Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Council spares judge his career

KIRK MAKIN

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 12:49 AM EST 04/12/08

Canadian Judicial Council orders Ontario Superior Court Judge Ted Matlow to apologize for questionable conduct, but won't remove him from the bench ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. C Oslie from Canada writes: I'm kind of tired of hearing these guys talk about "public confidence" or "bringing the administration of justice into disrepute" and so on and so forth.

    That ship has already sailed, boys.
  2. Mikey Gault from working at the car wash blues, Canada writes: Nothing like some good old fashioned you scratch my back and I'll scratch your back!
  3. Brian Barry from Canada writes: Our Justice system is a farce. The sad fact is, one only learns of that when for the first time in your life you need it to be "just."
  4. Ernie Richards from Barrie, Canada writes: Another wonderful case of "self-regulating" professions to cover for their members.

    When will we, the citizens and taxpayers get a proper professional review council for lawyers, judges, doctors and other professionals which actually has teeth and the willingness to use them to weed out unworthy professionals?

    I won't be holding my breathe.
  5. Wilma De Bruyn from Toronto, Canada writes: "Just Us" was served folks!!
  6. Keating Gun from Canada writes: In the curious world of Ontario's justice system, which apparently has no adjudicator discipline system, the lawyer who brought the motion removing Matlow from the case that led to this complaint, for bias, himself sat as an adjudicator on Law Society hearing panels at Osgoode Hall while acting as prosecutor, adjudcator and counsel to the society against the member's civil claim - simultaneously, with the blessing of the Div. Ct and the Court of Appeal, both widely thought to have not bothered to read the file. While Matlow faced the Can. Jud. Council, said lawyer was hired to act for the Judicial Council against a 2nd judge charged with upholding the charter with too much enthusiasm. Will said lawyer be prosecuted? Well the law society hides decisions (it only publishes decisions where members lost) where its counsel lose, and the LSUC generrally "loses"" against their own benchers, so we likely can never find out. But it has refused to investigate any bencher or counsel activity involving one of its own and a tribunal matter. Matlow faced the judicial council while the triple-conflict adjudicator got hired by it. A true Canadian fiasco, just like our justice system is fast becoming.
  7. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes: .
    It's hard to get fired if you're a judge.
  8. hugh grant from Canada writes: pension the %astar6 off for crissakes. who needs this hot head deciding anything other than his menu for the day.
  9. Dan Lowell from Vancouver, Canada writes: An "apprehension of bias"? An anxiety of bias?

    A "pretence of bias" perhaps. Law is where words are too often used cleverly in an attempt to prove a point that could instead be made using a simple sentence with things like nouns and verbs.
  10. smelter rat from Canada writes: The old boys club is alive and well.
  11. Terry Johnson from Canada writes: As soon as I read the article I knew most of the comments would be negative, but I did not think every comment would be negative. I do not know the judge in question but I do believe in justice and fairness and the appearance of justice. It would appear the first two qualifications have been met. The last one is in the eyes of the beholder. I suggest you will more likely hear from the skeptics and the non-believers than from those who believe justice has been served. It becomes a matter of trust and a large segment of the public do not trust authority even though the decision makers in this case were able to listen to all of the facts and evidence and pass judgment based on a knowledge of the criteria required to remove the judge from the bench. How many of the commentators above have both?
  12. Cynicus stevenski from Canada writes: Canadian LEGAL Council wins again. It never stops with the legal beagles. There is no question that we do not have a justice system in Canada .We have a legal system in which justice has little relevance and no accountability by the ones who obtain their largesse from it.We need to move more to community justice forums and keep the lawyers out of them!!
  13. Reminder of Unsettling reactions: at war with Parliament and People of Canada from Toronto, Canada writes:

    "The Court Party at war with the Parliament and the People of Canada"

    It seems to me that we have two parallel and competing governments in Canada:
    one elected
    and
    another one appointed.

    Most of the people are familiar with elected one: House of Commons and most people asked about appointed government would point to the Senate.

    The truth of the matter is quite different, yes Senate in Canada is appointed but it serves only to impede legislation enacted by HoC, so in a sense it is quite harmless beast that in no way could be considered an alternative government.

    In my opinion the true "self appointed alternative government" of this country is Canadian Judicial Council (CJC).

    It was created by the Parliament in 1985 (see:Judges Act) with sole purpose to discipline federally appointed judges and it was created in the spirit of self-regulation (judges would decide who to discipline and what to discipline them for).

    Instead of making things better for Canadians this arrangement made things much worse as CJC evolved into staunch protectors of Canadian judiciary, on one hand, and an instrument of tyranny stripping judges from any judicial independence they ever had, on the other hand.

    Having complete control over judges, CJC grew in power and started to dictate to elected parliamentarians what laws are acceptable and what laws have to be changed.

    Over time SCC Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, become an Absolute Monarch "Her Majesty Queen Beverly" and her courtiers at CJC become "Governors" accountable only to “Her Majesty”.

    Not satisfied with declaring laws enacted by Parliament as "null and void" (see Morgentaler decisions and abortion laws that we still have on our books) Queen Beverly thru her governors started to "write in" laws that she wanted to have on the books. This effort culminated in forcing House of Commons to legislate Same Sex Marriage.

    ... tbc ...
  14. Reminder of Unsettling reactions: at war with Parliament and People of Canada from Toronto, Canada writes:

    "The Court Party at war with the Parliament and the People of Canada"

    ... cont'd from 03/12/08 at 9:41 PM

    When Liberals got booted out of power in Ottawa, CJC or the Court Party as they are called, started to interfere with other aspects of running the government (decision ordering Government of Canada to restore Jean Pelletier to his position at VIA despite being fired twice by the Liberals).

    http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=33fe41ac-75c6-427c-850b-0dcd7e476bdb&k;=94995

    Eventually the Court Party started a guerrilla war with Conservative government by censoring Justice Gomery over his remarks regarding Jean Chrétien.

    http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c6c3e744-5c40-40fb-b02e-9b41f9303558

    This war escalated when “Queen Beverly" pushed thru the nominating committee her initiative of naming Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08070208.html

    Complete and total disregard that the CJC has for the will of Canadians was on a full display when complaint was filed with CJC regarding her role in that fiasco.

    http://www.lifenews.com/int933.html

    Not to be outdone the Court Party decided to interfere with electoral process and on the eve of Thanksgiving weekend just before the federal elections they organized in Quebec City the official ceremony investing Dr. Morgentaler with the Order of Canada. It was blatant and cynical ploy aimed at dissuading social conservatives from participating in electoral process.

    http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/10/10/morgentaler-order.html?ref=rss

    ... tbc ...

  15. Reminder of Unsettling reactions: at war with Parliament and People of Canada from Toronto, Canada writes:

    "The Court Party at war with the Parliament and the People of Canada"

    ... cont'd from 03/12/08 at 9:41, 9:44 PM

    "...
    Please do not be fooled by appearances, the Honourable Patrick D. Dohm, Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is a member of Canadian Judicial Council and he follows instructions of “Her Majesty the Queen Beverly” who decided to take the next step override the will of the constituents of Vancouver South and appoint “deserving candidate” Ujjal Dosanjh as a Member of Parliament and stick to ungrateful “subjects” who in her opinion cannot be trusted with proper selection of “deserving candidates”.

    See: http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/about_en.asp?selMenu=about_members_en.asp

    I decided to add more references to my previous post. For anybody interested in reading more about the Court Party here are some relevant links:

    http://www.bcrevolution.ca/court_party.htm

    http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2000/05/section_06.html

    http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/index.php/Back-Page-Battle-of-wills-over-judicial-appointments-process.html

    http://www.lawtimesnews.com/Headline-News/The-decline-of-political-democratic-accountability

    http://www.yorku.ca/robarts/projects/canada-watch/pdf/vol_7_4-5/morton.pdf

    ...."
    ============
  16. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: Terry Johnson from Canada writes: As soon as I read the article I knew most of the comments would be negative, but I did not think every comment would be negative. I do not know the judge in question but I do believe in justice and fairness and the appearance of justice. It would appear the first two qualifications have been met. The last one is in the eyes of the beholder. I suggest you will more likely hear from the skeptics and the non-believers than from those who believe justice has been served. It becomes a matter of trust and a large segment of the public do not trust authority even though the decision makers in this case were able to listen to all of the facts and evidence and pass judgment based on a knowledge of the criteria required to remove the judge from the bench. How many of the commentators above have both? ********** what are you babbling about? the judge clearly used his office for personal gain (fight the development of a unsightly condo in his posh neighbourhood). the council's own lawyers and hearing committee recommended he be removed from the bench and yet the council chose to completely ignore the findings of their own inquiry and let him go unpunished. now tell me how the public is supposed to have faith in the judiciary when even their own inquiries can't get rid of bad judges.
  17. And one Judge responded to war with Parliament and People of Canada from Toronto, Canada writes:
    ===========================

    From: Mazza, Mr. Justice Randolph (SCJ)
    Sent: 10/28/08 10:36 am
    To:
    Subject: RE: "The Court Party at war with the Parliament and the People of Canada"

    no one cares

    > From:
    > Sent: October 28, 2008 2:00 AM
    > To:
    > Subject: fwd: "The Court Party at war with the Parliament and the
    > People of Canada"
    >
    >
    >fyi - unsettling reactions to federal elections 'recounts' on public forums ...
    > [ Legal scholars, professionals - note links for you at the bottom ! ]

    . . .
    ===========================


    [ And who is J. Mazza?

    Hamilton Superior Court - Family Court

    ... for those in-the-know ... stay tuned ...

    Although Kirk Makin ALREADY knows and has all info, as do all MSM, but they play 'do-not-touch-it-even-with-10-foot pole' ...

    ]
  18. Marilyn Barnicke Belleghem from Burlington, Canada writes: Terry Johnson states "It becomes a matter of trust and a large segment of the public do not trust authority even though the decision makers in this case were able to listen to all of the facts and evidence and pass judgment based on a knowledge of the criteria required to remove the judge from the bench."
    To some it might appear that the CJC listens to all the facts but given my experience in submitting a complaint not only was I never asked even one question about my submission before my case was closed I was told that judges have the right to protect themselves to the extent of avoiding and refusing to pay child support.
    People want accountability in the people who are paid with their taxes and they also want the judicial system to uphold the law so not only is justice done but it is seen to be done as Lord Denning stated many years ago.
  19. When 'System Lawyers' complains - CJC, 'Media' go against Judges; BUT when The People complain ... from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Keating Gun (03/12/08 at 6:11 PM): "... the lawyer who brought the motion removing Matlow from the case that led to this complaint, for bias, himself sat as an adjudicator on Law Society hearing panels at Osgoode Hall while acting as prosecutor, adjudicator and counsel to the society against the member's civil claim - simultaneously, with the blessing of the Div. Ct and the Court of Appeal, both widely thought to have not bothered to read the file. ... Matlow faced the judicial council while the triple-conflict adjudicator got hired by it. A true Canadian fiasco, just like our justice system is fast becoming. "
    ===========

    Other aspect, too:

    Complaints to the CJC (for federally appointed judges) against Ted Matlow and against Cosgrove are ONLY ones which CJC took even this far.

    And both are made by 'Governments/the System and its 'Lawyers':

    against Matlow, City of Toronto/its female 'Counsel' who lost in front of Matlow,
    and
    , against Cosgrove, Ont/MAG/'Crowns'.

    But when The People / Citizens complain to CJC (or OJC, for Ontario provincially appointed 'Judges') about horrors which are witnessed, evidenced ( including such 'smoking gun' as internal doc/memo of such organizations as the National Judicial Institute (NJI) directly mentioning Chief Justice Beverley et al ), revealed by Law Analytics studies, etc etc., - 'Media' cover up or denigrate the complainants, and of course CJC (and OJC ) hush complaints.

    E.g.,
    - do you know that Ontarian T.S. filed complaints against Ont. J. Debra Paulseth at the OJC and all other provincial and federal authorities (including criminal complaints against her to the Toronto Police), enough time before Katelynn's delivery to the death:
    . . .
    ... tbc ...
  20. When 'System Lawyers' complains - CJC, 'Media' go against Judges; BUT when The People complain ... from Toronto, Canada writes:

    ... cont'd from 03/12/08 at 10:59 PM ...

    E.g.,
    - do you know that Ontarian T.S. filed complaints against Ont. J. Debra Paulseth to the OJC and all other provincial and federal authorities (including criminal complaints against her to the Toronto Police), enough time before Katelynn's delivery to the death: OJC and all were informed of 'Judge' Paulseth being dangerously dumb at least several months before 'Judge' Paulseth gave Katelynn to soon to be killer.

    So it was possible to prevent delivering Katelynn to death if OCJ respected the Citizen T.S. and his complaints against 'Judge' Paulseth EXACTLY on INCOMPETENCE ground as, e.g., Cosgrove case !!!

    Do you get it or not yet?

    'Judge' Paulseth was appointed in 2005 by McGuinty Gov, by then Ontario MAG Micheal Bryant. She was MAG administrator in 'Court Operations', ie not even in Lawyer's/Prosecutor's practice.

    - other examples of how 'Media' and CJC (OJC ...) treat The People and their complaints against 'Judges' later, if G&M; does not close the blog. ...

  21. The Bubble from Canada writes: The law is as it always was, one law for the rich and one law for the poor.
    The idea that these people even try to maintain any public respect is laughable. Maybe it's good for their conscience, helps some lawyers and judges get through the day, but the court of public opinion has already tried and fried you all. The game now is simply not to get caught. Morals are no longer, if they ever were, an issue. Democracy has seen better days.
  22. Misery No one from Toronto, Canada writes: He should have been fired. To many judges with axes to grind get away with seeking vengeance when they should have recused themselves, and the system just lets it happen with no over sight.
  23. When 'System Lawyers' complains - CJC, 'Media' go against Judges; BUT when The People complain ... from Toronto, Canada writes:

    ... cont'd from 03/12/08 at 10:59, 11:10 PM ...

    Back to why/who is behind these CJC's taking on Cosgrove and Matlaw ...

    1) Recall Ont Ministry of the Attorney General - MAG / 'Crowns' scandals upon scandals:
    from botched trials and wrongful murder prosecutions
    to blatant neo fascist RadFem LGBT 'Social Engineering', cover ups:
    Homolka,
    Carnwall Inquiry/Dunlop case,
    etc. etc,
    to corruption v. organized crime etc ...

    2) Timeline leading up to Matlow case ...

    May 9, 2004
    J. Ted Matlow of Superior Court in TO wrote historical piece in the Toronto Star:
    "The right way to choose our judges".

    He was harsh and blunt about Lawyers and bad Judges appointed from such Lawyers and by political/$$$ patronage. Proposed revolutionary changes to the Judiciary-Lawyers Cartel. They never forgave him. It was matter of time when they would get back at him.

    - Oct 2005
    Divisional Court proceeding in which Justice Matlow ruled against the city of Toronto represented by city solicitor Anna Kinastowski (ie, one of the Ont LSUC 'Lawyers' - now cf. Matlow's 2004 revolutionary article against 'Lawyers' ...)

    - Jan 3, 2006
    Heat is up in historical, federal election campaign. People trying to penetrate despicable Cnd Media and wake up gullible public of the REAL, dangerous, issues. Among them: horror dangerous 'Justice-Legal' situation. 'Grassroots'/'common citizens' provoked the 'Cartel' with Ted Matlow's 2004 article. Despicable media censored.

    - Jan 31, 2006
    Toronto city 'solicitor' (ie, LSUC 'Lawyer'), Anna Kinastowski, filed the complaint to the CJC against Matlow.

    - fast forward to 2008 ...

    ============

    http://tinyurl.com/5ce549

    http://www.thecourt.ca/2008/06/06/whose-moral-compass-is-it-anyway-judge-matlows-case/
  24. The Bubble from Canada writes: Terry Johnson, nice try but your comment is pretty lame and quite transparent.
  25. Dale Brown from Victoria, Canada writes: I suspect that three-quarters of the posters here have been losers in a court battle of their own. They are people who are critical of the justice system because they can't understand why someone, like themselves, with righteousness and justice on their side could possibly not triumph. As to Cynicus Stevenski and community justice forums - they sound very much like "kangaroo" courts. There is much to be said about a structured legal system with a measure of formality and rules of procedure and rules of evidence. The "alternatives" from my observations are not very pretty and not very just.
  26. 'The right way to choose our judges', Justice Ted Matlow of Superior Court, Toronto Star, May 9,2004 from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Toronto Star, May 9, 2004

    The right way to choose our judges

    We must find the best process for getting the best appointed to the Supreme Court, says Justice Ted Matlow

    In just a few months, two judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, who have announced their intentions to resign, will leave the court and will be replaced by two new judges selected by the Prime Minister.

    This prospect has generated a great deal of public discussion throughout the country about how Supreme Court judges should be chosen.

    Much of it reflects the widespread concern about the perceived intrusion of unelected judges into the legislative sphere of elected parliamentarians.

    Even the Prime Minister himself has been reported to be in favour of giving MPs some role in the selection process as a partial means of addressing the issue.

    It is noteworthy that underlying this particular issue is the unsavoury, rarely challenged and widespread belief that it is legitimate for both the government and others to try to get judicial vacancies filled with persons who are likely to embrace a particular social agenda.

    Many come to the bench with a background of participation in partisan politics that they often find useful in their quest for judicial appointment or, even after being appointed, for promotion.

    None of them is specifically trained to be a judge or tested in any meaningful way before one is appointed    .

    It would be unfortunate, in my view, if this opportunity for the country to focus on the broad process of appointing judges, including all "superior court" federally appointed judges across the country, were missed.

    Rather than dwell solely on how interest groups might get their favourite candidates appointed, we should instead be asking whether we now really have the best possible process for getting the best available candidates appointed to the bench.

    ...tbc...
  27. 'The right way to choose our judges', Justice Ted Matlow of Superior Court, Toronto Star, May 9,2004 from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Toronto Star, May 9, 2004

    The right way to choose our judges, by Justice Ted Matlow

    ... cont'd from 03/12/08 at 11:45 PM ...

    The starting point for such a review should begin with developing a clear statement of the personal qualities of a candidate, which are most important for a prospective judge. It should then continue to consider how persons likely to possess those qualities can be identified and then attracted to serve.

    Many of the desirable qualities are obvious and include such basic things as personal integrity and distinction in the law.

    However, from my personal perspective, I have come to the conclusion that there are many other overlooked qualities that are at least as important.

    They include things such as kindness, compassion, respect for others, humility, creativity, courage, insight, the ability to set aside inevitable personal biases and the personal strength to remain uninfluenced by external pressures.

    Under our present system, all judges are former lawyers who have spent, as required by law, a minimum of 10 years in practice.

    Most of them are former prominent litigation lawyers who were drawn to the legal profession, at least in part, by their attraction to the combat inherent in the adversary court system.

    Are these, then, the people we want to serve us as judges? Is there any reason to think that the people who possess the qualities we want are more likely to be found in this group than in others?

    Can it truly be said that a candidate who relies on some element of political patronage to advance his chances of appointment has the necessary level of personal integrity to qualify for it?

    ... to complete next ...
  28. 'The right way to choose our judges', Justice Ted Matlow of Superior Court, Toronto Star, May 9,2004 from Toronto, Canada writes:

    Toronto Star, May 9, 2004

    The right way to choose our judges, by Justice Ted Matlow

    ... cont'd from 03/12/08 at 11:45, 11:58 PM ...

    The present concern of many MPs, including probably the Prime Minister himself, is their inability, under the present system, to question prospective candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court about their personal views on a variety of subjects.

    However, with respect, focusing on this misses what should be the main point of a vigorous national dialogue.

    I, like most people, would be delighted to have our courts run by judges who possess in abundance the qualities described above even if their personal views were in conflict with mine.

    I know that I would have total confidence that judges like these would know of their duty to set aside their personal views and would do, to the best of their ability, what is right and just.

    Developing a process that would bring such persons to the bench is what all of us should be talking about.

    Ted Matlow sits on the Superior Court of Justice
  29. 'JUDGES WERE ONCE LAWYERS' - major source of Problem vs. 'The right way to choose our judges' from Toronto, Canada writes:
    It was with great pleasure to finally see mainstream Canadians, like 'harry carnie' from Northern, B.C 29/03/08 at 3:33 PM, spoke up:
    "... has anyone taken into account that our JUDGES WERE ONCE LAWYERS??"

    Exactly. Radical change is needed: SEPARATING Lawyers and Judiciary, because "... We have a legal system inherited from the 18th century...".

    03 Jan 06
    Subject: to Toronto Star on-line "Voices: Key election issue"

    TorStar again appears to divert/manipulate the public into "Politically Correct" directions which is exactly what brought Canada to this situation, by 'avoiding' to address really fundamental issues upon which everything else is based/built upon (from Democracy to freedom and security to you-name-it):

    'Justice' system

    a) appointment/selection/election of Judges, both fed. appointed Judges (from Superior Courts up) and prov. appointed Judges.

    b) Undemocratic, dangerous, 'untouchable/above the law' behaviour and powers of self-regulating 'Law Societies' and their members.

    c) Judges are actually Lawyers, members of respective Lawyers' self-regulating Law societies - incredible conflict of interest/lack of impartiality and total contempt for anyone's intelligence.

    d) Law/Justice system based on Anglo "Common Law".
    By:
    - ignoring trial of facts and strict formal logic,
    - abusing the mathematical/scientific discipline of Statistics (which they are not qualified to use/interpret): 'balance of probability' nonsense because lazy, incompetent to FIND the truth,
    - having 'Appearance' as dominating factor,
    - prejudice and all sort of arbitrariness,

    it perpetuates discrimination, prejudice, injustice, harm of fundamental human being's life and security etc., thus causing untold suffering and tragedies of human beings/citizens of the State (Jurisdiction).

    Solution: Adopting the best from both "Continental Law" and "Common Law"

    ... tbc ...
  30. 'JUDGES WERE ONCE LAWYERS' - major source of Problem vs. 'The right way to choose our judges' from Toronto, Canada writes:
    part 2

    ... see 04/12/08 at 12:19 AM ...

    Of course, the Toronto Star Censor did NOT let the submission to the forum.

    The points are:

    (1) separate career paths for Judiciary and Lawyers

    (2) no professional mixing except for high-level (by topic) conferences,

    (3) of course, business 'mixing' is off-limit;

    (4) personal ones, especially, husband-wives
    [
    such as e.g. 'Justice' Nancy L. Backhouse and her husband lawyer Marty Teplitsky, not to mention Nancy's sister, Constance Backhouse, Feminist 'Law Professor' at Ottawa Faculty of Law just getting Order of Canada, ALONG with Morgentaler, Chaired by Beverley Chief Justice, or daughter Sheryl Teplitsky, Law Firm Collection Specialist ... :
    "20080726 from online forums - '... all in one family'.pdf"
    http://tinyurl.com/6qnqxw
    ],

    not to professionally interfere to each other as per strict Ethics and Conflict of Interest;

    - undergraduate degree and then QUALITY Law School schooling are PLENTY of time to evaluate (by best available sci) WHO is material for Judge.

    Then such Law School Graduate enters Judiciary Prep / 'Apprenticeship' / 'Residence' .

    Alternatively:
    After Law School, graduates who are interested in Judicial career may avail themselves to the strict evaluation before entering Judiciary Prep/'Apprenticeship'/'Residence'

    - Lawyer can NOT become Judge.

    - Judge after resignation (not because of misconduct) or retirement CAN be lawyer.

    Comparison?:

    The most important, crucial Medical Doctor is Surgeon.

    Surgeon takes a time to be selected, and then allowed to be painstakingly trained to take a scalpel on his own.
    Family Phys/GP does not practice GP MD, or even 'specialty', for 10 years and then go to become Surgeon.
  31. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: Gosh deciding that the whole thing is corrupt, saying so, then sitting in judgement on the case is not grossly abusing?
    Contemptable is what it is. No wonder people have contempt for the courts. What a great network fellas, screw the people I'm appointed for life.
    Time for a revolution folks.
  32. Why did Canadians allow Judicial-Lawyers-RadFem- LGTB Coup d'Etat v. Parliament, The People from Toronto, Canada writes:
    For example:
    -------------------
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080310.wtrusts10/BNStory/National/home

    Mounties were set to charge official in income trust leak
    But court ruling gutted secrets law
    DANIEL LEBLANC, STEVEN CHASE, March 10, 08
    ... The RCMP also quizzed Mr. Goodale about former Liberal cabinet minister Scott Brison, who'd already admitted to e-mailing a bank official days before the trust announcement, saying the recipient would be happy with the outcome. The Mounties declined any comment on the 2006 internal communications plan. ...
    ------------------

    So, who is 'Justice' Lynn Ratushny, the KEY 'player' in this scandalous 'Leak outcomes'?

    These 'outcomes' made at least one person thankful to HER, Madam justice Ratushny.

    Already COMMITTED crimes, according to the strict provisions that criminalized the leaking of federal secrets, got impunity by HER conveniently gutting those same strict provisions - AFTER the crimes were committed!!!

    Yet another "Judge Make Law" outside the Parliament, i.e. yet another Coup d'etat by the relatively low court - just Superior Court in one city - ?

    Yet another 'Activist Judge's urges' to play the Constitutional God, via easy-handy tool of Charter, and Hijack-the-Parliament ?

    Just Google "Lynn Ratushny" and see
    'projects',
    'studies',
    'associated names' [Alan Rock, Anna McLellan, ...],
    horror, hair-raising 'Special Interests Orgs and Agendas' [beware: some 'projects' may be too much for some stomach ...] ...

    And then, Lynn Ratushny got federally appointed to Ontario Superior Court on 1999-06-30, during 'Justice' Minister Anne MCLELLAN.

    AND Anne MCLELLAN IS BEHIND BOB RAE in his Liberal Leadership aspiration.

    ... to cont. ...

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top