From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)"
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:21:54 +0000
Subject: RE: RE Voicemail Message, - 1:02 minutes from "CDN JUDGES ASC" <6137446166>
To: David Amos
Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick. Please be assured that your email will be reviewed.
Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick. Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel sera examiné.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/chief-justice-david-smith-bill-17-1.4030121
Judge's group inactive on chief justice's call to challenge judge-moving bill
David Smith's fight against Bill 17 hasn't gained traction with national association of superior court judges
By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Mar 20, 2017 6:30 AM AT
Court of Queen's Bench Chief Justice David Smith would
like a Supreme Court reference hearing on whether New Brunswick's Bill
17 affects the independence of the court. (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
Chief Justice David Smith may be running out of options in his
fight against the Liberal government's legislation to take away some of
his powers.
Smith, the top judge on the Court of Queen's Bench, is trying to stop Bill 17, which makes amendments to the Judicature Act that would require him to get the justice minister's approval before transferring judges.
In January, he asked an association representing judges to challenge the constitutionality of the Liberal bill before the Supreme Court of Canada.
But two months later, the association hasn't taken any steps to do so.
"No we have not," Justice Susan Himel, president of the Canadian Association of Superior Court Judges, said in a one-sentence email on Friday to CBC News.
She did not respond to a followup email asking if the association was even considering it.
Smith said in an email to CBC News that his request "unfortunately seems to be on hold." He said Himel had not responded to several emails from him since Feb. 17.
Bill 17 would give the provincial justice minister a veto over Smith's power to transfer justices. The existing law gives Smith the power to do that on his own.
The Liberal government has said it needs a veto because Court of Queen's Bench judges are frequently named by Ottawa to vacancies in smaller towns, only to be soon transferred to larger cities by Smith.
The Liberals have refused to provide a specific example of a transfer that they found unacceptable or that they would have vetoed.
Smith announced in January at a speech to the Moncton Rotary Club that he would ask the association to seek a reference hearing before the Supreme Court on Bill 17.
He said at the time the association, which represents 1,000 superior-court-level judges in Canada, "is the proper body to address the judicial independence issue that exists."
"I am hopeful that the association will take up the gauntlet and seek a review of this issue by the highest court."
Smith told reporters after the speech that all his transfers were "as a result of a vacancy, and as a result of a request by a judge. There was never a judge moved that hadn't made a request to make that move."
He sent the request to the association the same day, Jan. 16, but in an email later that week, Himel wrote the organization "would have no standing to initiate any proceedings." The law on reference cases says they must be requested by a federal or provincial government.
Himel wrote that she would ask the association's independence committee for a recommendation "on what role, if any, we might play."
After not hearing from Himel for weeks, Smith wrote to her again March 6. He said the association's "primary mandate is to protect and enhance judicial independence" and it should ask the federal Justice Department to apply for a reference hearing.
Smith said in January that Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan give elected politicians some role in transferring judges. But other provinces do not. He said because of that disparity, the Supreme Court should rule on whether that role violates judicial independence.
In his Rotary speech, Smith repeated his criticisms of Bill 17. He said that he wasn't consulted on it, that documents indicated it was put together quickly in Premier Brian Gallant's office, and that he offered a compromise to the government that it rejected.
Smith said in his Rotary speech that he would not be speaking publicly on the bill again.
"Further public differences will yield nothing positive."
Bill 17 was introduced in the legislature in November and has not advanced past first reading. There's been no indication when the Liberals plan to move it forward.
Smith, the top judge on the Court of Queen's Bench, is trying to stop Bill 17, which makes amendments to the Judicature Act that would require him to get the justice minister's approval before transferring judges.
In January, he asked an association representing judges to challenge the constitutionality of the Liberal bill before the Supreme Court of Canada.
But two months later, the association hasn't taken any steps to do so.
"No we have not," Justice Susan Himel, president of the Canadian Association of Superior Court Judges, said in a one-sentence email on Friday to CBC News.
She did not respond to a followup email asking if the association was even considering it.
No response to Smith
Smith said in an email to CBC News that his request "unfortunately seems to be on hold." He said Himel had not responded to several emails from him since Feb. 17.
Bill 17 would give the provincial justice minister a veto over Smith's power to transfer justices. The existing law gives Smith the power to do that on his own.
The Liberal government has said it needs a veto because Court of Queen's Bench judges are frequently named by Ottawa to vacancies in smaller towns, only to be soon transferred to larger cities by Smith.
The Liberals have refused to provide a specific example of a transfer that they found unacceptable or that they would have vetoed.
Reference hearing sought
Smith announced in January at a speech to the Moncton Rotary Club that he would ask the association to seek a reference hearing before the Supreme Court on Bill 17.
He said at the time the association, which represents 1,000 superior-court-level judges in Canada, "is the proper body to address the judicial independence issue that exists."
"I am hopeful that the association will take up the gauntlet and seek a review of this issue by the highest court."
Smith told reporters after the speech that all his transfers were "as a result of a vacancy, and as a result of a request by a judge. There was never a judge moved that hadn't made a request to make that move."
Request sent Jan. 16
He sent the request to the association the same day, Jan. 16, but in an email later that week, Himel wrote the organization "would have no standing to initiate any proceedings." The law on reference cases says they must be requested by a federal or provincial government.
Himel wrote that she would ask the association's independence committee for a recommendation "on what role, if any, we might play."
After not hearing from Himel for weeks, Smith wrote to her again March 6. He said the association's "primary mandate is to protect and enhance judicial independence" and it should ask the federal Justice Department to apply for a reference hearing.
- Chief justice wants judge-moving bill reviewed by Supreme Court
- Judge-moving bill aims to help Dominic LeBlanc, Tory MLA charges
- Judge-moving legislation introduced again
Smith said in January that Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan give elected politicians some role in transferring judges. But other provinces do not. He said because of that disparity, the Supreme Court should rule on whether that role violates judicial independence.
In his Rotary speech, Smith repeated his criticisms of Bill 17. He said that he wasn't consulted on it, that documents indicated it was put together quickly in Premier Brian Gallant's office, and that he offered a compromise to the government that it rejected.
Smith said in his Rotary speech that he would not be speaking publicly on the bill again.
"Further public differences will yield nothing positive."
Bill 17 was introduced in the legislature in November and has not advanced past first reading. There's been no indication when the Liberals plan to move it forward.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:58:25 -0400
Subject: Well talked Correct Frank McArdle? Say Hey to David Smith and the rest of the Judges for me will ya? As I said I will look forward to seeing you all in court.
To: fmcardle@cscja-acjcs.ca, "marc.giroux"
Cc: David Amos
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/chief-justice-david-smith-bill-17-1.4030121
Judge's group inactive on chief justice's call to challenge judge-moving bill
David Smith's fight against Bill 17 hasn't gained traction with
national association of superior court judges
By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Mar 20, 2017 6:30 AM AT
BTW My phone never rang I was sitting right here the whole time
Executive Director
Frank McArdle
270 Albert Street, 14th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1P 5G8
Telephone: (613) 744-6166
Fax: (613) 563-7671
Email: fmcardle@cscja-acjcs.ca
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Póstur FOR
> >> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:05:47 +0000
> >> Subject: Re: Hey Premier Gallant please inform the questionable
> >> parliamentarian Birigtta Jonsdottir that although NB is a small "Have
> >> Not" province at least we have twice the population of Iceland and
> >> that not all of us are as dumb as she and her Prime Minister pretends
> >> to be..
> >> To: David Amos
> >>
> >> Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received
> >>
> >> Kveðja / Best regards
> >> Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
> >>
> >>
> >> This is the docket
> >>
> >>
> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T
> >>
> >> These are digital recordings of the last two hearings
> >>
> >> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
> >>
> >> Jan 11th https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
> >>
> >> This me running for a seat in Parliament again while CBC denies it again
> >>
> >> Fundy Royal, New Brunswick Debate – Federal Elections 2015 - The Local
> >> Campaign, Rogers TV
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cFOKT6TlSE
> >>
> >>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/fundy-royal-riding-profile-1.3274276
> >>
> >> Veritas Vincit
> >> David Raymond Amos
> >> 902 800 0369
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From:
> Date: Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:18 PM
> Subject: Réponse automatique : RE My complaint against the CROWN in
> Federal Court Attn David Hansen and Peter MacKay If you planning to
> submit a motion for a publication ban on my complaint trust that you
> dudes are way past too late
> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
>
> Veuillez noter que j'ai changé de courriel. Vous pouvez me rejoindre à
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> Pour rejoindre le bureau de M. Trudeau veuillez envoyer un courriel à
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Please note that I changed email address, you can reach me at
> lalanthier@hotmail.com
>
> To reach the office of Mr. Trudeau please send an email to
> tommy.desfosses@parl.gc.ca
>
> Thank you,
>
> Merci ,
>
>
> http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
>
>
> 83. The Plaintiff states that now that Canada is involved in more war
> in Iraq again it did not serve Canadian interests and reputation to
> allow Barry Winters to publish the following words three times over
> five years after he began his bragging:
>
> January 13, 2015
> This Is Just AS Relevant Now As When I wrote It During The Debate
>
> December 8, 2014
> Why Canada Stood Tall!
>
> Friday, October 3, 2014
> Little David Amos’ “True History Of War” Canadian Airstrikes And
> Stupid Justin Trudeau
>
> Canada’s and Canadians free ride is over. Canada can no longer hide
> behind Amerka’s and NATO’s skirts.
>
> When I was still in Canadian Forces then Prime Minister Jean Chretien
> actually committed the Canadian Army to deploy in the second campaign
> in Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing. This was against or contrary to
> the wisdom or advice of those of us Canadian officers that were
> involved in the initial planning phases of that operation. There were
> significant concern in our planning cell, and NDHQ about of the dearth
> of concern for operational guidance, direction, and forces for
> operations after the initial occupation of Iraq. At the “last minute”
> Prime Minister Chretien and the Liberal government changed its mind.
> The Canadian government told our amerkan cousins that we would not
> deploy combat troops for the Iraq campaign, but would deploy a
> Canadian Battle Group to Afghanistan, enabling our amerkan cousins to
> redeploy troops from there to Iraq. The PMO’s thinking that it was
> less costly to deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan than Iraq. But
> alas no one seems to remind the Liberals of Prime Minister Chretien’s
> then grossly incorrect assumption. Notwithstanding Jean Chretien’s
> incompetence and stupidity, the Canadian Army was heroic,
> professional, punched well above it’s weight, and the PPCLI Battle
> Group, is credited with “saving Afghanistan” during the Panjway
> campaign of 2006.
>
> What Justin Trudeau and the Liberals don’t tell you now, is that then
> Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien committed, and deployed the
> Canadian army to Canada’s longest “war” without the advice, consent,
> support, or vote of the Canadian Parliament.
>
> What David Amos and the rest of the ignorant, uneducated, and babbling
> chattering classes are too addled to understand is the deployment of
> less than 75 special operations troops, and what is known by planners
> as a “six pac cell” of fighter aircraft is NOT the same as a
> deployment of a Battle Group, nor a “war” make.
>
> The Canadian Government or The Crown unlike our amerkan cousins have
> the “constitutional authority” to commit the Canadian nation to war.
> That has been recently clearly articulated to the Canadian public by
> constitutional scholar Phillippe Legasse. What Parliament can do is
> remove “confidence” in The Crown’s Government in a “vote of
> non-confidence.” That could not happen to the Chretien Government
> regarding deployment to Afghanistan, and it won’t happen in this
> instance with the conservative majority in The Commons regarding a
> limited Canadian deployment to the Middle East.
>
> President George Bush was quite correct after 911 and the terror
> attacks in New York; that the Taliban “occupied” and “failed state”
> Afghanistan was the source of logistical support, command and control,
> and training for the Al Quaeda war of terror against the world. The
> initial defeat, and removal from control of Afghanistan was vital and
> essential for the security and tranquility of the developed world. An
> ISIS “caliphate,” in the Middle East, no matter how small, is a clear
> and present danger to the entire world. This “occupied state,”
> or“failed state” will prosecute an unending Islamic inspired war of
> terror against not only the “western world,” but Arab states
> “moderate” or not, as well. The security, safety, and tranquility of
> Canada and Canadians are just at risk now with the emergence of an
> ISIS“caliphate” no matter how large or small, as it was with the
> Taliban and Al Quaeda “marriage” in Afghanistan.
>
> One of the everlasting “legacies” of the “Trudeau the Elder’s dynasty
> was Canada and successive Liberal governments cowering behind the
> amerkan’s nuclear and conventional military shield, at the same time
> denigrating, insulting them, opposing them, and at the same time
> self-aggrandizing ourselves as “peace keepers,” and progenitors of
> “world peace.” Canada failed. The United States of Amerka, NATO, the
> G7 and or G20 will no longer permit that sort of sanctimonious
> behavior from Canada or its government any longer. And Prime Minister
> Stephen Harper, Foreign Minister John Baird , and Cabinet are fully
> cognizant of that reality. Even if some editorial boards, and pundits
> are not.
>
> Justin, Trudeau “the younger” is reprising the time “honoured” liberal
> mantra, and tradition of expecting the amerkans or the rest of the
> world to do “the heavy lifting.” Justin Trudeau and his “butt buddy”
> David Amos are telling Canadians that we can guarantee our security
> and safety by expecting other nations to fight for us. That Canada can
> and should attempt to guarantee Canadians safety by providing
> “humanitarian aid” somewhere, and call a sitting US president a “war
> criminal.” This morning Australia announced they too, were sending
> tactical aircraft to eliminate the menace of an ISIS “caliphate.”
>
> In one sense Prime Minister Harper is every bit the scoundrel Trudeau
> “the elder” and Jean ‘the crook” Chretien was. Just As Trudeau, and
> successive Liberal governments delighted in diminishing,
> marginalizing, under funding Canadian Forces, and sending Canadian
> military men and women to die with inadequate kit and modern
> equipment; so too is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Canada’s F-18s are
> antiquated, poorly equipped, and ought to have been replaced five
> years ago. But alas, there won’t be single RCAF fighter jock that
> won’t go, or won’t want to go, to make Canada safe or safer.
>
> My Grandfather served this country. My father served this country. My
> Uncle served this country. And I have served this country. Justin
> Trudeau has not served Canada in any way. Thomas Mulcair has not
> served this country in any way. Liberals and so called social
> democrats haven’t served this country in any way. David Amos, and
> other drooling fools have not served this great nation in any way. Yet
> these fools are more than prepared to ensure their, our safety to
> other nations, and then criticize them for doing so.
>
> Canada must again, now, “do our bit” to guarantee our own security,
> and tranquility, but also that of the world. Canada has never before
> shirked its responsibility to its citizens and that of the world.
>
> Prime Minister Harper will not permit this country to do so now
>
> From: dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 14:17:17 -0400
> Subject: RE: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and
> the War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still
> alive
> To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>
> This is to confirm that the Minister of National Defence has received
> your email and it will be reviewed in due course. Please do not reply
> to this message: it is an automatic acknowledgement.
>
> >>>>
> ---------- Original message ----------
> From: David Amos
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 13:55:30 -0300
> Subject: Re Greg Weston, The CBC , Wikileaks, USSOCOM, Canada and the
> War in Iraq (I just called SOCOM and let them know I was still alive
> To: DECPR@forces.gc.ca, Public.Affairs@socom.mil,
> Raymonde.Cleroux@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, john.adams@cse-cst.gc.ca,
> william.elliott@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, stoffp1
> dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca, media@drdc-rddc.gc.ca, information@forces.gc.ca,
> milner@unb.ca, charters@unb.ca, lwindsor@unb.ca,
> sarah.weir@mpcc-cppm.gc.ca, birgir
>
> susan@blueskystrategygroup.com, Don@blueskystrategygroup.com,
> eugene@blueskystrategygroup.com, americas@aljazeera.net
> Cc: "Edith. Cody-Rice"
>
>
>
> I talked to Don Newman earlier this week before the beancounters David
> Dodge and Don Drummond now of Queen's gave their spin about Canada's
> Health Care system yesterday and Sheila Fraser yapped on and on on
> CAPAC during her last days in office as if she were oh so ethical.. To
> be fair to him I just called Greg Weston (613-288-6938) I suggested
> that he should at least Google SOUCOM and David Amos It would be wise
> if he check ALL of CBC's sources before he publishes something else
> about the DND EH Don Newman? Lets just say that the fact that your
> old CBC buddy, Tony Burman is now in charge of Al Jazeera English
> never impressed me. The fact that he set up a Canadian office is
> interesting though
>
> http://www.blueskystrategygroup.com/index.php/team/don-newman/
>
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/media/story/2010/05/04/al-jazeera-english-launch.html
>
> Anyone can call me back and stress test my integrity after they read
> this simple pdf file. BTW what you Blue Sky dudes pubished about
> Potash Corp and BHP is truly funny. Perhaps Stevey Boy Harper or Brad
> Wall will fill ya in if you are to shy to call mean old me.
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/2718120/Integrity-Yea-Right
>
> The Governor General, the PMO and the PCO offices know that I am not a
> shy political animal
>
> Veritas Vincit
> David Raymond Amos
> 902 800 0369
>
> Enjoy Mr Weston
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/05/15/weston-iraq-invasion-wikileaks.html
>
> "But Lang, defence minister McCallum's chief of staff, says military
> brass were not entirely forthcoming on the issue. For instance, he
> says, even McCallum initially didn't know those soldiers were helping
> to plan the invasion of Iraq up to the highest levels of command,
> including a Canadian general.
>
> That general is Walt Natynczyk, now Canada's chief of defence staff,
> who eight months after the invasion became deputy commander of 35,000
> U.S. soldiers and other allied forces in Iraq. Lang says Natynczyk was
> also part of the team of mainly senior U.S. military brass that helped
> prepare for the invasion from a mobile command in Kuwait."
>
> http://baconfat53.blogspot.com/2010/06/canada-and-united-states.html
>
> "I remember years ago when the debate was on in Canada, about there
> being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our American 'friends"
> demanded that Canada join into "the Coalition of the Willing. American
> "veterans" and sportscasters loudly denounced Canada for NOT buying
> into the US policy.
>
> At the time I was serving as a planner at NDHQ and with 24 other of my
> colleagues we went to Tampa SOUCOM HQ to be involved in the planning
> in the planning stages of the op....and to report to NDHQ, that would
> report to the PMO upon the merits of the proposed operation. There was
> never at anytime an existing target list of verified sites where there
> were deployed WMD.
>
> Coalition assets were more than sufficient for the initial strike and
> invasion phase but even at that point in the planning, we were
> concerned about the number of "boots on the ground" for the occupation
> (and end game) stage of an operation in Iraq. We were also concerned
> about the American plans for occupation plans of Iraq because they at
> that stage included no contingency for a handing over of civil
> authority to a vetted Iraqi government and bureaucracy.
>
> There was no detailed plan for Iraq being "liberated" and returned to
> its people...nor a thought to an eventual exit plan. This was contrary
> to the lessons of Vietnam but also to current military thought, that
> folks like Colin Powell and "Stuffy" Leighton and others elucidated
> upon. "What's the mission" how long is the mission, what conditions
> are to met before US troop can redeploy? Prime Minister Jean Chretien
> and the PMO were even at the very preliminary planning stages wary of
> Canadian involvement in an Iraq operation....History would prove them
> correct. The political pressure being applied on the PMO from the
> George W Bush administration was onerous
>
> American military assets were extremely overstretched, and Canadian
> military assets even more so It was proposed by the PMO that Canadian
> naval platforms would deploy to assist in naval quarantine operations
> in the Gulf and that Canadian army assets would deploy in Afghanistan
> thus permitting US army assets to redeploy for an Iraqi
> operation....The PMO thought that "compromise would save Canadian
> lives and liberal political capital.. and the priority of which
> ....not necessarily in that order. "
>
> You can bet that I called these sneaky Yankees again today EH John
> Adams? of the CSE within the DND?
>
> http://www.socom.mil/SOCOMHome/Pages/ContactUSSOCOM.aspx
>
>
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:21:36 -0400
Subject: RE Voicemail Message, - 1:02 minutes from "CDN JUDGES ASC" <6137446166>
To: fmcardle@cscja-acjcs.ca, "marc.giroux"
Cc: David Amos
My last email obviously proved that your wish was my command.
You received a new 1:02 minutes voicemail message, on
Monday, March 20, 2017 at 04:51:03 PM in mailbox 9028000369
from "CDN JUDGES ASC" <6137446166>.
http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/governance_executive_officers-en.asp?l=3
The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association (CSCJA) represents
approximately 1,000 judges who serve on the superior courts and courts
of appeal of each province and territory, as well as on the Federal
Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Tax Court of
Canada. The CSCJA is the successor to the Canadian Judges Conference
which was founded in 1979 with a mandate to protect and enhance
judicial independence, provide continuing education for judges,
improve the administration of justice, and promote public
understanding of the role judges play in the justice system.
Membership is voluntary but about 95 per cent of all federally
appointed judges belong to the CSCJA.
The Association organizes an annual conference and educational forum
for its members and holds special symposia to keep judges up to date
with political, demographic, technological and social trends.
Governance and Executive Officers
The Association is administered by a board of directors made up of a
member resident in each of the provinces and territories and a
representative of the Federal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of
Canada. Members elect a director to represent their particular
province or court. The board meets at least three times a year.
The executive committee consists of the president, past president,
vice-president, treasurer and secretary, all selected annually by the
members of the board of directors. By tradition, at least one member
of the executive committee is a judge of the Superior Court or the
Court of Appeal of Quebec. A council of between 20 and 60 Association
members, each elected to a two-year term, meets at least once a year
and assists the board in governing the Association.
Executive Committee:
The Hon. Madam Justice Susan Himel
President
Ontario Court (General Division)
Toronto, ON
The Hon. Madam Justice Julie Dutil
Treasurer
Quebec Court of Appeal
Quebec, QC
The Hon. Mr. Justice Marc Richard
Past President
Court of Appeal of New Brunswick
Fredericton, NB
The Hon. Mr. Justice Terrance Clackson
Vice-President
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
Edmonton, AB
The Hon. Mr. Justice Thomas A. Heeney
Secretary
Superior Court of Justice
London, ON
Frank E. McArdle
Executive Director
Ottawa, ON
Directors:
Justice Darin Chow SK
Justice Terry Clackson AB
Justice Tom Cyr NB
Justice Julie Dutil QC
Justice James Edmond NB
Justice Kristine Eidsvik AB
Justice Joel Groves BC
Justice Thomas Heeney ON
Justice Susan Himel ON
Justice Mona Lynch NS
Justice Mark McEwan BC
Justice John Mitchell PE
Justice Michele Monast QC
Justice Brent Paris TC
Justice Michel Pinsonnault QC
Justice Marc Richard NB
Justice Shannon Smallwood NWT
Justice Robert Smith ON
Justice Robert Stack NL
http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/courts_constitution-en.asp?l=4
The Courts and the Constitution
Constitutional rights: The Constitution Act, 1982 forms the legal
basis for the Canadian state. It incorporates the British North
America Act, the statute that created Canada in 1867, and the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms , which enshrines the legal, social, and
political rights of Canadian citizens and minority groups. It
guarantees freedom of speech and religion and the right to vote in
elections, and prevents the government from discriminating against
people on the basis of race, ethnic origin, gender, age or disability.
The Charter also protects individuals from being searched or arrested
without cause and guarantees a fair trial to those accused of crimes.
The role of the courts: The courts play an integral role in upholding
Charter rights. In criminal cases, judges have the power to quash
charges if the police abuse their powers and to reject evidence
obtained by violating a suspect's Charter rights. As well, citizens
who believe a law or government action violates their Charter rights
can apply to the courts for a ruling on its validity. The government
must show that any violation of the rights of an individual or
minority group is reasonable and justified in a free and democratic
society. Judges have the power to strike down any law that violates
the Charter, or they may order the government to amend the law to make
it consistent with the Charter. Parliament and the provincial and
territorial legislatures can use the Charter's notwithstanding clause
to overrule the courts and keep a discriminatory law in force, but
governments have been reluctant to use this power to limit the
constitutional rights of their citizens.
Under the constitution, the federal government is responsible for
national issues such as defence and foreign policy, while the
provinces and territories regulate education, health care and other
fields of local importance. If a dispute arises over jurisdiction, the
courts may be called upon to interpret the constitution and decide
which level of government is responsible for implementing a policy or
service.
Please note: The information contained in this section is intended to
provide a simple overview of the Canadian Justice System. While every
effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, the
Association makes no pronouncement on the practices & procedures
employed across the country or on the likely outcome of any legal
proceedings. The circumstances of any particular case may result in a
modification or refinement of the law and its application. Nothing
contained in this section is intended to be considered as legal advice
and you should not rely upon it as such. For legal advice, please
consult an authorized practitioner in your area.
http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/role_of_courts-en.asp?l=4
The Role of the Courts
The justice system is the mechanism that upholds the rule of law. Our
courts provide a forum to resolve disputes and to test and enforce
laws in a fair and rational manner. The courts are an impartial forum,
and judges are free to apply the law without regard to the
government's wishes or the weight of public opinion. Court decisions
are based on what the law says and what the evidence proves; there is
no place in the courts for suspicion, bias or favouritism. This is why
justice is often symbolized as a blindfolded figure balancing a set of
scales, oblivious to anything that could detract from the pursuit of
an outcome that is just and fair.
http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/rule_of_law-en.asp?l=4
The Rule of Law
Our laws embody the basic moral values of our society. They impose
limits on the conduct of individuals in order to promote the greater
good and to make our communities safe places to live. It is against
the law to steal, to injure another person, to drive recklessly or to
pollute the environment, to name just a few of the countless ways the
law is designed to protect us. We are said to be ruled by law, not by
those who enforce the law or wield government power. No one in Canada
is above the law. Everyone, no matter how wealthy or how powerful they
are, must obey the law or face the consequences.
http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/qualities_required-en.asp?l=5
The Qualities Required of a Judge
The judge is "the pillar of our entire justice system," the Supreme
Court of Canada has said, and the public has a right to demand
"virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial
function." Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity
in both their professional and personal lives. They should be
knowledgeable about the law, willing to undertake in-depth legal
research, and able to write decisions that are clear and cogent. Their
judgment should be sound and they should be able to make informed
decisions that will stand up to close scrutiny. Judges should be fair
and open-minded, and should appear to be fair and open-minded. They
should be good listeners but should be able, when required, to ask
questions that get to the heart of the issue before the court. They
should be courteous in the courtroom but firm when it is necessary to
rein in a rambling lawyer, a disrespectful litigant or an unruly
spectator.
Judges come to the bench after making a significant contribution to
the legal profession and their communities. Many have been active in
law societies and have done volunteer and charitable work. Others have
been active in politics or won elected office. Judges who have served
on a lower court are sometimes promoted to a higher court, such as a
provincial court of appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada.
http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/role_of_judge-en.asp?l=5
The Role of the Judge
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.
Many criminal cases - and almost all civil ones - are heard by a judge
sitting without a jury. The judge is the "trier of fact," deciding
whether the evidence is credible and which witnesses are telling the
truth. Then the judge applies the law to these facts to determine
whether a civil claim has been established on a balance of
probabilities or whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in
criminal cases, that the suspect is guilty. Anyone who faces five
years or more in prison if convicted of a crime has the right, under
the Charter, to request a jury trial, and many defendants facing
serious offences such as murder opt to have a jury hear their case.
The jurors become the triers of fact and assess the evidence while the
judge takes on the role of legal advisor, explaining the law to the
jurors. The jurors then retire to deliberate on a verdict. In criminal
cases the jury's verdict, either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" must be
unanimous.
If the defendant is convicted of a crime, the judge passes sentence,
imposing a penalty that can range from a fine to a prison term
depending on the severity of the offence. In civil cases the judge
decides whether a claim is valid and assesses damages, grants an
injunction or orders some other form of redress to the plaintiff,
unless a jury has been empanelled to make these decisions.
http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/constitution-en.asp?l=2
The objects of the Association are:
the advancement and maintenance of the judiciary as a separate and
independent branch of government
to liaise with the Canadian Judicial Council to improve the
administration of justice and to complement its functions through
conferences, seminars, educational and other programs
to provide a collegial forum to meet and discuss matters of common
interest for the purpose of improving the administration of justice
to take such actions and make such representations as may be
appropriate in order to assure that the salaries and other benefits
guaranteed by s. 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and provided by
the Judges Act, R.S.C. 1985, Cap. J-1, are maintained at levels and in
a manner which is fair and reasonable and which reflects the
importance of a competent and dedicated judiciary
to concern itself with the provisions of the Judges Act and the
procedures it establishes pertaining to complaints, investigations and
inquiries concerning the conduct of judges, and to provide appropriate
guidelines and assistance to its members in relation to those matters
to play a role in determining policy for the continuing education
of judges and in the work of the National Judicial Institute
to seek to achieve a better public understanding of the role of
the judiciary in the administration of justice, and in so doing to
initiate or support programs of public education and public relations
to monitor, and where appropriate, seek enhancement of the level
of support services available to the judiciary, in cooperation with
the Canadian Judicial Council
to address the needs and concerns of supernumerary and retired judges.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/david-smith-judicature-act-supreme-court-1.3937576
Chief justice wants judge-moving bill reviewed by Supreme Court
David Smith calls on national group of superior court judges to challenge proposed N.B. changes
By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Jan 16, 2017 1:31 PM AT
Chief Justice David Smith of the New Brunswick Court of
Queen's Bench wants the Gallant government's proposed changes to the
Judicature Act to be sent to the Supreme Court of Canada as a reference
case. (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
David Smith is asking the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association to challenge the bill through a reference case to the Supreme Court.
The legislation, Bill 17, would give the provincial justice minister a veto over Smith's power to transfer justices who sit on his court. The existing law gives Smith the power to do that on his own.
The association, Smith told the Moncton Rotary Club during a noon speech on Monday, "is the proper body to address the judicial independence issue that exists."
"I am hopeful that the association will take up the gauntlet and seek a review of this issue by the highest court."
- Judge-moving legislation introduced again
- Judge-moving bill aims to help Dominic LeBlanc, Tory MLA charges
In the meantime, Smith has written to Premier Brian Gallant and Justice Minister Denis Landry asking them to withdraw Bill 17 until the association decides whether to fight the law.
The premier has yet to receive Smith's letter, Elaine Bell of the Justice Department said Monday.
The province did not have any comment on Smith's statements Monday.
Bill reintroduced
This is the latest move in Smith's fight against the legislation, which was introduced almost a year ago as Bill 21. The bill died when the legislative session ended last July but the Liberals brought it back in the new session in the fall as Bill 17.
The bill, which would amend the Judicature Act governing how courts operate, has not yet passed.
'It's a pretty mundane and small thing.' - Brian Gallant, premier
The Liberal government has said a veto over Smith's unilateral power is necessary because Court of Queen's Bench judges are frequently named by Ottawa to vacancies in smaller towns, only to be soon transferred to larger cities by Smith.
But the Liberals have refused to provide a specific example of a transfer that they found unacceptable or that they would have vetoed.
All of the transfers Smith has made were "as a result of a vacancy, and as a result of a request by a judge," Smith told reporters Monday. "There was never a judge moved that hadn't made a request to make that move."
In a year-end interview, Gallant said he was "a bit surprised this has been this big of an issue. … It's a pretty mundane and small thing." He said the government "may never use the power" it would get when the bill passes.
National legal issue
But Smith says the bill raises an important national legal issue because Canadians provinces have a patchwork of laws on how judges can be moved.
Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan have laws that give elected politicians some role in the decision but other provinces do not. "There's disparity among the provinces," Smith told reporters. "It seems to me this needs to be settled by the Supreme Court of Canada."
'That's getting out into the field of battle where I shouldn't be.' - David Smith, chief justice Court of Queen's Bench
Smith said he has sent a formal request to the association Monday morning but he hadn't received a reply. He said the president, Justice Susan Himel of Ontario, didn't say whether she would send the request on to a committee that would decide on taking on his case.
"I'll wait and see what they do," he told reporters.
The association couldn't be immediately reached Monday for a comment.
Smith said it would be "improper" for him to file the reference case himself. "That's getting out into the field of battle where I shouldn't be."
Reluctant involvement
Smith first spoke out against the bill last February, something he told the luncheon audience that he did reluctantly because of his need to be neutral and independent.
"Is my responsibility to refrain from influencing government policy more important than to comment on what appears to me to be a deliberate infringement on judicial independence?" he said to the Rotarians.
He decided that it was his "duty to my judges as well as the citizenry" to speak out.
"Naturally I must do so in the most respectful and least confrontational manner . High-profile disputes with immoderate language between the executive and the judiciary do nothing to promote public confidence in the administration of justice."
Smith used the speech to lay out his version of events, including that:
- He was not consulted on the bill affecting his decision-making powers or given any notice that it would be introduced.
- He offered a compromise to the government that would see the minister notified of transfers, the judge being moved give his or her consent, and Smith offering his reasons in writing if the government wanted them. The province refused unless Smith agreed to a veto, he said.
- His lawyer filed a right to information request on the bill that the province rejected but that produced a list of documents suggesting the bill was put together quickly in Premier Brian Gallant's office.
"Further public differences will yield nothing positive."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/kirk-macdonald-dominic-leblanc-judge-moving-bill-1.3866450
Judge-moving bill aims to help Dominic LeBlanc, Tory MLA charges
Kirk MacDonald says Liberals drafted bill to help put Jolène Richard and André Richard on court
By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Nov 24, 2016 6:03 PM AT
Tory MLA Kirk MacDonald said in the legislature he
believes the Liberal government's judge-moving bill is designed to help
put Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc's spouse and brother-in-law on the Court
of Queen's Bench. (CBC)
A Progressive Conservative MLA has taken the unusual step of
naming names — including that of a sitting provincial court judge — in
his attack on a proposed law on how Court of Queen's Bench judges are
transferred.
Kirk MacDonald told the legislature last week that he believes the government bill was drafted to help the spouse and the brother-in-law of federal Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc, a close ally of Premier Brian Gallant.
"I will give you two names. I will give you Jolène Richard and André
Richard, two people I believe are looking for judicial appointments here
in New Brunswick," MacDonald said during second-reading debate on the
bill.
In fact, Jolène Richard is already a provincial court judge. André Richard is her brother and a senior lawyer at Stewart McKelvey.
"Dominic LeBlanc has some judges that he wants to appoint in New Brunswick, and the framework as it currently exists does not allow for that to happen," MacDonald said.
André Richard stated Thursday he "had no involvement in the government's decision to propose changes to the Judicature Act."
"As you know, my sister is already a judge who sits in Moncton. I fail to understand why our names are being brought into this debate."
The Liberal bill would amend the Judicature Act, which governs how courts operate, to give the justice minister a veto over Chief Justice David Smith of the Court of Queen's Bench transferring judges from one court to another.
PC MLAs have hinted in the past about who they believe the bill was
designed to help. But until now, no one was willing to name them.
It's rare for politicians to draw sitting judges into partisan debates, and the veteran Tory MLA did not offer any evidence to back up his allegations. He turned down a request to explain his views in an interview.
Parliamentary privilege protects members of the legislature from being sued for defamation or held in contempt of court for comments they make during proceedings. No such protection exists for things they say outside the legislature.
Provincial court judges such as Richard are appointed by the province, but Court of Queen's Bench justices are named by Ottawa. Both courts are administered by the province, but the current law gives Smith the power to move judges on his court on his own.
Smith has argued the bill would threaten the independence of the courts, which could make it unconstitutional.
The Liberals introduced the bill during the last session, but it didn't pass before the session ended. They brought it back last week.
Justice Minister Denis Landry said last week the bill was designed to bring "best practices" to court administration and end the pattern of justices being named to smaller courthouses and then being transferred soon after.
"This is what we want to correct," he said. "If we name a judge, they should reside there, for a long period of time, not just two or three months then move them where they want to go."
Asked whether he'd veto such a transfer, Landry said, "This is what we'll see."
Landry's department said Thursday it would not comment on MacDonald's accusation.
MacDonald said during last week's debate that it's true Court of Queen's Bench justices are often appointed to smaller locations and are then moved to one of the three largest cities.
He said that court postings in Moncton, Fredericton, and Saint John are "The positions that everyone seems to want."
And he said the current system for moving judges, "which is controlled by the chief justice, does not work for Dominic LeBlanc and the Liberal Party of New Brunswick," MacDonald said.
"They want to change it. They want to have a situation where they have a mechanism to control that decision and to effect change on that decision."
In June, Smith transferred Justice Tracey DeWare from Woodstock to Moncton and Justice Richard Petrie from Saint John to Woodstock.
DeWare was moved to fill a vacancy after Justice Brigitte Robichaud switched to supernumerary, or part-time, status.
Jolène Richard did not respond to interview requests.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/ernest-drapeau-david-smith-bill-21-1.3650540
Kirk MacDonald told the legislature last week that he believes the government bill was drafted to help the spouse and the brother-in-law of federal Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc, a close ally of Premier Brian Gallant.
A Progressive Conservative MLA believes the
Liberal government's judge-moving bill was drafted to help have André
Richard and Jolène Richard appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench.
(CBC)
In fact, Jolène Richard is already a provincial court judge. André Richard is her brother and a senior lawyer at Stewart McKelvey.
"Dominic LeBlanc has some judges that he wants to appoint in New Brunswick, and the framework as it currently exists does not allow for that to happen," MacDonald said.
André Richard stated Thursday he "had no involvement in the government's decision to propose changes to the Judicature Act."
"As you know, my sister is already a judge who sits in Moncton. I fail to understand why our names are being brought into this debate."
Bill gives veto to minister
The Liberal bill would amend the Judicature Act, which governs how courts operate, to give the justice minister a veto over Chief Justice David Smith of the Court of Queen's Bench transferring judges from one court to another.
Court of Queen's Bench Chief Justice David
Smith has transferred 13 judges since becoming chief justice in 1998.
(Acadia University)
It's rare for politicians to draw sitting judges into partisan debates, and the veteran Tory MLA did not offer any evidence to back up his allegations. He turned down a request to explain his views in an interview.
Parliamentary privilege
Parliamentary privilege protects members of the legislature from being sued for defamation or held in contempt of court for comments they make during proceedings. No such protection exists for things they say outside the legislature.
Provincial court judges such as Richard are appointed by the province, but Court of Queen's Bench justices are named by Ottawa. Both courts are administered by the province, but the current law gives Smith the power to move judges on his court on his own.
Smith has argued the bill would threaten the independence of the courts, which could make it unconstitutional.
Bill brought back
The Liberals introduced the bill during the last session, but it didn't pass before the session ended. They brought it back last week.
Justice Minister Denis Landry said last week the bill was designed to bring "best practices" to court administration and end the pattern of justices being named to smaller courthouses and then being transferred soon after.
- Judge-moving legislation introduced again
- 2 chief justices appear at odds over judge-moving bill
- 7 things list reveals about controversial judge-moving bill
"This is what we want to correct," he said. "If we name a judge, they should reside there, for a long period of time, not just two or three months then move them where they want to go."
Asked whether he'd veto such a transfer, Landry said, "This is what we'll see."
Landry's department said Thursday it would not comment on MacDonald's accusation.
Larger locations favoured
MacDonald said during last week's debate that it's true Court of Queen's Bench justices are often appointed to smaller locations and are then moved to one of the three largest cities.
Federal Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc is a close ally of New Brunswick Premier Brian Gallant. (CBC)
He said that court postings in Moncton, Fredericton, and Saint John are "The positions that everyone seems to want."
And he said the current system for moving judges, "which is controlled by the chief justice, does not work for Dominic LeBlanc and the Liberal Party of New Brunswick," MacDonald said.
- Upside to judge-moving bill touted by ex-constitutional lawyer
- Gallant government's judge-moving bill questioned by legal expert
"They want to change it. They want to have a situation where they have a mechanism to control that decision and to effect change on that decision."
In June, Smith transferred Justice Tracey DeWare from Woodstock to Moncton and Justice Richard Petrie from Saint John to Woodstock.
DeWare was moved to fill a vacancy after Justice Brigitte Robichaud switched to supernumerary, or part-time, status.
Jolène Richard did not respond to interview requests.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/ernest-drapeau-david-smith-bill-21-1.3650540
2 chief justices appear at odds over judge-moving bill
Terse letter exchange between David Smith and Ernest Drapeau sheds light on debate about Bill 21
By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Jun 24, 2016 7:08 AM AT
Court of Appeal Chief Justice Ernest Drapeau, left,
cancelled a Feb. 29 meeting about Bill 29 after Court of Queen's Bench
Chief Justice David Smith, right, said he could not attend on short
notice. (CBC)
Chief Justice Ernest Drapeau of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal cancelled a Feb. 29 meeting to discuss the legislation after Chief Justice David Smith of the Court of Queen's Bench said he would not take part.
Smith told Drapeau in a Feb. 26 letter he couldn't attend because he was out of the country "and a four-day notice period prevents adequate preparation for and personal attendance at this meeting."
- Liberal minister accused of 'extraordinary' attack on 'judicial integrity'
- Gallant government's judge-moving bill questioned by legal expert
Later the same day, Drapeau wrote back that, "I deeply regret your decision to not participate in the meeting."
Drapeau's terse letter adds that even if Smith was away, participation was "an option that was available by way of telephone."
The rare glimpse at the private interactions of the two senior judges sheds more light on the debate over Bill 21.
Judicial disagreement
The chief justices of the New Brunswick Court
of Appeal and the Court of Queen's Bench appear to have different
options about a proposed bill that would give the minister of justice
the power to veto the movement of judges within the province. (CBC)
The bill will amend the Judicature Act to take away Smith's unilateral power to transfer Court of Queen's Bench justices and would let the justice minister veto any move.
Smith calls the bill a potential violation of the court's independence.
After failing to persuade the Liberal government to change the bill, he's now warning that he is looking at "further options." The bill is expected to pass the legislature next week.
The Liberals have said they consulted Drapeau about the bill and he approved it.
They also say Justice Judy Clendening was filling in for Smith on administrative issues while he was vacationing in Florida and she gave her approval to the bill the day before it was introduced.
Michael Bray, Smith's lawyer, disputes that interpretation of events.
Bray said Clendening told Smith that she got a call from a government official that didn't mention the coming bill and that she said the general idea of a veto would be "constitutionally suspect."
Drapeau has not spoken publicly about his view of bill and his office did not respond to an interview request on Thursday.
Drapeau, Smith and the chief justice of the provincial court, Pierre Arseneault, sit on a committee that discusses court administration issues with provincial officials.
Letters written 3 weeks after bill
The exchange of letters obtained by CBC News began three weeks after the bill was introduced, after it began to generate political controversy and after Smith went public with his objections.
Bray said Smith was only told about the bill "after the fact" of its introduction in the legislature on Feb. 5.
- Justice David Smith pushing forward with legal fight over Liberal bill
- Chief Justice David Smith continues fight against Liberal bill
Bray said Smith was still in Florida when Drapeau asked for the Feb. 29 meeting and didn't want to discuss the bill by conference call because on a previous conference call he'd been "frustrated because of the poor quality" of the call.
'I see no useful purpose in going ahead, and the meeting is therefore cancelled.' - Ernest Drapeau, chief justice New Brunswick Court of Appeal
"He felt this was important enough that he wanted a face-to-face meeting, either with a representative of his there, or when he returned," Bray said.
Smith said in his letter to Drapeau that he had asked Justice Fred Ferguson to attend on his behalf.
But Drapeau responded that given Smith's decision to not participate, "I see no useful purpose in going ahead and the meeting is therefore cancelled."
Smith wrote back Feb. 29, offering to meet Drapeau in Fredericton on March 14 or at a judicial event in Moncton on March 18.
Courts have different perspectives
Asked if the exchange between Drapeau and Smith was a sign of a healthy administration of the justice system, Bray said that, "I don't think anything that's happened on Bill 21 has been terribly healthy for the administration of justice."
Ann Whiteway-Brown, the president of the Canadian Bar Association's New Brunswick branch, said the apparent disagreement between the chief justices makes it "difficult" to fix the bill "because the two courts certainly have a different perspective on it."
She said she finds it odd the province consulted Drapeau on a bill that doesn't affect his court while not consulting Smith, whose court the bill does affect.
Justice Minister Denis Landry refused to comment on Thursday.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/justice-smith-arseneault-move-judges-1.3591759
Liberal minister accused of 'extraordinary' attack on 'judicial integrity'
Donald Arseneault's comments about how Chief Justice David Smith moves judges were inaccurate, lawyer says
By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: May 20, 2016 4:34 PM AT
Court of Queen's Bench Chief Justice David Smith's lawyer
says the 13 judges he has moved over the years were to 'facilitate
systemic requirements and allow for personal and family circumstances.'
(Andrew Robson for CBC)
A lawyer for the chief justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of New
Brunswick is accusing a Liberal cabinet minister of "an extraordinary
impugning of judicial integrity" in comments he made this week about how
David Smith moves judges from court to court.
In a written statement, Smith's lawyer, Michael Bray, says the "negative tone and inaccuracy of statements" by Donald Arseneault risks eroding public respect for the justice system.
Bray's statement also disputes several assertions Arseneault made about the consultations leading up to Bill 21.
The bill would amend the Judicature Act to give the minister of justice a veto over when Smith can transfer a justice from one courthouse to another. Smith said earlier this year that could threaten the independence of judges.
In the legislature on Wednesday, Arseneault listed 13 justices that
Smith has moved over the years and suggested Justice Marie-Claude Blais,
appointed by the Conservatives to the Court of Queen's Bench in Saint
John, was angling for a move to Moncton.
"Of course, amongst friends, if we did it 13 times, we could surely do it 14 times," Arseneault told the legislature.
Under the existing law, Smith could move Blais, a former PC cabinet minister, to Moncton on his own, without the government's approval. But the new bill would give the Liberals the power to block that.
Smith has hired Bray to represent him in the increasingly contentious debate about the bill.
In the written statement, Bray says the 13 moves by Smith were done "both to facilitate systemic requirements and allow for personal and family circumstances."
"A suggestion that a senior member of the judiciary has abused or will in the future abuse his position in fulfilling such responsibilities for reasons of friendship should be supported by facts," Bray wrote.
Justice Minister Stephen Horsman told CBC News on Friday that he had "no idea what [Arseneault] is implying" by using the phrase "amongst friends."
Asked if he knew of friendships playing a role in Smith's decision, Horsman didn't answer but said he respects Smith and wants to work with him.
Bray's statement also disputes some of Arseneault's other comments on Wednesday:
Bray's statement came as Horsman himself was trying to extricate himself from a new controversy Friday caused by his own comments about the bill.
In question period, Horsman told opposition MLAs that "I have had many judges call me and tell me personally" that they were glad the bill requires their approval for their own moves "because they did not want to be moved."
That led to more criticism from the opposition.
Progressive Conservative MLA Jody Carr said it was inappropriate if Horsman was having private conversations with justices because it could create "undue influence" on how they handle cases involving the government.
Green Party Leader David Coon said the courts have ruled in the past that "you can't have politicians messing about with judges."
Horsman then contacted CBC News to say that he had misspoken.
He said justices weren't calling him to discuss the bill but had told him at chance encounters they were pleased Bill 21 requires the chief justice to consult them before moving them.
"No one's actually personally calling me," he said. "I have nothing on speed-dial. No one's personally calling me saying they like it. I see people at functions, and they come up to me and state, 'Thanks for including judges in the whole process' … because right now, they're not."
Horsman says Bill 21 isn't unconstitutional because in two provinces, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, governments can already move judges unilaterally.
Debate on Bill 21 was adjourned on Wednesday after Coon raised procedural objections to its third reading. Premier Brian Gallant says he intends to get the bill passed when the legislature returns on June 28.
In a written statement, Smith's lawyer, Michael Bray, says the "negative tone and inaccuracy of statements" by Donald Arseneault risks eroding public respect for the justice system.
Bray's statement also disputes several assertions Arseneault made about the consultations leading up to Bill 21.
The bill would amend the Judicature Act to give the minister of justice a veto over when Smith can transfer a justice from one courthouse to another. Smith said earlier this year that could threaten the independence of judges.
On Wednesday, Liberal cabinet minister Donald
Arseneault suggested Justice Marie-Claude Blais was angling for a move
to Moncton from Saint John. (CBC)
"Of course, amongst friends, if we did it 13 times, we could surely do it 14 times," Arseneault told the legislature.
Under the existing law, Smith could move Blais, a former PC cabinet minister, to Moncton on his own, without the government's approval. But the new bill would give the Liberals the power to block that.
Smith has hired Bray to represent him in the increasingly contentious debate about the bill.
In the written statement, Bray says the 13 moves by Smith were done "both to facilitate systemic requirements and allow for personal and family circumstances."
"A suggestion that a senior member of the judiciary has abused or will in the future abuse his position in fulfilling such responsibilities for reasons of friendship should be supported by facts," Bray wrote.
Justice Minister Stephen Horsman told CBC News on Friday that he had "no idea what [Arseneault] is implying" by using the phrase "amongst friends."
Asked if he knew of friendships playing a role in Smith's decision, Horsman didn't answer but said he respects Smith and wants to work with him.
Bray's statement also disputes some of Arseneault's other comments on Wednesday:
- The minister mentioned Nova Scotia's law, which requires that the chief justice there consult the justice minister. Bray says while Smith is opposed to giving the minister a veto over his moves, he was willing to sign an agreement that he'd consult the minister. Bray says Horsman rejected that offer.
- Arseneault said Smith had not responded to repeated phone calls. Bray's statement says Smith "has no record" of any attempt to contact him while the bill was being prepared or while he was out of the country.
- Arseneault said Smith gave Justice Judy Clendening "full authority" to "make decisions" on court administration while he was away and that Clendening "gave her approval" to Bill 21. Bray says Clendening got a call from a Department of Justice official the day before the bill was introduced and she warned the official the bill "might be constitutionally suspect."
Horsman clarifies comments
Bray's statement came as Horsman himself was trying to extricate himself from a new controversy Friday caused by his own comments about the bill.
In question period, Horsman told opposition MLAs that "I have had many judges call me and tell me personally" that they were glad the bill requires their approval for their own moves "because they did not want to be moved."
That led to more criticism from the opposition.
'No one's personally calling me saying they like it. I see people at functions, and they come up to me and state, 'Thanks for including judges in the whole process' … because right now, they're not.' - Stephen Horsman, Public Safety minister
Progressive Conservative MLA Jody Carr said it was inappropriate if Horsman was having private conversations with justices because it could create "undue influence" on how they handle cases involving the government.
Green Party Leader David Coon said the courts have ruled in the past that "you can't have politicians messing about with judges."
Horsman then contacted CBC News to say that he had misspoken.
He said justices weren't calling him to discuss the bill but had told him at chance encounters they were pleased Bill 21 requires the chief justice to consult them before moving them.
"No one's actually personally calling me," he said. "I have nothing on speed-dial. No one's personally calling me saying they like it. I see people at functions, and they come up to me and state, 'Thanks for including judges in the whole process' … because right now, they're not."
Horsman says Bill 21 isn't unconstitutional because in two provinces, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, governments can already move judges unilaterally.
Debate on Bill 21 was adjourned on Wednesday after Coon raised procedural objections to its third reading. Premier Brian Gallant says he intends to get the bill passed when the legislature returns on June 28.
Ted Flemming, Mike Murphy question changes over powers to move judges
Premier Brian Gallant defends changes, saying amendments shouldn't affect how judges do their jobs
By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Mar 07, 2016 8:20 AM AT
Former attorneys general Ted Flemming (left) and Mike
Murphy (right) are criticizing the Liberal government's proposed law
that would curb the ability of the chief justice of the Court of Queen's
Bench to decide where judges can work. (CBC, CBC)
t's the accusation that dare not speak its name.
- Chief Justice David Smith 'surprised' by Liberal bill to curb his powers
- PCs say new Liberal bill threatens the independence of judges
But neither of them will come out and say what they think it is.
During a legislative committee session last week, Progressive Conservative MLA Ted Flemming tossed out his theory while questioning Attorney General Serge Rousselle about Bill 21.
It will give Justice Minister Stephen Horsman a veto over the chief justice of the Court of Queen's Bench transferring his judges from one court to another.
"If I were a suspicious person, this smacks of somebody wanting to be a judge, and wanting to decide where they want to live," said Flemming, who was attorney general in the David Alward PC government.
'We just don't want to see a continuation of having some regions be a revolving door for judges to get into the system, but then to quickly leave after.' - Premier Brian Gallant
"It doesn't pass the smell test, depending on who is the premier of New Brunswick. We have a premier in name and we have a de facto premier, and depending on which is calling these shots, it just smacks."
The "de facto premier" label is how the PCs often refer to federal cabinet minister Dominic LeBlanc, Premier Brian Gallant's political mentor.
LeBlanc's wife Jolène Richard is a provincial court judge.
But in an interview, Flemming wouldn't say who he was referring to when he said "somebody" wanted to be a judge.
"Oh, look, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I have anyone in mind," he said, pointing out he framed his comments as hypothetical.
"I just said, 'If I was a suspicious person, I would think that.' But I'm not going to speculate one way or the other."
Judges are appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench by the federal government.
Consultation complaints
The bill would amend the Judicature Act, which lays out how the courts work in New Brunswick.
Chief Justice of Court of Queen's Bench David
Smith has criticized the proposed legislation. Justice Minister Stephen
Horsman would have a veto over the chief justice's decision on
transferring his judges from one court to another. (Acadia
University/CBC)
The Liberal amendment would change the law to require him to seek the "consent" of the provincial justice minister before moving a judge who is already on the bench.
The current chief justice, David Smith, has complained that the Liberals didn't consult him on an amendment that would curb his powers.
Smith said in a letter last month the change could "overstep the boundary and infringe upon judicial independence."
Former Liberal attorney general Mike Murphy said on Twitter the real motives for the bill are an open secret among lawyers.
"To be clear, there is NO ONE in the legal community that doesn't know who sent this legislation in to be passed and for what reason," he tweeted.
"I'm not completely in disagreement on the basis of the legislation but am surprised at the power of some not in [government] to do this."
Murphy also turned down a request for an interview about what he meant. Murphy lost the 2012 Liberal leadership to Gallant.
Amendments fixes problem: Gallant
Gallant said Friday the bill is aimed at reducing cases of judges being appointed to one court and then being moved to another, a problem that he says has been acute in areas, such as Saint John and northern New Brunswick.
Premier Brian Gallant defended the Judicature
Act amendments on Friday, saying the changes shouldn't interfere with
how judges work. (CBC)
Marc Richard, the executive director of the Law Society of New Brunswick, says the society hasn't heard of that being a problem.
"No, not on our side," he said.
"Never heard anything about it. If there was something, maybe [the government] knew something about it, but we're not aware of it."
Gallant also said the change ought not to interfere with how judges do their work.
"Judges, when they're appointed to a certain region, I would think expect to be working there for the remainder of their career, so I don't see that this would have much of a negative impact on anyone," he said.
There's a vacancy expected on the Court of Queen's Bench in Moncton in
June, according to Michael Bray, a Fredericton lawyer and former court
administrator who sometimes advises Smith.
Rousselle grilled on changes
Flemming also used last week's committee appearance by Rousselle to question the attorney general about another rule change on judges.
Attorney General Serge Rousselle was questioned about the proposed law during a committee hearing last week. (CBC)
Flemming said it was "very peculiar" the two things happened the same day. "It strikes me there may have been a fair bit of scurrying going on that day."
He asked whether Rousselle had "refused to sign" cabinet documents on Bill 21, forcing Horsman to be put in charge of it instead.
Rousselle said the attorney general and the justice minister are not the same person, as they usually have been in the past.
With the justice minister in charge of administering the courts, it made sense for him to oversee a bill on where judges sit.
But Rousselle wouldn't say whether he agreed with the bill.
As attorney general, he said, he is the province's lead lawyer, and his legal advice to his client, the government, doesn't have to be made public.
Murphy used his Twitter account to predict Gallant and Rousselle will decide to kill the amendment before it passes.
"The Premier is a very educated lawyer with a masters in law," he wrote.
"It's my belief his pride in his own capability will ensure he stops it.
"Serge Rousselle while not justice minister is extremely well educated in law and a smart person. ... He won't allow this in the end either."
No comments:
Post a Comment