Friday, November 30, 2012

Vote Marg Delahunty as Toronto's next mayor!

Ford Nation broken!

Canada's biggest city
Model-T breaks down
A city and its government are struck in gridlock
Saturday, December 1, 2012
ON NOVEMBER 26th an Ontario Superior Court judge ended the short, chaotic reign of Rob Ford (pictured) as mayor of Canada’s largest city, finding him guilty of a conflict of interest and ordering him to leave office within 14 days. Mr Ford blamed it on his opponents: “the left-wing wants me out of here and they’ll do anything in their power” to achieve that. That message resonates with his supporters, known as Ford Nation, who helped their man win an election in October 2010 on a platform of less government, lower taxes and an end to the “gravy train” in municipal politics.

In fact, Mr Ford was largely the architect of his own downfall. Although there are no political parties at municipal level, his bombastic, polarising manner has prompted remorseless opposition. The turmoil surrounding him has added to the troubles of Canada’s business capital, a city of 2.6m that is struggling with an unwieldy political structure, financial strain and horrendous transport problems.
Model-T Ford breaks down

The mayor was caught talking on his mobile phone while driving (against the law in Ontario), reading while driving on the expressway (also illegal), using city staff and money to run a high-school football team that he skipped out of council meetings to coach, and ordering city staff to mend the road in front of his family’s business. He shrugged off most of these accusations, although he denied giving the finger to a woman and her six-year-old daughter who had gestured to him to stop using his mobile phone while driving.

The offence that caused Mr Ford’s ejection followed a familiar pattern. While still a city councillor, Mr Ford used his official status to raise C$3,150 ($3,170) for his private charity, a football foundation. He refused to repay the money, ignoring a request by the city’s integrity commissioner that was endorsed by the council.

As mayor, he took part in a debate and a vote last February overturning the integrity commissioner’s findings. That was a breach of the law and the mandatory penalty was loss of office.

Mr Ford’s supporters have latched on to the disproportionate penalty—even the judge acknowledged that the act was “a very blunt instrument”—as a reason why he should keep his job. “I never believed there was a conflict of interest, because I had nothing to gain and the city had nothing to lose,” the mayor said. He plans to appeal against the decision.

But some of his fellow councillors want Mr Ford to step aside temporarily to curtail the uncertainty at city hall. The council could call a by-election or appoint a temporary mayor. Mr Ford’s term has been “a constant sideshow of litigation, gaffes and a distracting focus on high-school football,” said Josh Matlow, who represents a central ward. If the city council is to deal with Toronto’s problems, “this circus” must come to an end, he added.

Stand on the platform at St Andrew subway station in the city centre and Toronto’s problems are evident.

The walls are grimy, and sections of vinyl panelling are missing. Renovations begun in 2009 are unfinished.

Chronic underfunding of an overburdened public-transport network, and the council’s lengthy wrangling over a new plan have created a shabby and truncated subway that is unfit for the world-class metropolis Toronto claims to be. Although several new light-rail lines funded by Ontario’s provincial government are being built, the lack of public transport means that more than 70% of Torontonians with jobs drive to work. They face longer journey times than commuters in car-obsessed Los Angeles.

A second problem is that, whereas Chicago and other American cities have turned their waterfronts into attractive, accessible public areas, Toronto’s is hidden by a wall of apartment towers and separated from the city by an elevated expressway. Last year Mr Ford withdrew the city’s support for a redevelopment plan endorsed by the previous council as well as the provincial and federal governments, which both own parcels of lakefront land. He wanted to replace a proposed park with a mega-mall and a giant Ferris wheel. After much debate and delay, the city has reverted to the original plan.

Toronto still ranks highly on international lists of desirable places to live. But its politicians’ inability to come to grips with its problems is alienating some admirers. Richard Florida, an American urban guru who moved to Toronto in 2007, says the city is now “a more divided and contentious place, its once enviable social cohesion at risk, a growing split pitting downtown against the suburbs.”

This is not all Mr Ford’s fault. The province paved the way for political conflict in 1998 when it merged the city of Toronto with six surrounding municipalities. The effect was to set councillors like Mr Ford from sprawling suburbs, where the car is essential, against inner-city politicians who want more public transport and bicycle lanes, according to Robert Young, a political scientist at the University of Western Ontario. The lack of parties means that the 45-member council struggles to reach agreement. Mayors have profile but little power, a source of Mr Ford’s frustration.

In office, Mr Ford found there was less waste than he had thought, though he did slow the rate of increase in spending. But others worry that Canada’s big cities have insufficient revenue-raising powers. They must rely on the provinces and the federal government, which makes their funding less predictable. This has led to some seemingly desperate wheezes to get revenue: Toronto is competing to host a new casino and remote towns are striving to attract a nuclear-waste dump.

If he fails to cling on, Mr Ford is more likely to be remembered for his antics than for his small-government ideology. Either way, Toronto has work to do to keep its position as Canada’s leading city.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Thank you Mr. Harper!

The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advises that the Honourable A. Lori Douglas, a Judge of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench for Manitoba (Family Division) be appointed Associate Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench for Manitoba (Family Division)

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

On behalf of CyberSmokeBlog thank you for the cost efficient appointment that will save millions and millions and millions of taxpayer dollars by the time the Douglas Inquiry is finished.

Clare L. Pieuk

Does Canada have an epidemic of "copy-and-paste" Judges ..... more cases for the Canadian Judicial Council?

Good Day Readers:

When a reader sent the link to this story it rang familiar and sure enough it's not the first case. Didn't take long to find this.
The Supreme Court of Canada heard an unusual case today. The basis of the appeal was not any action of the plaintiffs or the defendants, but rather one of the trial judge. In his 368-paragraph decision to award $4 million in damages to the plaintiffs, the trial judge is alleged to have copied 321 paragraphs from the plaintiff’s submissions.* (The fact that 20 of the 47 paragraphs written by the judge in his own words consist largely of uncontroversial facts or introductory passages didn’t help, either.)

On appeal, the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal decided that it was not OK for a trial judge to deliver reasons for judgment that to a large extent reproduced the successful party’s submissions without attribution.+

Let’s be clear: there’s nothing inherently wrong with a judge’s adopting of parties’ submissions. In fact, from time to time, a party’s submissions may accurately reflect the judge’s opinion in rendering the decision. I have seen it done at various levels of the judiciary.

However, it’s one thing for judges to adopt analysis or submissions to aid their reasoning. But it’s another to cut and paste the reasons for judgment on a wholesale scale from the successful party’s submissions. The practice gives rise to concerns of perceived bias. To some it may even suggest the demise of judicial integrity.

Regarding the case at bar, there is very little evidence that the trial judge applied his own meaningful analysis, based on the evidence presented before the court, to reach a reasonable conclusion. In fact, a majority of the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge “failed entirely to deal with a cogent and uncontradicted defence” submitted by the defendants.

The two findings above, concluded the Court of Appeal, may lead the public to think that the judge has not done his job as an impartial umpire of complicated disputes and that he may not have examined all of the evidence before making his findings. As such, the Court of Appeal concluded that the decision in question could not stand. A new trial was ordered.

Unsatisfied with the prospect of a new trial, the plaintiffs obtained permission to bring the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. The judges at the top court now must confront the matter and decide whether the trial judge’s wholesale importation of the successful party’s submission undermined the presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality.

*Cojocaru (Guardian Ad Litem) v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital, 2009 BCSC 494 (CanLII)
+Cojocaru (Guardian Ad Litem) v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital, 2011 BCCA 192 (CanLII)

Then there's the Manitoba Queen's Bench Justice who like to use the same example in explaining to juries the difference circumstantial evidence and direct evidence (heard it twice). Circumstantial evidence is when you see someone wearing a raincoat. Direct evidence is when it's dripping wet.

Clare L. Pieuk
Controversy Surrounds Alleged Judicial Plagiarism in Judge's Decision
By Paula Simons
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Law Courts in Edmonton (Photograph by Candace Elliott

EDMONTON - “Cut and paste.”

It’s one of the most dangerous, tempting tricks in the writers’ lexicon — especially with today’s technology, which allows you to embed someone else’s phrases and paragraphs seamlessly into your own.

Here in Alberta, we’ve seen former premier Ralph Klein make himself a laughingstock by cutting and pasting his way through a university paper. We’ve seen Philip Baker, the dean of the University of Alberta’s School of Medicine, resign his position after he cut and pasted the words of American doctor-turned-author Atul Gawande into a speech.

For journalists, of course, the wicked allure of cut-and-paste is ever present, and the list of high-profile writers who’ve been outed as copy (and paste) cats is long and inglorious.

But a decision released last week by the Alberta Court of Appeal puts a whole new spin on the copy and paste phenomenon.

In a blistering unanimous ruling, Justices Jack Watson, Frans Slatter and Patricia Rowbotham tore a strip off Justice Donald Lee of the Court of Queen’s Bench.

Lee was ruling on two applications in a complicated, convoluted intellectual property case involving the University of Alberta and Dr. Lung-Ji Chang, a former U of A biomedical researcher, now on faculty at the University of Florida.

They’ve been a legal loggerheads for 10 years, quarrelling over commercial rights to Chang’s gene therapy and cancer research.

According to the Court of Appeal, Lee cut and pasted his legal reasoning in two critical findings in the case directly from the written arguments of the lawyers — particularly the lawyers acting for Chang.

“Every one of the paragraphs in the reasons was extracted, essentially verbatim, from the chambers briefs,” said the appeal court. “There is no independent authorship. Even spelling mistakes in the briefs are faithfully carried forward.”

The issue isn’t merely plagiarism. In substituting the arguments of one of the litigants for his own, said the appeal court, Lee had “failed to engage in any meaningful analysis of the issues, and failed to provide reasons that disclose his reasoning.”

Lee didn’t weigh and evaluate the evidence then draw his own impartial, independent conclusions. He simply parroted back the arguments of one of the litigants, without any meaningful discussion or examination of the conflicting evidence in the case.

And so, the appeal court threw out Lee’s rulings in their entirety. Now, all parties in the case will have the expense of making their applications all over again.

That’s especially ironic, given Lee’s findings had to do with whether previous delays in the case had been inordinate.

On Monday, the University of Alberta expressed pleasure with the ruling, declining further comment because the matter is still before the courts. (Phone and email messages to Chang and his lawyer went unanswered.).

But what happens to Donald Lee? He’s a federally appointed judge, and federal judges are disciplined, when the need for discipline arises, by the independent Canadian Judicial Council. But the council can only act if it receives a formal written complaint. And even then, its powers are tightly circumscribed. In the most serious, extreme cases, the Council can hold a public inquiry, which can lead to dismissal. But there’s virtually no mechanism to discipline a judge for a lesser offence — apart from suggesting a letter of apology or some kind of remedial training. Those policies are meant to safeguard judicial independence, to insulate judges from political persecution. But while it’s essential to protect our judicial system from external meddling, such a system makes it difficult to sanction judges for human errors that don’t quite warrant removal from the bench.

It’s bad enough for a premier, taking a correspondence course, to copy without citation. It’s bad enough for a dean, making a dinner speech, to steal someone else’s stories. It’s far worse for a sitting judge, whose job it is to uphold the law, to abuse the cut-and-paste function to avoid his own fundamental intellectual responsibilities. Yet Lee isn’t alone. Just last week, the Supreme Court of Canada heard a strikingly parallel case from British Columbia, in which the judge ruling in a medical malpractice case regurgitated the plaintiff’s arguments and analysis in place of his own.

Lee’s actions may not warrant removal from the bench. But to maintain public confidence, to sustain the integrity of our courts, the Canadian Judicial Council must send a strong message that cut-and-paste justice won’t cut it. If we can’t rely on our judges to think for themselves, to give all arguments a fair and thorough analysis, then none of us can have confidence in the rule of law.

Urban legend or true ..... Manitoba Law Courts staff used to pee to much?

Good Day Readers:

If you've been at the Manitoba Law Courts you'll notice in the lobby there's a very impressive, large, tasteful plant arrangement, fountain and mini-canal system. A couple years ago while chatting with a sheriff CSB asked why the fountain had been discretely camouflaged (plants) and there was no water?

Well, although the sheriff was not there when it happened he told the story that about 20 years ago there was indeed water, problem was, the noise of it cascading over the fountain caused employees, or so management thought, to take too many pee breaks. After laughing increduously, CyberSmokeBlog decided to check this out with a couple veteran staffers and, yes, it is true. Management it its infinite wisdom ordered the water removed several years ago..

This thought was occasioned the other day while passing through perimeter security. Can't help smiling every time the disguised fountain comes into view..

Wait until you hear the one about the old school bus that was used in bygone days to transport prisoners to the Law Courts before the then new Remand Centre was built across the street several years ago. Laugh as you will and you will.

Clare L. Pieuk

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Is the devil in the details?

Good Day Readers:

We plan to send Mr. Baumberg a thank you note shortly. We have emphasized (below) the following section of his comments from the last paragraph of his reply. Working with a small group who advises, CyberSmokeBlog a list of questions will be developed seeking clarification of certain provisions outlined in this paragraph. In the meantime, if there's anything you would like to ask the gentleman, please e-mail it.

"..... It will be possible to provide, on request, a copy of the recording for the limited purpose of non-broadcast media coverage of the hearing (i.e. except on specific request and subsequent written confirmation from the Court, no copyright permission would be granted for broadcast, internet posting, etc.).


Clare L. Pieuk

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Good Afternoon:

Please note that the hearing of October 30 was scheduled as a teleconference, with the parties' representatives participating by phone. The court granted the media's request to participate on the same basis as the parties (i.e. by phone). The docket entry for this hearing is found below:

Ottawa, October 30, 2012 Before Mireille Tabib, Prothonotary:

Before the Court: Case Management Conference to discuss initial matters which require the assistance of the Case Management Judge, such as the parties request to have related files T-1562-12 and T-1789-12 case managed, proposed motions, Rule 317 requests and the proposed Amended Notice of Application. Result of Hearing: Mr. Chapman's motion filed October 30th seeking leave to be added as a Respondent in this application and the Attorney General's proposed motion to be removed as a respondent in this application will be heard in Toronto on November 30, 2012 for 1 day. Any proposed motions to intervene will be briefed once the above motions are disposed of. The Rules in this matter are suspended pending the determination of Mr. Chapman and the AGC's motions. An Order will follow. held in chambers by way of Conference Call Duration per day: 30-October, 2012 from 01:20 to 03:20 Courtroom: Judge's Chambers - Ottawa Court Registrar: Christen Clement Total Duration: 2h Appearances: Sheila Block/Molly Reynolds (416) 865-7319 representing The Honourable Lori Douglas; Catherine Lawrence/Zoe Oxaal (613) 948-3463 representing AGC; Rocco Galati (416) 536-7811 representing Alexander Chapman; Paul Cavalluzzo/Adrienne Telford (416) 964-5500 representing Canadian Judicial Council (T-1789-12); Peter Griffin/Jaan Lilles (416) 865-2921 representing Guy Pratte (T-1789-12); John Hunter/Claire Hunter 011-490-351-216-2528/(604) 891-2403 representing Inquiry Committee; Chris Paliare/Richard Stephenson (416) 646-4318 representing Superior Court Judge's Assocociation; Suzanne Coté/Alexandre Fallon (514) 904-8180 representing New Independent Counsel in the Inquiry 

Comments: This matter was heard with T-1562-12 and T-1789-12. Minutes were taken in T-1567-12 only. Cristin Schmitz for the Lawyers Weekly and Christie Blatchford for the National Post were in attendance. Minutes of Hearing entered in Volume 870 page(s) 106 - 122 Abstract of Hearing placed on file

The hearing scheduled for November 30 in Toronto is being held in open court with parties / counsel appearing in person, and is accessible to the public. See Court hearing list for Toronto:

No phone / audio access will be provided for.

However, the Federal Court Registry is currently testing a new digital audio recording system and will have a stand-alone unit in the Courtroom for Friday's full-day hearing as part of a pilot project. as. As long as the test equipment functions properly on Friday, it will be possible to provide, on request, a copy of the recording for the limited purpose of non-broadcast media coverage of the hearing (i.e., except on specific request and subsequent written confirmation from the Court, no copyright permission would be granted for broadcast, internet posting, etc.). Note that given the hearing is scheduled to run the full day on Friday, a copy of the recording likely will be made only the following week.

With Best Regards, Andrew

Andrew Baumberg

Legal Counsel/Conseiller juridique
Federal Clourt / Cour federale
(6123) 947-3177

Monday, November 26, 2012

Mr. Andrew Baumberg

Executive Officer to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H9

Re: Audio Link for CyberSmokeBlog

Dear Mr. Baumberg:

In recent correspondence with Mr. Norman Sabourin, Executive Director, Senior Legal Counsel for the Canadian Judicial Council he suggested members of the media who would like more information about court proceedings direct their questions to you.

As you are undoubtedly aware, two representatives form the mainstream media were allowed to attend the October 30, 2012 meeting held in Toronto to discuss the Douglas Inquiry.

As a Media Citizen Journalist and Blogger who has been closely following said Inquiry, I formally request audio arrangements be made at the Federal Court in Winnipeg so CyberSmokeBlog can monitor on behalf of its readers the upcoming meeting scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in Toronto.


Clare L. Pieuk

Media Citizen Journalist

Blog Master

Norman Sabourin

Mr. Googles writes Justice Roadkill .....

Mr. Googles 
Justice Roadkill
Good Day Readers:

Well, Mr. Googles legal researcher extraordinaire is up to it again he's written to Justice RoadKill. By way of background, Justice RoadKill is former Supreme Court of Canada Justice William C. Binnie who wrote the 2008 decision in the defamation case Simpson versus Mair WIC in which he said in part referring to Ms Kari D. Simpson:

"..... But when what they say is highly damaging to a particular individual, can you really say, we're sorry, you are road kill in this debate, but it is an important debate?"

Since then Kari Simpson has blossomed.
She began by founding web-based RoadKill Radio which has recently launched a Print Edition.
Then there's Drive For Justice perhaps best epitomized by the following cartoon showing former Justice Binnie and colleagues hanging on for dear life while desperately trying to balance the scales of justice against an overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting Kari Simpson. The 2,000 pound bull at the bottom is lead by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.
Drive For Justice is a series of 23 online videos, the most recently released a couple days ago, narrated by by former Vancouver Sun reporter Ron Gray replete in a smoking jacket.
And you thought the Douglas Inquiry was fascinating. Wait until you familiarize yourself with Simpson versus Mair &WIC and federally appointed British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Mary Marvyn Konesberg and her role in the case. You will scratch your head wondering about the Canadian Judicial Council's ability to discipline Judges.
If Ms Simpson is able to successfully lobby, and she's one tough lady, for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the conduct of Justice Koenigsberg it has the potential to make the Douglas Inquiry look like a piker. The potential exists to blow the socks/nylons off just about everyone in British Columbia's legal establishment who "touched" this file.
It's no accident around CyberSmokeBlog Kari Simpson is known as Ms Balls of Steel or simply Ms Cojones for short.

Now back to Mr. Googles. Here's an e-mail he sent CyberSmokeBlog the other day.

Clare L. Pieuk

Dear Mr. Binnie:

I have just learned that you are an ICJ Commissioner ( In that capacity I hope you well be receptive from a Canadian citizen though it is one you will find troubling.

I have also just read an article about you published in the Globe and Mail during April ( that suggests to me that you will have no difficulty appreciating my perspective.

I am appending an e-mail I sent yesterday to a former President of the Canadian Bar Association and with that two earlier emails the first of which is a submission I made recently to a Law Reform Commission in Australia.

The knowledge I have acquired over some thirteen years of testing the legal system as my own advocate pales compared to what I don't know, but nevertheless I believe the perspective I have developed is an objective and very valuable one.

For example, I would suggest that the impact of the Charter on the Canadian legal regime will prove to be insignificant compared to the impact of the internet on the legal regime globally. A true realization of the rule of law in practice requires that no privileged community stand in the way of access to the laws and legal process, unless of course, that community is able to offer its services without bias to every person whenever they are needed.

If, as I suspect, such universal service is impractical, then the monopoly itself is an impediment to realizing the rule of law.

Chris Budgell
Vancouver, British Columbia

From: Chris Budgell (
Date: Sunday, November 25, 2012
Subject: Why the Monopoly is Unconstitutional
To: Barry Gorlick (

Dear Mr. Gorlick:

Today I received an e-mail that included a link to a National Post article ( in which you were mentioned. I commend you for raising that question with the federal Minister of Justice.

I want to share with you my perspective on this issues because I have considerable experience as a self-represented litigant and had long ago concluded that, as such, and facing counsel representing powerful clients including members of the legal establishment, had no real prospect of receiving a fair hearing in any forum.

I am appending two fairly recent emails from me to members of the legal establishment in Canada and to a Law Reform Commission in Australia. From these you will be able to understand the case I am still pursuing.

Additionally, I believe that given the lack of separation between the Bar and the Bench, together with the legal profession's very substantial control of the Executive Branch of every province and the federal government, there is a compelling argument that the statutory monopolies granted to Law Societies are unconstitutional. That is another action I want to pursue.  

I note that you served a term as President of the Canadian Bar Association. After I discovered on the CBA's website the Judges Forum Page, the link to the Vox Judica had been removed. I then found the links to the previous editions and have posted online a complete list of those links

The Forum declined to provide me with a list of its members. I can accept that because it confirms that the CBA is an Association that represents exclusively the interests of its members, and not, as is often claimed, the public interest.

Chris Budgell
Vancouver, British Columbia

From: Chris Budgell (
Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Subject: A Submission to the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia
To: Gordon Turiff (
Cc: Leonard Doust; Bruce LeRose; Robert C. Brun rbrun@harrisbrun.comMichelle Fuerst; Ian Mulgrew; Kirk Makin

Dear Mr. Turriff:

Yesterday I sent the appended e-mail to LRCWA in response to the invitation on their website and in their discussion paper. I included a comment about the speech you gave in Perth, Australia during  2009. There is, of course, a great deal more I could say about these matters but I note that when I offered you an opportunity to engage in a meaningful dialogue with me, your response was simply that we would have to agree to disagree.

Chris Budgell

From: Chris Budgell (
Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Subject: A Submission to the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia's Invitation Complaints Against Judiciary
To: LRCWA Chair Richard Douglas
Members Alan Sefton; Member Augusto Zimmerman; LRSWA
Cc: Gonzalo Guzman, International Bar Association 

Dear Commission Members:

I recently discovered your discussion paper entitled, "Complaints Against Judiciary

which includes an invitation to make submissions.

Though I am not a citizen of Australia but of Canada (currently residing in British Columbia), I note that your paper includes (on pages 69 to 72 of 107) a summary of the Canadian Judicial Council's complaints process, including an accompanying flowchart.  I have personal experience as a complainant with the CJC's process, and I believe you will benefit from hearing about what is missing from this summary and from the flowchart.

As a complainant my perspective may be seen as a biased one, however I can also claim that it is an informed one.  I will suggest that the nature of the missing information as well as the fact it is missing reveals a highly consequential bias on the part of the CJC which, to put it bluntly, does not want the public to know how it really operates.  By appreciating this point, perhaps you will be encouraged to avoid the same bias and lack of transparency in any process you design.

First as background, I would like to draw your attention to a document publicly accessible on the Law Society of British Columbia's website

This is, principally, the text of a speech given in Perth in 2009 by Gordon Turriff who was then the LSBC's President. The speech is preceded by a statement by the British Columbia Chief Justice Lance Finch, and by an introductory note by Mr. Turriff. At the end of that note he states that in his view Australians do not enjoy the rule of law, though the way he had put it to his audience in Perth is demonstrated under his heading, "B. APOLLOGIA."

I could offer a very thorough critique of this speech, but I want to make special note of one important difference between the justice regimes in our respective countries that it does not mention.  There is no "cab rank rule" or any similar principle in Canada.  In fact, lawyers are encouraged to cultivate select clienteles and as a result entire classes of potential clients are routinely denied representation.  Those persons thus denied representation who then decide to proceed as self-represented litigants (SRL's) face another daunting reality of which few Canadians are cognizant, which is that there is no separation whatsoever between the bar and the bench (e.g. the membership of the Canadian Bar Association includes a great many judges).  Nor, in my view, is there any effective separation between the judicial and executive branches of government (a subject that warrants a separate and comprehensive exposition).

So, when Mr. Turriff says, as he did in his speech, "In Canada, we believe very strongly that we can’t be partners in lawyer regulation with an entity [the Crown] we are bound to challenge on behalf of clients to whom we owe a duty of undivided loyalty", that is cold comfort to someone like me who has been compelled repeatedly to proceed without counsel against politically powerful adversaries, including the Attorney General of B.C. (a public office held, at the time I challenged him in court, by a former justice of the B.C. Court of Appeal).

All of that, I hope, you will appreciate as background to the point I wish to raise about the CJC's complaints process.The flowchart is missing a highly consequential step, which I learned about this year when my second complaint to the CJC (I had made one in 2012) was summarily dismissed not by a member of the Council, but by an employee: Executive Director and Senior General Counsel Norman Sabourin. I have posted the letter he sent to me online

The flowchart on the CJC's website

is the same one that appears in your discussion paper. I too was not aware that Mr. Sabourin had the authority he claims until I received his letter, for though my first complaint had been answered by a letter from him, in that instance he claimed merely to be relaying to me the decision of Judicial Conduct Committee Vice Chair Neil Wittmann.

Section 3.5 of the CJC's complaints process, that is footnoted in your paper, says that the Chairperson [of the Judicial Complaints Committee] may "close the file if he or she is of the view that the complaint is (i) trivial, vexatious, made for an improper purpose, manifestly without substance, or does not warrant further consideration". One would suppose that in the hands of a principled adjudicator this would suffice to screen out all but the clearly meritorious complaints. Why then is this powerful screening process preceded by another one in section 2.2? The Chairperson won't need to decide whether or not to close a file if there is no file to close, and that decision is made by the Executive Director. What is the difference in meaning between the terms "clearly irrational" and "an obvious abuse of the complaints process" used in section 2.2 and the terms used in section 3.5?

In 2010 I did not know (and the CJC did not inform me) that a decision of the CJC can be challenged by judicial review in Canada's Federal Court.  I learned that fairly recently and have filed a petition to challenge this latest decision.  In doing so I asked for some information about the use of the rule that Mr. Sabourin has cited specifically when was it first put in place and how many times has it been used to dismiss complaints.  The CJC has refused to answer those questions.  Also unexpected was that the response I received came from the federal Department of Justice, citing a precedent that says I should have named the DoJ as the respondent rather than the CJC.

This, in my view, reinforces my argument that the "independence of the judiciary" is an ideal that is not reflected by reality in Canada.

In examining the relevant sections - "PART II" - of The Judges Act I can find nothing to suggest that Parliament contemplated an initial screening, or what I'm calling a "gatekeeper", function to be conducted by someone who is not a Council member.  The CJC (or the DoJ) may claim that there is nothing in the Act that it specifically contravenes, however I don't think that will prove to be an argument sufficient to save it if, as I believe, it contravenes a principle such as the duty of procedural fairness.

And that still leaves the question of why the CJC makes no note of this rule in the material you included in your paper and on which the public ought to be able to rely.  Clearly, this was not an inadvertent omission.

I will add that long before my pursuit of justice reached this stage I had come to expect this sort of behaviour from every tribunal or court I might approach.  The word "crisis" has been in common use now for many years in Canada to describe the state of the justice system.  I do not of course presume that Canada is necessarily unique in that respect.

One very specific lesson, however, that I hope will ultimately be drawn from the case I have assembled is that the legal establishment has made a strategic mistake of the greatest consequence by creating and relying upon various "gatekeeper" devices in a manner that I say offends the rule of law.  I have had repeated experience with these gatekeeper devices beginning with a complaint before a provincial tribunal that I made more than a decade ago.  That is why I am able to recognize in the redundancy between the two sections of the CJC's procedure the clear evidence of a bad faith agenda.

This, I suggest, is something you want to avoid.  If you want to earn and retain the public's trust then I recommend that you ensure that the use of anything that looks like a gatekeeper device is strictly policed so that no complainant will conclude what I have concluded about the CJC's agenda.  As you may be aware, the public reputation of that agency is already in serious peril as a result of the processes triggered by a complaint filed in July 2010.  An unprecedented inquiry, that finally commenced earlier this year, has been interrupted while multiple applications for judicial review are being heard by the Federal Court.  It is my view that the Canadian judiciary have brought this trouble upon themselves by refusing to develop a concept of due process accessible to all.

Chris Budgell
Vancouver, British Columbia

A "person of interest" .....

By Keith Gerein
Edmonton Journal Provincial Affairs Writer, sports enthusiast and very amateur gardener

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Premier Alison Redford’s question period behavior has apparently become a point of fun at the Alberta legislature this week. A wild west-style WANTED poster was distributed to press gallery offices Tuesday, clearly taking a shot at the premier’s absence from the house this week, as well as her recent preference to deflect many of the questions she gets to her ministers.

The poster, created by a staffer of Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith, suggests tips on Redford’s whereabouts should be sent to “Sheriff” Smith. Wildrose MLAs and staffers were also happily re-Tweeting images posted on Twitter on Tuesday. The poster is perhaps a preview of the upcoming press gallery Christmas party, an occasion when the various parties engage in a little light-hearted ribbing of each other, and themselves.

However, when asked about it Tuesday, Smith wasn’t smiling. She said the poster, while presented in a humourous way, speaks to a serious issue about the premier’s behavior.

“A lot of people are asking what she meant when she talked about raising the bar, because that’s not raising the bar in my opinion,” Smith said. “We believe if you truly want to have transparency and openness, the premier should be prepared to stand and answer questions on policy and accountability of her government. She’s clearly not prepared to do that and we are hoping to press her to make a committment to this legislature that she will be here.”

NDP Leader Brian Mason said he found the message of the poster relevant.

“I think the premier is missing in action.”

Redford was absent from question period again on Tuesday as she was wrapping up a trip to Eastern Canada with a stop in Toronto. The highlight of the trip came late last week when premiers from around Canada met in Halifax to discuss the economy. Redford made some headlines by coming to an agreement with new Quebec Premier Pauline Marois to form a working group of officials to share ideas on energy development and environmental protection — with an eye toward possibly creating a new west-east pipeline to carry Alberta crude.

In a brief phone interview with the Journal on Friday, Redford offered a bit more detail on her thinking behind the agreement. She said any future pipeline will be a private sector initiative, but provinces need all the information they can get to structure their policies and regulations in a way for the project to be viable. In effect, the working group could be a vehicle to head off any snap decisions from Quebec to reject a new pipeline.

“I think that before any one in any jurisdiction makes decision with respect to energy projects, the more information the better,” Redford said. “We are not doing this with an idea that we are there as proponent for a project or that we are trying to sort out issues so that any particular project can succeed. We are just saying, ‘Let’s make sure that if we have information we have through experience in Alberta that might be helpful, that we share that with you.’”

She said other premiers also showed interest in this kind of information sharing.

As for the rest of the meeting, Redford said there was recognition that a strong Alberta economy was important to the nation as a whole, but that every jurisdiction was being impacted the struggles of global markets. In that vein, there was considerable discussion about the need to improve Canada’s international trade position.

 “We are all facing the fact that we need to re-examine our commitments with respect to how quickly we’re going to be able to move out of deficit situations,” she said.

“International trade was fundamental. We have got to grow our markets, not just a little bit but substantially, and energy is a way to do that. I think premiers around the table see that.”

She said she and her counterparts talked about sharing best practices on skill development and retraining.

“In Alberta we have challenges with respect to shortages of people to fill jobs, but we also know there are a lot of people we could be providing support for to learn skills in different ways,” Redford said. “Whether that’s a lot of single Moms, new Canadians, or people in aboriginal communities, we see those sorts of experiences across the country.”

Redford said she spoke to B.C. Premier Christy Clark, though not about the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would carry Alberta oil to the West Coast. The two leaders have been at loggerheads after Clark said earlier this year she would not support the project unless B.C. was granted a bigger share of the economic benefits. Some believe that means getting a portion of Alberta’s royalties, an idea Redford has said she won’t consider.

“I chatted with her about a lot of things, but I think she hasn’t changed her view with respect to where she thinks the discussion needs to go,” Redford said. “So I’m not sure I’d say that we’re even looking to make any progress on that.

“I’ve been pretty public about the fact that as it gets closer to an election in B.C. it seems to me there is lot more conversation in B.C. about this and that’s where the conversation needs to be. People in B.C. through this election have an opportunity to make some decisions with respect to economic priorities and what opening markets look like to them. My sense is that where (Clark) is thinking now as well, that it’s time for people in B.C. to have this conversation.”

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The process server .....!

Good Day Readers:

Attended Mr. Alex Chapman's appeal hearing Tuesday afternoon along with approximately 10-12 others three of whom were reporters. He is appealing a July 4, 2012 Court Order by Queen's Bench Justice Chris Martin that he repay the $25,000 lawyer Jack King gave him as part of a confidentiality agreement to surrender all photographs and e-mail in his possession relating to Mr. King's wife Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas and not discuss the matter publicly.

In a proceeding that lasted approximately an hour and a half, Mr. Chapman argued at length followed by brief arguments by Mr. King's lawyer William Gange (Gange Goodman & French).
Alex Chapman was then given the opportunity to enter a rebuttal into the record. After an adjournment that had to be a record - about 3 minutes - the Panel of  Judges (three) returned to announce it was taking the matter under advisement..

During arguments, CyberSmokeBlog noticed a gentleman at the back who appeared to have a bit of an edge but never gave it any more thought, that is, until be began talking with Mr. Gange in the courtroom as soon as the hearing had adjourned.

After everyone had filed out of the courtroom and several were still milling about, the gentleman approached Alex Chapman and handed him a document which he refused to accept so it was dropped at his feet. Amazingly, everyone departed down the hallway leaving the document on the floor outside Courtroom 330. As an exemplary/ law abiding/senior media citizen journalist/Blog Master, CSB did it's duty and retrieved the document which it then turned over to a Deputy Registrar in Queen's Bench File Registry. And with that it had done its duty to God and Queen.

But what was that document?

Clare L. Pieuk

The Douglas Inquiry: Playing musical chairs with taxpayer dollars!

Good Day Readers:

Below is a very good description of the legal quagmire into which the Douglas Inquiry continues to descend. Cristin Schmitz is Ottawa Bureau Chief for The Lawyers Weekly who was one of two journalists allowed to attend the October 30, 2012 meeting involving 16 - Yes count them 16 lawyers! and Federal Court of Canada Prothonotary Judge Mireille Tabib. The other was Christie Blatchford (Postmedia News) Ms Blatchford's account of the aforementioned conference call was carried in the National Post and Ottawa Citizen.

Clare L. Pieuk, a Media Citizen Journalist/Blog Master, CyberSmokeBlog has sent an e-mail to Andrew Baumberg, Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice, Federal Court of Canada and Norman Sabourin, Executive Director/Senior Legal Counsel Canadian Judicial Council that a an audio link be set up in Winnipeg at the Federal Court of Canada for the November 30 meeting later this week so that CSB is afforded the same rights and privileges as other mainstream journalists.At time of writing no reply has been received.

Can an argue be made Mr. Chapman should also have access to such an audio feed given his lawyer Rocco Galati will be representing and arguing on his behalf?
Certainly sounds like Judge Tabib will have her hands full this Friday.

Clare L. Pieuk
The Douglas Inquiry: It gets curiouser and curiouser
By Cristin Schmitz
November 30, 2012 Issue
What began as a judicial sex scandal two years ago has morphed into a legal spectacle of Byzantine complexity and burgeoning expense for taxpayers.

At last count, 15 lawyers were involved with the stalled Canadian Judicial Council inquiry into Manitoba Queen’s Bench (Family Division) Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas, which this month entered an interesting phase of procedural skirmishing.

Most of the counsel are on the public dime — ​including top-flight civil litigators Sheila Block of Torys and Paul Cavalluzzo of Cavalluzzo, Shilton in Toronto, Vancouver’s John Hunter of Hunter Litigation Chambers, and Guy Pratte of Ottawa’s Borden Ladner Gervais (before he quit as the inquiry’s independent counsel last August).

Even at the steeply discounted rates Ottawa pays (about $200 an hour for senior counsel), the inquiry’s final cost could be several million dollars — ​assuming it eventually gets to decide the merits of Alexander Chapman’s 2010 complaint that he was sexually harassed by Justice Douglas before she joined the bench. She denies the allegation.

According to Public Accounts of Canada, Pratte and his co-counsel were paid $211,459 as the independent counsel, and Block and her co-counsel $191,691 for defending the judge, from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012.

At present, the inquiry is on hold as Justice Douglas, Chapman, the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) and other potential combatants, such as the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC), slug out two separate judicial review applications in Federal Court that attack the inquiry committee’s conduct during hearings last summer as well as a third judicial review application that challenges Pratte’s subsequent abrupt, and mysterious, resignation.

The saga continues this month in Federal Court in Toronto, where two preliminary motions that are the equivalent to legal musical chairs — ​to sort out who will be the respondents on the judicial review applications — ​are slated to be argued November 30.

In a strange turn of events, the AGC (who is normally the respondent on judicial reviews) is trying to distance himself from the sensitive case by asking to be removed as respondent from all three judicial reviews. He suggests the court could appoint the CJC to take over his role, as respondent, to defend the committee’s impugned conduct and decisions — ​an unwelcome invitation for the council of chief justices, which insists it only wants to be an intervener.

Meanwhile, as the AGC tries to get off the record by effectively trying to push the CJC on the record (or alternatively Pratte’s successor, inquiry independent counsel Suzanne Côté), Chapman’s counsel Rocco Galati will argue his client should be a respondent. Chapman’s bid for respondent status is hotly opposed by Block, who contends the AGC should stay on as respondent, or at least hire an independent counsel to discharge that role.

Waiting in the wings to see who the final judicial review parties will be is would-be intervener, the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association, and other possible interveners, such as Cavalluzzo’s client, the CJC, and Hunter’s client, the inquiry committee itself.

Chris Paliare of Toronto’s Paliare Roland, who represents the judges’ association, said his client wants to intervene “to ensure that the process that deals with the disciplining of its members is fair, appropriate, and consistent with the Judges Act, and the CJC’s bylaws and policies.”

The group is expected to support Justice Douglas’s judicial review, which asks the Federal Court to shut down the committee for allegedly appearing to be biased. Block argues the committee crossed the line when, among other things, it instructed and permitted its counsel, George Macintosh, to aggressively cross-examine witnesses supportive of the judge’s defence.

The committee “can only be inquisitorial to a point,” Paliare said.

Pratte’s unexplained resignation as independent counsel is expected to feature prominently in two of the three judicial reviews, and possibly in the two preliminary motions to be argued November 30.

Block has been questioning whether the CJC impinged on Pratte’s independence, prompting him to resign Aug. 26 — ​six days after the then-independent counsel launched an unprecedented judicial review application seeking to rein in the inquiry committee’s power to examine witnesses. Pratte and the committee had clashed previously over their respective roles.

Citing solicitor-client privilege, the CJC refused Block’s request to release “all communications” between the CJC and Pratte in relation to his resignation.

In a September 17 letter to Block filed in Federal Court, CJC general counsel Norman Sabourin insists that Pratte was not terminated and resigned for reasons that he has shared with his client, Alberta Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Neil Wittman, the vice-chair of the CJC’s judicial conduct panel. 

Block informed the CJC by letter that she could demand disclosure under the Federal Courts’ rules, but Sabourin replied that they did not apply to the requested documents. 

Block warned presiding Federal Court Prothonotary Mireille Tabib during an organizational hearing October 30, that “the solicitor-client issue may be a lot larger than perhaps you’re anticipating it will be…I expect that’s where the rubber will hit the road in this case.”

Quote of the Day: "I've got to be honest with you ....." Ha!

Is Mr. Zero Smiling Sam next?

Zero compaison' to Toronto's Rob Ford, says Mayor Katz
By Joyanne Pursaga
Monday, November 26, 2012

As Toronto’s mayor was kicked out of office Monday due to a conflict of interest, Winnipeg’s mayor addressed his own risk of meeting the same fate.

Cathay House restaurant owner Joe Chan is suing Mayor Sam Katz over his decision to hold a holiday party for city council and staff at Hu’s Asian Bistro, a restaurant he owns. Critics say this is a conflict of interest because the mayor spent just under $3,000 in public cash at his own business.

A hearing on the matter will occur April 2
Katz said the allegations are false and totally different than those levied in Toronto.

“No, it’s not related at all ... It’s unfortunate but I think people should know an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange,” said Katz.

In Ontario, a judge found Mayor Rob Ford guilty of a conflict of interest for speaking about and voting on a report on how he raised money for a football charity. Ford plans to appeal the ruling.

Katz said his own case reflects a baseless accusation that has nothing to do with his role as mayor.
“It doesn’t get in the way of me because when something is frivolous, it’s frivolous,” said Katz.

Katz’s lawyer said he’s confident he can get the case thrown out.

“We are not dealing here with a council- or city-business-related conflict. It has nothing to do with that ...

Chan’s application is silly and frivolous,” said Robert Tapper.
Joe Chan begs to differ.

“First of all, clearly you can’t send business to your own restaurant,” said Chan. “He’s guilty like hell.”

Chan said it’s just not fair to see tax dollars spent at a private business owned by the mayor.

“I want to stand up for myself, my industry,” he said.

Chan’s lawyer David Matas said the case has merit because the mayor used the public purse for private profit.

“It was his restaurant and he held a party the city paid for. It should have been held at a place where he had no financial connection,” said Matas. “We’re dealing with thousands of dollars here.”

If found guilty of a conflict, Katz could lose his post as mayor and possibly be ordered to pay for the party.
Arthur Schafer, the director of the University of Manitoba’s centre for professional and applied ethics, said he believes both Toronto’s and Winnipeg’s mayors crossed ethical lines.

“Our mayor doesn’t get it and Mayor Ford of Toronto doesn’t get it. He doesn’t see that he’s done anything wrong,” said Schafer. “It looks terrible because it is terrible. It is a violation of his duty.”

The conflict legislation used to oust Toronto’s mayor is in place in Winnipeg but could stand to be strengthened, according to one city councillor.

Councillor Jenny Gerbasi, who led a successful call for a conflict of interest commissioner at City Hall in 2009, believes that commissioner could help deal with perceived conflicts more easily and efficiently.

“I do believe we need more tools because, unfortunately, people’s trust in elected officials is kind of at a low because of some of these things,” said Gerbasi.

But a commissioner hasn’t been selected. The city asked the province to appoint someone, while the Manitoba government said the city can do this alone.

Meanwhile, Councillor Dan Vandal said he was surprised by the Toronto mayor’s apparent lack of understanding about his public responsibilities.

“Anytime a mayor or high-ranking politician is asked to resign, it’s big news, it’s a surprise. You wonder how someone can be that out of touch,” said Vandal. “It’s not that hard to act with ethical behaviour.”
A Winnipeg ethics professor said recent local political controversies indicate the risk of conflicts remains high.

Arthur Schafer, the director of the University of Manitoba’s Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, said conflict-of-interest legislation is critical to protect democracy.

“It’s about trust. Democratic government requires that the citizens trust the integrity of the officials they elect,” Schafer said. “Democracy can’t survive and flourish once the people have lost trust in elected officials.”

Conflict of interest changes coming anyway?

In 2009, Councillor Jenny Gerbasi called for council to add a "conflict-of-interest" commissioner in 2009 after Sheegl was hired to a key city post.

She reiterated those calls in September.

The city asked the province to select an objective commissioner years ago but the province told the city it could act alone.

Back in the fall, Katz said he was willing to discuss that option.

"It certainly is possible. I think it's something that is definitely worthy of discussion down the road," he said.

Monday, November 26, 2012

CyberSmokeBlog wins Giller Prize for best Canadian judicial fiction!"

Mrs. Monica Grant
Private "Dick" Joe McCool

Good Day Readers:

As sometimes happens while looking for one thing something else quite different comes along. Such was the case recently with Malone's White Fedora.

The site is hosted by Tacoma, Washington Publisher John Hathaway (aka Paul Malone) who along with his editor Carolyn Cohen (aka Molly Maquire) specifically created it to showcase the talents of short story mystery writers from the published to the first time. While Malone's reading interests lead toward the hard-boiled genre, all crime, murder, mayhem political corruption, et. al. mystery type short stories are welcome.

The above images are from tough guy McCool a San Francisco private gumshoe who encounters the asset laden Mrs. Grant. It's right out of a Mickey Spillane Mike Hammer novel.
To date Malone's White Fedora boasts 9 authors with stories ranging from The Bluff - In a life and death situation who was pulling the bluff? to The Best Ever Tip - A bartender should know his customers to An Eye For An Eye - Two cops, a perp and a vice in a tale with a twist.

Entry rules are very simple:

(1) Stories can be contributed by e-mail

(2) Stores should not be more than 5,000 words. Longer ones may be serialized

(3) All original copy remains with the author with the exception of one time only web publishing rights granted to Malone's White Fedora

(4) Until advertising sponsorship can be obtained, Malone's White Fedora site can provide no remuneration for works submitted and published

CyberSmokeBlog would like to share with you an excerpt from its entry.

Judicial Scandal on Broadway Avenue - Who was that woman?
By CyberSmokeBlog

Was sitting in my Broadway Avenue cramped, dingy almost furnitureless, windowless third floor office one humid July afternoon in Winnipeg, Manitoba capital of the Canadian Prairies when suddenly the most beautiful woman I'd ever seen walked through the door.

She was dressed in black - her tight, slinky, low cut dress, fishnet stockings, high heels ..... one could only imagine her undies! In a voice that almost cooed she offered her hand dripping with expensive jewelry as though she had done it many times before. What else was I supposed to do but shake it? had mystery woman just stepped out of Vogue Magazine that or Wellington Crescent. 

Before I knew it she'd leaned over my desk displaying her ample assets and after furtively looking around whispered, "You Private Dick CSB?" I seem to recall mumbling, "yes" as I struggled to refocus. "Have I got a courthouse scandal for you it will blow your socks and boxer shorts off at the same time!"

My first reaction was to ask, "Who are you?" After a long pause she leaned over again (Jeezus!) and purred, "Cynthia Muldoon mistress of prominent Manitoba Queen's Bench Family Division Justice ....."

So how say you readers? Please be brutally candid in your comments.The only other part of our Giller Prize winning entry we'll share with you at this time is the ending:

"Sometimes you get screwed without the kiss."

Clare L. Pieuk
Giller Prize Winner In Waiting     

Whoa cowboy ..... whoa!

reedsolomon.matr1x at has left a new comment on your post, "Do you really want this man as a Judge?"

No, I'd prefer my Judges to be rational and sensible.

Dear Reedsolomon:

Thank you for contacting CyberSmokeBlog. The reason for the "whoa cowboy" comment is your e-mail arrived before the posting was completed early this morning.

Oh for sure, rational and sensible but here's the problem. If he is appointed to the Manitoba Court of Appeal it will be impossible to get rid of him unless he really, really, really screws up majorly and even then you'd need a stick of dynamite. He's 60 now so that would be another 15-years Manitobans would have to endure him unless, of course, the old bugger croaked in the meantime.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Manitobans en masse signed a petition for the Department of Justice here saying taxpayers don't want him. Would it make a difference probably not. In the end a clutch of individuals will decide what's best for us.

Clare L. PIeuk

The Arcane Brotherhood of the Law: "What? Judges can be Silly, Stupid, Sloppy or Sinister?" Maybe the Canadian Judicial Council should institute "The 4-S Rule!"

Good Day Readers:

One of CSB's favourite Legal Blogs is Above the Law ( hosted by New York-based Harvard-trained lawyer Elie Mystal. It's been rated as the United States' most popular Legal Blog with in excess of a million and a half professional monthly viewers. Its term for Judges who exhibit "The 4-S Syndrome" is "BatShit Crazy."

BTW, it also has an online Canadian version which has been giving significant coverage to the Douglas Inquiry debacle. In fact, CyberSmokeBlog received "honourable mention" when a single parent Mother and it argued unsuccessfully for intervener standing back in May of this year. Damn near impossible save for a complainant(s).

E-mailed Ms Simpson this morning to congratulate her on this latest video and the new launch of RoadKill Radio News.  
Paid her the ultimate compliment in an e-mail CSB can bestow. Told her every morning the first thing the Blogmaster now does ever before his first pee of the day and coffee/coissant is to tune in RoadKill Radio News for the latest. She seemed genuinely touched, humbled.and appreciative better yet she came up with an even better solution. Why not set the bathroom up with a wi-fi laptop computer, small baking oven and coffee pot.

Jeezus, why didn't CyberSmokeBlog think of that? Now you know why they pay her the Big Dollars!

Clare L. Pieuk

Ron Gray takes us point-by-point through "Justice" M. Marvyn Koenigsberg's schizophrenic verdict in Kari Simpson's defamation case against the liar Rafe Maie - a verdict that was so contrary to the facts of the case that it has begged the question: Was the Judge being silly, stupid,or sinister. Tune in to hear why the appeals court had absolutely no problem tossing the verdict out.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Mr. Andrew Baumberg
Executive Officer to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H9

Re: Audio Link for CyberSmokeBlog

Dear Mr. Baumberg:

In recent correspondence with Mr. Norman Sabourin, Executive Director, Senior Legal Counsel for the Canadian Judicial Council he suggested members of the media who would like more information about court proceedings can direct their questions to you.

As you are undoubtedly aware, two representatives from the mainstream media were allowed to attend the October 30, 2012 meeting held in Toronto to discuss the Douglas Inquiry.

As a Media Citizen Journalist and Blogger who has been closely following said Inquiry, I formally request audio arrangements be made at the Federal Court in Winnipeg so CyberSmokeBlog can monitor on behalf of its readers the upcoming meeting scheduled for 9:30 a.m. November 30th in Toronto.

Clare L. Pieuk

Media Citizen Journalist
Blog Master

Norman Sabourin


Received an automatic response saying CyberSmokeBlog would hear from someone in Media Contact/Federal Court. Hope it's not like your Member of Parliament where you get that kind of reply only to never be heard from again.