victim of harassment I counted
very little.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In
late June 2015, I was approached by Assistant Store Manager Lynn
Walbourne at my chef's station where she told me that there were two
worrying transfer invoices which she and Camilleri wanted to talk to
me about. I followed Lynn up to the office with my recorder on, by
this time I knew I was not in what would be considered a 'safe' work
environment. During the twenty or so minute meeting with Camilleri
and Walbourne, my work habits, sample sizes, even types of recipes
were pulled apart. It was apparent that two invoices totaling $3000
over two months were transferred to me from the Produce Department. </span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br />As
the in-store chef I used product from all departments and provided a
monthly accounting of all that I used directly to each department
manager. Whatever product I used was then transferred to
administration and that particular department would not have to write
off the dollar value form their budgets as a loss, which would be
referred to as Shrink. I told Camilleri that $3000 of produce in two
months was an enormous amount, that it was impossible for me to use
so much. Then I dropped my news on Camilleri: that I had all the
originals of every invoice that I provided to each and every
department manager. I had been a chef for too many years in a number
of countries, I knew how to keep records and the need to keep those
records for myself. Camilleri asked if I would give him copies which
I naturally agreed to do. Upon leaving both Camilleri and Walbourne,
both knew that they had fraud on their hands, and I fought hard to
stop myself from saying it out loud.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tRSHy_-nUic/WAD7kvAZyLI/AAAAAAAAK44/_KPW8OQ_g3MpS2UjWC34SSVgCETSe9LRACLcB/s1600/Health%2Band%2BSafety%2BCommittee%2Bdouments0003.5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tRSHy_-nUic/WAD7kvAZyLI/AAAAAAAAK44/_KPW8OQ_g3MpS2UjWC34SSVgCETSe9LRACLcB/s640/Health%2Band%2BSafety%2BCommittee%2Bdouments0003.5.jpg" width="480" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wq2xdSqcbhg/WAD7lA_s9OI/AAAAAAAAK48/2W9uclC_j-s9BgA7Z_ufhm4Sbr2vbbEcQCLcB/s1600/Health%2Band%2BSafety%2BCommittee%2Bdouments0003.6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wq2xdSqcbhg/WAD7lA_s9OI/AAAAAAAAK48/2W9uclC_j-s9BgA7Z_ufhm4Sbr2vbbEcQCLcB/s640/Health%2Band%2BSafety%2BCommittee%2Bdouments0003.6.jpg" width="480" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">It
took about two weeks, I copied all the invoices for produce and
tallied them at the current prices. Camilleri was given copies for
nine months, not only two, and the total for the nine months was only
a couple of dollars over $1000! Now it became crystal clear that the
Produce Manager Angela Ciestak</span><b style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"> </b><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">had committed fraud in order to
reduce her shrink values. I was concerned about what was on my
record, at that point Camilleri assured me that he would make sure
nothing damaging would be on my record and that he would investigate
the whole matter.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Several
weeks went by with no comment from Camilleri. On August 15<sup>th</sup>
2015 I served David Camilleri with a Motion Record, regarding the
security surveillance video as I was told by Camilleri I would have
to do. The Motion Record is an official court document which was to
request a judge to review all material supporting my request for the
security video and provide an Order to Sobeys for the video to be
turned over to me. Eight days later I was called into the manager's
office by Assistant Manager Lynn Walbourne. As I came into the lunch
room Walbourne asked me to come with her, she said nothing else. She
opened the door to her office and with her hand on my back walked me
in and shut the door behind me. Walbourne did not enter the office.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Sitting
in a line were Kelly Turner, Human Resource Manager, Christine Argue
from Loss Prevention,<b> </b>and Ian Birney from Human Resources.
Turner said they were there to do an investigation into the
harassment report by me. First of all the initial report was of an
incident dating back to June 20<sup>th</sup>, secondly and most
importantly Turner sat with her legs folded holding the Motion Record
on her lap. I turned on my recorder, as did Turner, and I said that
this was not a proper investigation, that it went beyond legal
grounds as I had served the court documents.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Kelly
Turner did not mention the documents served by me in any shape or
form. I said openly that I did not wish to answer any questions and
Kelly Turner, HR Manager, responded by saying, “</span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>I'll
keep asking the questions even if you don't want to answer them.”
</i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The
interrogation lasted roughly an hour. A short time after I returned
to my chef's station, Assistant Store Manager Lynn Walbourne came up
to me. She walked into the station area from behind, I turned on my
recorder, then she began to open the cupboard doors. I asked what
she was looking for as she continued to open the doors and look
through everything. Walbourne said that she was looking for napkins
as there was to be a “Food Fest” – that was a lie. That “Food
Fest” was not scheduled for more than a week ahead. She continued
to go through every cupboard and drawer systematically. Finally she
opened the last drawer where I had my recipes and some personal
papers. I told her that what she was doing was in breach of
legislation, her response was </span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>“This
is Sobeys' property, and I can do what I want.”</i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">
The search was humiliating in font of all staff and my regular
customers. I followed Walbourne when she left my station and asked
why did she do that, that it was absolutely humiliating. Her
response was </span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>“I
am sorry Alex, they told me.”</i></span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">
I asked who were the “they,” she refused to respond. Later,
Lynn Walbourne's account of this situation intentionally omitted all
of the facts of the search, and the fact that I was submitted to
further searches every day for almost a week.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/11/modern-societys-reboot-of-indentured.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
</span></a><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/11/modern-societys-reboot-of-indentured.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">Part Two</span></a></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-89960222196735912692016-08-31T09:49:00.000-04:002016-08-31T11:31:06.004-04:00Who Watches the Watchers (Part Three)<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Journalism today stands at the
proverbial fork in the road. No one can deny that the public has
been losing interest in mainstream media, which has had advertisers
look to other sources to invest their dollars. So that has put the
societal watchers at this fork agonising and self-diagnosing their
potential future. Three of the roads of the fork are paved with
yellow bricks of illusion and denial. The fourth is the dirt track
of reality; it's rough and hard to travel down there but at least it
can lead to a substantial solution.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Democracy needs journalists, after
all it is the watcher's job to keep democracy on track, at least that
had been the concept journalists had tried to maintain. This ideal
is not simply a punchy line for an ad campaign, and many brave
journalists had laid down their lives to bring to light events and
stories that the powerful would have preferred to keep in the dark.
Censorship of these courageous individuals was simply unacceptable.
In fact censorship must be unacceptable to all, denying its existence
simply aides its ability to slowly erode the foundation of true
democracy.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The
St. Catharines Standard is the largest newspaper in the Niagara area,
now owned by <i>Postmedia</i>.
Its journalists lay claim to national newspaper awards and
presumably followers of the ten commandments of journalism. In fact
one of The Standard's journalists, Karena Walter, appears in an ad
for <i>JournalismIs. </i>Over
her face<b> </b>are
these words: <i>“Essential
to Democracy. With a few keystrokes you can sample thousands of
opinions, afloat in a sea of information. But as the volume
increases, the accuracy and reliability of professional journalism is
essential. Gathering and sorting the facts, weighing and
interpreting events, and following the story from beginning to end is
more important than ever.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DGnEla7X0k0/V8bbWvtK0PI/AAAAAAAAKl4/KO0tgy-rlLYQmjtE4LavZ9HUb7Q3bJsIACLcB/s1600/karena%2Bwalter%2BjournalismIs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="353" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DGnEla7X0k0/V8bbWvtK0PI/AAAAAAAAKl4/KO0tgy-rlLYQmjtE4LavZ9HUb7Q3bJsIACLcB/s400/karena%2Bwalter%2BjournalismIs.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">On
the front doors of their office at One St. Paul Street are the words
“<i>Where the Community
Lives.” </i>The
Standard over the last six years has breached and mangled the most
basic component of democracy, and it has imposed self-censorship by
its publisher, editors and journalists. Karena Walter herself sat in
the City's Council Chambers on April 29<sup>th</sup>
2016 and listened to a presentation requesting changes to local
by-laws. Residents had spoken out regarding the City's inaction for
years over serious issues that had affected their quality of life.
An email was read out publicly which had been sent by the Mayor of
St. Catharines Walter Sendzik to the publisher of this site. Mayor
Sendzik admitted to the City's knowledge that the business owner had
broken the law for years and that the City had done nothing about it.
Prior to the meeting documents had been sent to Karena Walter,
including a copy of this email which proved City's full knowledge and
cover-up of the <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/06/are-by-laws-real-not-in-st-catharines.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">breaches of law</span></a>. As the City Hall reporter for The
Standard newspaper, Karena Walter selectively censored the
information publicly presented at Council from the community.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Karena Walter is not the only
journalist at The Standard with such credentials. Longtime reporter
Marlene Bergsma <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2010/10/update-you-are-liar-bergsma.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">openly lied in an article</span></a> on the front page in 2010
to protect the former mayor. It was election time and evidence had
been brought forward of fine fixing supported by the voice of a ward
councillor. Marlene Bergsma, who is no longer with the newspaper,
chose to lie about the facts to protect the mayor at the time, Brian
McMullan.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Still
the luminaries at the St. Catharines Standard continue to impress.
In a recorded interview on January 9<sup>th</sup>
2016 with the former mayor's ex-wife, the ex-Mrs. McMullan revealed
another shocker. The ex-Mrs. McMullan said that she had contacted
Doug Herod, another longtime reporter at The Standard, and gave him
documents relating to her seeking a divorce. Those documents
revealed details which included an affair between her then husband,
Brian McMullan, and a fellow sitting regional councillor. According
to the former wife of Brian McMullan, Doug Herod kept all the
documents for several days, then said that his hands were tied and
did nothing. Who tied Doug Herod's hands as a journalist? Who
decided that the news should be censored from the community?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Today
The Standard has a new star, Grant LaFleche, a journalist who extols
the great value of his 'craft' and the importance of community
newspapers. Out of the ten commandments of <i>JournalismIs,
</i>number nine is,
“<i>telling the whole
story,” </i>LaFleche
somehow missed that one.<i>
</i>In mid-2015 a
situation exploded on the news scene in the Niagara Region when a
Regional Councillor had made some less than professional public
statements relating to same-sex marriage. Regional Councillor Andy
Petrowski had made comments on Twitter likening gay marriage to
murder, he had ridiculed President Obama over it, and more. At the
very least Councillor Petrowski showed a lack of professionalism and
a serious lack of judgment in his online comments, after all as an
elected member of government everything he says publicly is in the
end accountable, or should be.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">On
July 8<sup>th</sup>
2015, Grant LaFleche wrote an article 'Obama, gay marriage, God and
Petrowski', beginning his journalistic jihad
regarding the Petrowski anti-gay marriage comments. In 'A council
without courage', July 10<sup>th</sup>
2015, LaFleche mentions that Petrowski closed his Twitter account,
then on July 13<sup>th</sup>
2015 recorded a podcast interview with Andy Petrowski on gay
marriage,<b> </b>then
on July 17<sup>th</sup>
2015 another article 'Apologies, Politics and Petrowski' mentions the
gay marriage issue. In 2016, on January 21 LaFleche goes in detail
again in his article 'Petrowski quits police board', finally ending
on March 8<sup>th</sup>
with his article 'Demand better from Petrowski'.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Throughout this storm Councillor
Andy Petrowski claimed that his comments online were completely
personal based on his fervent Christian beliefs. He said that he did
not make those comments as a public servant and that he had no other
motivation behind them. </span><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">On
July 10</span><sup style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">
2015, Councillor Andy Petrowski tweeted a photo of Ontario Premier
Kathleen Wynne. This photo has Premier Kathleen Wynne and her partner
standing with a number of people who had been part of a Gay Pride
Parade. With this photo Petrowski tweets, “</span><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Ontario's
First Family – how nice pic.” </i><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Andy
Petrowski is a staunch Conservative supporter, Kathleen Wynne heads a
Liberal government in Ontario. Was it God who made him do it, or was
it something else?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-85JEM7QBaBo/V8b4AwuEAxI/AAAAAAAAKnE/TaU3vEzFWlkskuieARbLIVmf1xK9A7oqgCLcB/s1600/gillcap2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-85JEM7QBaBo/V8b4AwuEAxI/AAAAAAAAKnE/TaU3vEzFWlkskuieARbLIVmf1xK9A7oqgCLcB/s640/gillcap2.jpg" width="378" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lSRTbz2dLxA/V8b4A36k_sI/AAAAAAAAKnA/lMaDCNLBOSk6_Ji12JuiHOfEXBTCgGudgCLcB/s1600/gillcap3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lSRTbz2dLxA/V8b4A36k_sI/AAAAAAAAKnA/lMaDCNLBOSk6_Ji12JuiHOfEXBTCgGudgCLcB/s640/gillcap3.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">Although
Councillor Petrowski closed his Twitter account temporarily,</span><b style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">
</b><span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">former City Councillor
Andrew Gill screen captured all of this and tagged Premier Wynne. To
her credit and dignity Premier Wynne ignored such a petty and
cowardly attack. LaFleche wrote in 'A tale of two tweets' July 13</span><sup style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">th</sup><span style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">
2015, “</span><i style="font-family: "segoe ui", sans-serif;">At the very
least, the argument that online comments like this are purely
personal and do not relate to his job at council don't entirely fly.
Regional Council has to regularly work with Queen's Park on issues
from GO Transit to funding for social programs. The current premier
is Kathleen Wynne – a married, gay Christian woman. Petrowski's
statements could prejudice the premier against him or the council and
its chairman who refused to say anything about it.”</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Andrew
Gill follows Grant LaFleche on Twitter, how is it that this
investigative journalist missed this? This same journalist on
February 17<sup>th</sup>
2016 said, “<i>Bloggers
aren't doing interviews or poring over government and scientific
reports, they aren't doing the kind of investigative work journalists
do every day.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VRmKPAUyhSc/V8bffJtXe2I/AAAAAAAAKmw/TW7vvupeE4UGMP9DXGPhTSPveLQKJuzHgCLcB/s1600/Scan0005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VRmKPAUyhSc/V8bffJtXe2I/AAAAAAAAKmw/TW7vvupeE4UGMP9DXGPhTSPveLQKJuzHgCLcB/s640/Scan0005.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In
August of 2013 another storm broke on the St. Catharines' political
landscape. The front page of The Standard rang out with 'St.
Catharines<a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2014/04/how-much-can-koala-bear.html" target="_blank"> <span style="color: red;">mayor calls police</span></a> on councillor' as a headline. This
would not be considered as a fluff piece and the details were spread
over the local news for several weeks. Both the accuser, former
Mayor Brian McMullan, and the accused Councillor Andy Petrowski were
interviewed, each throwing out their side of the story. All the
accusations and counter accusations took a turn towards the bizarre
when former Mayor Brian McMullan had the court issue a peace bond
against Councillor Petrowski and a Summons to appear in court on
January 24<sup>th</sup>
2014.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">On
the 24<sup>th</sup>
of January 2014, Councillor Petrowski made his appearance with a Mr.
G. Radojcic as his counsel. Mr. M. DelGobbo was council for Brian
McMullan, but he appeared on his own as the former mayor decided not
to show up for court in a matter he had initiated. Journalist Grant
LaFleche had spoken with Mr. DelGobbo outside the court house and
decided not to write about the judge's dismissal of the action.
Brian McMullan showed little respect for the judicial system and
LaFleche proved once again that censorship at The St. Catharines
Standard was and is its first commandment.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IW0mCPz-T6w/V8bdf4Sx8cI/AAAAAAAAKmI/wS5NKlz0u-ohayNUkc9DOIrWOO33qn2RQCLcB/s1600/Scan0004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IW0mCPz-T6w/V8bdf4Sx8cI/AAAAAAAAKmI/wS5NKlz0u-ohayNUkc9DOIrWOO33qn2RQCLcB/s640/Scan0004.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The
three amigos: Mary Agnes Welch of <i>JournalismIs,
</i>Journalist Madelaine
Drohan and MP Hedy Fry made it sound like they did indeed pound the
bricks to gather diverse comment on the issues facing traditional
journalism. Yet had they really, or was all of this simply kept
within the closed doors of industry insiders and those with a vested
interest? <i>JournalismIs
</i>claims to provide a
“voice to the voiceless,” presumably referring to the
public-at-large. An email was sent to Mary Agnes Welch on March 11<sup>th</sup>
2016. The email raised the issue of self-imposed censorship and the
relationship of such a situation to journalism's ten commandments.
Ms. Welch did not respond and kept the idea of public debate silent.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In
an attempt to find comment or a discussion on such a serious issue an
email was sent to Madelaine Drohan, author of the report 'Does
serious journalism have a future in Canada?' Surprisingly Madelaine
Drohan responded within some three hours, and in her response said;
“<i>I was surprised at
your comment that the report did not deal with the issue of trust. I
refer to it several times and there are two different charts showing
how the traditional media ranks poorly on this issue. While I don't
site the examples you have given, I don't think it's fair to say the
issue was untouched.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4qr8h_tCNuk/V8bd-oWJfuI/AAAAAAAAKmU/Zlgb8-H0MyMJ8E3U4Ny32a0XlJOrukn2gCEw/s1600/Scan0002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4qr8h_tCNuk/V8bd-oWJfuI/AAAAAAAAKmU/Zlgb8-H0MyMJ8E3U4Ny32a0XlJOrukn2gCEw/s640/Scan0002.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UgQivY6Udno/V8bd9gh1OhI/AAAAAAAAKmQ/Rdqz_h6rcUsydf_dJglfqZYmm9qP506WwCEw/s1600/Scan0003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UgQivY6Udno/V8bd9gh1OhI/AAAAAAAAKmQ/Rdqz_h6rcUsydf_dJglfqZYmm9qP506WwCEw/s640/Scan0003.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">On
July 8<sup>th</sup>
2016 another email was sent to Ms. Drohan, as a response to her
communication with an offer to provide documentation as absolute
proof of censorship, even an offer to meet face-to-face with her to
discuss the issue. Madelaine Drohan did not respond to the second
email.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">So to be “fair” let's examine
those two charts that Ms. Drohan refers to proudly. The first is on
page 10 of the report titled, 'Who do you trust? Confidence in
Canadian institutions – 2013', the source for this chart was from
General Social Survey on Social Identity, Statistics Canada. This
report was based on responses that had claimed to have a 'great deal
of confidence' or 'some confidence'. Its categories were Police,
School System, Banks, Justice System and Courts, then Media, Federal
Parliament and finally Major Corporations. It would be difficult to
have too many respondents who had more confidence in media over the
police who protect them, a school system that educates their
children, banks who hold their money or a justice system which is the
foundation of society.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5KwkeHvWKaY/V8beSljX85I/AAAAAAAAKmY/PK7kqE6nttU1UtZsylNeBapdyFlzzOEmwCLcB/s1600/Scan0006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5KwkeHvWKaY/V8beSljX85I/AAAAAAAAKmY/PK7kqE6nttU1UtZsylNeBapdyFlzzOEmwCLcB/s640/Scan0006.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HEHzDcMPhTM/V8beTHGkQUI/AAAAAAAAKmc/kp2ABu-l0yEACvaalLtyy0GuT1EzFzf3gCLcB/s1600/Scan0007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HEHzDcMPhTM/V8beTHGkQUI/AAAAAAAAKmc/kp2ABu-l0yEACvaalLtyy0GuT1EzFzf3gCLcB/s640/Scan0007.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Chart number two is on page 24 of
the report and is titled, 'Familiarity breeds content – percent who
trust online information created by each author – 2015-2016', its
source: 2016 Edelman Trust Barometer, Edleman. Here the categories
begin with My friends and family, An academic expert, Companies that
I use, Employees of a company, A company CEO then A journalist. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">These two charts are supposed to
have dealt with the issue of trust in Madelaine Drohan's report. One
could mention another chart on page 9 titled 'In Google we trust',
but perhaps that should be left alone.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Finally
Hedy Fry who heads up the Commons Committee delving into the depths
of what journalism is or should be had an email sent to her on July
7<sup>th</sup>
2016. Some eight days later a response came from MP Hedy Fry's
office, it said “<i>Dr.
Fry does personally respond to all correspondence she receives.”
</i>Nothing has been heard
from her office since.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pIjd6gIFACY/V8behiCh0PI/AAAAAAAAKmg/5ZZ2DQRsA8AMHzN2h3xwToQl_rl9-vepwCLcB/s1600/Scan0001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pIjd6gIFACY/V8behiCh0PI/AAAAAAAAKmg/5ZZ2DQRsA8AMHzN2h3xwToQl_rl9-vepwCLcB/s640/Scan0001.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Regardless
of who it is, whether some self-proclaimed expert or industry
insider, ignoring the most crucial aspect of this downfall of
traditional journalism will not be beneficial. Trust is not some
side issue that some childish chart will explain. Nor has the
public's trust in journalists been so strongly shaken by legal threat
of defamation suits. Legal suits are often weapons to silence public
discussion.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Postmedia/National Post sued by
journalist Arthur Kent</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">CBC sued by Liberal Senator Pana
Merchant, Tony Merchant </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">and the Merchant Law Group LLP</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">National Post; former publisher
Gordon Fisher and columnists; Terence Concoran, Peter Foster and
Kevin Libin sued by BC MLA Andrew Weaver</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">www.mayorgate.blogspot and
publisher Alexander Davidoff sued by </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">former Mayor Brian McMullan </span>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The
real issues of trust extend much further than these lawsuits.
Journalists can become targets who need to be silenced yet when
journalists become puppets of the powerful then democracy is bruised.<b>
</b>It is when journalists
decide to censor information from the community then democracy is
challenged to its foundation.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Today Welch, Drohan and Fry play at
a game of finding a solution to the sinking situation that
traditional journalism faces. Much of the discussion surrounds the
loss of advertising dollars and the fast encroaching modern world.
Nothing will come from these three in the end, and nothing will
change as to how traditional journalists go about their business.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Amongst all the empty and hot
rhetoric, amongst the denial of the truth one fact emerges stronger
than ever. The watchdogs of the past are being watched. Serious
bloggers do exist and they are getting stronger. Unlike these
traditional egos and their publishers, serious bloggers have no
alliances, no political or big business interference.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red; font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/06/who-watches-watchers-part-one.html" target="_blank">Part One</a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: red; font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/08/who-watches-watchers-part-two.html" target="_blank">Part Two</a></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-79279858219536372312016-08-17T20:28:00.000-04:002016-08-31T09:50:42.175-04:00Who Watches The Watchers (Part Two)<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i><b>The
depth and scope of material that was required to be examined for this
article has necessitated a part three for a conclusion which brings
forward direct examples of journalistic mishandling of news and
information. None of the three separate entities looking at the
issues surrounding mainstream journalism today has found a reason to
acknowledge these issues, and the question remains why?</b></i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Where
does mainstream journalism stand today? It is a fact that the world
is dramatically changing and audiences have at their disposal a
myriad of choices. If this was the only reason for a shift in how
journalists are now perceived then would it not be logical to simply
reinvent their strategy on how they should deliver the information
and news to the public? Instead the battle lines between bloggers
and journalists appear to be becoming more explosive, and any notion
of a symbiotic relationship only a utopian notion.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In
Texas, however, there exists a fully realised example of this
symbiotic relationship. Since 2009 the <a href="http://www.dallassouthnews.org/about/" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">Dallas South News</span></a><i> </i>has
used traditional journalists together with citizen
journalists, as well as bloggers
to provide news and commentary to its community. Is this simply an
anomaly where journalistic egos have not outgrown their stables, or a
model worthy to emulate?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Canada,
it appears, has taken a different route to come with some form of
solution to its industry's woes. No one can deny that there are
serious issues to address with major newsrooms combining operations,
closing long standing publications, and others deciding to
discontinue hard copy print publications in favour of online
production. Can all of this be conveniently blamed on the
encroaching spread of the internet? Or is there a far more serious
underlying issue that is being ignored, and why?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">On
June 12<sup>th</sup>
2015 a coalition of professional associations, unions and media
organisations, such as UNIFOR, Canadian Association of Journalists
(CA), The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Metroland Papers, Postmedia
and others launched an advertising campaign called <i>JournalismIs</i>.
The goal of this coalition is, in their own words, “<i>highlighting
the value and benefits of professional journalism,” </i>proclaiming
that “<i>professional journalism is more important than
ever.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The
<span style="color: red;"><a href="http://journalismis.ca/about-us/" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">JournalismIs</span></a> </span><i>c</i>ampaign proudly announces that “<i>journalists
are thoroughly trained and deeply committed to their profession, and
you see the results every day in news stories that are interesting,
reliable and always striving for the truth.” </i>Mary Agnes Welch
is a former president of the Canadian Association of Journalists,
reporter for the Winnipeg Free Press, and spokesperson for the
<i>JournalismIs c</i>ampaign, and with these words has labeled all
journalists in Canada with the same golden attributes.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">According to Mary Agnes Welch this
campaign is designed to bring about a wider conversation on the
values that journalists are guided by in their profession. Ten core
principles were identified, and they are as follows:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">An independent voice:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In a world of competing interests,
journalists are committed to the principle of independence, and the
pursuit of accuracy and fairness.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Essential to democracy:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">A strong and independent media is
the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. Journalists hold officials
accountable to the people they are elected to represent, and they
help citizens and communities to be informed.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Relentless</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Committed to the public interest</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Getting answers</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Committed to telling the truth:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">It's about uncovering and
reporting the truth</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Storytelling with a purpose</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Creating a forum for public debate</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Telling the whole story</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">A watchdog over the powerful:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Journalism asks the hard
questions. It plays a vital role as a watchdog over those in
positions of power and influence.</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><i>JournalismIs,
</i>at
the end of the day, is only an advertising campaign as eloquent as a
polar bear on his shrinking ice cap still needing his bottle of cola,
or truck racing up a dusty hill accompanied by a voice over of a
lion's roar. Unlike most advertising campaigns though it is claimed
that there is a desire in <i>“creating
a forum for public debate, to giving a voice to the voiceless.” </i>An
email was sent to Mary Agnes Welch asking for any comment on an issue
of censorship self-imposed by journalists. Ms. Welch ignored the
email, ignored the issues raised and ensured that any semblance of
'public debate' was just another punchy slogan.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Setting
aside this advertising campaign, one can reach out for a report
titled, <a href="http://www.ppforum.ca/sites/default/files/PM%20Fellow_March_11_EN_1.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">Does serious journalism have a future in Canada?</span></a>,
written as the 2015 Prime Minister's of Canada Fellow at the <i>Public
Policy Forum</i>.
The author of this report is Madelaine Drohan, Canada's
correspondent for The Economist and former columnist for the Globe
and Mail. Here the delivery is more eloquent without any punchy
lines, but this report also prefers to ignore one major issue facing
traditional journalists.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The
<i>Public
Policy Forum </i>is
a not-for-profit organisation which advises government on policy
formation. It is comprised of ex-government staffers, businessmen,
and journalists like Madelaine Drohan. Its President, Ed Greenspon,
was himself a former Globe and Mail editor and reporter. Can such an
organisation show bias in its discussions? How will these
professional individuals see journalists as part of a media industry
which fights for the advertiser's dollar, or will there be any
discussion on the quality and standards of journalism?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Madelaine
Drohan in her report, '<i>Does
serious journalism have a future in Canada,' </i>opens
with this statement: “<i>Defining
serious journalism proved trickier than I expected. The definition
that I've come to believe now fits the best is about what it is
supposed to do: provide citizens with the information they need to
make the best possible decisions about their lives, their
communities, their societies and their governments. An informed
public is control for good public policy and a well functioning
democracy, which is why freedom of the press is enshrined in the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Serious journalism – fair,
accurate and independent of special interests – gives Canadians the
tools they need to hold their government to account.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">This
report took some time to prepare and in an opinion column published
in the <i>Toronto
Star</i>,
“Five things you need to know to save journalism,” only a day
after its release, Ms. Drohan summarised her report into five
headings. She begins with number one as “It's not just
journalism,” pointing to the changes that have hit other industries
like music, accommodation, taxi “<i>and
even porn video.” </i>Heading
number one concludes with “<i>The
point is that powerful, global forces that transcend national borders
are at work.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">After
such an ominous warning those five things we need to know to save
journalism continue with number two as “<i>Direct
subsidies won't work.” </i>Here
most would agree with Madelaine Drohan, why should even a cent of
public money be considered to be handed over to millionaires who made
their money from the public? Number three is “<i>Journalists
are no longer the gatekeepers of information,” </i>somewhat
related to the first of the series, and once again pointing a finger
at the “powerful global forces.” Four is much the same, “<i>The
tech giants are both an opportunity and a threat,” </i>only
now those forces are identified, given a fact though still with
another warning, “<i>Partnering
with tech giants could be their salvation or the beginning of the
end.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Finally
we are taken to the last thing we should know, “<i>The
audience has changed.” </i>Is
there room to disagree with this claim, not at all. Today's audience
does seek convenience that new technology provides, but it has also
changed to questioning those who provide the information. Here the
report claims that “<i>Audiences
want a relationship” </i>and
that an audience has a “<i>desire
to be involved in the creation of journalism in ways that were
imaginable before the advent of the Internet.”</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Throughout 'Does serious journalism
have a future in Canada?', whether in this abbreviated forum or in
its original long form, two major themes waffle through the air.
First there is the Internet and the “powerful global forces”
which are either to be seen as harbingers of the end for serious
journalism, or a mistress tempting journalists with an alternative.
Then the attention is turned to trying to explain how the advertising
dollar has been seduced away from traditional media. Nowhere in this
report does the author bring into discussion the one serious and
gravely important issue, the loss of trust by the audience in
“serious journalism.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">So
we started with <i>JournalismIs
</i>its punchy core
principles, or the ten commandments of Mary Agnes Welch. Then a
fellowship, a report, and the five things we need to know to save
serious journalism according to Drohan. Now we find the third amigo
in this troupe, <a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/CHPC/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=8800976" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">MP Hedy Fry</span></a>, of the Canadian Heritage Committee.
Apparently the Commons Committee will embark on an expansive study of
“<i>how Canadians and
especially local communities are informed about local and regional
experiences through news, broadcasting, digital and print media,”
</i>in the words of
Committee Chairperson MP Hedy Fry.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The Commons Heritage Committee has
already begun hearings with a total of six roundtable gatherings
planned, where experts are invited to debate journalism's woes.
Media and journalist representatives will be at the head of the line,
followed by business and some government staffers thrown in for the
measure. All of this expertise will be a one sided view from
penthouse windows, and as far as ground floor representation or
comment, don't expect any. When all the debates are finished a final
symposium is planned for this coming Fall when 'the plan' might be
thrashed out.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Once again tax dollars, the
public's money, is being spent and the question remains why? It
matters little which of the three amigos you look at, each has
ignored the major issues, yet this Commons Committee is the biggest
slap in the face of reality. Government itself is one of the major
problems journalism faces.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">According to the ten commandments
of Mary Agnes carried on her tablet, the first and second proclaim
the importance of an “independent voice” which is “essential to
democracy.” Yet government's interference with journalism is there
on a daily basis and one of the major reasons why the audience has
lost trust in journalists.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Hedy
Fry's roundtable hearings or debates with invited experts, included
Postmedia's CEO Paul Godfrey. Does Fry know anything about Mr.
Godfrey or would she prefer not to talk about it? Regardless she
should read Bruce Livesey's article, <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/11/27/postmedia-empire-falters-while-ceo-paul-godfrey-earns-millions.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">Postmedia empire falters while CEO Paul Godfrey earns millions</span></a><i> National
Observer, November 27, 2015. </i>True
this article was not edited or sanitised by friends of Mr. Godfrey
but it cannot be ignored as Godfrey has requested public tax dollars
to prop up his troubled business.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Paul
Godfrey is a very powerful and astute businessman and according to
the author of this article, Bruce Livesey, he has been able to
circumvent Canadian tax law. In Canada tax laws discourage foreign
ownership of Canadian media companies, yet “<i>Godfrey
managed to get around this by issuing separate shares to Canadian
shareholders,” </i>and
had the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper sign off on the
deal. Yet the real control of Postmedia remains in American hands by
way of two hedge funds, Golden Tree Asset Management LP and Silver
Point Capital LP.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Government influence over
mainstream media has polluted true freedom of the press far too long.
Whether through backdoor power politics of Mr. Godfrey who then
influences his newspapers and their editors on the direction of
editorial content, or the equally corrosive political alliance of
Torstar publishers who do the same on the other side of the table,
leaving objective commentary behind and reporting only a farce.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Today,
journalism is not only pushed and pulled by politics. Big business,
which provides the advertising dollars, has increasingly flexed its
muscle of influence over media. Whether you are to believe the
allegations surrounding Dan Murphy, a longtime staff cartoonist for
the Province newspaper, and his skirmish with Enbridge Inc., big
business today translates a big influence. Former National Post
editor Ken Whyte had said that it is commonplace for advertisers to
demand favourable editorial content for their money. “<i>Before
newspapers might have stood up and said we will let that million
dollars go, we won't prostitute ourselves. Now they'll see they will
be way short on their budget and need the money.” (Bruce Livesey,
Postmedia empire falters while CEO Paul Godfrey earns millions,
nationalobserver.com, November 27, 2015)</i></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Journalism
has succumbed to influence from both politics and business years ago
and any discussions about journalistic woes without acknowledging
this becomes a farce. Today's audience has few illusions and
therefore its trust is shaken dramatically. <i>JournalismIs</i>,
the Canadian Heritage Committee, and Madelaine Drohan's report all<b>
</b>speak of community
news as one of the pillars of democracy. So what happens to all the
journalistic integrity, those ten commandments, or those five things
we simply must know, when intentional censorship becomes the issue?
This is not Paul Godfrey demanding obedience and favourable
editorials for his chosen political party. Nor is it an oil company
versus climate change and the idea of millions in advertising
dollars.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">A
free press is an essential component of democracy. This concept has
been enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in the
US Constitution and in every free and democratic nation. It is the
right of the public to be informed of issues relating to elected
government and daily occurrences in their communities. Censorship of
the press is an unthinkable possibility in any democratic nation, as
far as self-imposed censorship by the press, that cannot be
permitted. That being said, it is impossible to fathom any reason
why these three: Mary Anges Welch of </span><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">JournalismIs,
</i><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Madelaine Drohan of
</span><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Public Policy Forum </i><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">and
MP Hedy Fry heading the </span><i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">Canadian
Heritage Committee</i><span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"> had
decided to ignore such a crucial issue.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/06/who-watches-watchers-part-one.html" target="_blank">Part One</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/08/who-watches-watchers-part-3.html" target="_blank">Part Three</a></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-66687748170139808812016-06-27T21:26:00.000-04:002016-08-31T09:52:16.499-04:00Who Watches The Watchers (Part One)<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i style="font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;"><b>The
issue of what journalism is today and whether traditional journalists
have any justification in their attacks on bloggers, resulted in
researching an extensive amount of material and necessitated
separating this article into two parts.</b></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The battle lines between
journalists and bloggers had been drawn years ago, and most of the
salvos have been fired by journalists. On February 17<sup>th</sup>
2016, Grant LaFleche, a reporter with <i>The Standard</i>, a
Postmedia owned newspaper in St. Catharines, Ontario, presented an
article '<i>Why do you need a community newspaper</i>' in their
opinion column. Throughout this self-aggrandizing, opinion piece
LaFleche raises what he calls his “craft” to new heights, and
then drops this: “Blogging gives anyone with an Internet connection
a voice. However, with only a few exceptions, blogging isn't
journalism. Bloggers aren't doing interviews or poring over
government and scientific reports, they aren't doing the kind of
investigative work journalists do every day.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">It appears now 'journalist'
LaFleche has found a way to delineate the line between journalists
and bloggers, with a chorus of ra-ras from his peers as background
music. Yet the truth is something these backslappers prefer not to
see. On February 18<sup>th</sup> 2016, Neil Macdonald of CBC News
wrote<b> </b>an article titled '<i>The Rebel and the NDP, why not to
provoke Ezra Levant</i>', with a by-line, “Thanks Rachel Notley,
for helping define what journalists are, or maybe aren't?” After
February 18<sup>th</sup> Neil Macdonald maybe sits alone at the local
journo-watering hole.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">This article opens up with,
“Journalists entertain all sorts of self-aggrandizing notions about
what we do. The big one is that we are a profession, which we pretty
clearly are not. We don't even really qualify as a trade.
Professions generally have minimum qualifications. Not a journalist.
Journalists don't even have to finish high school.” Now if a
blogger had said this he or she would have UNIFOR and the whole
chorus line attack with threats of lawsuits and demands for
withdrawal with apologies, but this is Neil Macdonald.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Who is Neil Macdonald? Macdonald
is a senior correspondent for CBC News currently based in Ottawa.
Prior to that he was CBC's Washington correspondent for 12 years, and
before that he spent 5 years reporting from the Middle East. He
often presents articles with courage and hard facts rather than a
'yes master' attitude.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">He goes on to say, “If lawyers or
doctors or pharmacists breach the clear ethical rules governing them,
they can be formally charged and punished by their peers. But
regulating journalism? Out of the question, for the sake of
democracy itself, my peers would argue. There are no national
journalistic standards and no way to enforce them if they existed.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Newspapers, and the journalists who
write for them, are facing a new world and it's not only because of
what Neil Macdonald has raised in his article. The general public is
becoming harder to fool. The Internet has provided many more sources
of information which too often expose the lacking ethics and
integrity of published stories in traditional press, or those
presented on television.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">At the same time traditional media
faces a populace that demands ease of access to information without
limitation on choice. The Canadian Daily Newspaper Circulation
report provided figures for a total weekly circulation for 2009 at
36,987,591 with that total dropping to 31,765,434 in 2014. In
response to the decline in sales of newspapers, Postmedia, a giant in
the newspaper business, cut 90 jobs, combining newsrooms in
Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In 2013 La Presse launched its
unique tablet edition, La Presse+, and in January 2016 it was the
first major daily newspaper in the world to end weekday print
editions. Guy Crevier, publisher of La Presse has said, “This
project was a solution to transform our declining business into a
growing one. La Presse+ has known constant substantial growth for
almost three years now, while most traditional press is declining”
(<i>La Presse successful shift away from print,</i><i><b> </b></i><i>Marianne
Bouchart, 17 February 2016 on GEN-GLOBAL EDITORS NETWORK). </i>Tablet
users had accepted La Presse+ well, providing a daily circulation at
an average of 250,000; prior peaks in its long 131 year history were
in 1971 with 221,250 copies, and later in 2009 with 207,769 copies.
The decision to end daily print editions was simple logic.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Traditional press has found the
ground beneath its feet being pulled out from under it, and unless it
finds a way to float, to hover through the limitless boundaries of
the Internet, it will disappear altogether. Big city newspapers can
combine newsrooms, cut staffing and take other measures to streamline
costs, but not the smaller ones. The <i>Guelph Mercury </i>was
facing this encroaching modern world and had no choice but to stop
the presses and shut its doors. Started in 1854, it was one of the
country's oldest newspapers, but age cannot stand against the tide of
change and survive without the willingness to adapt.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Yet it is not only traditional
press that face huge challenges in the future. Magazines are feeling
equal pressure regardless of how glossy or stylish they may be. Some
try and send out free subscriptions to a select number of the public,
in the hope this fire sale attitude works. Others offer large
incentives for online subscribers, which normally is more attractive.
Canada Post also has felt the growing pressure of the digital world.
Deepak Chopra, its President & CEO, opened their Annual Report
of 2014 with his president's message, a warning in many ways. He
said, “The unprecedented volume decline of lettermail places
enormous pressures on our finances.”<b> </b>Like any large
corporation, Canada Post hit its workers first in its attempt at
streamlining, setting up a system of community mailboxes and cutting
out door-to-door deliveries. Executives rarely feel the pinch.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The Canadian Internet Registration
Authority Factbook for 2014<b> </b>states, “Canada continues to be
one of the most wired countries in the world with nearly 87 percent
of Canadian households connected to the Internet. Canada ranks 16<sup>th</sup>
globally in terms of Internet penetration in 2013. This is up from
80 percent in 2010. Among its G8 counterparts, Canada ranks second
in Internet penetration behind the UK.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">How much more proof is needed that
the public's demand for information and its availability is changing
alongside with the methods of communication? Yet journalists still
choose to denigrate bloggers with labels, herding all bloggers into
one corral. One of the old boys of journalism, Morely Safer, had
said that he would trust citizen journalists as much as citizen
surgeons. Safer had no formal training in journalism, in fact he
only briefly attended the University of Western Ontario. Safer's
experience is exactly that – experience, gathered through years of
reporting and learning 'on the go'. No one can deny the value and
richness of his work, yet that does not provide the right to attack
others without foundation.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2013/11/journalistsare-different-from-other.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">Tim Knight</span></a>, another ol' boy who
wrote an article for <i>Huffington Post</i> titled <i>Watching the
Watchdog: Why Citizen Bloggers Aren't Journalists. </i><i><b> </b></i>He
opens his article with, “Seems I've suddenly become a journalism
guru to whom young people with stars in their eyes and All The
President's Men in their future's flock for wisdom.” Can anyone
read these words and keep a straight face, other than Tim Knight?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Glenn Greenwald, co-founding editor
of <i>The Intercept </i>is a journalist, a constitutional lawyer and
an author of four New York Times bestselling books on politics and
law. His two co-founding editors are Laura Poitras, a filmmaker,
journalist and artist, and Jeremy Seahill, who is an investigative
reporter and war correspondent. On January 28<sup>th</sup> 2015 <i>The
Intercept </i>published an<i> </i>article by Glenn Greenwald titled
<i><a href="https://theintercept.com/2015/01/28/petulant-entitlement-syndrome-journalists/" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">The Petulant Entitlement Syndrome of Journalists</span></a>.</i><i><b> </b></i>Even
though <i>The Intercept </i>deals predominately with socio-political
issues relevant to the US, the commentary in this article easily
transcends any border or demarcation lines.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Greenwald comments on how “Prior
to the advent of blogs, establishment journalists were largely immunised even from hearing criticisms.” Can this in any way
explain the motivation behind the vitriolic sentiment of traditional
journalists towards bloggers?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Here in Canada that sentiment is
somewhat more passive, sprinkled with rose-coloured water.
Traditional journalists attempt to sell the virtues of journalism
opposed to what bloggers lack in their posts. After all 'real'
journalists do research, pore over government and scientific reports,
and conduct interviews to present insightful and truthful reports.
At the same time bloggers in Canada have rarely attacked or even
commented on traditional journalists, until now.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In his article Glenn Greenwald
continues, “What made the indignity so much worse was that the
attacks came from people these journalists regard as nobodies: just
average people, non-journalists, sometimes even anonymous ones. What
right did they have even to form an opinion, let alone express one?
As NBC News star Brian Williams revealingly put it in 2007:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">You're going to be up against
people who have an opinion, a modem, and a bathrobe. All of my life,
developing credentials to cover my field of work, and now I'm up
against a guy named Vinny in an efficiency apartment in two years.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Whether it is the adulatory praise
of <i>The Standard</i>'s Grant LaFleche for his 'craft', or the full
frontal mustard gas attack of NBC's Brian Williams, the delusions
continue. The <i>American Journalism Review, August/September 2005
Feature <a href="http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=3931" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">Journalism's Backseat Drivers</span></a></i>, opens with “These are
beleaguered times for news organisations. As if their problems with
rampant ethical lapses and declining readership and viewership aren't
enough, their competence and motives are being challenged by
outsiders with the gall to call them out before a global audience.
Journalists are in the hot seat, their feet held to the flames by
citizen bloggers who believe mainstream media are no more trustworthy
than the politicians and corporations they cover, that journalists
themselves have become too lazy, too cloistered, too self-righteous
to be the watchdogs they once were. Or even to recognise what's
news.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Ethics and trust are two simple
concepts traditional journalists have lost touch with, and the
general public can no longer be fooled as easily as these watchdogs
of the past think. Scandals have ripped through what Grant LaFleche
call his 'craft'. Brian Williams faced the moment of truth regarding
his reporting of a helicopter flight and whether it was fired on, or
by who. As a star of NBC News, Brian Williams found forgiveness for
his misreporting and he continues to smack the airwaves. In Canada
Evan Solomon, a former star of the CBC, found that providing
self-serving guests for his on-air interviews was seen as less that
ethical. In this case Solomon's equation of news coupled with
financial profit hit the scandal sheets. Yet once again fame and
connections far outlasted the potential of consequence for such
breaches of ethics.<b> </b>The Toronto Star had one of its
heavyweight reporters Antonia Zerbisias caught publishing an article
where comments made by her were not entirely true. Zerbisias later
admitted that she did not verify her information prior to publishing.
Every new journalism student has two major rules drummed into them
from almost the first lesson: verify your source and verify your
facts.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">True, no journalist, whether it be
Morely Safer, Tim Knight, Brian Williams or even Grant Lafleche, had
ever said that bloggers had no right to blog. If they had then they
would have to face off against <i><a href="https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/3733/Right-to-Blog-EN-WEB.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">Article 19</span></a></i>. “Article 19 is
an international human rights organisation, founded in 1986, which
defends and promotes freedom of expression and freedom of information
worldwide. It takes its mandate from the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression and
information” (<i>The Right to Blog</i>, <i>Policy Brief 2013,
Article 19</i>).</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">In their Policy Brief, <i>The Right
to Blog, Article 19</i> makes two major and extremely challenging
statements. The first is from the brief's Executive Summary: “Where
the printed press and broadcast media were once the main sources of
information, the Internet has made it possible for any person to
publish ideas, information and opinions to the entire world. In
particular, blogging and social media now rival newspapers and
television as dominant sources of news and information.” Then
<i>Article 19</i> argues that it is no longer appropriate to define
journalism and journalists by reference to some recognised body of
training, or affiliation with a news entity or professional body.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Dr. Axel Bruns, a senior lecturer
in the Creative Industries Faculty at Queensland University of
Technology in Brisbane, Australia, and author of several books,
presented a paper,<b> </b><i><a href="http://snurb.info/files/News%20Blogs%20and%20Citizen%20Journalism.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: New Directions for e-Journalism</span></a>. </i>In it he delves into the history of
mainstream journalism, bringing forth concepts of gatekeeping and
gatewatching to explain the flow of news, from the input stage where
information was to be considered as being newsworthy or relevant,
through to the output stage as fully formed news reports.
Gatewatching as described by Dr. Bruns requires the ability to
retrieve and search information conducted on a decentralised and
crowdsourced basis.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">As intellectual theories both the
gatekeeping and gatewatching concepts neatly describe the evolution
of the news industry, though non-mainstream journalism, blogging, or
citizen journalism, whatever you wish to call it, has resulted from a
greater need. Dr. Axel Bruns finishes his paper with this thought:
“For mainstream journalists, in current industry practice claims to
professionalism are already highly problematic: levels of
journalistic training and induction to professional ethos and ethics
vary widely across and within individual news organisations, and
often depend more on the process of a journalist's socialisation into
the work environment than on their formal professional education.
Indeed, the very term 'journalist' has been broadened to include not
only core news professionals, but also commentators, hosts, and a
variety of other media personalities; as news blogger and journalism
scholar Glenn Reynolds has put it, 'correspondent' now often simply
has a meaning of “well-paid microphone holder with good hair”
<i>(Weblogs and Journalism: Back to the Future, Glen Harlan Reynolds,
2003). </i>As we noted earlier, at this point in the early
information age, the mainstream journalistic industry overall may be
experiencing a gradual decline which is at least in part of their own
making and due to a slippage in professional standards.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Whether one pays attention to this
comment by Dr. Axel Bruns, or those made by Glenn Greenwald, a single
major point remains clear. True, the age of the Internet as a whole
has found profound impact on mainstream journalism, and no one can
change what is becoming a new reality. Yet that alone is not the
sole reason for journalists to be concerned over. In the end one
question based in antiquity resounds – <i>quis custodiet ipsos
custodes, 'who watches the watchers'</i>?<i> </i>Today the answer is
simple, and that is the reason why mainstream journalists, from media
stars to little wannabes, attack.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Governments and big businesses have
found a way to develop a symbiotic relationship with mainstream
media. Now that relationship has been shaken by individuals who do
not necessarily have a desire to form alliances and in fact are
considered to be insignificant compared to the<b> </b>traditional
media organisations. Still journalists fear these individuals and
look for anything to discredit their desire to question the status
quo.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">Whether it be Glenn Greenwald and
the <i>Intercept</i>, or a respected journalist like Neil Macdonald,
serious questions are being raised regarding the direction mainstream
journalism has taken. Professionalism, it seems, is a concept which
varies from one individual to the next. After all there is no real
governing body to administer a code of conduct, and as Neil Macdonald
said, no way to really enforce one if such a thing existed. Each
media organisation has the wealth to retain legal storm troopers who
are called into action if on the rare occasion one of their
journalists brushes against issues of law; otherwise it has been
business as usual for decades.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">These egos are now facing change in
the guise of bloggers and they don't like it. Unlike mainstream
journalists bloggers have no alliances to appease, no giant salaries
to be concerned about, they are only interested in the information to
be made public. Each blogger has his or her own motivation for doing
what they do, yet each shares a commonality and each wears the
criticisms.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;">The battle lines were drawn out of
egotism and fear of being challenged, of being held accountable for
every word published or aired, and worse, for what was censored from
the public. It is the nature of humanity to change, to evolve, and
there is no stopping it. Instead of fearing this evolution
journalists should look at re-evaluating what they are, and how they
serve the public-at-large. Independent bloggers are not going
anywhere, they will gradually reach greater numbers of readers
because of their independence. Now one could ask whether there can
be room at the table for both the mainstream journalist and the
independent blogger building a symbiotic relationship.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/08/who-watches-watchers-part-two.html" target="_blank">Part Two</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "segoe ui" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/08/who-watches-watchers-part-3.html" target="_blank">Part Three</a></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9123997047498331013.post-36759653413016191512016-06-08T21:05:00.000-04:002016-06-08T21:05:20.265-04:00Are By-laws Real? Not In St. Catharines.<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The
issue of law, its equality and the fairness of enforcement has
brought about not only demonstrations by the people of nations, but
revolutions. Modern democratic society thrives on a foundation of
such equality. Here in Canada we draw refugees from lands torn by
tyranny with a promise of equality and justice. Our Charter of
Rights and Freedoms guarantees such equality for all Canadians
regardless of their origins. At least as a concept, as an ideal, it
sounds reassuring. The reality is somewhat different.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Today
society does not labour under the blinds of naive faith in Canada's
justice system. The recent Duffy trial and the scandal facing the
Senate was enough to blow any self-righteous bubble of equality.
Well paid lawyers use their tongues to weave and maneuver around all
the concepts of equality and justice. Loopholes and corridors,
language and semantics are the tools for these practitioners of
'justice for all,' and no one can be surprised where their loyalty
lies. That being said, do the people of this country have a right to
expect that those who are elected into public office at all levels,
and those paid to enforce the laws and legislation with public
monies, have a loyalty to the concept of equality and justice?</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">In
the City of St. Catharines those concepts appear to have been long
forgotten, or worse – exchanged for something else. Throughout
this country municipalities formulate a variety of by-laws under the
jurisdiction and authority granted by the relevant Municipal Acts.
These regulations regulate zoning, building and development,
remediation of soil and landfill requirements, even parking on the
streets of the city or town. Without these by-laws our cities would
look more like carnival sideshows than pleasant environments to live
and grow in. As with any law in Canada these by-laws are equally
enforced in the community so that no one individual has privilege
over another.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">On
April 18<sup>th</sup> 2016, The City Council for St. Catharines heard
a proposal to amend the Garden City Plan and Zoning By-law 2013-283,
to permit indoor storage at 88 Merritt Street. The owner of this
property is identified on city records as 418159 Ontario Limited; it
is a business called <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2013/03/a-neighbourhood-pays-as-developer.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">Sun Collision</span></a> owned and operated by Sam Demita.
On April 18<sup>th</sup> every concept of equality of law was swept
aside by elected members of council and the city mayor, Walter
Sendzik.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">This
property has a long history of <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2013/08/deceit-censorship-breed-corruption.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">abuse of law and legislation</span></a>, its
owner has shown not only disregard for the law but an apparent total
contempt for it. Prior to this council meeting<b> </b>Sam
Demita stood before council and requested amendments to both the
Official Plan (file# 60.30.310 Vol. 2) and Zoning By-law (file#
60.35975 Vol. 2), on April 29<sup>th</sup>
2013. At that meeting, as with the council meeting of 2016, a
Corporate Report was prepared by the City's Planning and Development
Services, and presented to both the council and public by its
Director James Riddell.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FeY0cmhOFEQ/V1i9-yzMCtI/AAAAAAAAKbU/rleMxkJvgY0vwUoTeumUyJONMJttrxkeACLcB/s1600/MAYORGATE%252C%2Bsam%2Bdemita%252C%2Bphotos%2B%25281%2529.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FeY0cmhOFEQ/V1i9-yzMCtI/AAAAAAAAKbU/rleMxkJvgY0vwUoTeumUyJONMJttrxkeACLcB/s640/MAYORGATE%252C%2Bsam%2Bdemita%252C%2Bphotos%2B%25281%2529.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">James
Riddell, Director of Planning and Development Services, presented his
corporate report #PDS-103-2013 and page 3 of 15 had this to say: “In
recent years, the site has been occupied with outdoor storage (sea
container units and vehicles) on the majority of the site. This use
is not permitted in the existing Environmental Protection Area (EPA)
zone, nor would it be permitted by the proposed amendment. At the
time of writing this report, the outdoor storage remains in place on
the majority of the site.” </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The
property titled<b> </b>88
Merritt Street was zoned as an Environmental Protection Area and did
not permit outdoor storage or dumping of mounds of asphalt and other
material. Originally this site was a natural ravine which had been
filled with material that had no documentation. So at the time when
this report was prepared and presented the City knew of the
intentional abuse of law by Sam Demita. No one at City, not the
Mayor of the time Brian McMullan, Director of Planning and
Development Services James Riddell, acting City Solicitor Christopher
Cooper,<b> </b>the CAO Dan
Carnegie, nor City Clerk Bonnie Nistico-Dunk could deny this fact.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Further,
page 9 of the 2013 Corporate Report states, “Staff note that the
existing use of the site for outdoor storage is not consistent with
the proposed amendments. Staff will be pursuing enforcement of the
Zoning By-law, once the proposed amendment takes effect.” Why
would Planner I, Jessica Button, who prepared the report bother to
put these words in? Judy Pihach, Manager of Planning and Building
Services, approved this report, and James Riddell as Director of
Planning and Development Services in his monotone voice presented the
report to council and knew that “enforcement of the Zoning By-law”
was not going to happen.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The
years between April 2013 and April 2016 found no change in the
actions of the owner of Sun Collision nor were there any attempts at
enforcement by City. Mayor Brian McMullan was gone from office after
the Municipal Elections of 2014. <b>
</b>In
addition to a new mayor being installed some of council saw change as
well. New mayor Walter Sendzik was contacted via email with photos
provided of the site, that exchange resulted in an email from the
Mayor's office on December 31<sup>st</sup>
2015. It stated, “the owner has used the site for various outdoor
storage uses, contrary to the zoning by-law. The City's inspection
team has been out a number of times over the past few years seeking
compliance with the zoning by-law. The site has improved with the
removal of numerous sea containers however the outdoor storage of
vehicles remains an issue.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gt_zaf-8tbI/V1i9rfTzb8I/AAAAAAAAKbM/4WS8Nac7VjkfFXzkdW40em3rsBEb4XsHgCLcB/s1600/emails%252C%2Bst.%2Bcatharines%252C%2BWalter%2BSendzik0001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gt_zaf-8tbI/V1i9rfTzb8I/AAAAAAAAKbM/4WS8Nac7VjkfFXzkdW40em3rsBEb4XsHgCLcB/s640/emails%252C%2Bst.%2Bcatharines%252C%2BWalter%2BSendzik0001.jpg" width="492" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Mayor Sendzik <a href="http://mayorgate.blogspot.ca/2016/01/city-of-st-catharines-by-laws-whats-up.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red;">lied</span></a> with those words
and the photographs proved he lied. The mayor also said the City had
been “seeking compliance” over the past few years. Words to a
politician as to a lawyer are of extreme importance and when used
improperly carry the burden of serious consequence. Does Walter
Sendzik know what <i>seeking</i> means? It means the City of St.
Catharines came with a hat in hand attitude to an individual who
breaks the law daily and pleaded with him. The email further stated
that, “The Manager of Planning is arranging an inspection of the
site again based on the most recent photos provided.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Judy Pihach is the Manager of
Planning and Building Services, so<b> </b>it was Pihach who submitted
and approved the 2013 Corporate Report and did so again in 2016. She
has been fully aware of the apparent contempt exhibited for the law,
and as a senior member of city staff is conversant with the Municipal
Act, at least that is an expectation.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mbYeHVAGqUc/V1i-Ymx3cQI/AAAAAAAAKbg/iKsw-ngxAw8sqa1fI8s-1kkLL5pMHu9cwCLcB/s1600/MAYORGATE%252C%2Bsam%2Bdemita%252C%2Bphotos%2B%25282%2529.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mbYeHVAGqUc/V1i-Ymx3cQI/AAAAAAAAKbg/iKsw-ngxAw8sqa1fI8s-1kkLL5pMHu9cwCLcB/s640/MAYORGATE%252C%2Bsam%2Bdemita%252C%2Bphotos%2B%25282%2529.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">How can it be possible that the law
be set aside for one individual as a meaningless collection of words
on a piece of paper? This question had been asked of James Riddell,
Director of Planning and Development Services, without an answer or
explanation in response. The same question was asked of Mayor Walter
Sendzik, he responded admitting to full knowledge of the abuses of
law and then lied. Who is Sam Demita? He is the owner and operator
of Sun Collision, a small business with 10 or less employees. Demita
is listed as a Director and Secretary for Merritton Developments Inc.
in a Corporation Profile Report together with Nino Donatelli as
President and Director.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">No answers appear on the surface to
any of the questions and on April 18<sup>th</sup> the farce began
again.<b> </b>James Riddell in an email dated December 21<sup>st</sup>
2015 said, “The owner has used the site for various outdoor storage
uses and our inspection team has been out a number of times over the
past years inspecting the site. The result has been the most recent
planning application. If you wish to be notified of the upcoming
meeting please provide us a mailing address. Thank you for inquiring
about this site,” Riddell simply ignored every question raised of
him.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">At the April 18<sup>th</sup>
Council Meeting Sam Demita was a no show and was represented by
Stephen Bedford of Stephen Bedford Consulting Inc. As in 2013, a
corporate report was prepared by Jessica Button, submitted and
approved by Judy Pihach, and once again it was presented to council
by the monotone voice of James Riddell. On page 3 the report states,
“In recent years the site has been occupied with outdoor storage
(sea container units and vehicles) on the majority of the site. This
use is not permitted in the existing Mixed Use (MI) zone, nor would
it be permitted by the proposed amendment.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iue-Jp_c4-Q/V1i-xwTHioI/AAAAAAAAKbs/ias0O-u9LAQEZb9x1zbX93QnpyT6c0eBgCLcB/s1600/EMAIL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iue-Jp_c4-Q/V1i-xwTHioI/AAAAAAAAKbs/ias0O-u9LAQEZb9x1zbX93QnpyT6c0eBgCLcB/s640/EMAIL.jpg" width="494" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Reading this statement brought
feelings of d<span style="font-family: Segoe UI;">ėjá v</span>u, here again the
City of St. Catharines, through its Planner Jessica Button and her
Manager Judy Pihach, admits to full knowledge of the abuse of law.
Only this time there are no false promises of enforcement once the
amendment is approved.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Several local residents brought
forward their objections not to the new development plans but to an
issue that began with the filling of the massive ravine. In 2009
hundreds of truck loads of fill with no documentation was dumped into
a natural ravine, which is what the city keeps referring to now as,
“The site has been graded and is relatively flat.” Prior to that
illegal dumping of fill this neighbourhood had never experienced any
flooding, and the most common term used by these residents is that
they “never had any problems prior to Demita's dumping.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">One resident, Mr. Minnes, produced
photos of his backyard under water, flooded in 2016 when the area
experienced one of the mildest winters on record. He brought to
public attention the empty promises from 2013; how the city would
work on the flooding issue, and how the city had done nothing.
Councillor Jennie Stevens for Merritton stood up, all surprised at
the inaction of the City and all kinds of motions began to fly around
the chamber. David Haywood, the second Merritton Ward Councillor,
fumbled over and over with empty words till Mayor Sendzik finally
interrupted him, asking what was his point.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Mayor Walter Sendzik's email of
December 31<sup>st</sup> 2015 was read out on record, and the issue
of law raised in relation to equality and Demita's continuous abuses
without any consequences. As the email was read, Sendzik visibly
buried his face in his hands, while other councillors either showed a
lack of interest or a snickering grin like that of Councillor Elliot.
The result was simple: the law and its equality was swept away once
again.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">At the end of this presentation
Councillor Carlos Garcia stood up to raise some questions regarding
the issue of the city's lack of enforcement. Councillor Garcia's
voice sounded as if his performance was a purely perfunctory response
for the audience. Director of Planning and Development Services,
James Riddell answered Garcia's questions that “there have been
site visits and discussions with the applicant.” As more questions
were asked Riddell simply washed it away with, “we try to work with
the applicant but we will be vigilant. It's been a difficult
challenge situation and our philosophy is to work with the
applicant.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Once Riddell finished and
Councillor Garcia had sat down with only a whimper displayed, Stephen
Bedford came forward to present the grand plan. At first Bedford
fumbled with his button attempting to impress the audience with
images of the site's history. He finally opened with the past
incarnation of this site as a building supply yard with bricks and
other materials. Then a photo of the leveled and graded site as it
is today. Stephen Bedford avoided, in fact intentionally omitted, to
show photos of the natural ravine which had been filled illegally.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Bedford continued his presentation
to council admitting to the fact that some “outdoor storage which
is illegal is on the site” and then quickly added, “the owner
could not develop this property in the manner he wished.” This
last statement was somewhat difficult to understand, as he did not
elaborate any further.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">As his trump card, Bedford brought
forward a planned water management pond that will be established on
the property. According to the plan, “all the water that is
dropped on this property, it will end up in the water management
pond. The pond will only deal with the water that falls on the
ground, it will not deal with the water that is underground as it's
fairly flat, that surface absorbs water.” Depending on which end
of the property this “water management pond” is located then a
glaring question demands answering. What happens to the water at the
other end of it? Such a pond as described, intended to catch surface
water, is simply only a comical waste and potentially a public health
issue with breeding mosquitoes.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Regardless of how ludicrous this
“water management pond” may be Councillors' eyes lit up. Both
Councillor Stevens and Haywood seemed to be excited by such a
proposal. Their questions made it appear that such a “pond”
would have the potential to alleviate flooding problems that had
damaged homes, yards and the public park. All in all it became an
opportunity to divert attention from the real issues brought to
public notice.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">The gems to remember from this
council meeting come from Director of Planning James Riddell and
Stephen Bedford of Stephen Bedford Consulting Inc. Riddell in his
presentation of the corporate report said, “literally we are just
adding a use by removing the site storage use, there is some open
storage on the site that is proposed to be removed once the
amendments are approved.”<b> </b>Then Stephen Bedford said during
his presentation, “when I walk the site, there is what I would call
a ravine, it's still there.”</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Here we have a situation where the
representative of the owner of the property admits to “illegal”
use, the Director of Planning and Development and Manager of Planning
and Building Services, James Riddell and Judy Pihach, admit to
illegal use of the site. Mayor Walter Sendzik admits in writing of
problems and illegal use of the site, and yet the amendments are
passed. Throughout this farce both of the city's newspapers were
represented.<b> </b>Scott Rosts from <i>Niagara this Week </i>tweeted
some points, <i>The Standard's </i>Karena Walter, who had
documentation sent to her prior to the council meeting, completely
avoided the issue of law. Journalism at its best; even the email by
the mayor was not found newsworthy.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l_7HutoAmok/V1i_FRj6vWI/AAAAAAAAKb4/1kmzGy5THiU8drEshThmi5fbUvm61rBqwCLcB/s1600/MAYORGATE%252C%2Bsam%2Bdemita%252C%2Bphotos%2B%25283%2529.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l_7HutoAmok/V1i_FRj6vWI/AAAAAAAAKb4/1kmzGy5THiU8drEshThmi5fbUvm61rBqwCLcB/s640/MAYORGATE%252C%2Bsam%2Bdemita%252C%2Bphotos%2B%25283%2529.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif;">Riddell had said at the end of his
presentation that “this proposal does not offend any of that area.”<b>
</b>The council meeting was on April 18<sup>th</sup> 2016 and the
amendments were approved in favour of Sam Demita again. These photos
were taken showing the site in its present day condition.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
mayorgatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17045504409984345879noreply@blogger.com0