From: "OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX" <Premier@gov.bc.ca>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 01:23:46 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: A little Deja Vu from the Maritimes for the
lawyers Michel Bastarache and Rob Talach
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to write. I appreciate hearing feedback
and suggestions from the people of British Columbia as we work
together to build a better BC.
Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response
to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed
at the earliest opportunity.
In the event that your inquiry more appropriately falls within the
mandate of a Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer
your email for review and consideration.
Again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
John Horgan
Premier
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 04:59:25 -0400
Subject: Re: A little Deja Vu from the Maritimes for the lawyers
Michel Bastarache and Rob Talach
To: Snap <snapvancouver@snapnetwork.org
Not of the type you are referring to
On 12/5/19, Snap <snapvancouver@snapnetwork.org
> Thanks for pointing this out, David. Are you a survivor?
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Dec 5, 2019, at 5:23 PM, David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
>> wrote:
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 21:23:41 -0400
Subject: A little Deja Vu from the Maritimes for the lawyers Michel Bastarache
and Rob Talach
To: SWOntario@snapnetwork.org, jeboyle@rogers.com,
marion.kelly12@hotmail.ca, SNAPVancouver@snapnetwork.org,
laura.clementson@cbc.ca, Gillian.Findlay@cbc.ca
Cc: motomaniac333@gmail.com, mbastarache@plaideurs.ca,
rtalach@beckettinjurylawyers.
sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca,
barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, premier@ontario.ca, premier@gnb.ca,
PREMIER@gov.ns.ca, premier@gov.ab.ca, scott.moe@gov.sk.ca,
premier@gov.nt.ca, premier@gov.yk.ca, premier@gov.bc.ca,
premier@leg.gov.mb.ca, premier@gov.nl.ca, premier@gov.pe.ca,
press@larouchepac.com, Newsroom@globeandmail.com, steve.murphy@ctv.ca,
oldmaison@yahoo.com
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
PREMIER@gov.ns.ca, premier@gov.ab.ca, scott.moe@gov.sk.ca,
premier@gov.nt.ca, premier@gov.yk.ca, premier@gov.bc.ca,
premier@leg.gov.mb.ca, premier@gov.nl.ca, premier@gov.pe.ca,
press@larouchepac.com, Newsroom@globeandmail.com, steve.murphy@ctv.ca,
oldmaison@yahoo.com
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
56 lawsuits against Catholic Church that allege sexual abuse are before N.B. courts
Every month, new legal action is taken against the church in Moncton, Bathurst and Edmundston
· CBC News · Posted: Nov 15, 2017 6:00 AM AT
Retired judge Michel Bastarache was surprised to see so many
lawsuits still active against the Catholic Church in New Brunswick
after the conciliation process he led. (CBC)
Number shocks former judge
The 56 new lawsuits were all filed after an extensive conciliation process.
Between 2012 and 2014, retired judge Michel Bastarache, who was
brought in by the church, spoke to hundreds of victims and worked out
a compensation formula for the church to pay them all.
In the end, the Archdiocese of Moncton had to come up with $10.6
million for victims, and the Diocese of Bathurst $5.5 million.
Victims received between $15,000 and $300,000, depending on the
severity of the abuse, how old they were when it started, and how many
years it lasted.
Bastarache said the conciliation process had to be delayed three times
to accommodate new victims, which is why he's taken aback by so many
lawsuits still before the courts.
"I'm just surprised that the numbers are so high," he said.
He also wonders why these alleged victims didn't take advantage of the
process and are choosing to go to court instead.
"I heard about a hundred victims in Bathurst, another hundred in
Moncton, and those people — 90 per cent of them, wanted absolute
confidentiality," said Bastarache.
"A lot of them never told their story to anyone, not even in their family."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
Lawyer says sexual abuse victims still waiting for money from Catholic Church
'There's a lot of frustration, and a lot of anger, and definitely distress'
· CBC News · Posted: Sep 13, 2019 7:32 PM AT
Lawyer Robert Talach said paying victims should take priority over a $7 million renovation project for Notre-Dame-de-l'Assomption Cathedral in Moncton. (Beckett Personal Injury Lawyers)
"There's a lot of frustration, and a lot of anger, and definitely
distress," said Talach, who leads the sexual abuse department for the
London, Ont.-based Beckett Personal Injury Lawyers.
"There's distress by these victims who were victimized as children and
continue to remain somewhat vulnerable."
Talach said he and another lawyer are representing about 50 victims
between the two of them.
A dozen of Talach's clients have reached settlements with the
archdiocese, said Talach. The other dozen still haven't reached an
agreement with the church.
But Talach said the battle isn't over even for those who have reached
settlements. They still haven't received their money — and most of
these settlements were agreed to more than three years ago.
Talach said the money offered is, for the victims, "taking pennies on
the dollar."
Need I say I got a quite a giggle out of watching my political enemies
argue each other in the comment section today?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
distress," said Talach, who leads the sexual abuse department for the
London, Ont.-based Beckett Personal Injury Lawyers.
"There's distress by these victims who were victimized as children and
continue to remain somewhat vulnerable."
Talach said he and another lawyer are representing about 50 victims
between the two of them.
A dozen of Talach's clients have reached settlements with the
archdiocese, said Talach. The other dozen still haven't reached an
agreement with the church.
But Talach said the battle isn't over even for those who have reached
settlements. They still haven't received their money — and most of
these settlements were agreed to more than three years ago.
Talach said the money offered is, for the victims, "taking pennies on
the dollar."
Need I say I got a quite a giggle out of watching my political enemies
argue each other in the comment section today?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
Bathurst church gets cheque from insurers for sexual abuse victims
Company, diocese involved in a drawn-out court battle over who should pay victims of Catholic priests
CBC News · Posted: Dec 04, 2019 5:41 PM AT
Rev. Wesley Wade said the church can begin trying to move on. (CBC)
47 Comments
Marguerite Deschamps
This CBC article says it best:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/
I don't know it I could say it here.
Drake Ramore
The Diocese got away with one here. Failing to disclose that the
Church has turned a blind idea to active known pedophiles in their
ranks should have disentitled to them to coverage.
Marguerite Deschamps
Reply to @Drake Ramore: quite an entitled bunch!
James Risdon
Reply to @Marguerite Deschamps: Who?
Thursday, 5 December 2019
Survivors create public list of Catholic clerics accused of sexual abuse
From: "OfficeofthePremier, Office PREM:EX" <Premier@gov.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 22:24:44 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE SNAP and the Fifth Estate Please enjoy
the mail I promised to send
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to write. I appreciate hearing feedback
and suggestions from the people of British Columbia as we work
together to build a better BC.
Due to the volume of incoming messages, this is an automated response
to let you know that your email has been received and will be reviewed
at the earliest opportunity.
In the event that your inquiry more appropriately falls within the
mandate of a Ministry or other area of government, staff will refer
your email for review and consideration.
Again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
John Horgan
Premier
---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 22:24:43 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE SNAP and the Fifth Estate Please enjoy
the mail I promised to send
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.
You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
reviewed and taken into consideration.
There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business days.
Thanks again for your email.
______
Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.
Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.
Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.
Merci encore pour votre courriel.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 22:24:44 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE SNAP and the Fifth Estate Please enjoy
the mail I promised to send
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.
If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical
support, please contact our Customer Service department at
1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.
If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to
publiceditor@globeandmail.com<
Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com
This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and
press releases.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 18:24:39 -0400
Subject: RE SNAP and the Fifth Estate Please enjoy the mail I promised to send
To: SWOntario@snapnetwork.org, jeboyle@rogers.com,
marion.kelly12@hotmail.ca, SNAPVancouver@snapnetwork.org,
laura.clementson@cbc.ca, Gillian.Findlay@cbc.ca
Cc: motomaniac333@gmail.com, mbastarache@plaideurs.ca,
rtalach@beckettinjurylawyers.
sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca
barbara.massey@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, premier@ontario.ca, premier@gnb.ca,
PREMIER@gov.ns.ca, premier@gov.ab.ca, scott.moe@gov.sk.ca,
premier@gov.nt.ca, premier@gov.yk.ca, premier@gov.bc.ca,
premier@leg.gov.mb.ca, premier@gov.nl.ca, premier@gov.pe.ca,
press@larouchepac.com, Newsroom@globeandmail.com, steve.murphy@ctv.ca,
oldmaison@yahoo.com
https://www.snapnetwork.org/canada
Canada
Coquitlam British Columbia
Contact: Leona HugginsPhone: 604-240-3741
Email: SNAPVancouver@SNAPnetwork.org
Windsor Ontario
Contact: Brenda BrunelleEmail: SWontario@snapnetwork.org
Toronto Ontario
Contact: Marion Kelly
Phone: 416-274-5954
Email: marion.kelly12@hotmail.ca
SNAP SW Ontario Releases List of Credibly Accused Priests of the Roman Catholic Diocese of London (Ont).
The following individuals were Roman Catholic priests who were either incardinated priests of the Roman Catholic Diocese of London (Ontario) or committed the offences noted while serving within the geographical and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Diocese of London.
If the individual belonged to another Religious Order of Diocese at the time, it is noted in parentheses. These 36 individuals were criminally convicted, and/or criminally charged by more than one complainant and/or sued in a civil lawsuit which resolved for more than $50,000. These categories are the basis of their “credibly accused” status. The time period of offences contained within this list is 1952 to 2005, being a period of 54 years inclusive. The events take place in numerous communities throughout the Diocese of London and in some cases also elsewhere. The individuals in this List are limited to those who offended with young people, being minor males or females, under the age of 18. Members on this list are both deceased and living, with a ꝉ symbol noting those who are now deceased.
A copy of this list with citations and links to supporting information can be found here.
This list is a work in progress and any additional information, corrections or comments are welcome. Accuracy, accountability and transparency is the ultimate goal. If you wish to make comment or correction please contact:
Brenda Brunelle – Southwestern Ontario SNAP Leader at –
SWOntario@SNAPNetwork.org 1 519 903-7503
Jerry Boyle SNAP Member at -
jeboyle@rogers.com 1 519 241-8165
https://davidraymondamos.blogspot.com/2019/12/survivors-create-public-list-of.html
https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies
David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @Kathryn98967631 and 49 others
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/catholic-sexual-abuse-london-diocese-1.5384217
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2019/06/
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "David Amos" david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>> To: "Rob Talach" rtalach@ledroitbeckett.com
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:59 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Attn Robert Talach and I should talk ASAP about my suing
>>>> the Catholic Church Trust that Bastarache knows why
>>>>
>>>> The date stamp on about page 134 of this old file of mine should mean
>>>> a lot to you
>>>>
>>>> http://www.checktheevidence.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://davidraymondamos3.
>>
>> Tuesday, 14 February 2017
>>
>> RE FATCA, NAFTA & TPP etc ATTN President Donald J. Trump I just got
>> off the phone with your lawyer Mr Cohen (646-853-0114) Why does he lie
>> to me after all this time???
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Michael Cohen <mcohen@trumporg.com>
>> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:15:14 +0000
>> Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA ATTN Pierre-Luc.Dusseault I just
>> called and left a message for you
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
>> counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
>> directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be
>> directed to 646-853-0114.
>> ______________________________
>> This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
>> thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity.
>> This email may contain information that is confidential and/or
>> proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used,
>> copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended
>> recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have
>> received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and
>> promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
>> to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted,
>> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses
>> or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not
>> guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for
>> any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in
>> any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
>> represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
>> affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
>> electronic signature under applicable law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://davidraymondamos3.
>>
>> Sunday, 19 November 2017
>>
>> Federal Court of Appeal Finally Makes The BIG Decision And Publishes
>> It Now The Crooks Cannot Take Back Ticket To Try Put My Matter Before
>> The Supreme Court
>>
>> https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.
>>
>>
>> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>>
>> Amos v. Canada
>> Court (s) Database
>>
>> Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
>> Date
>>
>> 2017-10-30
>> Neutral citation
>>
>> 2017 FCA 213
>> File numbers
>>
>> A-48-16
>> Date: 20171030
>>
>> Docket: A-48-16
>> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
>> CORAM:
>>
>> WEBB J.A.
>> NEAR J.A.
>> GLEASON J.A.
>>
>>
>> BETWEEN:
>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>> Respondent on the cross-appeal
>> (and formally Appellant)
>> and
>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>> Appellant on the cross-appeal
>> (and formerly Respondent)
>> Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 24, 2017.
>> Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2017.
>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
>>
>> THE COURT
>>
>>
>>
>> Date: 20171030
>>
>> Docket: A-48-16
>> Citation: 2017 FCA 213
>> CORAM:
>>
>> WEBB J.A.
>> NEAR J.A.
>> GLEASON J.A.
>>
>>
>> BETWEEN:
>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>> Respondent on the cross-appeal
>> (and formally Appellant)
>> and
>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>> Appellant on the cross-appeal
>> (and formerly Respondent)
>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY THE COURT
>>
>> I. Introduction
>>
>> [1] On September 16, 2015, David Raymond Amos (Mr. Amos)
>> filed a 53-page Statement of Claim (the Claim) in Federal Court
>> against Her Majesty the Queen (the Crown). Mr. Amos claims $11 million
>> in damages and a public apology from the Prime Minister and Provincial
>> Premiers for being illegally barred from accessing parliamentary
>> properties and seeks a declaration from the Minister of Public Safety
>> that the Canadian Government will no longer allow the Royal Canadian
>> Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Forces to harass him and his clan
>> (Claim at para. 96).
>>
>> [2] On November 12, 2015 (Docket T-1557-15), by way of a
>> motion brought by the Crown, a prothonotary of the Federal Court (the
>> Prothonotary) struck the Claim in its entirety, without leave to
>> amend, on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim
>> disclosed no reasonable claim, the Claim was fundamentally vexatious,
>> and the Claim could not be salvaged by way of further amendment (the
>> Prothontary’s Order).
>>
>>
>> [3] On January 25, 2016 (2016 FC 93), by way of Mr.
>> Amos’ appeal from the Prothonotary’s Order, a judge of the Federal
>> Court (the Judge), reviewing the matter de novo, struck all of Mr.
>> Amos’ claims for relief with the exception of the claim for damages
>> for being barred by the RCMP from the New Brunswick legislature in
>> 2004 (the Federal Court Judgment).
>>
>>
>> [4] Mr. Amos appealed and the Crown cross-appealed the
>> Federal Court Judgment. Further to the issuance of a Notice of Status
>> Review, Mr. Amos’ appeal was dismissed for delay on December 19, 2016.
>> As such, the only matter before this Court is the Crown’s
>> cross-appeal.
>>
>>
>> II. Preliminary Matter
>>
>> [5] Mr. Amos, in his memorandum of fact and law in
>> relation to the cross-appeal that was filed with this Court on March
>> 6, 2017, indicated that several judges of this Court, including two of
>> the judges of this panel, had a conflict of interest in this appeal.
>> This was the first time that he identified the judges whom he believed
>> had a conflict of interest in a document that was filed with this
>> Court. In his notice of appeal he had alluded to a conflict with
>> several judges but did not name those judges.
>>
>> [6] Mr. Amos was of the view that he did not have to
>> identify the judges in any document filed with this Court because he
>> had identified the judges in various documents that had been filed
>> with the Federal Court. In his view the Federal Court and the Federal
>> Court of Appeal are the same court and therefore any document filed in
>> the Federal Court would be filed in this Court. This view is based on
>> subsections 5(4) and 5.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985,
>> c. F-7:
>>
>>
>> 5(4) Every judge of the Federal Court is, by virtue of his or her
>> office, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and has all the
>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court of
>> Appeal.
>> […]
>>
>> 5(4) Les juges de la Cour fédérale sont d’office juges de la Cour
>> d’appel fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que
>> les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale.
>> […]
>> 5.1(4) Every judge of the Federal Court of Appeal is, by virtue of
>> that office, a judge of the Federal Court and has all the
>> jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Federal Court.
>>
>> 5.1(4) Les juges de la Cour d’appel fédérale sont d’office juges de la
>> Cour fédérale et ont la même compétence et les mêmes pouvoirs que les
>> juges de la Cour fédérale.
>>
>>
>> [7] However, these subsections only provide that the
>> judges of the Federal Court are also judges of this Court (and vice
>> versa). It does not mean that there is only one court. If the Federal
>> Court and this Court were one Court, there would be no need for this
>> section.
>> [8] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act provide
>> that:
>> 3 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
>> — Appeal Division is continued under the name “Federal Court of
>> Appeal” in English and “Cour d’appel fédérale” in French. It is
>> continued as an additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and
>> for Canada, for the better administration of the laws of Canada and as
>> a superior court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>>
>> 3 La Section d’appel, aussi appelée la Cour d’appel ou la Cour d’appel
>> fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée « Cour d’appel fédérale » en
>> français et « Federal Court of Appeal » en anglais. Elle est maintenue
>> à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et d’amirauté du
>> Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit canadien, et
>> continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant compétence en
>> matière civile et pénale.
>> 4 The division of the Federal Court of Canada called the Federal Court
>> — Trial Division is continued under the name “Federal Court” in
>> English and “Cour fédérale” in French. It is continued as an
>> additional court of law, equity and admiralty in and for Canada, for
>> the better administration of the laws of Canada and as a superior
>> court of record having civil and criminal jurisdiction.
>>
>> 4 La section de la Cour fédérale du Canada, appelée la Section de
>> première instance de la Cour fédérale, est maintenue et dénommée «
>> Cour fédérale » en français et « Federal Court » en anglais. Elle est
>> maintenue à titre de tribunal additionnel de droit, d’equity et
>> d’amirauté du Canada, propre à améliorer l’application du droit
>> canadien, et continue d’être une cour supérieure d’archives ayant
>> compétence en matière civile et pénale.
>>
>>
>> [9] Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal Courts Act create
>> two separate courts – this Court (section 3) and the Federal Court
>> (section 4). If, as Mr. Amos suggests, documents filed in the Federal
>> Court were automatically also filed in this Court, then there would no
>> need for the parties to prepare and file appeal books as required by
>> Rules 343 to 345 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 in relation
>> to any appeal from a decision of the Federal Court. The requirement to
>> file an appeal book with this Court in relation to an appeal from a
>> decision of the Federal Court makes it clear that the only documents
>> that will be before this Court are the documents that are part of that
>> appeal book.
>>
>>
>> [10] Therefore, the memorandum of fact and law filed on
>> March 6, 2017 is the first document, filed with this Court, in which
>> Mr. Amos identified the particular judges that he submits have a
>> conflict in any matter related to him.
>>
>>
>> [11] On April 3, 2017, Mr. Amos attempted to bring a motion
>> before the Federal Court seeking an order “affirming or denying the
>> conflict of interest he has” with a number of judges of the Federal
>> Court. A judge of the Federal Court issued a direction noting that if
>> Mr. Amos was seeking this order in relation to judges of the Federal
>> Court of Appeal, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
>> Mr. Amos raised the Federal Court motion at the hearing of this
>> cross-appeal. The Federal Court motion is not a motion before this
>> Court and, as such, the submissions filed before the Federal Court
>> will not be entertained. As well, since this was a motion brought
>> before the Federal Court (and not this Court), any documents filed in
>> relation to that motion are not part of the record of this Court.
>>
>>
>> [12] During the hearing of the appeal Mr. Amos alleged that
>> the third member of this panel also had a conflict of interest and
>> submitted some documents that, in his view, supported his claim of a
>> conflict. Mr. Amos, following the hearing of his appeal, was also
>> afforded the opportunity to provide a brief summary of the conflict
>> that he was alleging and to file additional documents that, in his
>> view, supported his allegations. Mr. Amos submitted several pages of
>> documents in relation to the alleged conflicts. He organized the
>> documents by submitting a copy of the biography of the particular
>> judge and then, immediately following that biography, by including
>> copies of the documents that, in his view, supported his claim that
>> such judge had a conflict.
>>
>>
>> [13] The nature of the alleged conflict of Justice Webb is
>> that before he was appointed as a Judge of the Tax Court of Canada in
>> 2006, he was a partner with the law firm Patterson Law, and before
>> that with Patterson Palmer in Nova Scotia. Mr. Amos submitted that he
>> had a number of disputes with Patterson Palmer and Patterson Law and
>> therefore Justice Webb has a conflict simply because he was a partner
>> of these firms. Mr. Amos is not alleging that Justice Webb was
>> personally involved in or had any knowledge of any matter in which Mr.
>> Amos was involved with Justice Webb’s former law firm – only that he
>> was a member of such firm.
>>
>>
>> [14] During his oral submissions at the hearing of his
>> appeal Mr. Amos, in relation to the alleged conflict for Justice Webb,
>> focused on dealings between himself and a particular lawyer at
>> Patterson Law. However, none of the documents submitted by Mr. Amos at
>> the hearing or subsequently related to any dealings with this
>> particular lawyer nor is it clear when Mr. Amos was dealing with this
>> lawyer. In particular, it is far from clear whether such dealings were
>> after the time that Justice Webb was appointed as a Judge of the Tax
>> Court of Canada over 10 years ago.
>>
>>
>> [15] The documents that he submitted in relation to the
>> alleged conflict for Justice Webb largely relate to dealings between
>> Byron Prior and the St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador office of
>> Patterson Palmer, which is not in the same province where Justice Webb
>> practiced law. The only document that indicates any dealing between
>> Mr. Amos and Patterson Palmer is a copy of an affidavit of Stephen May
>> who was a partner in the St. John’s NL office of Patterson Palmer. The
>> affidavit is dated January 24, 2005 and refers to a number of e-mails
>> that were sent by Mr. Amos to Stephen May. Mr. Amos also included a
>> letter that is addressed to four individuals, one of whom is John
>> Crosbie who was counsel to the St. John’s NL office of Patterson
>> Palmer. The letter is dated September 2, 2004 and is addressed to
>> “John Crosbie, c/o Greg G. Byrne, Suite 502, 570 Queen Street,
>> Fredericton, NB E3B 5E3”. In this letter Mr. Amos alludes to a
>> possible lawsuit against Patterson Palmer.
>> [16] Mr. Amos’ position is that simply because Justice Webb
>> was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer, he now has a conflict. In Wewaykum
>> Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
>> 259, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that disqualification of a
>> judge is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable
>> apprehension of bias:
>> 60 In Canadian law, one standard has now emerged as the
>> criterion for disqualification. The criterion, as expressed by de
>> Grandpré J. in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy
>> Board, …[[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369, 68 D.L.R. (3d) 716], at p. 394, is the
>> reasonable apprehension of bias:
>> … the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by
>> reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the
>> question and obtaining thereon the required information. In the words
>> of the Court of Appeal, that test is "what would an informed person,
>> viewing the matter realistically and practically -- and having thought
>> the matter through -- conclude. Would he think that it is more likely
>> than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or
>> unconsciously, would not decide fairly."
>>
>> [17] The issue to be determined is whether an informed
>> person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having
>> thought the matter through, would conclude that Mr. Amos’ allegations
>> give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. As this Court has
>> previously remarked, “there is a strong presumption that judges will
>> administer justice impartially” and this presumption will not be
>> rebutted in the absence of “convincing evidence” of bias (Collins v.
>> Canada, 2011 FCA 140 at para. 7, [2011] 4 C.T.C. 157 [Collins]. See
>> also R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 32, 151 D.L.R.
>> (4th) 193).
>>
>> [18] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Rando Drugs Ltd. v.
>> Scott, 2007 ONCA 553, 86 O.R. (3d) 653 (leave to appeal to the Supreme
>> Court of Canada refused, 32285 (August 1, 2007)), addressed the
>> particular issue of whether a judge is disqualified from hearing a
>> case simply because he had been a member of a law firm that was
>> involved in the litigation that was now before that judge. The Ontario
>> Court of Appeal determined that the judge was not disqualified if the
>> judge had no involvement with the person or the matter when he was a
>> lawyer. The Ontario Court of Appeal also explained that the rules for
>> determining whether a judge is disqualified are different from the
>> rules to determine whether a lawyer has a conflict:
>> 27 Thus, disqualification is not the natural corollary to a
>> finding that a trial judge has had some involvement in a case over
>> which he or she is now presiding. Where the judge had no involvement,
>> as here, it cannot be said that the judge is disqualified.
>>
>>
>> 28 The point can rightly be made that had Mr. Patterson been
>> asked to represent the appellant as counsel before his appointment to
>> the bench, the conflict rules would likely have prevented him from
>> taking the case because his firm had formerly represented one of the
>> defendants in the case. Thus, it is argued how is it that as a trial
>> judge Patterson J. can hear the case? This issue was considered by the
>> Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield
>> Properties Ltd., [2000] Q.B. 451. The court held, at para. 58, that
>> there is no inflexible rule governing the disqualification of a judge
>> and that, "[e]verything depends on the circumstances."
>>
>>
>> 29 It seems to me that what appears at first sight to be an
>> inconsistency in application of rules can be explained by the
>> different contexts and in particular, the strong presumption of
>> judicial impartiality that applies in the context of disqualification
>> of a judge. There is no such presumption in cases of allegations of
>> conflict of interest against a lawyer because of a firm's previous
>> involvement in the case. To the contrary, as explained by Sopinka J.
>> in MacDonald Estate v. Martin (1990), 77 D.L.R. (4th) 249 (S.C.C.),
>> for sound policy reasons there is a presumption of a disqualifying
>> interest that can rarely be overcome. In particular, a conclusory
>> statement from the lawyer that he or she had no confidential
>> information about the case will never be sufficient. The case is the
>> opposite where the allegation of bias is made against a trial judge.
>> His or her statement that he or she knew nothing about the case and
>> had no involvement in it will ordinarily be accepted at face value
>> unless there is good reason to doubt it: see Locabail, at para. 19.
>>
>>
>> 30 That brings me then to consider the particular circumstances
>> of this case and whether there are serious grounds to find a
>> disqualifying conflict of interest in this case. In my view, there are
>> two significant factors that justify the trial judge's decision not to
>> recuse himself. The first is his statement, which all parties accept,
>> that he knew nothing of the case when it was in his former firm and
>> that he had nothing to do with it. The second is the long passage of
>> time. As was said in Wewaykum, at para. 85:
>> To us, one significant factor stands out, and must inform
>> the perspective of the reasonable person assessing the impact of this
>> involvement on Binnie J.'s impartiality in the appeals. That factor is
>> the passage of time. Most arguments for disqualification rest on
>> circumstances that are either contemporaneous to the decision-making,
>> or that occurred within a short time prior to the decision-making.
>> 31 There are other factors that inform the issue. The Wilson
>> Walker firm no longer acted for any of the parties by the time of
>> trial. More importantly, at the time of the motion, Patterson J. had
>> been a judge for six years and thus had not had a relationship with
>> his former firm for a considerable period of time.
>>
>>
>> 32 In my view, a reasonable person, viewing the matter
>> realistically would conclude that the trial judge could deal fairly
>> and impartially with this case. I take this view principally because
>> of the long passage of time and the trial judge's lack of involvement
>> in or knowledge of the case when the Wilson Walker firm had carriage.
>> In these circumstances it cannot be reasonably contended that the
>> trial judge could not remain impartial in the case. The mere fact that
>> his name appears on the letterhead of some correspondence from over a
>> decade ago would not lead a reasonable person to believe that he would
>> either consciously or unconsciously favour his former firm's former
>> client. It is simply not realistic to think that a judge would throw
>> off his mantle of impartiality, ignore his oath of office and favour a
>> client - about whom he knew nothing - of a firm that he left six years
>> earlier and that no longer acts for the client, in a case involving
>> events from over a decade ago.
>> (emphasis added)
>>
>> [19] Justice Webb had no involvement with any matter
>> involving Mr. Amos while he was a member of Patterson Palmer or
>> Patterson Law, nor does Mr. Amos suggest that he did. Mr. Amos made it
>> clear during the hearing of this matter that the only reason for the
>> alleged conflict for Justice Webb was that he was a member of
>> Patterson Law and Patterson Palmer. This is simply not enough for
>> Justice Webb to be disqualified. Any involvement of Mr. Amos with
>> Patterson Law while Justice Webb was a member of that firm would have
>> had to occur over 10 years ago and even longer for the time when he
>> was a member of Patterson Palmer. In addition to the lack of any
>> involvement on his part with any matter or dispute that Mr. Amos had
>> with Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer (which in and of itself is
>> sufficient to dispose of this matter), the length of time since
>> Justice Webb was a member of Patterson Law or Patterson Palmer would
>> also result in the same finding – that there is no conflict in Justice
>> Webb hearing this appeal.
>>
>> [20] Similarly in R. v. Bagot, 2000 MBCA 30, 145 Man. R.
>> (2d) 260, the Manitoba Court of Appeal found that there was no
>> reasonable apprehension of bias when a judge, who had been a member of
>> the law firm that had been retained by the accused, had no involvement
>> with the accused while he was a lawyer with that firm.
>>
>> [21] In Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue, [2000] 4
>> F.C. 321, 257 N.R. 96, this court did find that there would be a
>> reasonable apprehension of bias where a judge, who while he was a
>> lawyer, had recorded time on a matter involving the same person who
>> was before that judge. However, this case can be distinguished as
>> Justice Webb did not have any time recorded on any files involving Mr.
>> Amos while he was a lawyer with Patterson Palmer or Patterson Law.
>>
>> [22] Mr. Amos also included with his submissions a CD. He
>> stated in his affidavit dated June 26, 2017 that there is a “true copy
>> of an American police surveillance wiretap entitled 139” on this CD.
>> He has also indicated that he has “provided a true copy of the CD
>> entitled 139 to many American and Canadian law enforcement authorities
>> and not one of the police forces or officers of the court are willing
>> to investigate it”. Since he has indicated that this is an “American
>> police surveillance wiretap”, this is a matter for the American law
>> enforcement authorities and cannot create, as Mr. Amos suggests, a
>> conflict of interest for any judge to whom he provides a copy.
>>
>> [23] As a result, there is no conflict or reasonable
>> apprehension of bias for Justice Webb and therefore, no reason for him
>> to recuse himself.
>>
>> [24] Mr. Amos alleged that Justice Near’s past professional
>> experience with the government created a “quasi-conflict” in deciding
>> the cross-appeal. Mr. Amos provided no details and Justice Near
>> confirmed that he had no prior knowledge of the matters alleged in the
>> Claim. Justice Near sees no reason to recuse himself.
>>
>> [25] Insofar as it is possible to glean the basis for Mr.
>> Amos’ allegations against Justice Gleason, it appears that he alleges
>> that she is incapable of hearing this appeal because he says he wrote
>> a letter to Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien in 2004. At that time,
>> both Justice Gleason and Mr. Mulroney were partners in the law firm
>> Ogilvy Renault, LLP. The letter in question, which is rude and angry,
>> begins with “Hey you two Evil Old Smiling Bastards” and “Re: me suing
>> you and your little dogs too”. There is no indication that the letter
>> was ever responded to or that a law suit was ever commenced by Mr.
>> Amos against Mr. Mulroney. In the circumstances, there is no reason
>> for Justice Gleason to recuse herself as the letter in question does
>> not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
>>
>>
>> III. Issue
>>
>> [26] The issue on the cross-appeal is as follows: Did the
>> Judge err in setting aside the Prothonotary’s Order striking the Claim
>> in its entirety without leave to amend and in determining that Mr.
>> Amos’ allegation that the RCMP barred him from the New Brunswick
>> legislature in 2004 was capable of supporting a cause of action?
>>
>> IV. Analysis
>>
>> A. Standard of Review
>>
>> [27] Following the Judge’s decision to set aside the
>> Prothonotary’s Order, this Court revisited the standard of review to
>> be applied to discretionary decisions of prothonotaries and decisions
>> made by judges on appeals of prothonotaries’ decisions in Hospira
>> Healthcare Corp. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215,
>> 402 D.L.R. (4th) 497 [Hospira]. In Hospira, a five-member panel of
>> this Court replaced the Aqua-Gem standard of review with that
>> articulated in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235
>> [Housen]. As a result, it is no longer appropriate for the Federal
>> Court to conduct a de novo review of a discretionary order made by a
>> prothonotary in regard to questions vital to the final issue of the
>> case. Rather, a Federal Court judge can only intervene on appeal if
>> the prothonotary made an error of law or a palpable and overriding
>> error in determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and
>> law (Hospira at para. 79). Further, this Court can only interfere with
>> a Federal Court judge’s review of a prothonotary’s discretionary order
>> if the judge made an error of law or palpable and overriding error in
>> determining a question of fact or question of mixed fact and law
>> (Hospira at paras. 82-83).
>>
>> [28] In the case at bar, the Judge substituted his own
>> assessment of Mr. Amos’ Claim for that of the Prothonotary. This Court
>> must look to the Prothonotary’s Order to determine whether the Judge
>> erred in law or made a palpable and overriding error in choosing to
>> interfere.
>>
>>
>> B. Did the Judge err in interfering with the
>> Prothonotary’s Order?
>>
>> [29] The Prothontoary’s Order accepted the following
>> paragraphs from the Crown’s submissions as the basis for striking the
>> Claim in its entirety without leave to amend:
>>
>> 17. Within the 96 paragraph Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff
>> addresses his complaint in paragraphs 14-24, inclusive. All but four
>> of those paragraphs are dedicated to an incident that occurred in 2006
>> in and around the legislature in New Brunswick. The jurisdiction of
>> the Federal Court does not extend to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
>> the Provinces. In any event, the Plaintiff hasn’t named the Province
>> or provincial actors as parties to this action. The incident alleged
>> does not give rise to a justiciable cause of action in this Court.
>> (…)
>>
>>
>> 21. The few paragraphs that directly address the Defendant
>> provide no details as to the individuals involved or the location of
>> the alleged incidents or other details sufficient to allow the
>> Defendant to respond. As a result, it is difficult or impossible to
>> determine the causes of action the Plaintiff is attempting to advance.
>> A generous reading of the Statement of Claim allows the Defendant to
>> only speculate as to the true and/or intended cause of action. At
>> best, the Plaintiff’s action may possibly be summarized as: he
>> suspects he is barred from the House of Commons.
>> [footnotes omitted].
>>
>>
>> [30] The Judge determined that he could not strike the Claim
>> on the same jurisdictional basis as the Prothonotary. The Judge noted
>> that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over claims based on the
>> liability of Federal Crown servants like the RCMP and that the actors
>> who barred Mr. Amos from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004
>> included the RCMP (Federal Court Judgment at para. 23). In considering
>> the viability of these allegations de novo, the Judge identified
>> paragraph 14 of the Claim as containing “some precision” as it
>> identifies the date of the event and a RCMP officer acting as
>> Aide-de-Camp to the Lieutenant Governor (Federal Court Judgment at
>> para. 27).
>>
>>
>> [31] The Judge noted that the 2004 event could support a
>> cause of action in the tort of misfeasance in public office and
>> identified the elements of the tort as excerpted from Meigs v. Canada,
>> 2013 FC 389, 431 F.T.R. 111:
>>
>>
>> [13] As in both the cases of Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse, 2003 SCC
>> 69 [Odhavji] and Lewis v Canada, 2012 FC 1514 [Lewis], I must
>> determine whether the plaintiffs’ statement of claim pleads each
>> element of the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office:
>>
>> a) The public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful
>> conduct in his or her capacity as public officer;
>>
>> b) The public officer must have been aware both that his or her
>> conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff; and
>>
>> c) There must be an element of bad faith or dishonesty by the public
>> officer and knowledge of harm alone is insufficient to conclude that a
>> public officer acted in bad faith or dishonestly.
>> Odhavji, above, at paras 23, 24 and 28
>> (Federal Court Judgment at para. 28).
>>
>> [32] The Judge determined that Mr. Amos disclosed sufficient
>> material facts to meet the elements of the tort of misfeasance in
>> public office because the actors, who barred him from the New
>> Brunswick legislature in 2004, including the RCMP, did so for
>> “political reasons” (Federal Court Judgment at para. 29).
>>
>> [33] This Court’s discussion of the sufficiency of pleadings
>> in Merchant Law Group v. Canada (Revenue Agency), 2010 FCA 184, 321
>> D.L.R (4th) 301 is particularly apt:
>>
>> …When pleading bad faith or abuse of power, it is not enough to
>> assert, baldly, conclusory phrases such as “deliberately or
>> negligently,” “callous disregard,” or “by fraud and theft did steal”.
>> “The bare assertion of a conclusion upon which the court is called
>> upon to pronounce is not an allegation of material fact”. Making bald,
>> conclusory allegations without any evidentiary foundation is an abuse
>> of process…
>>
>> To this, I would add that the tort of misfeasance in public office
>> requires a particular state of mind of a public officer in carrying
>> out the impunged action, i.e., deliberate conduct which the public
>> officer knows to be inconsistent with the obligations of his or her
>> office. For this tort, particularization of the allegations is
>> mandatory. Rule 181 specifically requires particularization of
>> allegations of “breach of trust,” “wilful default,” “state of mind of
>> a person,” “malice” or “fraudulent intention.”
>> (at paras. 34-35, citations omitted).
>>
>> [34] Applying the Housen standard of review to the
>> Prothonotary’s Order, we are of the view that the Judge interfered
>> absent a legal or palpable and overriding error.
>>
>> [35] The Prothonotary determined that Mr. Amos’ Claim
>> disclosed no reasonable claim and was fundamentally vexatious on the
>> basis of jurisdictional concerns and the absence of material facts to
>> ground a cause of action. Paragraph 14 of the Claim, which addresses
>> the 2004 event, pleads no material facts as to how the RCMP officer
>> engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct, knew that his or her
>> conduct was unlawful and likely to harm Mr. Amos, and acted in bad
>> faith. While the Claim alleges elsewhere that Mr. Amos was barred from
>> the New Brunswick legislature for political and/or malicious reasons,
>> these allegations are not particularized and are directed against
>> non-federal actors, such as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative
>> Assembly of New Brunswick and the Fredericton Police Force. As such,
>> the Judge erred in determining that Mr. Amos’ allegation that the RCMP
>> barred him from the New Brunswick legislature in 2004 was capable of
>> supporting a cause of action.
>>
>> [36] In our view, the Claim is made up entirely of bare
>> allegations, devoid of any detail, such that it discloses no
>> reasonable cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Federal
>> Courts. Therefore, the Judge erred in interfering to set aside the
>> Prothonotary’s Order striking the claim in its entirety. Further, we
>> find that the Prothonotary made no error in denying leave to amend.
>> The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that
>> amendment could not cure them (see Collins at para. 26).
>>
>> V. Conclusion
>> [37] For the foregoing reasons, we would allow the Crown’s
>> cross-appeal, with costs, setting aside the Federal Court Judgment,
>> dated January 25, 2016 and restoring the Prothonotary’s Order, dated
>> November 12, 2015, which struck Mr. Amos’ Claim in its entirety
>> without leave to amend.
>> "Wyman W. Webb"
>> J.A.
>> "David G. Near"
>> J.A.
>> "Mary J.L. Gleason"
>> J.A.
>>
>>
>>
>> FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
>> NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
>>
>> A CROSS-APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED
>> JANUARY 25, 2016; DOCKET NUMBER T-1557-15.
>> DOCKET:
>>
>> A-48-16
>>
>>
>>
>> STYLE OF CAUSE:
>>
>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>
>>
>>
>> PLACE OF HEARING:
>>
>> Fredericton,
>> New Brunswick
>>
>> DATE OF HEARING:
>>
>> May 24, 2017
>>
>> REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
>>
>> WEBB J.A.
>> NEAR J.A.
>> GLEASON J.A.
>>
>> DATED:
>>
>> October 30, 2017
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> APPEARANCES:
>> David Raymond Amos
>>
>>
>> For The Appellant / respondent on cross-appeal
>> (on his own behalf)
>>
>> Jan Jensen
>>
>>
>> For The Respondent / appELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>>
>> SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
>> Nathalie G. Drouin
>> Deputy Attorney General of Canada
>>
>> For The Respondent / APPELLANT ON CROSS-APPEAL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
>> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 20:18:26 +0000
>> Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Leona Alleslev MP I just called and
>> Tweeted you as well correct?
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.
>>
>> If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical
>> support, please contact our Customer Service department at
>> 1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.
>>
>> If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to
>> publiceditor@globeandmail.com<
>>
>> Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com
>>
>> This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and
>> press releases.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:18:17 -0400
>> Subject: ATTN Leona Alleslev MP I just called and Tweeted you as well
>> correct?
>> To: Leona.Alleslev@parl.gc.ca, "hon.ralph.goodale"
>> <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, "andrew.scheer"
>> <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>, "Brenda.Lucki"
>> <Brenda.Lucki@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>, "maxime.bernier"
>> <maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>, "brian.gallant"
>> <brian.gallant@gnb.ca>, "Liliana.Longo"
>> <Liliana.Longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>> <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, "darrow.macintyre"
>> <darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca>, oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre
>> <andre@jafaust.com>, jbosnitch <jbosnitch@gmail.com>, "steve.murphy"
>> <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>
>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>> therien.mike@brunswicknews.com
>> <news@kingscorecord.com>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Liliana (Legal Services) Longo" <Liliana.Longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>>> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 11:28:36 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: Attn Suzelle Bazinet.(613-995-5117) I just earlier
>>> Whereas I was not allowed to speak to you today its best that we
>>> confer in writng anyway (Away from the office/absente du bureau)
>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> I will be away from the office June 26 to 28, 2017. In my absence,
>>> Barbara Massey will be acting and she can be reached at (613) 843-6394.
>>>
>>> Je serai absente du bureau du 26 au 28 juin 2017. En mon absence,
>>> Barbara Massey sera interimaire et peut être rejointe au (613) 843-6394.
>>>
>>> Thank you / Merci
>>> Liliana
>>>
>>>
>>> Liliana Longo, Q.C., c.r.
>>> Senior General Counsel / Avocate générale principale
>>> RCMP Legal Services / Services juridiques GRC
>>> 73 Leikin Drive / 73 Promenade Leikin
>>> M8, 2nd Floor / M8, 2ième étage
>>> Mailstop #69 / Arrêt Postal #69
>>> Ottawa, Ontario
>>> K1A 0R2
>>> Tel: (613) 843-4451
>>> Fax: (613) 825-7489
>>> liliana.longo@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>
>>> Sandra Lofaro
>>> Executive Assistant /
>>> Adjointe exécutive
>>> (613)843-3540
>>> sandra.lofaro@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Brian Gallant <briangallant10@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 12:29:03 -0700
>>> Subject: Merci / Thank you Re: So says the Mean Mindless New Neo Con
>>> Dominic Cardy so say you all?
>>> To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>
>>> (Français à suivre)
>>>
>>> If your email is pertaining to the Government of New Brunswick, please
>>> email me at brian.gallant@gnb.ca
>>>
>>> If your matter is urgent, please email Greg Byrne at greg.byrne@gnb.ca
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Si votre courriel s'addresse au Gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick,
>>> svp m'envoyez un courriel à brian.gallant@gnb.ca
>>>
>>> Pour les urgences, veuillez contacter Greg Byrne à greg.byrne@gnb.ca
>>>
>>> Merci.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>> From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:28:58 -0400
>>> Subject: So says the Mean Mindless New Neo Con Dominic Cardy so say you
>>> all?
>>> To: ATIP-AIPRP@clo-ocol.gc.ca, Ghislaine.Saikaley@clo-ocol.
>>> mylene.theriault@ocol-clo.gc.
>>> "hon.melanie.joly" <hon.melanie.joly@canada.ca>, "Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc"
>>> <Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc@canada.ca
>>> "Katherine.dEntremont" <Katherine.dEntremont@gnb.ca>,
>>> andre@jafaust.com, justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca, briangallant10
>>> <briangallant10@gmail.com>, premier <premier@gnb.ca>, pm@pm.gc.ca,
>>> "Jack.Keir" <Jack.Keir@gnb.ca>, "jody.carr" <jody.carr@gnb.ca>,
>>> "Dominic.Cardy" <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>, kelly <kelly@lamrockslaw.com>,
>>> "Gerald.Butts" <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>,
>>> anglophonerights@mail.com, info@thejohnrobson.com, ronbarr@rogers.com,
>>> kimlian@bellnet.ca, iloveblue.beth@gmail.com, "randy.mckeen"
>>> <randy.mckeen@gnb.ca>, BrianThomasMacdonald
>>> <BrianThomasMacdonald@gmail.
>>> "carl.urquhart" <carl.urquhart@gnb.ca>, "Davidc.Coon"
>>> <Davidc.Coon@gmail.com>, leader <leader@greenparty.ca>, MulcaT
>>> <MulcaT@parl.gc.ca>, "andrew.scheer" <andrew.scheer@parl.gc.ca>,
>>> "heather.bradley" <heather.bradley@parl.gc.ca>, Geoff Regan
>>> <geoff@geoffregan.ca>
>>> Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
>>> <kirk.macdonald@gnb.ca>, Hamish.Wright@gnb.ca, jbosnitch
>>> <jbosnitch@gmail.com>, "blaine.higgs" <blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>,
>>> "Rachel.Blaney" <Rachel.Blaney@parl.gc.ca>, david <david@lutz.nb.ca>,
>>> "elizabeth.thompson" <elizabeth.thompson@cbc.ca>, "David.Coon"
>>> <David.Coon@gnb.ca>, "dan. bussieres <dan.bussieres@gnb.ca>,
>>> Tim.RICHARDSON <Tim.RICHARDSON@gnb.ca>, info ," <info@gg.ca>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Cardy, Dominic (LEG)" <Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca>
>>> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:02:30 +0000
>>> Subject: RE: RE A legal state known as "functus" For the Public Record
>>> I talked to Mylene Theriault in Moncton again and she told me that
>>> same thing she did last year
>>> To: "Wright, Hamish (LEG)" <Hamish.Wright@gnb.ca>
>>> Cc: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Hamish,
>>>
>>> Did you contact Mr. Amos about the elk? How many elk were there? Were
>>> the police involved and if so did they wear the antlers you bought
>>> them?
>>>
>>> DC
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Patrick Bouchard <patrick.bouchard@rcmp-grc.gc.
>>> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 15:44:18 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: RE A legal state known as "functus" Perhaps you,
>>> Governor General Johnston and Commissioner Paulson and many members of
>>> the RCMP should review pages 1 and 4 one document ASAP EH Minister
>>> Goodale? (AOL)
>>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> I will be AOL until July 6th 2017.
>>>
>>> I will not have access to Groupwise.
>>>
>>> I may be reached at my personal e-mail thebouchards15@gmail.com
>>> depending on data coverage.
>>>
>>> ******************************
>>>
>>> Je vais être en vacances jusqu'au 6 Juillet 2017.
>>>
>>> Je n'aurais pas accès a mon GroupWise.
>>>
>>> Il est possible que je vérifies mon courriel personnel
>>> thebouchards15@gmail.com de temps à autre.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cpl.Patrick Bouchard
>>> RSC 5 RCMP-GRC
>>> Sunny-Corner Detachment
>>> English/Français
>>> Off: 506-836-6015
>>> Cell : 506-424-0071
>>>
>>>>>> David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> 06/22/17 16:43 >>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/en/
>>>>
>>>> Atlantic Region
>>>> Commissioner’s Representative:Mylène Thériault
>>>> Heritage Court
>>>> 95 Foundry Street, Suite 410
>>>> Moncton, New Brunswick E1C 5H7
>>>> Telephone: 506-851-7047
>>>>
>>>> BTW I called this dude too and left a voicemail telling him to dig
>>>> into his records and find what he should to give to his temporary boss
>>>> ASAP
>>>>
>>>> Access to Information and Privacy Coordinator
>>>> Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
>>>> 30 Victoria Street, 6th Floor
>>>> Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0T8
>>>> Telephone: 819-420-4718
>>>> E-mail: ATIP-AIPRP@clo-ocol.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>> Clearly I have very good reasons to make these calls N'esy Pas Mr
>>>> Prime Minister Trudeau "The Younger and Mr Speaker Geof Regan???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:32:09 -0400
>>>> Subject: Attn Integrity Commissioner Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
>>>> To: coi@gnb.ca
>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> Good Day Sir
>>>>
>>>> After I heard you speak on CBC I called your office again and managed
>>>> to speak to one of your staff for the first time
>>>>
>>>> Please find attached the documents I promised to send to the lady who
>>>> answered the phone this morning. Please notice that not after the Sgt
>>>> at Arms took the documents destined to your office his pal Tanker
>>>> Malley barred me in writing with an "English" only document.
>>>>
>>>> These are the hearings and the dockets in Federal Court that I
>>>> suggested that you study closely.
>>>>
>>>> This is the docket in Federal Court
>>>>
>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>>>>
>>>> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>>>>
>>>> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/
>>>>
>>>> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/
>>>>
>>>> April 3rd, 2017
>>>>
>>>> https://archive.org/details/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>>>>
>>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only hearing thus far
>>>>
>>>> May 24th, 2017
>>>>
>>>> https://archive.org/details/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This Judge understnds the meaning of the word Integrity
>>>>
>>>> Date: 20151223
>>>>
>>>> Docket: T-1557-15
>>>>
>>>> Fredericton, New Brunswick, December 23, 2015
>>>>
>>>> PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
>>>>
>>>> BETWEEN:
>>>>
>>>> DAVID RAYMOND AMOS
>>>>
>>>> Plaintiff
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
>>>>
>>>> Defendant
>>>>
>>>> ORDER
>>>>
>>>> (Delivered orally from the Bench in Fredericton, New Brunswick, on
>>>> December 14, 2015)
>>>>
>>>> The Plaintiff seeks an appeal de novo, by way of motion pursuant to
>>>> the Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), from an Order made on November
>>>> 12, 2015, in which Prothonotary Morneau struck the Statement of Claim
>>>> in its entirety.
>>>>
>>>> At the outset of the hearing, the Plaintiff brought to my attention a
>>>> letter dated September 10, 2004, which he sent to me, in my then
>>>> capacity as Past President of the New Brunswick Branch of the Canadian
>>>> Bar Association, and the then President of the Branch, Kathleen Quigg,
>>>> (now a Justice of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal). In that letter
>>>> he stated:
>>>>
>>>> As for your past President, Mr. Bell, may I suggest that you check the
>>>> work of Frank McKenna before I sue your entire law firm including you.
>>>> You are your brother’s keeper.
>>>>
>>>> Frank McKenna is the former Premier of New Brunswick and a former
>>>> colleague of mine at the law firm of McInnes Cooper. In addition to
>>>> expressing an intention to sue me, the Plaintiff refers to a number of
>>>> people in his Motion Record who he appears to contend may be witnesses
>>>> or potential parties to be added. Those individuals who are known to
>>>> me personally, include, but are not limited to the former Prime
>>>> Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper; former
>>>> Attorney General of Canada and now a Justice of the Manitoba Court of
>>>> Queen’s Bench, Vic Toews; former member of Parliament Rob Moore;
>>>> former Director of Policing Services, the late Grant Garneau; former
>>>> Chief of the Fredericton Police Force, Barry McKnight; former Staff
>>>> Sergeant Danny Copp; my former colleagues on the New Brunswick Court
>>>> of Appeal, Justices Bradley V. Green and Kathleen Quigg, and, retired
>>>> Assistant Commissioner Wayne Lang of the Royal Canadian Mounted
>>>> Police.
>>>>
>>>> In the circumstances, given the threat in 2004 to sue me in my
>>>> personal capacity and my past and present relationship with many
>>>> potential witnesses and/or potential parties to the litigation, I am
>>>> of the view there would be a reasonable apprehension of bias should I
>>>> hear this motion. See Justice de Grandpré’s dissenting judgment in
>>>> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al,
>>>> [1978] 1 SCR 369 at p 394 for the applicable test regarding
>>>> allegations of bias. In the circumstances, although neither party has
>>>> requested I recuse myself, I consider it appropriate that I do so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AS A RESULT OF MY RECUSAL, THIS COURT ORDERS that the Administrator of
>>>> the Court schedule another date for the hearing of the motion. There
>>>> is no order as to costs.
>>>>
>>>> “B. Richard Bell”
>>>> Judge
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Below after the CBC article about your concerns (I made one comment
>>>> already) you will find the text of just two of many emails I had sent
>>>> to your office over the years since I first visited it in 2006.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that on July 30, 2009, he was appointed to the the Court
>>>> Martial Appeal Court of Canada Perhaps you should scroll to the
>>>> bottom of this email ASAP and read the entire Paragraph 83 of my
>>>> lawsuit now before the Federal Court of Canada?
>>>>
>>>> "FYI This is the text of the lawsuit that should interest Trudeau the
>>>> most
>>>>
>>>> http://davidraymondamos3.
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vertias Vincit
>>>> David Raymond Amos
>>>> 902 800 0369
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Whereas this CBC article is about your opinion of the actions of
>>>> the latest Minister Of Health trust that Mr Boudreau and the CBC have
>>>> had my files for many years and the last thing they are is ethical.
>>>> Ask his friends Mr Murphy and the RCMP if you don't believe me.
>>>>
>>>> Subject:
>>>> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:02:35 -0400
>>>> From: "Murphy, Michael B. \(DH/MS\)" MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca
>>>> To: motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>> January 30, 2007
>>>>
>>>> WITHOUT PREJUDICE
>>>>
>>>> Mr. David Amos
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>>>
>>>> This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
>>>> 2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
>>>>
>>>> Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
>>>> taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
>>>> Graham of the RCMP “J” Division in Fredericton.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Honourable Michael B. Murphy
>>>> Minister of Health
>>>>
>>>> CM/cb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
>>>> From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>> To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
>>>> nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
>>>> motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
>>>> CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,John.
>>>> Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>> "Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>> Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
>>>> forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have not
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Amos,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
>>>> over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
>>>> was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
>>>>
>>>> As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
>>>> is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
>>>> testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
>>>> Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
>>>> services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
>>>> instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
>>>>
>>>> As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
>>>> imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
>>>> that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada
>>>> the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
>>>> and policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
>>>>
>>>> It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
>>>> December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Warren McBeath, Cpl.
>>>> GRC Caledonia RCMP
>>>> Traffic Services NCO
>>>> Ph: (506) 387-2222
>>>> Fax: (506) 387-4622
>>>> E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Alexandre Deschênes, Q.C.,
>>>> Office of the Integrity Commissioner
>>>> Edgecombe House, 736 King Street
>>>> Fredericton, N.B. CANADA E3B 5H1
>>>> tel.: 506-457-7890
>>>> fax: 506-444-5224
>>>> e-mail:coi@gnb.ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/catholic-sexual-abuse-london-diocese-1.5384217
'It's overwhelming': Survivors create public list of Catholic clerics accused of sexual abuse
Organization posts names of men involved in cases in London diocese
Miriam MacCormack, 60, says she was sexually abused by a Catholic priest for two years starting at the age of 10 in Aylmer, Ont. She says sharing her story may allow someone else to begin their healing process. (Doug Husby/CBC)
Starting at the age of 10, Miriam MacCormack says she was sexually abused by a Catholic priest for two years.
After five decades of struggle — including suicide attempts — MacCormack will see her abuser's name made public. But not by the southwestern Ontario diocese of London, where the abuse occurred.
MacCormack's abuser, Father Ron Reeves, now dead, is among the names of 36 accused clergy compiled and published by a group of sexual abuse survivors.
MacCormack said the list is important as validation of what happened to her.
"If you sit down and you look at the list, it's hard to deny that this has happened."
The
list includes names of priests in the London diocese who were charged,
convicted or linked to victims that made allegations and successfully
sued or settled with the church for amounts of more than $50,000 — and
only those who preyed on minors.
Most of the priests named on the list are dead.
Brenda Brunellle reviews a list of of Catholic clerics accused of sexual abuse. 0:34
The list includes a number of high-profile cases that have been in the public domain for years, but also the names of priests for whom the church settled lawsuits brought by victims.
In some cases, the allegations were never tested in court. In other cases, victims signed non-disclosure agreements, preventing the details from being made public.
"To see all these names compiled in one list, it's overwhelming … and this is by the way an incomplete list. This is only the names that we were able to gather," said Brenda Brunelle of Windsor, who is leading the campaign.
"This is stuff that the public at large has no idea of. It's ... upsetting. It's a hard read. And not knowing to what extent what this list really should be is alarming," said Brunelle.
The list was posted Dec. 4 on the website of the group Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). Brunelle, 56, leads the southwestern Ontario chapter of the international organization.
Brunelle, an abuse survivor herself from the age of 12, has been increasing the pressure on London Bishop Ronald Fabbro to make public any list the church has of clergy who have been accused of sexual abuse.
'Enough is enough'
On Nov. 20, Brunelle sent Fabbro a letter, but when she didn't receive a response, she decided to take matters into her own hands, compiling information from media reports, court filings and first-hand survivor accounts.
Brunelle believes her list is accurate, but not complete.
"If we were able to come up with 36 names, imagine what Bishop Fabbro has in his files, and the numbers that he has," said Brunelle. "It's important to hold this institution accountable."
Brenda Brunelle of Windsor leads a team that has compiled and published a list of clerics accused of sexual abuse in the London diocese over the past 60 years. The 56-year-old sexual abuse survivor had the help of other clergy abuse survivors and lawyers. (Laura Clementson/CBC)
Brunelle reported her allegations to the religious order her abuser belonged to. She says nothing happened as a result. So, in 2009, she took legal action against the London diocese and ended up settling the case three years later.
In releasing the list, she said she is looking not only to validate survivors' stories but also to hold the church accountable for what it knew about abuse by clergy and what action it did or did not take.
"There's an accountability here, there's a transparency and if you want to rebuild the trust or regain respect in that institution, they need to do something," said Brunelle.
"I hope the citizens of this country say enough is enough and we demand action and we want it now."
Diocese waives confidentiality requirements
The Fifth Estate requested an interview with Fabbro to discuss the list, but he declined.
The London diocese did provide a statement saying it wasn't able to comment on a list it hadn't seen.
"As
part of a commitment to supporting survivors and allowing them to
determine whether or not to reveal information about their experiences,
we have waived confidentiality requirements from all settlement
agreements in our diocese," said the statement emailed on Tuesday.
"That
way, those who wish to tell their stories may do so and those that
worry about being inadvertently identified, despite their wishes, can
choose to remain protected by confidentiality."The diocese also said it works with survivors to respond to their individual needs.
The
London diocese is one of Canada's 60 Latin Rite archdioceses and
dioceses. It has jurisdiction over London, Sarnia, Chatham-Kent, Windsor
and smaller communities in between.
The
sexual abuse scandal has garnered attention in this diocese in
particular because of high-profile criminal cases and allegations of
abuse reported in the media.The list is a snapshot of 50 to 60 years of allegations that priests abused children and then moved around after credible accusations emerged.
London Bishop Ronald Fabbro declined an interview with The Fifth Estate to discuss the list, but in a statement from the diocese, it says it works with survivors to respond to their individual needs. (Katerina Georgieva/CBC)
One of the most publicized cases was that of Father Charles
Sylvestre. In 2006, he pleaded guilty to 47 counts of indecent assault
for the abuse of girls and was sentenced to three years in prison. The
abuse took place between 1952 and 1989 in Hamilton, Windsor, London,
Sarnia, Chatham and Pain Court, a village in Chatham-Kent. More than 78
civil lawsuits have been filed in relation to Sylvestre.
Another
well-known name to make the list is that of Father Hodgson Marshall. In
2011 and 2012, he was convicted of numerous counts of indecent assault,
gross indecency and sexual assault involving 16 boys and one girl. He
received a two-year prison sentence. The abuse took place between 1952
and 1985 in Windsor, Toronto, Sudbury, Saskatoon and Sault Ste. Marie.
But not all victims went to the police.MacCormack said her abuse first took place at Our Lady of Sorrows parish in Aylmer, Ont., in 1969. She believes she was just one of Reeves's victims because he told her what he had done to others.
"There was this kind of salacious glee about what he did to other girls and also the assumption that this is really what they wanted and he was just giving them what they wanted. And I remember literally the shivers in my body when he would describe it," said MacCormack.
None of the allegations against Reeves were tested in court because a $260,000 settlement was reached between the parties.
'Makes me feel vulnerable'
Reeves was a Roman Catholic priest and was employed by the London diocese and the Scarboro Foreign Mission Society, a non-profit corporation that recruited, trained and sent missionary priests throughout the world.
Reeves worked in the missions in Western Canada and
overseas. In 1957, he was accepted into the Victoria diocese on a
three-year trial basis before he was formally accepted as a priest in
1961.
MacCormack, 60, now lives in Stratford, Ont., and has never shared her story publicly until now."The long-term keeping of a secret still feels like a muscle that needs to be exercised and it certainly makes me feel vulnerable," she said.
"Having experienced conversations with other survivors, it certainly inspired me to recognize that me speaking out may allow someone else to begin their healing process."
Father William Hodgson Marshall was convicted of numerous counts of indecent assault, gross indecency and sexual assault involving 16 boys and one girl and received a two-year prison sentence. (Border City Pictures)
MacCormack blames the abuse for a lifetime of mental health issues, including several suicide attempts.
"They were well-planned, well-executed and miraculously survived."
She's also hoping publication of the list creates an opportunity for survivors and the church to work together.
"Ironically it's these survivors I think who can perhaps guide the church out of this morass of denial. In a sense we could be allies as opposed to adversaries."
The London list comes on the heels of an internal review of clergy sexual abuse cases commissioned by Vancouver Archbishop Michael Miller in 2018.
Getting 'caught up with the times'
As The Fifth Estate reported last month, that review documented 36 cases of clergy abuse in the Vancouver archdiocese, 26 involving children. But of those 36 cases, only nine were made public in the archbishop's report.
Nevertheless to date Vancouver remains the only Catholic entity in Canada to make this kind of information public.
Rob Talach, a lawyer in London, Ont., who has taken
the Catholic Church to court more than 400 times for sex-related
abuses, said the church should be held to the same level of
accountability as other institutions and professions."Look, other important professions, doctors, teachers, a lot of the regulated professions, you can go on the internet right now and you can type in your doctor's name and you can see their discipline history," said Talach.
Rob Talach, a lawyer based in London, Ont., has taken the Catholic Church to court more than 400 times for sex-related abuses. (Doug Husby/CBC)
"The Roman Catholic Church and their priests are really a rare exception to that rule. So this isn't something that's Catholic-centric or picking on the priests. This is just getting that institution caught up with the times."
He also represented MacCormack in her lawsuit against the church.
He believes making lists public helps victims. But the onus shouldn't be on survivors to do that, he said, but on the church."The names and the details are going to get out there one way or another. So they can ... take the high ground and do the right thing or they can be dragged along screaming and kicking."
DO YOU NEED A PERSONAL/BUSINESS/INVESTMENT LOAN? CONTACT US TODAY VIA WhatsApp +19292227023 Email drbenjaminfinance@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteHELLO
Do you find yourself in a bit of trouble with unpaid bills and don’t know which way to go or where to turn? What about finding a reputable Debt Consolidation firm that can assist you in reducing monthly installment so that you will have affordable repayment options as well as room to breathe when it comes to the end of the month and bills need to get paid? Then consider your financial problems over. We Offer LOANS from $3,000.00 Min to $30,000,000.00 Max with a low interest rate of 2% and loan duration of 1 to 35 years to pay back the loan secure and unsecured. Our loans are well insured for maximum security is our priority, Our leading goal is to help you get the services you deserve, Our program is the quickest way to get what you need in a snap.Kindly reduce your payments to ease the strain on your monthly expenses NO MATTER YOUR CREDIT SCORE. GET YOUR INSTANT LOAN APPROVAL 100% GUARANTEED TODAY VIA WhatsApp:+19292227023 Email: drbenjaminfinance@gmail.com