Good Day Readers:So you can follow the debate more easily we've colour coded the participants:
Anonymous = Blue
VJH = Black
CyberSmokeBlog = red
Perhaps it's time to start an informal, anonymous online poll. "Should Lori Douglas be removed as a judge?"
Let the debate begin!
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "To roll the dice or not to roll the dice that is the question?"
Good Morning Mr. Pieuk,
In response to your questions, my thoughts are as follows:
(1) Is Lori Douglas represented by legal counsel? If so whom? Hopefully, it's not her husband lawyer Jack King!
According to the Court, Ms. Douglas was represented by Mr. Michael T. Green, of Green and Dixon, when faced with the lawsuit filed by Mr. Chapman. One would presume that she would maintain the same counsel to deal with any ‘privacy’ issues brought about by this mess. Mr. Green has been practicing since 1972.
Yes, we were aware of that but do not know whether he will also represent her should the inquiry go forward. We're still not convinced it will. Our bones keep telling us there will be an eleventh hour resignation. A provincial judge can retire after only 15-years on the Bench with full pension and benefits. Not bad!
(2) Have negotiations quietly been taking place behind-the-scenes (plea agreement) to avoid a public inquiry? Justice Douglas steps down from the Bench in exchange for .....
The CJC cannot engage in “plea bargaining,” the only thing that may happen is if she steps down, then the inquiry stops.
We'll grant you that one although we still find it difficult that the Canadian Judicial Council would want an inquiry to go forward - not only would it attract mega media attention but there'd be a real risk of much dirty laundry getting washed in public.
The information you obtained from the Manitoba Justice website deals with public inquiries of provincial departments post criminal action and/or death: Harper, Driskell, Taman, Brian Sinclair, Phoenix Sinclair – that is the purpose of those inquiries. A CJC inquiry is federal, focuses only on judicial conduct and only 8 have ever been formed since 1971.
Thank you for setting us straight.
With regard to your question as to whether or not a judge has been removed by parliament, I present the following:
Parliament has never had to vote on removal of a Judge. Justice Jean Bienvenue (Province of Quebec) – CJC inquiry recommended removal (June 1996). He retired before parliament could remove him.
Justice Theodore Matlow (Ontario) – CJC inquiry recommended removal (May 2008) and then reversed it’s decision after convening a special meeting for appeal by Justice Matlow (December 2008) where all 22 members of the CJC met.
Justice Paul Cosgrove (Ontario) – CJC inquiry recommended removal (March 2009) after conducting an initial inquiry and then a special meeting of all 22 members. Three days later Cosgrove resigned before Parliament posed the question.
And FYI, the transcripts and decisions of all inquiries since 2008 are online – everything is there for the public to read. These inquiries are truly public.
Excellent research. Thank you for again reminding us why we pay you the BIG DOLLARS to be our Official Legal Affairs Critic!
(3) Were the actions of the various players in this debacle/fiasco appropriate? The Law Society of Manitoba? Lawyers representing the various parties? The Manitoba Court of Appeal's decision to seal the documentation?
Without a provincial inquiry of the LSM, lawyers or the Appeal Court, there is no way to know what, if anything, was used to support these decisions. Is the “old boys club” protecting their own? Most certainly. Does Thompson Dorfman Sweatman have that much political power? Hard to say, but when our provincial Minister of Justice is a former partner in TDS, is an inquiry likely? For that matter, will he be a witness at the Douglas Inquiry since he was a partner in 2002?
On the subject of the LSM, it's labouring under the weight of a seriously flawed business model. While it's mandate twice makes specific mention of a responsibility to protect the public interest does it? The case of Blackie, which we've been following closely from the outset, we predict will turn out to be yet another huge embarrassment for the folks running The Society. They've got it "back asswards!"
Had a solicitor once point out if you look at the composition of the various committees about 50% are made up of attorneys from Winnipeg's two Biglaw firms - Thompson Dorfman Sweatman and Aikins. While we haven't "gunned" the numbers we wouldn't be surprised. Although the staff at the LSM are nice folks they're facilitators. The real power lies with those running the committees.
The far reaching implications of this scandal make a public inquiry necessary. I hope this provides assistance.
An inquiry will make for fascinating prime time television viewing for the hordes unable to attend in person. It may also make some in Winnipeg's legal community "a tad" nervous.
You have asked for my assistance, and I am honoured to provide same. It would seem “Anonymous” is the one who is naïve. Poor lad, it is indeed wishful thinking to believe that just because someone isn’t elected that his/her appointment is not political. The appointment of judiciary in this country is decidedly political, as much so as appointment to the Senate.
Completely agree. Example. Does Anonymous really believe Prime Minister Harper, given what we know about his modus operandi, would appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court of Canada with a track record of decisions that ran counter to the PM's political agenda hidden or otherwise? Probably not. Perhaps Philip Slayton raised the issue best in his book, Mighty Judgment" - "Are judges politicians in robes?"
Do you and VJH still not see the difference between politicians and judges in Canada? They are different. Judges are not elected in a political process. They are supposed to be protected from blackmail.
While not elected, look at the political affiliations of those appointed and what party is in power. Though appointments to QB are federal, it is the Provincial government that makes recommendations to the Federal Minister.
A little insight for you:
Andrew Swan – Elected MLA – 2004. Cabinet appointment: 2008. Justice Minister of Manitoba as of November 2009. Former Firm: Thompson Dorfman Sweatman – Partner 2000
Karen Simonsen – Appointed December 2004. Former Firm: Thompson Dorfman Sweatman – Partner (unknown)
A. Lori Douglas – Appointed May 2005. Associate Chief Justice of Queen's Bench Family Division – May 2009. Former Firm: Thompson Dorfman Sweatman
William J. Burnett – Appointed September 2009. Associate Chief Justice of QB General Division – February 2011. Former Firm: Thompson Dorfman Sweatman – Partner 1986
Shane I. Perlmutter – Appointed February 2011. Former Firm: Thompson Dorfman Sweatman – Partner 2000
Many appointments are made from the Crown’s office, and since the NDP took power in 1999:
Shawn Greenberg – October 2003
Marianne Rivoalen – February 2005
Brian Midwinter – October 2006
Joan McPhail – January 2009
Richard Saull – February 2010
Gerald Chartier – Sepember 2010
Diana Cameron – February 2011
One must consider the significant number of Crown’s who become Judges as well as the high ratio of Judges from TDS. There are 35 acting Justices of the Queen's Bench and since 1999: 4/35 from TDS – Both Associate Chief Justice positions. 7/35 from the Crown. I did not examine the histories of the judiciary prior to 1999 appointments, but I’d wager the numbers are similar.
Still think appointments are not political?
Again, excellent research. God CyberSmokeBlog is glad it pays you the BIG DOLLARS! Read a book several years ago about office politics with the great line, "As soon as two people are brought together in a working environment you have politics." Why should the judiciary be any different?
It's legitimate to question the vetting and selection process.
Completely agree. Hopefully, a public inquiry will do just that.
But a further question: since "everybody in the legal community" knew about the pictures, and the selection committee still made her a judge, is it now fair to her that what they deemed before as "not a problem," without any action on her part to bring about the breach of privacy, is now a problem?
Everyone in the MANITOBA legal community knew – my question would be who was on the selection committee? How many had ties to TDS?
Before: "We know about the pictures. We'll still make you a judge.
"After: "Whoops! The public is mad! Better throw you under the bus and get you off the bench!"It's one thing to question whether or not nudie pictures disqualify someone from being a judge. But how is it fair for the system to say, "it was okay then - we made you a judge - but it's not okay now?"
It wasn’t okay then, but I believe part of a cover-up by the LSM and TDS. Records were sealed, they thought they were safe. Had this come out back then, the damage to TDS would have been significant.
These were not "nudie pictures." We've seen them they're hardcore pornography! Also, Organizational Behaviour 101 comes into play. When a hire turns out to be inappropriate it's that person who invariably pays the price while the selectors more often than not are able to anonymously slink off unscathed.
The selection committee made the decision. Why don't they have the guts to stand behind it?
Good question - I’d love to hear from them myself. Why?
Easy. Why stick out your neck if it can be avoided? Selection committees difuse responsibility. If the tables were reversed, Anonymous, would you stand up to shout from the rooftops, "Man oh man did I ever screw up?"
I remain,
VJH
(ex).jpg)
