Four
former Supreme Court of Canada justices, from left, Thomas Cromwell,
Frank Iacobucci, John Major and Beverley McLachlin, were caught up in
the SNC-Lavalin affair in one way or another. (The Canadian Press)
489 Comments Commenting is now closed for this story.
Richard Lori Dawson Someone needs to tell Trudeau that he’s supposed to be running a country not the mob.
Neil Gregory Reply to @Richard Lori Dawson:
Oh, come on, Richard. We all know that Trudeau runs one mob and Scheer
runs another one. They are just different sides of the same coin.
Kriss Robinson Reply to @Neil Gregory: please elaborate.
Cheryl Condy
Reply to @Kriss Robinson: it is like this.
You can choose to eat the right half or the left half or a bs sandwich.
Whatever half you choose your still eating bs.
Paul Delaney
Reply to @Richard Lori Dawson:
LNC is more the actual mob and are probably running Trudeau, not the other way around.
David R. Amos Reply
to @Richard Lori Dawson: Funny that you mentioned the mob Methinks if
you read a decision in the Federal Court of Appeal you would understand
why I should contact Renée Thériault, executive legal officer for the
Supreme Court of Canada ASAP N'esy Pas?
Darren MacDonald
Reply to @David R. Amos: What does this mean?
"The deficiencies in Mr. Amos’ pleadings are so extensive such that amendment could not cure them"
Richard Lori Dawson
Reply to @Paul Delaney: Can’t disagree.
Maurice Smith
Reply to @Richard Lori Dawson: Hello!!!... Detroit!!!
Ted Master
Reply to @David R. Amos: Why do you continue to use N'esy Pas? Bad childhood? Beatings? Gender confusion?
---------- Original message ----------
From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:50:40 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: The Honourable Thomas Albert Cromwell can
never deny that I tried to inform him of what the RCMP, the CBC and
his latest client Jody Wilson-Raybould knows Correct Me Butts?
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member
of Parliament for Vancouver Granville.
This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there
may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your
message will be carefully reviewed.
To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within
the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code.
Thank you
-------------------
Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de
Vancouver Granville.
Le pr?sent message vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre
courriel. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de
correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera examin? attentivement.
Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations plus rapidement,
veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom complet,
votre adresse et votre code postal.
Merci
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Hon.Ralph.Goodale (PS/SP)" <Hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:50:29 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: The Honourable Thomas Albert Cromwell can
never deny that I tried to inform him of what the RCMP, the CBC and
his latest client Jody Wilson-Raybould knows Correct Me Butts?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honorable Ralph Goodale, ministre de la
S?curit? publique et de la Protection civile.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance
adress?e au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un
retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assur? que votre
message sera examin? avec attention.
Merci!
L'Unit? de la correspondance minist?rielle
S?curit? publique Canada
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence
addressed to the Minister, please note there could be a delay in
processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be
carefully reviewed.
Thank you!
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
Public Safety Canada
---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:50:24 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: The Honourable Thomas Albert Cromwell can
never deny that I tried to inform him of what the RCMP, the CBC and
his latest client Jody Wilson-Raybould knows Correct Me Butts?
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.com
Thank you for contacting my parliamentary office. This automated
response is to assure you that your message has been received and will
be reviewed as soon as possible, noting that constituents of Timmins -
James Bay will be given priority. Due to the high volume of
correspondence received, I am not able to respond personally to every
inquiry. In most cases, anonymous, cc'd, and forwarded items will not
receive a response.
If you have submitted a request for assistance please insure you have
included your full name, your mailing address and daytime telephone
number. To reach my community offices directly, please contact:
Timmins 1-866-935-6464
Kirkland Lake 1-866-504-2747
Cochrane 1-705-465-1315
Thank you kindly,
Charlie Angus
Member of Parliament for Timmins - James Bay
Je vous remercie d'avoir communiqué avec mon bureau parlementaire. La
présente réponse automatique vous est envoyée pour vous informer que
votre message a été reçu et qu'il sera examiné le plus rapidement
possible, la priorité étant accordée aux électeurs de Timmins - Baie
James. En raison du volume élevé de correspondance reçue, je ne peux
répondre personnellement à chaque demande. Dans la plupart des cas,
les lettres anonymes, copies conformes et pièces transmises resteront
sans réponse.
Si vous présentez une demande d'aide, n'oubliez pas d'indiquer votre
nom au complet, votre adresse postale et votre numéro de téléphone
(jour). Pour joindre directement mes bureaux locaux, veuillez
composer :
Timmins 1-866-935-6464
Kirkland Lake 1-866-504-2747
Cochrane 1-705-465-1315
Cordiales salutations,
Charlie Angus
Député de Timmins - Baie James
---------- Original message ----------
From: Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:50:40 +0000
Subject: Thank you for contacting the Office of Elizabeth May, O.C., M.P
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for contacting me. This response is to assure you that your
message has been received. I welcome and appreciate receiving comments
and questions from constituents.
I receive a much larger volume of correspondence (postal and email)
than the average MP. All emails are reviewed on a regular basis,
however due to the high volume of emails my office receives, I may not
be able to respond personally to each one.
My constituents in Saanich-Gulf Islands are my highest priority. If
you are a constituent, please email elizabeth.may.c1a@parl.gc.ca<mailto:elizabeth.may.c1a@parl.gc.ca>. To
help me serve you better, please ensure that your email includes your
full name and street address with your postal code.
For meeting requests and invitations, please email requests@greenparty.carequests@greenparty.ca
>.
Thank you once again for contacting me.
Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament
Saanich - Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada
--
Je vous remercie d'avoir communiqué avec moi. La présente réponse vous
confirme que votre message a été reçu. Les questions et les
commentaires des électeurs sont toujours les bienvenus.
Je reçois une correspondance (postale et électronique) beaucoup plus
abondante que le député type. Tous les messages électroniques sont lus
régulièrement, mais, en raison de l'abondance des courriels reçus à
mon bureau, il se peut que je ne sois pas en mesure de répondre
personnellement à chacun d'entre eux.
Mes électeurs de Saanich-Gulf Islands passent en premier. Si vous êtes
un électeur, veuillez écrire à elizabeth.may.c1a@parl.gc.ca<mailto:elizabeth.may.c1a@parl.gc.ca>.
Pour m'aider à mieux vous servir, veillez à ce que votre courriel
comporte votre nom complet, votre adresse municipale et votre code
postal.
Pour les demandes de rencontre et les invitations, veuillez écrire à requests@greenparty.carequests@greenparty.ca>.
Je vous remercie encore d'avoir communiqué avec moi.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:07:59 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE:: DAVID RAYMOND AMOS v. HMQ - COURT FILE
NO.: A-48-16 , Attn Lorri Warner have you and your bosses talked the
RCMP and the FBI YET???
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member
of Parliament for Vancouver Granville.
This message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of your email.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence, there
may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your
message will be carefully reviewed.
To help us address your concerns more quickly, please include within
the body of your email your full name, address, and postal code.
Thank you
-------------------
Merci d'?crire ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e de
Vancouver Granville.
Le pr?sent message vise ? vous informer que nous avons re?u votre
courriel. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de
correspondance, il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Sachez que votre message sera examin? attentivement.
Pour nous aider ? r?pondre ? vos pr?occupations plus rapidement,
veuillez inclure dans le corps de votre courriel votre nom complet,
votre adresse et votre code postal.
Merci
The Honourable Thomas Albert Cromwell C.C.
Senior Counsel
Jody Wilson-Raybould resigns from cabinet after SNC-Lavalin allegations
Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Feb 12, 2019 11:39 AM ET
"Wilson-Raybould, who plans to stay on as MP for Vancouver-Granville,
has been quiet since the Globe and Mail story broke, saying she can't
comment because she's bound by solicitor-client privilege.
In her resignation letter, she said she has retained the services of
lawyer Thomas Cromwell, a former justice of the Supreme Court of
Canada, to advise her on "topics that I am legally permitted to
discuss on this matter."
In an email to CBC News, Cromwell said he would not be making any
statements or doing any interviews."
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)" <Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca>
> Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:05:07 +0000
> Subject: RE: So what does Premier Gallant and Minister Doucet et al
> think of my lawsuit? How about David Coon and his blogging buddy
> Chucky joking about being illegally barred from parliamentary property
> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>
> Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick.
> Please be assured that your email has been received, will be reviewed,
> and a response will be forthcoming.
> Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.
>
> Merci d'avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick.
> Soyez assuré que votre courriel a bien été reçu, qu'il sera examiné
> et qu'une réponse vous sera acheminée.
> Merci encore d'avoir pris de temps de nous écrire.
>
> Sincerely, / Sincèrement,
> Mallory Fowler
> Correspondence Manager / Gestionnaire de la correspondance
> Office of the Premier / Cabinet du premier ministre
>
>
> On 1/19/18, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> ---------- 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.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T
>>>
>>> These are digital recordings of the last three hearings
>>>
>>> Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
>>>
>>> January 11th, 2016 https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
>>>
>>> April 3rd, 2017
>>>
>>> https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing
>>>
>>>
>>> This is the docket in the Federal Court of Appeal
>>>
>>> http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All
>>>
>>>
>>> The only hearing thus far
>>>
>>> May 24th, 2017
>>>
>>> https://archive.org/details/May24thHoedown
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Original message ----------
>>> From: justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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.Foran@gnb.ca,
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>> Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM
>>> Subject: 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.Hansen@justice.gc.ca, peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca
>>> peacock.kurt@telegraphjournal.com, mclaughlin.heather@dailygleaner.com,
>>> david.akin@sunmedia.ca, robert.frater@justice.gc.ca,
>>> paul.riley@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca,
>>> greg@gregdelbigio.com, joyce.dewitt-vanoosten@gov.bc.ca,
>>> joan.barrett@ontario.ca, jean-vincent.lacroix@gouv.qc.ca,
>>> peter.rogers@mcinnescooper.com, mfeder@mccarthy.ca, mjamal@osler.com
>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, gopublic@cbc.ca,
>>> Whistleblower@ctv.ca
>>>
>>> https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14439/index.do
>>>
>>> http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/35072/FM030_Respondent_Attorney-General-of-Canada-on-Behalf-of-the-United-States-of-America.pdf
>>>
>>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen-greenwald-and-brazilian.html
>>>
>>> I repeat what the Hell do I do with the Yankee wiretapes taps sell
>>> them on Ebay or listen to them and argue them with you dudes in
>>> Feferal Court?
>>>
>>> Petey Baby loses all parliamentary privelges in less than a month but
>>> he still supposed to be an ethical officer of the Court CORRECT?
>>>
>>> Veritas Vincit
>>> David Raymond Amos
>>> 902 800 0369
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:10:14 -0400
>>> Subject: Yo Mr Bauer say hey to your client Obama and his buddies in
>>> the USDOJ for me will ya?
>>> To: RBauer@perkinscoie.com, sshimshak@paulweiss.com,
>>> cspada@lswlaw.com, msmith@svlaw.com, bginsberg@pattonboggs.com,
>>> gregory.craig@skadden.com, pm@pm.gc.ca, bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>> bob.rae@rogers.blackberry.net, MulcaT@parl.gc.ca, leader@greenparty.ca
>>> Cc: alevine@cooley.com, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
>>> michael.rothfeld@wsj.com, remery@ecbalaw.com
>>>
>>> QSLS Politics
>>> By Location Visit Detail
>>> Visit 29,419
>>> Domain Name usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
>>> IP Address 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
>>> ISP US Dept of Justice
>>> Location Continent : North America
>>> Country : United States (Facts)
>>> State : District of Columbia
>>> City : Washington
>>> Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
>>> Language English (U.S.) en-us
>>> Operating System Microsoft WinXP
>>> Browser Internet Explorer 8.0
>>> Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET
>>> CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2;
>>> DI60SP1001)
>>> Javascript version 1.3
>>> Monitor Resolution : 1024 x 768
>>> Color Depth : 32 bits
>>> Time of Visit Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
>>> Last Page View Nov 17 2012 6:33:08 pm
>>> Visit Length 0 seconds
>>> Page Views 1
>>> Referring URL http://www.google.co...wwWJrm94lCEqRmovPXJg
>>> Search Engine google.com
>>> Search Words david amos bernie madoff
>>> Visit Entry Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html
>>> Visit Exit Page http://qslspolitics....-wendy-olsen-on.html
>>> Out Click
>>> Time Zone UTC-5:00
>>> Visitor's Time Nov 17 2012 12:33:08 pm
>>> Visit Number 29,419
>>>
>>> http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/david-amos-to-wendy-olsen-on.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Could ya tell I am investigating your pension plan bigtime? Its
>>> because no member of the RCMP I have ever encountered has earned it yet
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:36:04 -0400
>>> Subject: This is a brief as I can make my concerns Randy
>>> To: randyedmunds@gov.nl.ca
>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
>>>
>>> In a nutshell my concerns about the actions of the Investment Industry
>>> affect the interests of every person in every district of every
>>> country not just the USA and Canada. I was offering to help you with
>>> Emera because my work with them and Danny Williams is well known and
>>> some of it is over eight years old and in the PUBLIC Record.
>>>
>>> All you have to do is stand in the Legislature and ask the MInister of
>>> Justice why I have been invited to sue Newfoundland by the
>>> Conservatives
>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously I am the guy the USDOJ and the SEC would not name who is the
>>> link to Madoff and Putnam Investments
>>>
>>> Here is why
>>>
>>> http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=90f8e691-9065-4f8c-a465-72722b47e7f2
>>>
>>> Notice the transcripts and webcasts of the hearing of the US Senate
>>> Banking Commitee are still missing? Mr Emory should at least notice
>>> Eliot Spitzer and the Dates around November 20th, 2003 in the
>>> following file
>>>
>>> http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/2526023-DAMOSIntegrity-yea-right.-txt.pdf
>>>
>>> http://occupywallst.org/users/DavidRaymondAmos/
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: "Hansen, David" David.Hansen@justice.gc.ca
>>> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 19:28:44 +0000
>>> Subject: RE: I just called again Mr Hansen
>>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>
>>> Hello Mr. Amos,
>>>
>>> I manage the Justice Canada civil litigation section in the Atlantic
>>> region. We are only responsible for litigating existing civil
>>> litigation files in which the Attorney General of Canada is a named
>>> defendant or plaintiff. If you are a plaintiff or defendant in an
>>> existing civil litigation matter in the Atlantic region in which
>>> Attorney General of Canada is a named defendant or plaintiff please
>>> provide the court file number, the names of the parties in the action
>>> and your question. I am not the appropriate contact for other
>>> matters.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> David A. Hansen
>>> Regional Director | Directeur régional
>>> General Counsel |Avocat général
>>> Civil Litigation and Advisory | Contentieux des affaires civiles et
>>> services de consultation
>>> Department of Justice | Ministère de la Justice
>>> Suite 1400 – Duke Tower | Pièce 1400 – Tour Duke
>>> 5251 Duke Street | 5251 rue Duke
>>> Halifax, Nova Scotia | Halifax, Nouvelle- Écosse
>>> B3J 1P3
>>> david.hansen@justice.gc.ca
>>> Telephone | Téléphone (902) 426-3261 / Facsimile | Télécopieur (902)
>>> 426-2329
>>> This e-mail is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client
>>> privilege. Unauthorized distribution or disclosure is prohibited. If
>>> you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete
>>> this entire e-mail.
>>> Before printing think about the Environment
>>> Thinking Green, please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
>>> Pensez vert, svp imprimez que si nécessaire.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:23:24 -0300
>>>> Subject: ATTN FBI Special Agent Richard Deslauriers Have you talked to
>>>> your buddies Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly about the wiretap tapes YET?
>>>> To: boston@ic.fbi.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov,
>>>> bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Kevin.leahy@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>> Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov, Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov,
>>>> jcarney@carneybassil.com, bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net
>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, birgittaj@althingi.is,
>>>> shmurphy@globe.com, redicecreations@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> FBI Boston
>>>> One Center Plaza
>>>> Suite 600
>>>> Boston, MA 02108
>>>> Phone: (617) 742-5533
>>>> Fax: (617) 223-6327
>>>> E-mail: Boston@ic.fbi.gov
>>>>
>>>> Hours
>>>> Although we operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, our normal
>>>> "walk-in" business hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
>>>> through Friday. If you need to speak with a FBI representative at any
>>>> time other than during normal business hours, please telephone our
>>>> office at (617) 742-5533.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:20:20 -0300
>>>> Subject: Yo Fred Wyshak and Brian Kelly your buddy Whitey's trial is
>>>> finally underway now correct? What the hell do I do with the wiretap
>>>> tapes Sell them on Ebay?
>>>> To: Brian.Kelly@usdoj.gov, us.marshals@usdoj.gov,
>>>> Fred.Wyshak@usdoj.gov, jcarney@carneybassil.com,
>>>> bbachrach@bachrachlaw.net, wolfheartlodge@live.com, shmurphy@globe.com,
>>>> >> jonathan.albano@bingham.com, mvalencia@globe.com
>>>> Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
>>>> PATRICK.MURPHY@dhs.gov, rounappletree@aol.com
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/06/05/james-whitey-bulger-jury-selection-process-enters-second-day/KjS80ofyMMM5IkByK74bkK/story.html
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/09/nsa-leak-guardian.html
>>>>
>>>> As the CBC etc yap about Yankee wiretaps and whistleblowers I must ask
>>>> them the obvious question AIN'T THEY FORGETTING SOMETHING????
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY
>>>>
>>>> What the hell does the media think my Yankee lawyer served upon the
>>>> USDOJ right after I ran for and seat in the 39th Parliament baseball
>>>> cards?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.archive.org/details/FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc
>>>>
>>>> http://archive.org/details/ITriedToExplainItToAllMaritimersInEarly2006
>>>>
>>>> http://davidamos.blogspot.ca/2006/05/wiretap-tapes-impeach-bush.html
>>>>
>>>> http://www.archive.org/details/PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape139
>>>>
>>>> http://archive.org/details/Part1WiretapTape143
>>>>
>>>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>>>> Senator Arlen Specter
>>>> United States Senate
>>>> Committee on the Judiciary
>>>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>>>
>>>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>>>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>>>> raised in the attached letter.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire tap
>>>> tapes.
>>>>
>>>> I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.
>>>>
>>>> Very truly yours,
>>>> Barry A. Bachrach
>>>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>>>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>>>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>>>
>>>> ----- 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.com/pdf/2619437-CROSS-BORDER-txt-.pdf
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:37:08 -0400
>>>> Subject: To Hell with the KILLER COP Gilles Moreau What say you NOW
>>>> Bernadine Chapman??
>>>> To: Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, phil.giles@statcan.ca,
>>>> maritme_malaise@yahoo.ca, Jennifer.Nixon@ps-sp.gc.ca,
>>>> bartman.heidi@psic-ispc.gc.ca, Yves.J.Marineau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
>>>> david.paradiso@erc-cee.gc.ca, desaulniea@smtp.gc.ca,
>>>> denise.brennan@tbs-sct.gc.ca, anne.murtha@vac-acc.gc.ca,
>>>> webo@xplornet.com, julie.dickson@osfi-bsif.gc.ca,
>>>> rod.giles@osfi-bsif.gc.ca, flaherty.j@parl.gc.ca, toewsv1@parl.gc.ca,
>>>> Nycole.Turmel@parl.gc.ca,Clemet1@parl.gc.ca, maritime_malaise@yahoo.ca,
>>>> >> oig@sec.gov, whistleblower@finra.org, whistle@fsa.gov.uk,
>>>> david@fairwhistleblower.ca
>>>> Cc: j.kroes@interpol.int, david.raymond.amos@gmail.com,
>>>> bernadine.chapman@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, justin.trudeau.a1@parl.gc.ca,
>>>> Juanita.Peddle@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com,
>>>> Wayne.Lang@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Robert.Trevors@gnb.ca,
>>>> ian.fahie@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/nb/news-nouvelles/media-medias-eng.htm
>>>>
>>>> http://nb.rcmpvet.ca/Newsletters/VetsReview/nlnov06.pdf
>>>>
>>>> From: Gilles Moreau Gilles.Moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:03:22 -0500
>>>> Subject: Re: Lets ee if the really nasty Newfy Lawyer Danny Boy
>>>> Millions will explain this email to you or your boss Vic Toews EH
>>>> Constable Peddle???
>>>> To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> Please cease and desist from using my name in your emails.
>>>>
>>>> Gilles Moreau, Chief Superintendent, CHRP and ACC
>>>> Director General
>>>> HR Transformation
>>>> 73 Leikin Drive, M5-2-502
>>>> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R2
>>>>
>>>> Tel 613-843-6039
>>>> Cel 613-818-6947
>>>>
>>>> Gilles Moreau, surintendant principal, CRHA et ACC
>>>> Directeur général de la Transformation des ressources humaines
>>>> 73 Leikin, pièce M5-2-502
>>>> Ottawa, ON K1A 0R2
>>>>
>>>> tél 613-843-6039
>>>> cel 613-818-6947
>>>> gilles.moreau@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>>>>
>>
>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 22:41:54 +0000
Subject: Réponse automatique : Methinks Minister David Lametti should
explain Federal Court Rule 55 and the document hereto attached real
slow to your former politcal boss Justin trudeau N'esy Pas Jane Philpott?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Veuillez noter que je suis absente le 16 août 2019, sans accès à mes
courriels. Pour toute question qui ne peut attendre mon retour, je
vous invite à communiquer avec mon adjointe Irène Ghobril au
514-283-5687. Merci.
Please note that I am away on August 16, 2019, with no access to my
e-mails. For assistance, please contact Irène Ghobril at 514-283-5687.
Thank you.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom <newsroom@globeandmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 22:41:56 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks Minister David Lametti should explain
Federal Court Rule 55 and the document hereto attached real slow to your
former politcal boss Justin trudeau N'esy Pas Jane Philpott?
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.com
55 In special circumstances, in a proceeding, the Court may vary a
rule or dispense with compliance with a rule.
SOR/2004-283, s. 11.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jane.Philpott@parl.gc.ca
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 22:14:22 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Attn Minister David Lametti and Renée Thériault,
executive legal officer for the Supreme Court of Canada Remember Me?
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Hello,
Thank you for your email to the Honourable Jane Philpott, Member of
Parliament for Markham-Stouffville.
This automated message is to acknowledge that we are in receipt of
your email. Due to the high volume of correspondence, there may be a
delay in processing your email. Rest assured it will be given every
consideration.
If you have not already done so, please send us your full name,
address and postal code which will enable us to assist you more
quickly.
Thank you,
Office of the Hon. Jane Philpott
Member of Parliament, Markham-Stouffville
Chief Justice of Canada and Minister of Justice sign an Accord to
strengthen the independence of the Supreme Court of Canada
From: Department of Justice Canada
News release
OTTAWA – The Rt. Hon. Richard Wagner, Chief Justice of Canada, and the
Hon. David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, today signed an Accord aimed at recognizing and reinforcing
the independence of the Supreme Court of Canada. This marks another
important milestone in the evolution of the Court and will help
safeguard public trust in one of our most vital national institutions.
In the Accord, the Chief Justice and the Minister express their
commitment to the independence of the judiciary, which is fundamental
to our democracy and to maintaining public confidence in the justice
system and the rule of law. The Accord also embodies a shared
commitment to an accessible and effective justice system that provides
high-quality, accessible and timely services to all Canadians.
In its operative provisions, the Accord sets the framework for a
collaborative and productive relationship between the Chief Justice
and the Minister, recognizing that each has an important role with
respect to the administration of justice. It does this through key
provisions relating to the handling of funding requests, contracting
authority and the appointment of the Court’s senior administrative
office-holders. Setting these provisions out in a public document
brings clarity to this ongoing relationship and advances openness and
transparency.
Quotes
“As Chief Justice of Canada, it brings me great pride to have signed
this Accord with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, knowing that it will further strengthen public confidence in
the administration of justice. The Accord exemplifies Canada’s
commitment to safeguarding its institutions and protecting democratic
values such as judicial independence. A judiciary that is independent
— and seen to be independent— benefits all Canadians.”
The Right Honourable Richard Wagner, P.C.
Chief Justice of Canada
“The Accord is an important milestone in the institutional
relationship between the executive branch of government and our
nation’s highest Court. It is a strong affirmation by the Government
and the Chief Justice of Canada that a just and democratic society
requires, at its heart, a strong commitment to judicial independence
and respect for the rule of law. As Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, I thank Chief Justice Wagner on behalf of all
Canadians for his steadfast commitment and championing of these
fundamental values.”
The Honourable David Lametti, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Quick facts
•The Accord is an agreement between the Chief Justice of Canada and
the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, effective on
the date of its signature. It can be found on the Supreme Court of
Canada website here: https://www.scc-csc.ca/court-cour/accord-justice-eng.aspx.
•The nine Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada are supported in
their duties by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of
Canada (ORSCC). The ORSCC is headed by the Registrar of the Supreme
Court of Canada and its funding is authorized by Parliament.
•While the Minister of Justice is answerable before Parliament for the
ORSCC, the Registrar takes direction from the Chief Justice of Canada
rather than from the Minister. The ORSCC is separate and fully
independent from the Department of Justice.
•The Accord recognizes the independence of the Supreme Court of Canada
by publicly describing key features of the relationship between the
Chief Justice of Canada and the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, as well as between ORSCC officials and officials
from various government departments. This includes:
◦The roles of the Governor in Council, the Minister of Justice and the
Chief Justice of Canada in decisions regarding the appointment and
termination of the Registrar and Deputy Registrar.
◦The role of the Minister of Justice in funding decisions related to the ORSCC.
◦The authority of the Registrar to engage private sector legal
services in a manner that recognizes the independence of the Supreme
Court of Canada.
Justice Minister David Lametti, pictured at a House Justice and Human
Rights Committee meeting in February where he appeared to answer
questions on the SNC-Lavalin scandal. The Hill Times photograph by
Andrew Meade
Justice Minister David Lametti was quick to get a new press secretary
in place in his office, with Rachel Rappaport officially stepping into
the role as of April 23.
Four
former Supreme Court of Canada justices, from left, Thomas Cromwell,
Frank Iacobucci, John Major and Beverley McLachlin, were caught up in
the SNC-Lavalin affair in one way or another. (The Canadian Press)
Four former Supreme Court justices
were, in one way or another, caught up in the high-profile SNC-Lavalin
affair — a surprising revelation stemming from Ethics Commissioner Mario
Dion's report.
Frank Iacobucci, in his role as SNC-Lavalin's
legal counsel, prepared a legal opinion for the government outlining why
it was legitimate for then-justice minister and attorney general Jody
Wilson-Raybould to intervene in criminal matters handled by the Public
Prosecution Service. He sat on the high court from 1991 to 2004.
Dion's
report revealed that Iacobucci also requested an opinion from John
Major, who served on the bench from 1992 to 2005, on the legality of the
Director of Public Prosecutions refusing to give SNC-Lavalin a deferred
prosecution agreement — and not providing reasons for that decision.
Iacobucci had
also reached out to former chief justice Beverley McLachlin, who served
on the Supreme Court from 1989 to 2017, and she reviewed the
SNC-Lavalin file. McLachlin was also approached by Prime Minister's
Office officials about giving advice to Wilson-Raybould, but she
declined the offer.
Thomas
Cromwell, a Supreme Court justice from 2008 to 2016 who was not named
in Dion's report, had been tapped by Wilson-Raybould to advise her on
the limits of solicitor-client privilege after she resigned from Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau's cabinet.
Wayne MacKay, professor
emeritus of law at Dalhousie University, said one of the key principles
when you're a judge is that you are removed from politics, and objective
about the political world.
Situation is 'a bit jarring'
"That
doesn't really apply when you cease to be a judge, but it's a bit
jarring to hear about judges giving opinions on highly charged political
events like this," he told CBC News.
MacKay said it's an
emerging issue because judges used to be appointed at an older age, and
disappeared from the public scene after they retired. Increasingly,
judges are carrying on with significant careers after they leave the
bench.
former
attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould delivers her opening statement at
the Commons justice committee meeting in Ottawa on Feb. 27. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press )
"While
at one level they are retired and they should be free to do as they
wish, to some extent they are still going to be viewed in the general
public with the court. It's part of their attraction as advisers, their
impressive careers with the court," he said.
MacKay
said it would be a good idea to examine the issue to determine whether
the trend should simply be accepted as part of the modern world, or
whether ethical guidelines that apply to sitting judges should extend
to retired judges.
Ethical principles for judges under review
Renée Thériault,
executive legal officer for the Supreme Court of Canada, said like all
Canadians, many former judges are living longer, healthier lives and
choose to continue to work after retiring as justices. The question of
post-judicial employment is "complex and involves many considerations,"
she said.
When a former judge intends to pursue a legal career,
he or she must abide by rules governed by the law society in their
jurisdiction. Individual courts also have rules which may bar a former
judge from appearing in court or impose a cooling-off period.
"The
Canadian Judicial Council and the Federation of Law Societies have been
discussing ethical principles that would complement the rules. We
expect that the revised Ethical Principles for Judges
will put forward additional considerations in this regard," she said.
"These considerations would apply to all former federally appointed
judges whether they be from the Supreme Court or otherwise."
Supreme
Court Chief Justice Richard Wagner, who is also chair of the Canadian
Judicial Council, is leading the modernization of ethical principles for
judges.
"As
society evolves, so do the ethical issues that judges sometimes face,"
he noted when public consultations for the review process were launched
in March.
A background paper says judges' activities after retirement is among the themes under consideration.
"This
issue considers ethical issues regarding pre-retirement discussions and
limits on post-retirement professional activities," it reads.
Richard Lori Dawson
Someone needs to tell Trudeau that he’s supposed to be running a country not the mob
David R. Amos
Reply to @Richard Lori Dawson: Funny that you mentioned the mob Methinks if you
read a decision in the Federal Court of Appeal you would understand why I should
contact Renée Thériault, executive legal officer for the Supreme Court of Canada ASAP
N'esy Pas? .
The Court has a Media Relations Committee that meets with
representatives from the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery to
consider issues of mutual concern. Members of the media should feel
free to contact the Chief of the CPPG at 613-992-4511 or the President
of the CPPG to raise matters for consideration.
OTTAWA, August 14, 2018 – The Chief Justice of Canada, the Rt. Hon.
Richard Wagner, P.C., announced today the appointment of Me Renée
Thériault, legal counsel at the Supreme Court of Canada, to the
position of Executive Legal Officer.
Me Thériault has joined the Chambers of the Chief Justice for a
two-year term. The Chief Justice said: "Me Thériault is an admired
jurist with experience both in private practice and as legal counsel
to the Court. I am delighted she has agreed to continue serving the
Court in this new role.”
Mr. Gib van Ert, who has been Executive Legal Officer since August
2015, will return to private practice this fall after three years at
the Court. Chief Justice Wagner said, "Former Chief Justice McLachlin
and I are grateful to Mr. van Ert for his notable contributions to the
Court, the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial
Institute.”
The Executive Legal Officer acts as principal advisor to the Chief
Justice, assisting him with the administration of the Court, the
Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute. She is
also responsible for media relations at the Court.
For further information, contact:
Gib van Ert
Executive Legal Officer
(613) 996-9296
More Canadians are acting as their own lawyer because they don't have a choice
CBC Radio • in an hour
A new program at the Windsor law school supports those who
self-represent. (Shutterstock)
Listen20:13
It is a trend most Canadian judges and lawyers do not like: a growing
number of Canadians are representing themselves in court. Some hire a
lawyer then find the legal fees are unaffordable. Others opt to argue
their own case from the beginning.
This is happening not just in small claims courts, where
self-representation is the norm, but in higher courts, where legal
procedures and protocols are challenging for a lay person.
The National Self-Represented Litigants Project (NSRLP) offers help.
It is an innovative program at the University of Windsor and the
brainchild of Julie Macfarlane. She is a Distinguished Professor in
the Faculty of Law and has been spearheading this support network for
almost five years.
Julie Macfarlane of the National Self-Represented Litigants Project
says Canadians are representing themselves in greater numbers because
they simply cannot afford to pay high legal fees. (Mike Kovalski)She
tells The Sunday Edition's Michael Enright that those inside the legal
system have long seen people who represent themselves as "aberrant" or
"those crazy people who think they should be lawyers." Many lawyers
have asked her "why I was bothering to talk to these people who
dragged their plastic bags behind them into court."
The reality, she says, is that people don't have a choice. Canadians
are representing themselves in greater numbers because they cannot
afford to pay high legal fees.
"They are everybody, they are you and they are me," she says. "I don't
think that either of us would probably be able to go on paying at the
rate that it would require to pay a lawyer, at $500-plus an hour for a
piece of protracted litigation."
At least half the people in family courts across the country arrive
without lawyers. In Toronto, the figure is closer to 80 per cent.
Appeals courts are reporting around 30 per cent self-represented
litigants, and in civil courts the figure is between 30 and 40 per
cent.
Legal aid only helps the very, very poorest people. And in Ontario,
the eligibility level is actually set below the level of welfare. -
Julie Macfarlane
"These are people, quite often, with a high level of education.
They're intelligent. They're committed to doing it and figuring it
out, so we do see some fairly extraordinary victories." At the same
time, Macfarlane says, "they are often subject to some of the
litigation tactics that lawyers are much more familiar with." Often
these tactics cause self-represented litigants to lose their cases.
"What is really challenging for people representing themselves isn't
the stuff we teach people at law school, the substantive law,"
Macfarlane adds. "It's the procedure." Judges have discretion in how
rigidly procedures are applied and, most often, this is where
self-represented litigants get tripped up.
This is an area where the NSRLP is helping Canadians. They cannot
offer legal advice or act as counsel, but their coaches can help them
through the process by guiding people through court procedures and
being "someone who's in their corner." They also keep a national
inventory of lawyers who charge affordable fees, and produce resources
to help Canadians navigate the court system, such as how to access
written court transcripts.
Macfarlane says we need to make sure judges across the country are
equipped to support those representing themselves. (Shutterstock )
Macfarlane acknowledges some judges are doing an outstanding job in
helping people who represent themselves in court, by taking the time
to explain procedure and making sure someone isn't disadvantaged, "but
it's not something that is consistent across the country," Macfarlane
says. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged this in a recent
ruling, in which it said courts may not treat a self-represented
litigant in the same way in which they treat a lawyer.
"Judges need to come to the bench now with a different sensibility
about what their job is," Macfarlane says. "We really need to take
seriously how we re-equip the judiciary."
The NSRLP is encouraging the "unbundling" of legal services, where
instead of working on a retainer and controlling an entire file,
lawyers would contract to take on only particular tasks, such as legal
coaching, reviewing an application form for divorce or preparing for a
case management conference.
Judges need to come to the bench now with a different sensibility
about what their job is.- Julie Macfarlane
Counsel
Atlantic Regional Office
Suite 1400, Duke Tower
5251 Duke Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1P3
National Litigation Sector
Department of Justice Canada
Government of Canada
This communication contains information that may be confidential,
exempt from disclosure, subject to litigation privilege or protected
by the privilege that exists between lawyers or notaries and their
clients. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read,
rely on, retain, or distribute it. Please delete or otherwise destroy
this communication and all copies of it immediately, and contact the
sender at (902) 426-8177 or by email at jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca<mailto:xxxx@justice.gc.ca>
Jan Jensen
Avocat
Bureau régional de l'Atlantique
pièce 1400, tour Duke
5251 rue Duke
Halifax (Nouvelle-Écosse) B3J 1P3
Secteur national du contentieux
Ministère de la Justice Canada
Gouvernement du Canada
Ce message contient des renseignements qui pourraient être
confidentiels, soustraits à la communication, ou protégés par le
privilège relatif au litige ou par le secret professionnel liant
l'avocat ou le notaire à son client. S'il ne vous est pas destiné,
vous êtes priés de ne pas le lire, l'utiliser, le conserver ou le
diffuser. Veuillez sans tarder le supprimer et en détruire toute
copie, et communiquer avec l'expéditeur au (902) 426-8177 ou par
courriel à jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca<mailto:xxxx@justice.gc.ca>
[cid:image001.png@01D2FA4E.FEBCB9E0]
Federal Court of Appeal
Dear Sir/Madam:
Please find attached a copy of the corrections, rendered by the Court
( Webb, Near, and Gleason J.J.A )
If you require a copy of the above-noted correction, please advise and
one will be forwarded to you by regular mail.
PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS E-MAIL AND ATTACHED DOCUMENT(S), BY
REPLY E-MAIL, WITHIN TWO (2) DAYS.
Anything sent to this e-mail address, other than confirmation of
receipt of a decision, will not be considered as having been received
by the Registry.
Regards,
Megan Cruickshank
Student
Pursuant to section 20 of the Official Languages Act all final
decisions, orders and judgments, including any reasons given
therefore, issued by the Court are issued in both official languages.
In the event that such documents are issued in the first instance in
only one of the official languages, a copy of the version in the other
official language will be forwarded on request when it is available.
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
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: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)" <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:28:41 +0000
Subject: RE: Yo Norman Sabourin why is it that nothing you people do
surprises me anymore?
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.
Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
commentaires.
Tuesday, 28 November 2017
YO Norman Sabourin Please review the cover letter that came with many
documents I sent you and explain why you have never responded to me
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)" <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 20:18:20 +0000
Subject: RE: ATT Norman Sabourin Please review the cover letter that
came with many documents I sent you and explain why you have never
responded to me
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.
Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
commentaires.
Gib van Ert
Executive Legal Officer:
Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Court Bldg.
301 Wellington St.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1
Phone: 613-996-9296
Fax: 613-952-3092
---------- Original message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)" <fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 00:14:35 +000
Subject: RE: Here ya go folks please enjoy the hearing today in
Federal Court and the notes I read from as I argued the Queen's sneaky
little minions who think they are above the law and the rest of us as well
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.
Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
commentaires.
---------- Original message ----------
From: NATALIA OLIVEIRA JOHNSTON natalia.johnston@cbc.ca
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 17:13:10 -0700
Subject: Out of office Re: Here ya go folks please enjoy the hearing
today in Federal Court and the notes I read from as I argued the
Queen's sneaky little minions who think they are above the law and the
rest of us as well
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Please note that I'm on annual leave and will return on May 29.
If your matter is urgent, please contact the reception line at 416-205-3216.
--
*Natalia Johnston*
Legal Assistant
to Dustin Milligan, Katarina Germani and Azim Remani
Better yet How about the documents hereto attached?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)" <Brian.Gallant@gnb.ca>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 11:53:02 +0000
Subject: RE: Norman Sabourin, executive director of the Canadian
Judicial Council launches 'Potential misconduct' probe but only after
his associates in the Crown Corp CBC exposes hiis pals???
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
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.
Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin,
C/o Norman Sabourin General Counsel and
Andrew Grant and Renée Maria Tremblay
Canadian Judicial Council
150 Metcalfe Street,
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8
Shirley Heafey Chair of Commission
for Public Complaints against the RCMP
P.O. Box 3423 Station "D"
Ottawa, ON K1P 6L4
RE: Rampant Public Corruption
Hey,
Pursuant to my recent phone calls to Norman Sabourin and various
underlings of Shirley Heafey within the Commission for Public
Complaints against the RCMP over the years plus my many faxes and
emails please find enclosed exactly the same material received by
every Attorney General in Canada over the past year. The CD which is a
copy of a police surveillance wiretap tape # 139 is served upon you as
officers of the court in order that it may be properly investigated.
As you can see I have enclosed a copy of a letter sent to the latest
Attorney General Mr. Wally Opal in BC. Perhaps he should take a little
trip to Surrey and ask your office some hard questions. Perhaps the
ghost of my fellow Independent politician, Chuck Cadman may wish to
answer few questions now as well. Hard telling not knowing.
I will not bother you with the details of what I am sending to
you byway of the certified US Mail because I will be serving identical
material to many other Canadian Authorities in hand and tell them I
gave this stuff to you first and enclose a copy of this letter. All
that is important to me right now is that I secure proof that this
mail was sent before I make my way back home to the Maritimes. However
I will say I am also enclosing a great deal more material than what
Allan Rock had received in the UN. Some of it is in fact the same
material the two maritime lawyers, Rob Moore and Franky Boy McKenna in
particular received, while I was up home running for Parliament last
year. Things have changed greatly in the past year so I have also
included a few recent items to spice thing up for you. I am tired of
trying to convince people employed in law enforcement to uphold the
law. So all I will say for now is deal will your own conscience and be
careful how you respond to this letter. If you do not respond. Rest
assured I will do my best to sue you some day. Ignorance is no excuse
to the law or me.
Veritas Vincit
David R. Amos
153 Alvin Ave
Milton, MA. 02186
Label/Receipt Number: ED71 7170 484U S
Detailed Results:
Delivered Abroad, August 11, 2005, 6:49 am, CANADA
Out of Foreign Customs, August 08, 2005, 2:37 pm, CANADA
Into Foreign Customs, August 04, 2005, 1:52 pm, CANADA
Arrived Abroad, August 04, 2005, 1:52 pm, CANADA
International Dispatch, August 03, 2005, 8:32 am, KENNEDY AMC
Enroute, August 03, 2005, 8:30 am, JAMAICA, NY 11499
Acceptance, August 02, 2005, 10:40 am, QUINCY, MA 02169
Philippe Joly
Enquêteur principal / Senior investigator
Commissariat aux conflits d'intérêts et à l'éthique / Office of the
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Parlement du Canada / Parliament of Canada
66 rue Slater, 22e étage, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0A6
Téléphone : 613-996-6012 Télécopieur / Fax : 613-995-7308
Courriel / Email : philippe.joly@cie.parl.gc.ca
________________________________
This communication, and any files or attachments transmitted with it,
is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which or
to whom it is addressed. This communication may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender by return email, telephone or fax
immediately, and delete this communication and destroy all copies. We
thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Cette communication, ainsi que tout fichier ou toute pièce qui y est
joint, est à l'intention du destinataire seulement. Cette
communication peut contenir des renseignements protégés, confidentiels
et soustraits à la divulgation en vertu de la loi applicable. Si vous
avez reçu ce message par erreur, vous êtes prié d'en aviser
immédiatement l'expéditeur par courriel, téléphone ou télécopieur, et
d'effacer la communication et d'éliminer toute copie. Nous vous
remercions de votre collaboration.
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Armitage, Blair" <Blair.Armitage@sen.parl.gc.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:31:24 +0000
Subject: RE: RE My concerns about the severe lack of ethics within the
Senate and elsewhere I am calling our "Ethics Watchdogs" again right
now
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Sir,
I am in receipt of your email.
Is there anything you are asking me to do with it in my official
capacity? The attached files do not appear to address issues for which
I have any responsibility.
Regards,
Blair Armitage
Principal Clerk /Greffier Principal
Committees Directorate/Direction des comités
Senate of Canada/Sénat du Canada Blair.Armitage@sen.parl.gc.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:59:11 -0400
Subject: Fwd: RE My concerns about the severe lack of ethics within
the Senate and elsewhere I am calling our "Ethics Watchdogs" again
right now
To: "peter.harder" <peter.harder@sen.parl.gc.ca>
Trudeau's Senate leader asks for $800K office budget
Prime minister to name 20 more senators by the fall, Peter Harder
tells Senate committee By John Paul Tasker, CBC News Posted: Apr 14,
2016 3:39 PM ET|
Peter Harder - Independent
Province: Ontario
Senatorial Designation: Ottawa
Appointed on the advice of:
Justin Trudeau (Lib.)
Telephone: 613-995-0222 or 1-800-267-7362
Fax: 613-995-0207
Email: peter.harder@sen.parl.gc.ca
The Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the
Opposition in the Senate are members ex officio in addition to the
number of appointed members, of the Committee of Selection and all
select committees of the Senate.
Blair Armitage
Blair Armitage works as Principal Clerk for Senate of Canada.
Blair can be reached at 613-996-5588
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: CIEC-CCIE@parl.gc.ca
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:47:55 +0000
Subject: Message Receipt from CIEC / Accusé de réception du CCIE
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Un message français suit.
This reply has been automatically generated to acknowledge successful
receipt of your email.
The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
administers the Conflict of Interest Act and the Conflict of Interest
Code for Members of the House of Commons. These two regimes seek to
prevent conflicts between the public duties of elected and appointed
officials and private interests.
We will respond as appropriate within three business days. Please note
that the Office does not respond to messages directed to another
person or organization, to form letters or to correspondence
containing offensive or abusive language.
Thank you for your inquiry.
_________________________
Cette réponse vous est envoyée automatiquement pour accuser réception
de votre courriel.
Le Commissariat aux conflits d’intérêts et à l’éthique applique la Loi
sur les conflits d’intérêts et le Code régissant les conflits
d’intérêts des députés. Ces deux régimes visent à prévenir les
conflits entre les fonctions publiques des représentants nommés et
élus et des intérêts personnels.
Nous vous répondrons dans les trois jours ouvrables, le cas échéant.
Veuillez noter que le Commissariat ne répond pas aux messages adressés
à une autre personne ou un autre organisme, aux lettres types ou à la
correspondance contenant des propos grossiers ou injurieux.
Nous vous remercions de votre message.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jocelyne.Brisebois@cie.parl.gc.ca
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:47:55 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re Federal Court file no T-1557-15 Yo mary
dawson and Mikey Ferguson (formerly of New Brunswick) Meththe plot
just thickened bigtime once I discovered your "journalist" buddy
Martin Patriquin of Maclean's Magazine is a player N'esy Pas?
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Please note that the Office is closed until Tuesday, March 29, 2016. Thank you.
***********
Veuillez noter que le Commissariat est ferm? jusqu'? mardi le 29 mars
2016. Merci.
________________________________
This communication, and any files or attachments transmitted with it,
is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which or
to whom it is addressed. This communication may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender by return email, telephone or fax
immediately, and delete this communication and destroy all copies. We
thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Cette communication, ainsi que tout fichier ou toute pi?ce qui y est
joint, est ? l'intention du destinataire seulement. Cette
communication peut contenir des renseignements prot?g?s, confidentiels
et soustraits ? la divulgation en vertu de la loi applicable. Si vous
avez re?u ce message par erreur, vous ?tes pri? d'en aviser
imm?diatement l'exp?diteur par courriel, t?l?phone ou t?l?copieur, et
d'effacer la communication et d'?liminer toute copie. Nous vous
remercions de votre collaboration.
Judicial council won't pursue inquiry into conflict of interest
allegation against Vic Toews
'No further action is required,' Canadian Judicial Council says after review
By Sean Kavanagh, CBC News Posted: Nov 30, 2017 11:16 AM CT
The Canadian Judicial Council has completed its review of the conduct
of Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Justice Vic Toews and says it won't
be investigating complaints against him further.
The council said Thursday that two complaints were reviewed by Justice
Christopher Hinkson, chief justice of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, who found nothing that would warrant Toews' removal.
"Chief Justice Hinkson notes that the [federal ethics] commissioner
did not make any findings that put into question the integrity, good
faith or credibility of Justice Toews," the council said in a media
release.
"Upon a full review of all the relevant information, Chief Justice
Hinkson found an absence of any information that would suggest an
attempt to mislead or reveal conduct incompatible with the duties of
judicial office."
The review was launched following a complaint received in relation to
a report by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
In April, Canada's ethics commissioner found the former Conservative
cabinet minister breached conflict of interest rules by doing
consulting work for two Manitoba First Nations after he left office.
Mary Dawson's report last spring said Toews advised a First Nations
group he had once fought in court when he was Treasury Board president
in the former federal Conservative government.
Dawson's report said Toews "acted for or on behalf of a party that was
seeking relief against a decision in which he had been involved as a
minister of the Crown."
The report said Toews also broke the rules requiring a two-year
cooling off period for providing consultancy services to the Norway
House Cree Nation through a company owned by his wife.
Former cabinet minister-turned-Manitoba judge broke conflict of
interest rules, commissioner finds
Vic Toews met with Peguis lawyer about Kapyong settlement: Court documents
Toews challenged the decision of the commissioner in court, but
dropped the case recently.
Former cabinet minister Vic Toews challenges conflict ruling in
Federal Court
Manitoba Judge Vic Toews drops court challenge of ethics commissioner ruling
National advocacy organization Democracy Watch filed a complaint
against Toews with the Canadian Judicial Council after his alleged
conflict interest was raised.
"The actions that were under scrutiny by the commissioner were not
ones that raised issues for the Canadian Judicial Council," Norman
Sabourin of the CJC said Thursday. "I am of the view that there was a
thorough review because it's an issue that was in the public domain
and it deserved a thorough review, which is what the council did."
Toews' lawyer said Thursday he is happy the matter is finished.
"I thought the [ethics] commissioner's process was badly, badly flawed
and unfair, and so I'm happy that everything's over," Robert Tapper
said.
With files from The Canadian Press and Meagan Ketcheson
No comments:
Post a Comment