"Go Joe Chan! Go Joe Chan! Go Joe Chan!"

Robert "Dapper" Tapper

Katz heads to court Tuesday
Conflict of interest lawsuit baseless, says mayor's attorney
By Joyanne Pursaga
Saturday, March 30, 2013

Joe Chan of Cathay House restaurant has launched a lawsuit against the mayor. (Winnipeg Sun)

Mayor Sam Katz heads to court Tuesday to face a lawsuit, the loss of which could get him kicked out of office.

Cathay House restaurant owner Joe Chan is suing Winnipeg's mayor over his decision to hold a holiday party for city council and staff at Hu's Asian Bistro in December 2010, a restaurant Katz owned at the time.
Critics say this is a conflict of interest because the mayor spent just under $3,000 in public cash at his own business.

"The conflict of interest (act) states you can't send business to yourself or your family and he own(ed) 100% of that business," said Chan. "I think it's wrong and somebody's got to stand up for it."

Chan claims he isn't going after money but wants the court to weigh in on the mayor's decision.

Katz declined a request to discuss the matter.

Previously, he described the accusation as baseless and unrelated to his role as mayor.

Katz's lawyer believes Manitoba's Municipal Council Conflict of Interest Act wouldn't define the mayor's actions as a conflict.

"That statute deals with council or committee meetings," said Robert Tapper. "It has nothing to do with going to one's own restaurant."

Tapper has filed for sanctions, possibly monetary, against Chan. He alleges Chan violated confidentiality rules by disclosing a previous settlement offer and gave false evidence about how the offer came about.

A decision, however, is not guaranteed to occur Tuesday. Tapper said the judge could order additional court dates or reserve a ruling to a later date.

Daniel McIntyre Councillor Harvey Smith also joined the debate this week, after his attempt to post signs publicizing the court date was quashed by the city's public works department.

"Everyone in Winnipeg should be aware of the fact the mayor is in (an alleged) conflict and the mayor should be held accountable," said Smith.

Arthur Schafer, the Director of the University of Manitoba's Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, said he believes Winnipeg's mayor did violate The Act.

"I think it's almost indisputable that the mayor was in a conflict of interest because he was using taxpayer money to take councillors to a restaurant," said Schafer. "Whether it violates the law will be decided by the court."

Katz is not the first Canadian mayor to face such a legal battle.

A previous conflict of interest suit almost cost Toronto Mayor Rob Ford his seat last November, after Ford was found guilty of speaking about and voting on a report on how he raised money for a football charity. In January, an appeal court overturned that decision.

Happy 85th birthday today "Mr. Elbows!"

Has the Supreme Court of Canada finally taken off it's rose coloured glasses?

Dear CyberSmokeBlog:

Interesting coincidence that this is being released at about the same time we are expecting the Macfarlane Report.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/internal-supreme-court-report-calls-for-family-law-overhaul/article10421526/

Chris Budgell
Vancouver

Dear Chris Budgell:

Thank you very much for this head's up. The first consideration that caught CyberSmokeblog's attention was how an advance copy of the official report seemed to "magically fall" into the lap of the Globe and Mail. Did it simply telephone the Supreme Court to make the request or was a more nefarious deed involved? If the the former then, hell .....

 "Hello, Beverley McLachlin? CyberSmokeBlog would like an advance copy of the Report. Thank you!"

Manitoba has it's own poster child case for what's wrong with Queen's Bench Family Division here it's called, Delichte versus Rogers (FD 04-01-73200).

Karyn Delichte

This file has just about everything and for added good measure it features "Jolly" Jack King of Petersen-King, yes, that Jack King of Douglas Inquiry fame speaking of which will it reconvene again this century?

As for the Macfarlane Study, if preliminary indications in the media are any indication expect the Canadian judiciary to get ripped for treating self-reps like ....! BTW, Ms Delichte has been a self-litigant for some time. CSB will have a lot more to say about Delichte versus Rogers very shortly.

Perhaps the last word should go to Ms Fossil at the height of her rose coloured wearing glasses days before the Douglas Inquiry, the Macfarlane Study and the soon to be "officially" released Study of Family Court.

"Let me begin by asserting that Canada has a strong and healthy justice system. Indeed, our courts and justice system are looked to by many countries as exemplary. We have well-appointed courtrooms, presided over by highly qualified judges. Our judges are independent and deliver impartial justice, free of fear and favour. The Canadian Judicial Council, which I head, recently issued an information note on the judicial appointments process in which it affirmed these long standing-principles on which our justice system is based. Canadians can have confidence that judges are committed to rendering judgment in accordance with the law and based on the evidence. Corruption and partisanship are non-issues. In all these things, we are fortunate indeed." ..... The Empire Club of Canada Toronto, March 8, 2007.

Sincerely,

Clare L. Pieuk

Report to Supreme Court chief Justice calls for family law overhaul

Kirk Makin

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canaa, delivers a speech in Ottawa February, 2013. An unreleased report commissioned by Judge McLachlin is urging a radical overhaul of Canada's family law system. (Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press)

An unreleased report commissioned by the country’s top judge is urging a radical overhaul of Canada’s family law system.

The report to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, scheduled for release next month, calls for restructuring the family law system from the ground up, with a focus on streamlining the court process and ending a fixation on combat.

More Related to this Story

• No spousal support for common-law partners in Quebec, Supreme Court rules
• justice Supreme Court needs more women, departing judge says
• ANGELA CAMPBELL Supreme Court’s common-law decision may be good for women

The report, from a committee headed by Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell, goes on to make more than two dozen recommendations, including the creation of specialized judges who can shepherd a family law dispute from beginning to end.

The family law system has been under attack for much of the past two or three decades over litigation that drags out and the destructive effect of the adversarial process on couples who are vulnerable and prone to go on the attack. And the inordinate costs of litigation have led to a massive increase in the number of litigants who represent themselves – now as much as 70 or 80 per cent.

A copy of the report, obtained by The Globe and Mail, says that estranged spouses and their children are seriously damaged by the adversarial system; and that judges, lawyers and law schools must embrace a culture of mediation and settlement.

The ground-breaking report also recommends the imposition of painful cost awards against litigants who behave badly or impede settlements.

It says that law schools have to stop minimizing the importance of family law in their curricula and that legal aid for family law cases must be sharply increased.

“Cuts to family legal aid have a disproportionate effect on women and children, particularly those who are most vulnerable – e.g. aboriginal, immigrant and disabled women,” the report notes. “Even middle-income levels typically cannot support the cost of any significant amount of legal representation.”

The report also recommends the creation of unified family court branches across the country to provide one-stop shopping for litigants who must currently navigate between the provincial and federal court systems.

Chief Justice McLachlin struck the committee out of concern that justice is fast becoming inaccessible to a vast proportion of the country. She asked her Supreme Court colleague, Mr. Justice Thomas Cromwell, to head the group – known as the Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters. Judge Cromwell is expected to unveil the report and its 31 recommendations next month.

Another of the report’s recommendations urges that estranged spouses be forced to attend one session with a qualified professional mediator before they are permitted to proceed toward a trial.

The working group states that the failure of the adversarial model to resolve family law disputes has taken an enormous toll on the finances and mental equilibrium of litigants.

“Adversarialism is a deep habit of our culture,” it says. “It is a default position, an attitude that people in Western cultures learn early and tend to employ quite automatically.”

Family law disputes affect more Canadians than any other single area of law, the report states, yet law schools treat it as an afterthought because they have become so geared to pleasing the demands of large law firms.

“There is a causal relationship between unresolved legal problems and increased health, social welfare and economic problems,” the report says. “We wonder at the ultimate impact this will have on public confidence in the justice system and on civil society.”

The Chief Justice’s committee applauds a number of efforts that have been made in various jurisdictions to speed up and mediate family law disputes, but says they have been piecemeal and not well co-ordinated.

It says the court system needs fewer generalist judges who merely “umpire” family disputes, and more specially designated judges with the expertise and commitment to prod litigants toward a negotiated settlement early in the process.

The committee says the press, with its innate love of stories involving conflict and emotion, also play a key role in maintaining a public perception that the family law system is a forum for “trial by combat.”

It says judges, practitioners and bar associations can help reverse this psychology by throwing themselves behind public education programs. Court personnel, it says, can also play a role by providing mandatory information sessions and user-friendly services in courthouses, allowing self-represented litigants to learn about the legal process and the mechanisms available to settle cases quickly, peacefully and at minimal cost.

More Related to this Story

• Globe editorial Supreme Court judges would do us a justice if they wrote books
• 8 key questions answered about the Supreme Court's common-law ruling
• Ten years as top judge and she's still losing sleep
• Law and order Judge's departure continues Supreme Court's makeover
• Supreme Court justice retires, giving Harper chance to appoint majority
• End of an era looms on Supreme Court
• New Supreme Court judge pays tribute to father Claude Wagner  

The NRA's favourite song?

Cold Dead Hand with Jim Carrey from Jim Carrey      

Cat's a brat eh?

"Meow, meow, meow ..... I would never, ever do that unless, of course, my owner managed to thoroughly p..s me off!" ..... Thugsy Mugwhomp CyberSmokeblog's poster cat

What to do if your cat's a brat? Ask the Cat Whisperer
Punishemnt isn't the way for the misbehaving feline
By Julia McKinnell
Tuesday March 26, 2013

Zachary Scott/Getty Images

What should you do if your cute little kitten grows into a stalking beast that sinks its fangs into your flesh or leaps up to the counter to pee into a teacup? Some cat owners shout at their misbehaving felines or swat them on the nose, but punishment can teach a cat to view its owner with fear, and do nothing to remedy the biting, scratching and peeing outside the box. To stop bad cat behaviour, you could medicate the animal or, worst-case scenario, euthanize it. Or you could do what many vets are doing with their own badly behaved cats: you could heed the advice of an Oregon woman, Mieshelle Nagelschneider, a.k.a. the Cat Whisperer.

Nagelschneider is a former veterinary technician whose uncanny ability to communicate with cats is known to cure the toughest cases—cats that claw the living room drapes, pee in their owner’s shoes or defecate on pillow cases. In her new book, The Cat Whisperer: Why Cats Do What They Do—And How to Get Them to Do What You Want,

Nagelschneider promises a cure for nearly every behavioural cat problem; medication is rarely needed, and change takes place in about 30 days. “Cats who have never groomed another cat will lick away at their buddies—and grow all the closer. Cats who have slept apart will curl up next to one another. When I do a follow-up visit,” she writes, “in place of a battlefield I walk into a feline Eden . . . There’s no hissing, fighting or attacking.”

Nagelschneider, a farm girl whose parents raised goats and cows, discovered her talent for taming brutish animals at the age of 4 when she cut out a pair of bunny ears, disguised herself as a rabbit and hopped into a corral where a lone, ornery bull was penned. Her parents had warned her: the bull charged anyone who came near it. Somehow Nagelscheinder knew not to look the bull in the eyes, she explains in the book. She averted her gaze as she reached up to pet the fur on the bull’s head. When her parents found her, the bull was lying beside her, allowing her to caress its neck and head.

Next, Nagelschneider worked her magic on the feral barn cats. She discovered that by blinking slowly she could coax a cat from a water pipe that was about to flood. “Slowly blinking and looking away is a powerful form of cat communication,” she explains. A blinked-at cat feels relaxed and reassured.

Nagelschneider, who runs the Cat Clinic in Oregon and has made thousands of house calls for cats with special needs, says that most of the unwanted cat problems are the result of an owner doing something wrong. For instance, one reason a cat might pee outside the box is that some cats prefer two boxes: one for urine, one for feces. Buy two boxes, change the litter daily and you’ve solved the problem. If your cat likes to pee in the bathtub, a shallow pool of water left in the tub will discourage this behaviour. Another reason a cat might soil outside the box is that the cat requires medical attention. A constipated cat or one suffering from a urinary disease may associate the pain it’s experiencing with stepping into the box. It may even growl at the box—and quite often a cat will decide it’s time to try a new area, like the carpet or a closet.

If you catch your cat scratching or wiggling its tail poised to spray the upholstery, there is no use reprimanding it. “You might as well scold a squirrel,” writes Nagelschneider. The best way to correct unwanted behaviour is to interrupt it with a technique she calls an “Act of God.” Toss a Ping-Pong ball at the cat. The cat will stop scratching, chase the ball, and never know who threw it. Other “Acts of God”: remotely turning on loud music if the cat gets too close to the stereo, or blasting the cat with compressed air from a motion-sensitive canister installed on the counter.

Playing with your cat is crucial to its confidence and happiness. Interactive toys, like wands with feathers, can make your cat feel it’s stalking and catching prey. “Wave or twitch the toy several feet away from your cat. Don’t wiggle the toy in your cat’s face. Real prey moves away.” Play helps release feel-good chemicals in your cat, she says. “A bored cat is a cat that will sink its teeth into your ankle.”

Bloody hardships!

Good Day Readers:

Don't you just love the way people like this lose their perception of reality?

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Diana Carney, the wife of Bank of Canada governor and soon-to-be Bank of England governor Mark Carney, has started something of a furor in Britain after a tweet that implied the Carneys are struggling to find an apartment they can afford with their $7,700-a-week housing allowance.

Carney linked high prices for high-end apartments in London to an influx of wealthy French people relocating to the British capital after newly-elected French President Francois Hollande introduced a steep 75-per-cent top income tax rate.

Linking to a story about Hollande scaling back the controversial tax, Carney tweeted: “Maybe I’ll be able to find a place to live in London after all.”

That quickly led to numerous expressions of disapproval from British politicians and activists, some of whom were already incensed about the size of Carney’s compensation package.

Carney was given a salary of GBP 624,000 (C$961,000) and an annual housing allowance of GBP 250,000 (C$385,000) when he accepted the job of Bank of England governor last fall.

Diana Carney’s husband “is getting a housing allowance that is more than many of my constituents earn in ten years,” said John Mann, a Labour MP who sits on the Treasury select committee that vetted Carney’s appointment.

“I would be happy to help her find suitable accommodation. I’m prepared to move out of my London flat for her which will be available at just four per cent of her housing allowance,” he added, as quoted at the London Evening Standard.

“While Diana Carney clearly recognises that punitive rates of taxation across the Channel are going to send people flocking to London, not many of us are lucky enough to have a taxpayer funded allowance to subsidise our homes,” quipped Robert Oxley of the Taxpayers Alliance, as quoted at the Daily Mail.

Carney found himself defending his housing allowance in front of the British Parliament's Treasury select committee last month, as questions arose over his pay package, which is at least $200,000 larger than the pay enjoyed by current BofE governor Mervyn King.

Carney said he isn’t taking a pension as part of his pay package, which would have made his compensation about the same as King’s.

"It is consistent with the arrangements of many international executives when they move to this country, in order to equalise their living standards from where they come to where they arrive,” Carney told the committee.

"I am moving from one of the least expensive capital cities in the world, Ottawa, to one of the most expensive."

Some observers found irony in Diana Carney’s comments, pointing out that she runs Canada2020, a progressive think tank.

Just this past Sunday, the Daily Mail reported, Diana Carney appeared on a talk show where she cited income inequality as her top priority.

Mark Carney himself has at times expressed some surprisingly progressive opinions for a central banker, describing Occupy Wall Street as “constructive” and criticizing the U.S. bank bailout.

Carney takes over as head of England’s central bank in July.

Katz versus Chan begins Tuesday, April 2, 2013 ..... shout it from the rooftops everybody!

Good Day Readers:

Mr. Chan is alleging two untendered Christmas dinners totalling approximately $6,000 were held (December 2010, 2011) for City of Winnipeg employees at a restaurant then owned by Mayor Sam Katz.

On February 2, 2012 Smiling Sam's lawyer Robert "Dapper" Tapper filed a Motion Brief consisting of 13 arguments none of which CyberSmokeBlog found to be particularly compelling or convincing. But one example number 11:

"If the Mayor takes a fellow Councillor across the street from City Hall for dim sum, must he first attend at the City Clerk's office to pick up a tender form? Because the Applicant also sells dim sum? (presumably)."

Hardly a valid comparison! Come April 3rd could the good Mayor find himself out on his arse?

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

City vetos 'Katz vs. Chan' ads on recycler
By Jen Skerritt
Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Harvey Smith has mounted a sign advertising the Katz vs Chan court case on the fence outside his Simcoe Street home. (Boris Minkevich/Winnipeg Free Press)

CITY of Winnipeg officials quashed an attempt to post ads outside city hall, publicizing the conflict-of-interest court case between restaurateur Joe Chan and Mayor Sam Katz.

Councilor Harvey Smith (Daniel McIntyre) said he wanted to advertise the fact that Chan's case against the mayor will go to court on April 2.

Chan alleges Katz violated Manitoba's Municipal Council Conflict of Interest Act in December 2010 by spending taxpayer funds on a Christmas party at Hu's Asian Bistro, an Ellice Avenue restaurant the mayor owned at the time.

The case goes to court next week. If a judge decides Katz has violated provincial rules, he will lose his seat.

Smith said he and Chan contacted Winnipeg OMG, an outdoor marketing company that has a contract to supply the city with recycling boxes, in the hope of displaying Chan vs. Katz ads on two recycling boxes located on Main Street and King Street.

The marketing company's contract requires the City of Winnipeg to vet any potentially controversial ads. City officials deemed the Chan vs. Katz ad was not in "good character."

Smith decided to put the sign up on his Simcoe Street residence instead, and the two recycling boxes outside city hall currently display ads for Chan's Cathay House restaurant.

Katz's office declined to comment on Monday.

"I couldn't understand why the city would not allow us to put the sign on the trash cans, because I'm not attacking the mayor, I'm not attacking Joe Chan; I'm just informing (the public) of the trial date," Smith said Monday.

City of Winnipeg spokeswoman Tammy Melesko said in an email the city's public works department manages the Winnipeg OMG contract and determined the ad "was encouraging a public demonstration of a confrontation between two individuals."

Winnipeg OMG president Paul Sawatzky said controversial ads are rare and the city has only had to review potentially sensitive material "a couple of times" in the company's last nine years in business.

Last year, Chan filed a declaration in Court of Queen's Bench alleging Katz engaged in a conflict of interest. After making procedural errors, Chan, who has worked for Smith, withdrew his motion and had to pay $750 in court costs.

Chan's complaint was then picked up by human rights lawyer David Matas, who filed another declaration and secured the April court date.

Robert Tapper, Katz's lawyer, said his position is Chan did not follow proper court procedures and the Christmas party did not violate the conflict-of-interest act, as it was not a council or committee meeting. He also alleges Chan fabricated evidence.

jen.skerritt@freepress.mb.ca

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition March 26, 2013 B1

"Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but ..... aw screw it bring out the truth serum!"

Judge approves use of 'truth serum' on accused Aurora shooter James Holmes

Legal experts question use of 'narcoanalytic interview' to settle question of Holmes's legal insanity at tome of theatre shooting

Ed Pilkington in New York
Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Experts questioned whether such a method could even be used to find out the truth of what happened. (Photograph: Pool/Reuters)

Legal and medical experts are questioning the decision of a judge in Colorado to allow James Holmes, the suspected gunman in the Aurora cinema shooting, to be tested with a "truth serum" should he plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

Judge William Sylvester ruled that in the event of Holmes pleading insanity his prosecutors would be permitted to interrogate him while he is under the influence of a medical drug designed to loosen him up and get him to talk. The idea would be that such a "narcoanalytic interview" would be used to confirm whether or not he had been legally insane when he embarked on his shooting spree on 20 July last year.

The precise identity of the drug that would be used has not been released, other than a statement that it would be "medically appropriate," but it would most likely be a short-acting barbiturate such as sodium amytal.

William Shepherd, chair of the criminal justice section of the American Bar Association, whose members include both prosecutors and defence lawyers, said that the proposed use of a "truth drug" to ascertain the veracity of a defendant's plea of insanity was highly unusual in the US. He predicted it would provoke intense legal argument relating to Holmes's right to remain silent under the fifth amendment of the US constitution.

"If a defendant loses his right to remain silent because the court has authorised the use of drugs that make him talk, that would raise all sorts of fifth amendment issues that both sides would have to address."

Shepherd also wondered whether some members of the trial jury would object to "the sound of the government forcing a truth serum down the throat of a defendant."

There are very few recorded instances of "truth drugs" being applied to criminal trials in the US. One such case was the 1959 prosecution in California of Raymond Cartier, who was charged with killing his wife after a drunken night out.

The defendant was given "truth serum" with the blessing of the court, but in his case the "narcoanalytic interview" was used to support the defence's contention that Cartier had been insane at the time he committed murder. With Holmes, the prosecution would administer it to try and prove the opposite conclusion.

Holmes has been charged with multiple counts of murder arising from the shooting at the Century 16 cinema in Aurora, Colorado in which 12 people were killed and 58 injured. On Tuesday, a plea of not guilty was entered for Holmes after his lawyer told the court that the defendant was not ready yet to enter his own plea.

The proposed use of a "truth drug" has also prompted a critical response from medical experts. Dr August Piper, a Seattle-based psychiatrist who has used sodium amytal to treat patients who were mute or in a catatonic state and who has written research papers on the subject, said that this was "not a royal road to the truth."

"First of all, people can still lie under the influence of amytal. More importantly, the person under the influence of the drug is susceptible to outside suggestion."

Piper also questioned whether such a method could be used to find out the truth of what happened retrospectively. Though short-acting barbiturates might be beneficial in illuminating Holmes's current state of mind, by opening him up to greater communication, it would be of doubtful use in determining his state of mind at the scene of the shooting eight months ago.

"To try and do this would be unlikely to yield useful information, and could pervert the course of justice by rendering the defendant susceptible to pressure," Piper said.

Steven Hoge, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York, said that there was "no great evidence to support that narcoanalytic interviews lead to the truth by any means". He said that it was extremely rare to find the technique used in a criminal context.

Hoge has only once conducted a "narcoanalytic interview" himself – in the case of a man who had been so severely drunk he couldn't remember what had happened to him. The hope had been that he might recover memory, though it proved unsuccessful.

Most experimentation, Hoge added, was in similar areas of lost or repressed memories. But it was not clear in the case of the alleged Aurora shooter that memory was an issue that would be relevant in seeking to ascertain a diagnosis of sanity or insanity at the time of the rampage.

"It's hard to see what the value of this procedure would be, unless his memory of the shooting is in question," he said.

Howling from behind the Bench!

Good Day Readers:

While Tom Brodbeck's idea certainly has merit CyberSmokeBlog has a better one. Why not fine Manitoba Justices and Judges $1% of what it cost to reincarcerate someone released on bail or any type of conditional release program? Imagine the hue and cry you'd hear emanating from behind the Benches?

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Cops should bill justice system for revolving door of arrests
Tom Brodbeck
Thursday, January 31, 2013

There’s a simple solution to the rising costs of policing in Winnipeg.

Police should start billing the justice system for the additional costs they incur re-arresting the same people over and over again, whether they’re released on bail or allowed back into the community on some type of conditional release.

Because the reality is, that’s where a lot of police resources are gobbled up — chasing down, re-arresting and processing the same individuals time and time again.

The city is paying a U.S. consulting firm $174,000 to try to find efficiencies within the police service. They’ll tinker around the edges and tell city bureaucrats things they already know. But it won’t amount to much. And it won’t solve the problem of skyrocketing police budgets.

One of the key drivers behind soaring police costs is the amount of time police spend re-arresting people they’ve already collared and brought before the courts.

Police investigate crimes, make arrests and work with the prosecutions branch to lay appropriate charges.
It’s an expensive process. But it’s even pricier when those same criminals re-offend after they’ve been released into the community — either too early or inappropriately — and police are forced to chase them down all over again.

Police agencies not only get stuck with the bill to cover those added expenses, they get criticized for their rapidly growing operating costs.

So maybe it’s time for police agencies like the Winnipeg Police Service to start billing the provincial and federal governments for all costs associated with the re-arrest of people released on bail, recognizance, or early release — including parole, statutory release or any other conditional release — who violate court orders or who re-offend.

In exchange for billing senior levels of government for re-arrests, the province could eliminate all direct funding it provides to the WPS, including the 153 police officers the provincial government now pays for.
That way the senior levels of government would be held financially responsible and politically accountable for their decisions. And police would be held responsible for the initial costs of investigating crimes and bringing wrongdoers before the courts.

It’s unknown how much of the police’s $243-million budget is spent on re-arresting people cops have already collared. Police don’t track those figures. But we do know it makes up a significant portion of their workload.

We report almost daily on how police are searching for criminals who have violated their court orders or re-offended after early release. Crime Stoppers is filled with examples on a regular basis of criminals on the lamb for re-offending after being released too early into the community.

Yet it’s cops who are burdened with tracking down those criminals again and it’s the police who have to absorb the added costs of doing so.

Well, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t support the revolving-door system of justice and allow criminals back on the street on a perpetual basis and then criticize police for requiring more resources to re-capture those same habitual offenders.

If the provincial and federal governments choose to release repeat offenders back into the community on a revolving-door basis, they should have to pay the cost of re-arresting them.

If police were able to bill for the extra work they’re forced to do, the province and the feds would begin to re-evaluate how they release people into the community. Money talks. And when any level of government is forced to pay for the costs associated with their own policies, they begin to re-assess very quickly.

Not only would taxpayers save money by substantially reducing the costs of re-arresting and processing the same criminals over and over again, our streets would be safer, too.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

How say you Mr. Owen Rees?

Good Day Readers:

A seemingly innocuous question by frequent contributor Vancouver-based Chris Budgell has CyberSmokeBlog off on another "voyage of discovery." In no particular order:

(1) Did Justice Abella travel wherever and whenever to deliver her speech on taxpayer time?

(2) Were any of her expenses in so doing paid for by Canadian taxpayers?

(3) If "yes" to either or both of the aforementioned does her speech not constitute a public good that should be available to the media or any Canadian for that matter?

(4) What is the Supreme Court's policy, or does it have one, for electronically archiving speeches and attendance at conferences by Justices so the resulting information can be shared and readily accessed by Canadians?

CSB's very preliminary research suggests the Canadian Judicial Council is exempt from information requests  under The Access to Information Act. Ditto for the Supreme Court of Canada?

The above list is incomplete CyberSmokeBlog has others. In the meantime, it's navigating The  Access to Information Act legislation in an attempt to ascertain whether the CJC has a blanket exemption from all The Act's provisions and if this also applies to the Supreme Court of Canada.

As you can see, CSB is sending a copy of this posting to Mr. Rees and will publish any reply received.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Dear Mr. Budgell,

Thank you for your enquiry. Unfortunately, the speech was not published and Justice Abella does not release copies of her speaking notes.

Thank you for your understanding.

Kind regards,
Owen M. Rees

Executive Legal Officer | Adjoint exécutif juridique
Chambers of the Chief Justice | Cabinet de la Juge en chef
Supreme Court of Canada | Cour suprême du Canada
301 Wellington Street | 301, rue Wellington
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1

Owen.Rees@SCC-CSC.CA

Tel. | Tél.: 613-996-9296 / Fax | Téléc.: 613-952-3092

From: Chris Budgell [mailto:cjbudgell@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 2:25 PM
To: Rees Owen
Subject: Re: Speech by Justice Cromwell

Dear Mr. Rees:

In December you provided me with a copy of a speech given by Justice Cromwell. I would be grateful if you could also send me a copy of a speech given by Justice Abella in July 2011 to an audience at the University College, London. The title is "Constitutions and Judges: Changing Roles, Rules, and Expectations".

Regards,
Chris Budgell

Owen.Rees@SCC-CSC.CA

Dalton Creepy McSneaky!

Good Day Readers:

As special thank you to "Mr. Self-Rep" Vancouver-base Chris Budgell (cbudgell@gmail.com) for sending the following link.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/20/christie-blatchford-in-appointment-of-judges-departing-dalton-mcguinty-made-one-final-cynical-move/

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Christie Blatchford: In appointment of judges, departing Dalton McGuinty made one final cynical move

Christie Blatchford
Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Dalton McGuinty says his farewells to Ontario Liberals on Friday, January 25, 2013. (Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press)

Imagine the hue and cry if Stephen Harper, on the eve of either an election in which his party’s prospects didn’t look rosy or his own well-planned departure from politics, filled a couple of vacancies on the Supreme Court of Canada — months before there even were vacancies.

Lawyers and lawyers’ groups would be crying foul. Political opponents would be howling. At the Toronto Star, columnists and editorial writers surely would be fainting in horror. Everywhere, obituaries would be written mourning the incursion into judicial independence.

Yet that’s what it looks like Premier Dad, as former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty was known, did — and, of course, being widely seen as a benevolent embodiment of conventional Canadian values, Mr. McGuinty got away with it unscathed.

On Friday, January 25 from the provincial attorney-general’s office came the announcement that two new associate chief justices of the Ontario Court, the busiest court in the country, had just been named.

Fridays have long been considered useful days for governments to make potentially tricky announcements, as they tend not to garner much attention.

That was particularly true on this Friday.

That very evening, Mr. McGuinty went to a stage at Maple Leaf Gardens, on the opening night of the Liberal convention that would choose Kathleen Wynne as his successor, and gave his farewell speech.

Now, there is no controversy about the qualifications of the two women Mr. McGuinty chose.

Both Judges Lise Maisonneuve and Faith Finnestad are veterans of the Ontario Court, and well-qualified to make the leap to ACJ, as the position is known.

(In 2011, the ACJs made about $22,000 a year more than a regular judge, or about $284,675 compared with $262,457.)

But ACJ Peter Griffiths, the man Judge Maisonneuve will replace, doesn’t finish his term until July 24.

And ACJ John Andrew Payne, the fellow Judge Finnestad will replace, doesn’t end his term until September 1.

Thus, six and nine months before the current occupants will be packing it in, their successors were named.

It’s not the way things are ordinarily done.

"The likely benign explanation, that the government was merely “forward planning,” doesn’t wash. The cynical one does"

When ACJs Griffiths and Payne were appointed on July 25, 2007, for instance, Judge Griffiths began his new job the same day, Judge Payne his less than six weeks later, on September 2.

And it’s not as though Chief Justice Annemarie Bonkalo is about to retire: She was appointed in March of 2007, and the appointment is good for eight years, or until 2015.

The likely benign explanation, that the government was merely “forward planning,” doesn’t wash.

The cynical one does — that Mr. McGuinty couldn’t bear the spectre, perhaps not far down the road, of Conservative leader Tim Hudak or the NDP’s Andrea Horwath as potential premier and so took care of things himself.

In the ordinary course, the province’s system for naming judges to the Ontario Court is far superior — both more democratic and more transparent — to Ottawa’s for choosing Superior Court judges.

The key difference is found in how the respective judicial appointments committees, which forward lists of approved candidates to government, function.

Unlike the federal committees, the provincial committees actually advertise vacancies on the bench, which means that the traditional old boys’ network of whispered recommendations is broadened, and after whittling down their lists, the committees actually interview prospective candidates.

The provincial committees then forward to the attorney-general a short-ranked list of approved names, and from there, the government picks.

But the committees have no say in appointments or promotions made within the bench.

As the chair of the Ontario Judicial Advisory Appointments Committee, Hanny Hassan, confirmed in a telephone interview this week, such internal appointments are not in the JAAC’s bailiwick.

These are made by the government.

In the case of federally appointed judges, it means that the prime minister gets to pick the chief justices of each province’s Superior Court and the ACJs, as indeed he or she chooses the members of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the case of provincial chief justices and ACJs, it means, though the announcement comes out of the attorney-general’s office, the appointments are approved by the premier of the day and his cabinet.

You will remember the circumstances under which Mr. McGuinty announced his surprise resignation last October 15 — oh yes, and prorogued the legislature.

It was just a year after the Liberals were re-elected, though they were now a minority government.

At Queen’s Park, the finance committee was about to start hearings into the brewing scandal over two gas-fired power plants in Mississauga and Oakville. The plants had been cancelled at enormous cost in a nakedly partisan effort to save Liberal seats in the 2011 election, and the then-energy minister had been ordered by the Speaker to turn over secret documents detailing the cancellations. About 36,000 documents were duly delivered — all that there was, the government claimed.

Two weeks later, another 20,000 documents surfaced.

Mr. McGuinty also had alienated a long-time powerful ally, the province’s teachers, by forcing a pay freeze upon them.

All in all, the future looked rocky for the Liberals and Mr. McGuinty.

It was a fine time for Premier Dad to take his leave, and he did so formally that Friday night in January.

As one newspaper fondly noted, “the evening was vintage Mr. McGuinty,” and so it was, and not only because he was surrounded by members of his large family.

It was also vintage Mr. McGuinty because, once again, he and his government got away with something that would have been rightly decried if Mr. Harper had done it.

Postmedia News
cblatchford@postmedia.com

CyberSmokeBlog didn't win the $10,000 reward but got its "30 seconds" of fame ..... close but no cigar!

Ron Gray presents big cash incentives to those of you who want to help Beverley McLachlin maintain her lies about Kari Simpson. Chief Bevy's fate is in your hands, folks, since failure to prove her lies will mean she will have to resign from the court! You see, contrary to the legal requirement of proving a case involving libel, defendant Rafe Mair failed to provide any foundation for his lies, admitting that he never even heard Kari Simpson speak on the issues central to the case. But Chief Bevy decided to believe Mair's unfounded lies and went a step further by publishing his lies as the "factual" basis of her decision.

Here's the deal: Produce verifiable evidence (not hearsay or more lies) that makes any of these lies true. This is your chance - 4 chances, actually - to make big money by merely proving what Rafe Mair, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, and the 2008 Supreme court of Canada (the panel that presided over Simpson's case) say about Kari Simpson. Simply prove to us and to the world that Kari Simpson led the opposition to the infamous "3 Books" in Surrey, or that she's "opposed to any positive portrayal of the gay lifestyle" or that she's "intolerant of homosexuals" and/or is anti-gay, or for the really big money - that the Supreme Court of Canada has any right to change a legal test and then use the new test to make a finding without letting the parties know the legal test they have to meet.

So far it's looking bad for Chief Justice Bevy. Since no one is stepping up with the evidence, she should start packing up her office. Canadians will not tolerate a liar and an arrogant, out-of-touch cheat for a Chief Justice of the high court!

Good Day Readers:

Well, as you saw CyberSmokeBlog didn't win the $10,000 reward, however, unlike the Canadian Bar Association CSB is not a crybaby.

"Judge Ron" of Drive For Justice ruled CyberSmokeBlog's use of The Chretien Doctrine of a Universal Proof was a little too circuitous.

This time CSB is going after the $100,000 Whopper Reward!

To prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Chief Justice Beverley "The Fossil" McLachlin and her Supreme Court colleagues acted properly at all material times in WIC Radio Limited and Rafe Mair versus Kari Simpson, CyberSmokeBlog will rely upon two fundamental tenets of Canadian law.

The Fossil Rule

"Let me begin by asserting that Canada has a strong and healthy justice system. Indeed, our courts and justice system are looked to by many countries as exemplary. We have well-appointed courtrooms, presided over by highly qualified judges. Our judges are independent and deliver impartial justice, free of fear and favour. The Canadian Judicial Council, which I head, recently issued an information note on the judicial appointments process in which it affirmed these long standing principles on which our justice system is based. Canadians can have confidence that judges are committed to rendering judgment in accordance with the law and based on the evidence. Corruption and partisanship are non-issues. In all these things, we are fortunate indeed." ..... Empire Club of Canada Toronto, March 8, 2007

The Justice RoadKill Law

Former Supreme Court Justice William Binnie wrote the decision in the 2003 Mair and WIC versus Simpson case.

Justice RoadKill is best remembered for his $400,000 plus review (last year) of a contentious New Zealand multiple-murder trial for the country's Federal Department of Justice. Minister Judith "Crusher" Collins crushed both Justice RoadKill and his Report.

An infuriated Crusher Collins shown here with Justice RoadKill's car shortly after receiving his Report

Join CyberSmokeBlog in its quest for the $100,000 Whopper Reward.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

A boxing match made in heaven: A lawyer and a judge pummelling each other senseless in a ring!

Robert Tapper Boxing Judge/Winnipeg Lawyer for Sam Katz against Joe Chan

Smiling Sam and Dapper Tapper!

Good Day Readers:

Spent a little time at the Law Courts a couple days ago reviewing the Joe Chan versus Sam Katz file. But first by way of a brief background:

Restaurateur says Winnipeg mayor offered to settle lawsuit

Sam Katz's lawyer 'outraged' that Joe Chan spoke publicly about a settlement

Friday, December 7, 2012

Joe Chan, seen in a CBC-TV interview in January, claims he has been offered a settlement in a conflict-of-interest court case involving Mayor Sam Katz. Chan said he has declined the offer. (CBC)

Winnipeg restaurant owner Joe Chan says he has turned down an offer to settle a conflict-of-interest lawsuit he has filed against Mayor Sam Katz.

Chan is taking Katz to court under provincial conflict-of-interest legislation, alleging that $2,900 in taxpayers' money was spent on Christmas parties for city staff at Hu's Asian Bistro, a restaurant that Katz owned at the time.

If Katz is found to have violated the law, he could be removed from office.

Chan, who owns Cathay House on Regent Avenue, has called on Katz to return the money that was spent on the parties to the City of Winnipeg.

While Chan would not reveal any details about the settlement he claims to have been offered, he told CBC News late Friday that he would rather see the matter heard in court.

"I offered him a settlement before. He wouldn't take it," he said.

"I told him to return all the money and that's it, OK? He turned it down. Like, it looks like this guy doesn't know what is a mistake."

Katz's lawyer, Robert Tapper, says he's outraged that Chan would speak publicly on a settlement offer.

Tapper said Chan is violating court rules and professional courtesy by disclosing any kind of offer, no matter how innocuous it may be.

"It's absolutely outrageous what he [Chan] has done," he told CBC News.

Tapper said he will be crafting a court motion to "effect some kind of remedy" against Chan immediately.

A hearing on the conflict-of-interest lawsuit is scheduled for April.

With files from the CBC's Sean Kavanagh

Assuming there's no last minute out-of-court settlement, according to Registry documents the trial is scheduled to begin Friday, April 5th which could be significant. Recall the the plight of Toronto Mayor Rob "Goofy" Ford who was temporarily removed from office by a Judge for improper campaign fundraising.

Should Smiling Sam lose will a Justice similarly boot his arse out of office?

In going through the file (CI 12-01-75787) we noticed Mr. Chan is a self-rep. Michael Jack's name also appeared on a few peripheral documents. He was promoted last year to head the City of Winnipeg's Legal Department. First encountered him while covering a trial in which a couple of Winnipeg Police Service Officers were being sued for alleged false arrest. Unlike some lawyers and Crown's who frequent The Law Courts in need of major A A (Attitudinal Adjustment) and possessing a misplaced sense of entitlement, Mr. Jack was very, very good at answering CyberSmokeBlog's questions on points of law after the court had recessed for the day.

Here are the Motion Briefs for both parties in the dispute. Who will win? You be the Judge and Jury.

Recently Smiling Sam announced he'd run again in the next election. The local CTV affiliate's Question of the Day was, "Would you vote for Sam Katz?" Usually, approximately 2,000 viewers respond to these questions. Bad news Sam, sounds like you'll be toast - 73% said "No."

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

For The Plaintiff

The Queen's Bench Winnipeg Centre
File Number: CI 12-01-75787

Between: Joe Chan, Applicant

- and -

Samuel Michael Katz and The City of Winnipeg, Respondents
______________________________________________________
Brief Of The Applicant
Date Of Hearing: Thursday, February 2, 2012
_______________________________________________________

Joe Chan
427 Alexander Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3A 0N5
Telephone: (204) 955-5988

Index   Page
                          
I Facts  3                   
II Issues  5                
III Arguments  6     

I Facts

1. On December 13, 2012, Samuel Michael Katz, Mayor of the City of Winnipeg, hosted a Christmas dinner at Hu's Bar and Grill, 1747 Ellice Avenue in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

2. On December 12, 2012, Samuel Michael Katz, Mayor of the City of Winnipeg against hosted a Christmas dinner at Hu's Bar and Grill, 1747 Ellice Avenue in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

3. Hu's Bar and Grill is wholly owned by Hu's Asian Bistro Inc. and Mayor Samuel Michael Katz is its only shareholder.

4. Winnipeg taxpayers' funds of approximately $3,000 were used to pay for each dinner.

5. Mayor Samuel Michael Katz had a significant pecuniary interest in goods and services sold by Hu's Asian Bistro Inc.

6. Mayor Samuel Michael Katz benefited from the funds paid for the dinners from the City of Winnipeg.

7. The contract for the dinners was never tendered or offered to any other restaurant.

8. The Applicant is manager of Cathay House, a cafe that serves similar fare as that sold by Hu's Asian Bistro Inc.

9. Mayor Samuel Katz played a major role in directing the business of the Christmas dinners to Hu's Asian Bistro Inc.

II Issues

1. Should Mayor Samuel Michael Katz have taken any role in deciding which restaurant should host the Christmas dinners?

2. Should Mayor Samuel Michael Katz be disqualified from office?

3. Should Mayor Samuel Michael Katz reimburse the city of Winnipeg for monies paid for the 2 Christmas dinners?

III Argument

For The Defendants

The Queen's Bench Winnipeg Centre
File Number: CI 12-01-75787

Between: Joe Chan Applicant

- and -

Samuel Michael Katz and The City of Winnipeg, Respondents
___________________________________________________________
Motion Brief of Samuel Michael Katz
Civil Uncontested List
On Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.
___________________________________________________________

Tapper Cuddy LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
1000-330 St. Mary Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 3Z5

Robert L. Tapper
Solicitors for the Respondent Samuel Michael Katz

Telephone: (204) 944-8777
Fax: (204) 947-2593
File Number 120173

Motion Brief Of Samuel Michael Katz

I. Argument

1. The Respondent Samuel Michael Katz is the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg.

2. The Mayor should not be subject to absurd and frivolous and vexatious proceedings such as the within proceeding, which is patently vexatious and frivolous on its face.

3. Though this return date is on the uncontested list, it is respectfully submitted it should not be permitted to continue, and should be struck.

4. The following lists the issues demonstrating the folly of this Application.

5. The Applicant has not posted the security mandated by Section 20(2) of the Municipal Council Conflict of Interest Act, C.C.S.M. c. M255; that is apparent by a simple reference to the Queen's Bench pocket.

6. The provisions of the aforesaid Act, in the relevant context, are triggered by Section 17 thereof. Leaving aside there is no evidence before the Court that a meeting as defined by the Act was occurring, it is plain and obvious that a Christmas party is neither a council meeting, a committee or sub-committee meeting. There was and can be no obligation to tender the event.

7. Nor is Section 16 of any avail to the Applicant. That would require the Mayor to attempt to influence himself.

8. There is no evidence that the City of Winnipeg paid for either of the events complained of in the Application. Though there is a reference to this allegation in the Brief of the Applicant, his affidavit contains no such averment.

9. The reality is that the Mayor hosted a party for his staff and Council members. There is no obligation to tender that. He is entitled to do that.

10. Some would argue he should be doing that.

11. If the Mayor takes a fellow Councillor across the street from City Hall for dim sum, must he first attend at the City Clerk's office to pick up a tender form? Because the Applicant also sells dim sum? (presumably).

12. This application is a transparent attempt by the Applicant  to garner attention to himself and his restaurant and the Court should not permit it to continue.

13. It should be dismissed with costs. The Mayor should not have to dip into his pocket to have funded this (untendered) defence: those costs should be on a full indemnity basis.

All of which is respectfully submitted this 30th Day of January 2012.

Original signed by Robert L. Tapper Q.C.
____________________________________________
Solicitors for the respondent Samuel Michael Katz