"Well then Honourable Lord Mayor of Toronto why don't you sue The Star and Gawker's asses off?

Up next .....

Beverley McLachlin says it's OK to plagiarize everybody!

Supreme Court of Canada OK with judge who copied ruling from plaintiff's written submissions

Friday, May 24, 2013

The Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa on Wednesday, February 27, 2013. (The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick)

OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a British Columbia judge who copied most of his ruling in a medical negligence case from the written submissions of the plaintiff.

In a unanimous decision, the justices overturned a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that ordered a new trial in the case.

They also upheld the $4 million in damages awarded to a boy and his mother after he was born brain damaged in May 2001.

The appeal court ordered the new trial because the judge lifted 321 paragraphs of his 368-paragraph decision straight from the written submissions of the boy's lawyers, mostly without attribution.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the court, says that doesn't warrant a new trial in the case. Copying material does not, by itself, render a judgment unfair.

"I conclude that while it is desirable that judges express their conclusions in their own words, incorporating substantial amounts of material from submissions or other legal sources into reasons for judgment does not without more permit the decision to be set aside,"she wrote.

She said judicial copying is a long-standing and accepted practice.

"It may not be best practice for judges to bulk up their judgments with great swaths of borrowed material," she went on.

"But the fact remains that borrowed prose, attributed or otherwise, does not, without more, establish that the judge has failed to come to grips with the issues required to be decided."

She said legal rulings are often assembled from various sources, without attracting accusations of plagiarism.

"Judgments routinely incorporate phrases and paragraphs from a variety of sources, such as decided cases, legal treatises, pleadings, and arguments of the parties," she wrote.

"Appellate judges may incorporate paragraphs borrowed from another judge on the case or from a helpful law clerk. Often the sources are acknowledged, but often they are not.

"Whether acknowledged or not, they are an accepted part of the judgment-writing process and do not, without more, render the proceeding unfair."

Canada's best paid part-time job? Become a Senator!

Senior Tory Senator earned over $290,000 in corporate fees in 2012

By Glen McGregor, Ottawa Citizen
Friday, May 24, 2013

Tory Senator Irving Gerstein is the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee and he also sits on the Finance Committee. (Photograph by: Jean Levac, The Ottawa Citizen)

OTTAWA — A wealthy Conservative party fundraiser named to the Senate by Stephen Harper collected more than $290,000 in directors fees on top of his Senate salary while attending dozens of corporate board meetings in 2012.

Corporate filings show that Irving Gerstein, the former official agent of the Conservative Party, was listed as in attendance for at least 48 board meetings last year.

Gerstein, 72, chairs the board of Atlantic Power Corp., a Boston-based energy company. He is also a director on the boards of Medical Facilities Corp., owner of surgical centres in the U.S., and Student Transportation Inc., which operates school buses in Canada and the U.S.

His annual director’s fees and other compensation from the publicly-traded companies totaled $290,250 USD.

As a senator, he earns $135,200 annually plus an additional $11,200 as chair of the Senate banking committee.

Senate rules allow senators to moonlight with private businesses and sit on boards of directors, provided they declare the involvement to the ethics officer, as Gerstein did.

Few, however, have such a busy schedule of corporate obligations on top of their Senate work.

Senate attendance records show that Gerstein, who was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2011, missed 14 sitting days in 2012 due to illness. He also missed three other days for unspecified reasons. Gerstein rarely spoke in the Senate chamber this year, with Hansard recording five brief statements on the tabling of reports and other procedural matters related to the Senate banking committee he chairs.

Over the same period, Gerstein attended 13 board meetings of Medical Facilities Corp., and chaired 26 meetings of the Atlantic Power board. He was also was listed in attendance at nine additional meetings of the company’s audit, compensation and corporate governance committees. In the year ending June 2012, he attend four meetings of the Student Transportation Inc. board.

Gerstein did not respond to calls and email requesting comment.

The corporate records do not list the exact dates of the meetings so it is not possible to compare these to Gerstein’s Senate attendance record. Also, they do not indicate whether Gerstein attended the board meetings in person or by teleconference.

Attendance records show that Gerstein was absent from the Senate chamber on November 8, 2012, the day Student Transportation Inc. held a meeting of shareholders in Toronto to vote on the board of directors, Gerstein among them.

Gerstein, the former president of the Peoples Jewelers retail chain, was a key figure behind the Conservative Party’s fundraising efforts that paved the way for electoral victories in 2006 and 2008.

He was appointed to the Senate by Harper in 2009. In addition to chairing the Senate banking committee Gerstein sits on the finance committee.

Along with late Conservative Senator Doug Finley and two other party officials, Gerstein was charged by Elections Canada for elections law violations over the in-and-out financing of advertising purchases in the 2006 campaign. The charges against them were dropped in November 2011 when the party agreed to plead guilty and pay the maximum fines.

The corporate filings show Gerstein holds common shares in the three companies that are today worth about $1.1 million, likely a small part of his personal fortune amassed in the jewelry business.

Over the twelve months ended in March, Gerstein claimed from the Senate $10,685 in living expenses for his time in Ottawa and another $25,653 in travel costs.

In addition to his corporate work and Conservative Party and Senate duties, Gerstein also chairs the board of the management committee of the Toronto Club, a private social club.

Original source article: Senior Tory senator earned over $290,000 in corporate fees in 2012

Are all politicians oinkers?

Oinkers at the public trough

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post, "Oink! Oink! Oink! ..... Oink! Oink!" 

There is simply no end to Harphole and his bunch wallowing in sleaze and illegal acts. One of the reasons it is ILLEGAL to 'gift' senators and MP's is to prevent bribery and vote buying - duh. Apparently the crooked, and ethically bankrupt Harphoians don't get this. Oink F'ing OINK. These sleazoids need some serious jail time.

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for contacting CyberSmokeBlog. Completely agree. If you begin with the premise all politicians are oinkers until proven otherwise you won't be disappointed. Leave any political party in power long enough and it will become corrupt - Politics 101. It matters not whether they're Mulcairians, Trudeauians or whatever the principle is always the same.

It always seems to come back to what American documentary film maker Michael Moore once said, "Keep a very close watch on those in power."

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk   

Ripley's Believe It Or Not?

"..... I learned about this after stories appeared in the media last week speculating on the source of Mr. Duffy's repayment," he said. "I think what's more important is not simply that I did not know, but that I was not consulted. I was not asked to sign off on any such thing, and had I obviously been consulted or known, I would not have agreed with it ..... ." Stephen Harper, Lima Peru, Wednesday, May 22, 2013.

Next to Mike Duffy the ultimate in Canadian Senate "porkery!"

Senate Selection Committee could be the most expensive meeting on Parliament Hill

Althia Raj
Tuesday, May 21, 2013

OTTAWA — It could be the most expensive meeting on Parliament Hill.

Two senators are each pocketing several thousand dollars annually to head a committee that meets once a year – and sometimes not at all.

Conservative Senator Elizabeth Marshall, the Tory whip, receives $11,200 annually to serve as the chair of the Senate’s selection committee. That is on top of her $135,200 salary and the $11,200 she receives to serve as the Government’s whip. Her counterpart, Senator Jim Munson, the Liberals’ whip, receives $5,600 to serve as the vice-chair of the selection committee in addition to his $135,200 paycheque and the $6,600 he receives as whip.

The Senate selection committee last met – for 15 minutes – on June 9, 2011, right after the federal election. The meeting was to establish membership lists for all the Senate’s other committees, although, in actual fact, they simply rubber stamped decisions that the party leaders’ offices had already made.

The committee didn’t meet at all in 2012. It’s first meeting of 2013 is scheduled for Tuesday, a date that didn’t appear on the schedule until after HuffPost made inquiries last week about the committee’s work.

“For a committee where the chair is making $33,000 a meeting, it’s outrageous,” NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus told HuffPost.

Gregory Thomas, the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, called the practice “unacceptable.”

It’s “ridiculous” to pay them annually for chairing a committee that doesn’t even meet some years, he said. “They need to give the money back right away. And they need to end the practice.”

Conservative Senator Don Plett told The Huffington Post Canada he was not aware that Marshall and Munson were collecting extra pay to preside over the selection committee. Plett said he didn’t get any money to serve as deputy chair of the weekly veterans affairs subcommittee.

“I think I should definitely get extra money,” he said half-jokingly.

There are a lot of rules that need to be changed in the Senate, Plett added.

Should chairs that do a lot of extra work be compensated? “I think they should, if they do a lot of extra work...There should be some overall reforms,” he said.

Marshall told HuffPost that “things can change” but that, right now, this is the way the Selection committee works.

“It’s in the rules of the Senate, and the salary is in the legislation, I can only tell you what I do,” she said.

Marshall said she views her role as committee chair as being one that ensures Conservative senators show up to the committees to which they are assigned, and she views her role as whip as being one that ensures that Tory senators are present in the upper chamber when they have to be.

Munson told HuffPost the same thing.

“Each side has a shared responsibility for the membership selection of committees, the daily management of the committees and their effective functioning. There are procedures in place where I can fill the committees on a daily or weekly basis. Memberships often changes. Because the work of the committees is of such value, I continuously monitor their work,” Munson wrote in an email.

Munson said his primary function as whip is “managing caucus for Senate sittings, votes, question period, helping prepare opposition policy, and office accommodation.”

Althia Raj is Huffington Post Canada's Ottawa Bureau chief. Based in the capital she was previously a National Political Reporter for Postmedia News. Ms Raj has covered Parliament Hill on and off since 2006 writing for QMI Agency and producing for CTV and CBC Radio's The House. An occasional contributor to The Corporation's National At Issue panel she can be contacted on Twitter under @althiaraj.

Conservative Caucus gives standing ovation to Senators Duffy, Wallin, Harb, Brazeau and Merchant for their outstanding contributions saving taxpayers' money?

Good Day Readers:

Perhaps in a twisted, perverted way Canadian taxpayers owe a debt of gratitude to these individuals for focusing so much attention on the Senate that it will either have to be drastically reformed or preferably abolished. Each is moving this institution toward self-abolution.

Thank God for the Fourth Estate (Press) and Fourth and a Half Estate (Social Media) for relentless pursuing the matter and bringing it to the public's attention. Imagine where taxpayers would be if there were no 4th and 4 1/2?

Maybe American Documentary film maker Michael Moore said it best, "Keep a very close watch on those in power!"

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Reporters yell out questions at Harper after speech to Tory Caucus

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Reporters shouted questions at Prime Minister Stephen Harper after his brief statement to the Conservative Caucus on Tuesday morning.

Reporters shouted questions at Prime Minister Stephen Harper after his brief statement to the Conservative caucus on Tuesday morning. The prime minister spoke about his government's record on limiting MP spending, and making Ottawa more accountable.

The allegations facing Senator Mike Duffy, and former PMO chief of staff Nigel Wright were not mentioned in the speech. The PM was not scheduled to take questions but reporters defied event organizers and shouted questions at Harper. The Tory caucus continued their applause and tried to drown out journalists' questions. The journalists were soon ushered out of the room by PMO staff.

The Conservative government has been taking fire over a series of scandals involving Senate expenses. Last week, it was revealed that Wright wrote a personal $90,000  cheque to embattled Senator Mike Duffy. On Sunday, Wright resigned from his position. Duffy and Wallin resigned from the Tory caucus earlier in the week. A third senator, Patrick Brazeau, was removed from caucus earlier this year.

The NDP is calling for an RCMP investigation into Wright's cheque to Duffy.

Ottawa reporters and political watchers responded angrily on Twitter to Harper's speech. 

Play nice in the sandbox boys and girls of the Supreme Court of Canada

All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the tip of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sand pile at school.

These are the things I learned:

• Share everything
• Play fair
• Don't hit people
• Put things back where you found them
• Don't take things that aren't yours
• Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody
• Wash your hands before you eat
• Flush
• Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you
• Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw some and play and work ever day some
• Take a nap every afternoon
• When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together
• Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roods go down and the plant up and nobody really knows why, but they are all like that
• Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we
• And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggest word of all LOOK

Everything you need to know is there somewhere. The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation. Ecology and politics and equality and sane living

Take anyone of these items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your family life or your work or government or your world and it holds true and clear and firm. Think what a better world it would be if we all - the whole world - had cookies and milk at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon and then lay down with out blankies for a nap. Or if all governments had a basic policy to always put things where they found them and to clean up their own mess.

And it is still true, no matter how old you are, when you go out in the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together.

All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten by Robert Fulgham.

www.robertfulghum.com

"The Scoldee"

Retiring Supreme Court justice scolds junior colleague

Kirk Makin - Justice Reporter
Monday, May 20, 2012

Supreme Court of Justice Morris Fish is pictured on the front steps of the Supreme Court on April 22, 2013 in Ottawa. Justice Fish announced he will retire at the end of August. (Dave Chan for The Globe and Mail)

With his departure just weeks away, the senior judge from Quebec took a sharp jab recently at Justice Richard Wagner, the province's junior judge, in a homicide case featuring a hotly contested aspect of criminal law.

MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY

Supreme Court orders new trial for woman who disposed of baby’s body

• Supreme Court justice's departure puts pressure on PM
• Supreme Court becoming ‘Charter-averse,’ expert says

“My colleague’s assessment ... is both incomplete and flawed,” Justice Fish said.

The key issue in the case, R v Buzizi, was whether a trial judge should have permitted the jury at a Montreal murder trial to consider whether the victim provoked the accused into attacking him.

Writing on behalf of Justice Michael Moldaver and Justice Andromache Karakatsanis, Justice Fish said that the defence had “an air of reality” and, therefore, the jury should have considered it.

Justice Wagner concluded that there was no air of reality to the appellant’s claim of provocation because his violent acts were not a response to a “sudden, unexpected, spontaneous and unforeseeable situation.”

He urged his colleagues to show deference to the trial judge, “who is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is capable of supporting the necessary inferences is credible.”

Justice Fish accused Justice Wagner of ignoring key aspects of the evidence that bolstered the notion that the accused was provoked.

In a modulated response, Justice Wagner cited case law to bolster his own view of the defence of provocation.

Ottawa lawyer Eugene Meehan, a Supreme Court expert, said that Justice Fish’s unusual salvo at Justice Wagner, the court’s newest appointee, brought to mind National Geographic nature shows where a tribal patriarch smacks around a “newly arrived young buck.”

“Except this isn’t National Geographic; this is the Supreme Court of Canada,” Mr. Meehan said in an interview. “This was a high-water mark of juridical jabbing; something heretofore seen only in the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Mr. Meehan also noted that Justice Wagner’s elaborate minority reasons – which were considerably longer than those of Justice Fish’s judgment – strongly suggest that either Justice Moldaver or Justice Karakatsanis switched their vote late in the game, abandoning Justice Wagner and helping Justice Fish to fashion a majority.

Mr. Meehan said that Supreme Court judges tend to control their adverse reactions to colleagues since they know that in future cases they will need to solicit each judge’s vote in hopes of piecing together a majority.

“There will always be another playtime,” Mr. Meehan said. “And if you want the playtimes to be productive, you have to play nice in the sandbox. But if someone knows it’s their last playtime, the gloves come off.”

Criminal law has always been a staple of the court’s docket. As its ranking expert in the field, Justice Fish’s imminent departure from the court is a major concern to the defence bar, which perceives him as the only judge on the court who consistently advocates for the rights of the accused.

Last year, he aimed another shot across the bow of a colleague at a legal conference hosted by York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School.

In a speech that went unreported at the time, Justice Fish appeared to take on Justice Moldaver over a controversial position Justice Moldaver has espoused to the effect that the court system is being ground down by needless, futile challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from defence lawyers who pursue “mind-numbing” legal manoeuvring.

Justice Moldaver, a former defence counsel, invariably describes himself as a strong supporter of the Charter – but not of lawyers who “trivialize and demean” it by delaying cases and “pilfering precious legal-aid funds.”

Without mentioning Justice Moldaver by name, Justice Fish referred in his Osgoode Hall speech to “a controversy that has arisen in recent years about when counsel shall make submissions under the Charter.”

He urged defence lawyers to launch Charter challenges any time they feel it could advance a client’s interests, and where there is a reasonably cogent case to be made.

“I suggest to you that it is part of the duties of defence counsel to test the perimeters of Charter protection,” Justice Fish said. “I think it is counsel’s duty to assist the courts in litigating Charter claims.”

MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY

• Changes coming fast for Supreme Court

It's time to play Canadian taxpayers' favourite game show, "Want to be a senator?"

Good Day Readers:

And what about Senator Pamela Wallin who's travel expenses are currently the subject of a separate, independent audit? She sure has been quiet lately.

And then there's Senator Pana Merchant wife of Regina-based husband Tony ("Mr. Class Action Lawsuit") shown below.

Senator Merchant was already on the public record as supporting tougher legislation/better monitoring of offshore accounts designed to avoid the Canada Revenue Agency. Problem is, her husband was recently named in a massive data leak (160 times larger than Wikileaks) as one of approximately 450 Canadians identified by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists as holding such accounts. While certainly not illegal squirreling away such income from the taxman is - Ms Merchant was named as the benefactor. Media reports have suggested Mr. Merchant did not check off the question on his income tax return, "Do you have an offshore account(s)?"

Is what you are witnessing thus far the tip of the senatorial iceberg? Stay tuned as more shoes will surely drop.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

"Duffygate" Canada's Watergate 40 years later?

"Nigel the Banker"

No telephone calls only writing!

Good Day Readers:

CyberSmokeBlog received the following bilingual auto-response from it's Member of Parliament. Anyone can send these but will there be any meaningful follow up? Besides, having a healthy disrespect for politicians of all stripes (code for do not trust) CSB doesn't do telephone calls with them because there's no paper trail. In light of the Mike Duffy fiasco can you blame it?

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Thank you very much for writing the office of Shelly Glover, Member of Parliament for Saint Boniface. We appreciate hearing from constituents and being made aware of their views.

Constituents of Saint Boniface:

If you would like to receive a response, please ensure that you have included your mailing address along with your email. It is also appreciated if you can provide your phone number as many questions can be addressed more efficiently with a phone call. Responses to specific inquiries can be expected within three to five weeks.

Non-Constituents:

Please contact your Member of Parliament. If you don??t know who your MP is, you can search by postal code at www.elections.ca

Thank you again for writing.

Is your Member of Parliament tainted by the Duffy scandal?

Good Day Readers:

During the 2011 election campaign CyberSmokeBlog received an unsolicited voice mail from, yes, "The Honourable" Michael Dennis Duffy on behalf of its candidate in the St. Boniface, Manitoba Riding Shelly Glover. If it were, which it wasn't, suitably disposed to voting for Ms Glover that immediately disappeared upon hearing Mr. Duffy's voice.

The reason CSB will not endorse Shelly Glover is because she has been unable to shake her former police officer mindset as evidenced in the following photograph.

Shelly Glover seen here in a file photograph chasing and trying to apprehend and handcuff a poor, defenceless little frog. The frog got away -  Yes! The "Old Girl" isn't as fast as she used to be!

That coupled with the established fact any elected Conservative who goes counter to Stephen Harper is relegated to the back benches in CSB's view made her an undesirable candidate.

Disclaimer: This site has never contributed to, nor will it, to any federal political party and has never been a card carrying member. It has a healthy disrespect for all politicians and parties until they can prove otherwise. To date none have.

Given the following article, CyberSmokeBlog in its capacity as a constituent formally requests from its Member of Parliament:

(1) Was Mike Duffy paid for the voice mail message CSB received, presumably also sent to all qualified St. Boniface voters?

(2) If yes, what was the total cost of this initiative?

(3) From where did the funding come?

All replies will be reproduced on this site.

CyberSmokeBlog encourages other constituents in other Ridings who received "a Duffy call" to do the same.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
Constituent, St. Boniface, Manitoba

shelly.glover@parl.gc.ca
shelly@shellyglover.ca

Conservative senator Duffy claimed expenses while campaigning in 2011

By: Jennifer Ditchburn
Thursday, May 16, 2013

Senator Mike Duffy leaves a meeting of the Senate Internal Economy on Parliament Hill Thursday, May 9, 2013 in Ottawa. (The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick)

OTTAWA - Conservative Senator Mike Duffy submitted expense claims while Parliament was dissolved during the last federal election, reporting he was on Senate business on days he appeared to be campaigning for the party.

The full extent of Duffy's Senate expenses during the writ period remains a mystery — the Conservative government is refusing to reveal the full breakdown of the senator's claims and his repayment of $90,172.24.

But independent auditors at the firm Deloitte listed Duffy as being in Ottawa on Senate business and claiming a daily expense for seven days in April 2011, a month that was dominated by campaigning for the May 2 vote.

He was also listed as being on Senate business at an "other location" on another six days. Using cellphone records, Deloitte managed to catch one inappropriate "other location" claim from 2012 while Duffy was in Florida.

But the auditors said they remained in the dark about whether taxpayers paid his expenses on many other days, since Duffy failed to fully disclose his activities and records.

Social media and newspaper reports offer a glimpse of how Duffy's busy campaign schedule overlapped with the Senate business he reported to auditors:

— On April 5, Duffy spoke to the Kootenay-Columbia Conservative association in British Columbia. His travel claims indicated he was on Senate business.

— On April 8, candidate Sandy Lee tweeted that she was meeting Duffy in Norman Wells, NWT Lee's campaign paid Duffy $209.01 in expenses. His travel claims indicated he was on Senate business.

— On April 21, Duffy was reportedly campaigning with candidate Scott Armstrong in Nova Scotia. Armstrong's campaign paid Duffy $409.91 in expenses.

— On April 28, Duffy appeared to have a busy day in the Toronto area, campaigning with candidates Maureen Harquail, Wladyslaw Lizon and Gin Siow. Lizon's campaign paid Duffy $169.45, as did Siow. His travel claims indicated he was on Senate business.

— On April 29, former cabinet minister Lawrence Cannon tweeted a picture of Duffy at an event outside of Ottawa that same day. The Deloitte audit listed Duffy as being in Ottawa on Senate business and claiming a per diem.

If Duffy collected daily Senate expenses while on the Conservative campaign trail, taxpayer may have paid twice: Conservative candidates who paid for Duffy's hotel stays would have received federal rebate money for those expenses.

Duffy's campaign events did not end there. On at least five other occasions documented in media reports, Duffy campaigned with Conservative candidates. He did not tell Deloitte about his campaign calendar, forcing Deloitte to list his activities as "undocumented."

Meanwhile, the public Senate attendance register does not cover April or May 2011, the period that Parliament was dissolved.

"We are not on a leave of absence — Parliament was dissolved — we are still senators. However, all party work we are doing is paid for by the party," Duffy told Postmedia News during the campaign.

"MPs continue to be paid. So do we."

Duffy did not respond to a phone call or an email message requesting comment.

On Wednesday, the prime minister's office revealed that Stephen Harper's chief of staff Nigel Wright had given Duffy the $90,000 he needed for housing expense repayment as a gift.

But Duffy appeared to contradict that, according to a CTV News report Wednesday night. The network said it received an email from Duffy in which he claimed he repaid his expense claims with a loan from the Royal Bank and that "Nigel played no role.”

Once the repayment was made, Deloitte said Duffy ended his participation in the audit, stopping short of providing financial records, credit card statements and information about his calendar. He also did not meet with the auditors.

"Based on the information provided in the travel claims, it is not clear from the claims where Senator Duffy was located on days he claimed per diem amounts," Deloitte wrote.

Senator Mac Harb, formerly a Liberal who is now independent and contesting a Senate demand he repay $51,482 in housing-related expenses, is also listed as having been in Ottawa on Senate business on four days during the federal election period, but reported no Senate business outside of Ottawa.

Senator Patrick Brazeau, also now independent after being kicked out of the Conservative caucus, only listed one day of Senate business in Ottawa during the writ period. He is also fighting a demand for repayment of $48,744 in housing expenses.

Deloitte also highlighted six expense claims when Harb said he was in Ottawa on "Senate business" without being able to prove what he was doing, and two for Brazeau. In both cases, Harb and Brazeau provided Deloitte with more documents than Duffy, and met with the auditors in person.

More senatorial skullduggery?

Nigel Wright, Chief of Staff for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, appears as a witness at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Tuesday, November 2, 2010. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Mike Duffy made secret deal with Harper's Chief of Staff During Audit

CTVNews.ca Staff
Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Chief of Staff secretly intervened to help Conservative Senator Mike Duffy pay back tens of thousands of dollars in improperly claimed expenses while an external audit was still underway, CTV News has learned.

Two months before the audit was released, Harper’s top advisor Nigel Wright had a PMO lawyer work on a letter of understanding with Duffy’s legal counsel.

Sources told CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife that the deal involved Duffy reimbursing taxpayers in return for financial help and a promise from the government to go easy on him.

At one point, Duffy expected the PMO to cover all of the money he’d improperly claimed – more than $90,000.

In a February 20 email, Duffy said Wright worked out a “scenario” where all of his claimed living expenses would be covered, including “cash for the repayment.”

Two days later, Duffy publicly vowed to reimburse the taxpayers, saying he "may have been mistaken" when he filled out Senate housing allowance forms, claiming a cottage in Prince Edward Island as his primary residence.

In March, Duffy repaid $90,172.

“If there is some kind of agreement that somehow Senator Duffy is going to be compensated, then I think Canadians would be appalled,” Liberal MP Ralph Goodale said.

“It doesn’t pass the smell test and the Prime Minister’s Office needs to come clean.”

NDP MP Mathieu Ravignat called the matter “troubling.”

“This is supposed to be an independent forensic audit. There shouldn’t be interference,” he said.

The PMO and Duffy released identical statements Tuesday, saying: “Mr. Duffy had paid back the expenses in question – and no taxpayer resources were used.”

A senior official refused to comment when asked if anyone helped Duffy with the repayment, including a loan from the Royal Bank.

The Conservative Party told Fife late Tuesday that party funds were not used.

Records show that Duffy is carrying a $360,000 mortgage on his Ottawa-area home. His PEI residence is mortgage-free.

Duffy, Liberal Senator Mac Harb and Independent Senator Patrick Brazeau were all audited over concerns about their housing allowance claims.

Senators can claim an annual housing allowance of up to $22,000 if their primary residence is more than 100 kilometres outside of Ottawa.

Harb has claimed as his primary residence a bungalow in Westmeath, Ontario but neighbours told CTV earlier this year that no one seems to live in the house year-round. He was ordered to repay $51,482, including interest, for the period from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2013.

Brazeau claimed his father’s address in Maniwaki, Quebec as his primary residence, despite the fact that it is believed he lived in a home in Gatineau, a short drive from Parliament Hill. He must pay back $48,744, including interest.

Both Harb and Brazeau have said that they will fight the Senate’s repayment orders.

Meanwhile, Duffy refused to co-operate with the auditors. In one email he wrote: “I stayed silent on the orders of the PMO.”

After the Deloitte audit was released, the Harper government praised Duffy for showing "leadership" and voluntarily paying back the money.

But Liberals accused the Tories of whitewashing Duffy’s expense reports. They also questioned why the audit of Duffy’s expense claims did not mention that the Senate rules were clear about primary residence claims. That was mentioned in Brazeau and Harb’s audits.

Both Liberals and the NDP also accused the Conservative chairman of the internal economy committee, Senator David Tkachuk, of giving Duffy a heads up about improperly claimed per diems. Duffy reimbursed the Senate for that as well.

After the Deloitte audit was tabled in the Senate, government leader Marjory LeBreton said the matter would not be referred to the RCMP.

But CTV News later reported that the Mounties are poised to open a criminal investigation into the senators' expenses.

With a report from CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife

The Canadian Judicial System: By the lawyers, for the lawyers of the lawyers but not the laypeople!

Dr. Julie Macfarlane

Ian Mulgrew: Access to justice is a fairy tale, self-represented litigants conclude

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

A study of self-represented litigants in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario showed a lack of representation is creating a crisis of faith in the legal system. Those who went to court without a lawyer reported depleting their savings, haveing difficulty handling their jobs and suffering physical and emotional health problems. (Photograph by:Steve Bosch/Province)

The final report of the National Self-Represented Litigants Project says the country’s justice system isn’t working unless you’re rich enough to afford a lawyer.

Written by University of Windsor law professor Julie Macfarlane, the 147-page document is a litany of despair and a depressing glimpse inside the courthouses of three provinces.

“While some of the most extreme reactions border on the paranoid, many self-represented litigants appraise their experience in a rational and balanced way in coming to the conclusion that the justice system is ‘broken,’” Macfarlane reports.

“Their basic complaint is clear — that instead of a user-friendly, practical means of resolving disputes, the courts offer a false promise of ‘access to justice.’”

She urged sweeping reform and broad cultural change across the legal system.

Funded by the Law Foundations of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, Macfarlane and her team interviewed more than 100 court staff and service providers along with 259 self-represented litigants.

The sample of litigants was almost exactly half men and half women; 63 per cent were plaintiffs or petitioners, and 37 per cent were defendants or respondents; roughly 40 per cent were earning more than $50,000 a year and half had a university degree. This isn’t about hurdles faced by the poor, the disadvantaged or the non-computer-literate.

In fact, many of the frustrated litigants said that if trying to get justice was so difficult for them given their education, what was it like for someone without their training or who wasn’t fluent in French or English?

The results of the survey are scalding.

“No more fairy tale about having access to a justice system,” said one litigant.

“My expectations?” said another. “I can’t even remember my expectations any more. My life just fell apart.”

As one put it: “There are all these buildings — the courthouses — that are like false-front buildings, like they have at Universal Studios — they are supposed to help you, but they don’t.”

Some remain angry and distressed about what happened to them — and there are thousands upon thousands left similarly disillusioned.

“This is creating a crisis of faith in the Canadian justice system,” Macfarlane insisted.

Consistently 40 per cent or more of the litigants in family courts are unrepresented, while in some civil courts, 70 per cent are unrepresented.

In British.Columbia, 80 per cent of those in small claims court are unrepresented.

“The numbers are extraordinary,” the report says, adding registry and court staff feel under siege and desperate.

Most people represented themselves because they couldn’t afford legal fees or had already spent $20,000-plus without achieving a resolution and running out of funds.

“A mechanic will tell you how long it will take and about how much it will cost,” said one, “a lawyer won’t do that.”

Only one in 10 thought they were up to the task of representing themselves. Most discovered they weren’t.

Many didn’t have the office services required to pursue an action — printing and photocopying facilities or even computers.

In spite of the promise that online services aid access to justice, the litigants had difficulty filling in the forms, which they found too complex.

Many grew frustrated when failure to fill in the forms properly had serious consequences for the progress of their actions.

Even those with training have problems: A number of court staff said they and some lawyers had difficulty completing the forms or keeping up with the constant changes.

Court guides seem to be written in a foreign tongue and the entire online self-help process left self-represented litigants scratching their heads.

It added insult to injury to be constantly told they “should consult a lawyer.”

The self-represented litigants emphasized the lack of accountability — neither lawyers nor judges were seen to be subject to any meaningful oversight.

Some judges rudely scolded them and treated them with contempt, yet the mechanism for complaining about such treatment was highly protective of the bench.

Some of the litigants broke down in tears simply recounting their humiliating experience.

“The negativity of so many self-represented litigants about judges makes for upsetting reading, but they point to some deep-rooted problems that require our urgent attention,” Macfarlane says.

“Read alongside the poor (previous) experiences of many self-represented litigants with legal counsel, they suggest that public confidence in the justice system is damaged, and diminishing further day by day.”

The study concluded that self-represented litigants deplete their savings, lose their job or have difficulty at work trying to manage their legal cases, endure social isolation from friends and family as the case becomes increasingly complex and overwhelming and suffer a myriad of physical and emotional health problems.

“The scale and frequency of these individually experienced consequences represent a social problem on a scale that requires our recognition and attention,” Macfarlane said. “The costs are as yet unknown.”

Still, it’s not that self-represented litigants don’t want lawyers to help them: They’re saying the way lawyers offer their services doesn’t fit within their budgets.

The report concludes as many other recent studies have: the profession faces difficult choices about ending its monopoly, making room for more paralegals and others; doing piecework or some of the tasks related to a file but not the entire case (the so-called unbundling of legal services); and loosening its traditional professional control over the conduct of a case.

(The report is available at representing-yourself.com)

imulgrew@vancouversun.com