JUSTICES OF THE PEACE REVIEW
COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF a complaint
respecting
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE Errol
Massiah
Justice
of the Peace in the
Central
East Region
NOTICE OF MOTION
TAKE
NOTICE THAT the
His Worship Justice of the Peace Massiah hereby seeks leave to bring a motion
before the Panel – to admit fresh evidence in writing since the Hearing Panel
has dispensed with the traditional public hearing format.
The Grounds for the Application are:
Current Presenting Counsel did not call former Presenting
Counsel, Mr. Hunt, to testify that in submitting his report to his instructing
counsel, The Registrar, Ms. Marilyn King, he had the intention to make a
complaint about my conduct. Current Presenting Counsel told my lawyer that the
“complainants’ were the witnesses who would come to testify in a letter dated
January 14th, 2014. Witnesses were accordingly cross-examined on this
information and they testified to having no intention to file a “complaint.”
The Panel ruled On January 12th, 2015 that Mr.
Hunt was the “complainant”.
After
the findings of liability, disposition and compensation,
the Registrar and Presenting
Counsel’s instructing counsel,
Ms. King, prepared an affidavit sworn August 19th, 2016 in which
she deposed
that she complied with one of the two mandatory
requirements of notice to complainants, namely, that the
“complaint” was proceeding to a hearing and that
his evidence may
be required. Ms. King has not disclosed an acknowledgement of
receipt of the “complaint” to date.
I was denied the right to confront Mr. Hunt
on the
crucial point of whether he intended to make a complaint
about my conduct. The Hearing
Panel and indeed the People of
Ontario were denied his evidence on a crucial and material point in
my removal from judicial office, namely, whether he
intended to
make a complaint about my conduct.
2. The new evidence is relevant and calls
into question the fairness of the proceedings against me and soundly
demonstrates the reasonableness and merit of all of the motions and steps taken
on my behalf in defending my office – a pivotal issue in the Hearing Panel’s
decision on whether I should be compensated “for all or part of the cost of
legal services incurred in connection with the hearing” pursuant to s.11.1(16)
of the Justices of the Peace Act.
3. On April 14th, 2017 I learned
that current Presenting Counsel, Ms. Henein’s spouse was a law partner of the
complainant, former Presenting Counsel, Mr. Doug Hunt, in and around the
material time of him acting as Presenting Counsel on my matter before Justice
Vallencourt and the date of his report to his instructing counsel, Ms. Marilyn
King, Registrar and Counsel to the Justices of the Peace Review Council.
4. On April 14th, 2017 I also
learned that prior to going into the private practice of law the “complainant”,
prior Presenting Counsel, Mr. Hunt was Assistant Deputy Attorney General and
Director of Criminal Law for Ontario.
5. The Registrar’s recent disclosure in her
sworn affidavit prompted investigations which have brought the relationship
between current Presenting Counsel, her spouse and the complainant, former
Presenting Counsel, Mr. Hunt to light.
6. The new evidence is also relevant to the
Divisional Court’s clear acknowledgement that “a complaint coming from the
Government is, nonetheless a real one” and therefore one of several compelling
reasons why “adjudicative bodies, dealing with complaints against judicial
office holders, ought to start from the premise that it is always in the best
interests of the administration of justice, to ensure that persons, who are
subject to such complaints, have the benefit of counsel. Consequently, the
costs of ensuring a fair, full and complete process, ought usually to be borne
by the public purse, because it is the interests of the public, first and
foremost, that are being advanced and maintained through the complaint
process.”
7. Presenting Counsel’s answer to my
counsel’s question on who is the complainant and her decision not to call the
complainant, former Presenting Counsel to give evidence on his intention, when looked at in the light of the new
evidence raises a true reasonable apprehension of bias and is clearly contrary
to the age old principle that justice must be seen to be done.
8. Section 4 of the JPRC’s Procedural Code
for Hearing;
9. Rule 3.4-1 of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
The following documentary evidence will be relied upon:
1. Sworn
affidavit of Errol Massiah dated April 16th, 2017 and all exhibits
thereto;
The
Applicant may be served with documents related to this motion at the office of
his solicitors of record, E.J. Guiste and J. House pursuant to the Rules.
April 16th, 2017
E.
J. GUISTE
Professional
Corporation
Trial
& Appellate Advocacy
2
County Court Blvd., Suite 494
Brampton,
Ontario
L6W
3W8
(416)
364-8908
(416)
364-0973 FAX
Co-counsel
for the Applicant
JEFFRY HOUSE
Barrister & Solicitor
31 Prince Arthur Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M5R 1B2
Tel.(416) 707-6271
Fax (416) 960-5456
Co-counsel for the Applicant
Henein Hutchison LLP
235 King Street East, 3rd Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5A 1J9
Ms. Marie Henein and Mr. M. Gourlay
E Mail mhenein@hhlp.ca
PRESENTING COUNSEL
AND TO:
Justices of the Peace Review Council
M5C 2J3
Ms. Marilyn E. King, Registrar - E mail marilyn.king@ontario.ca
NOTE: This Notice of Motion to Adduce Fresh Evidence was filed with the
Justices of the Peace Review Council on April 19th, 2017. In a nutshell, newly
discovered evidence shows that current Presenting Counsel's spouse was a
law partner of former Presenting Counsel and complainant, Mr. Doug Hunt.
In addition, the complainant, Mr. Hunt was Assistant Deputy Attorney
General of Ontario prior to going into private practice.
This document is published here because the JPRC has dispensed with
traditional public hearing format. This piece is published as a public service.
The people of Ontario are entitled to see that justice is done. At the time of
publication the JPRC has not seen fit to publish this or any other
of the motion materials. Transparency in these matters is vitally important
to public confidence in the administration of justice. It is in the spirit that justice
must be seen to be done that this publication is made here.
No comments:
Post a Comment