Told you so!

Jury rejects Chapman's allegations of police misconduct

By Kevin Rollarson
Thursday, April 30, 2015

It may have taken 13 years for a lawsuit of alleged police misconduct to get to court, but it took only four hours for a Winnipeg jury to boot it out.

A three-man, three-woman, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench civil jury unanimously rejected Alex Chapman’s 2002 lawsuit claiming two Winnipeg police officers and the City of Winnipeg had launched repeated acts of false arrest, harassment and malicious prosecution against him.

The jury had been given 21 questions to decide and they told Justice Herbert Rempel on Thursday that they rejected all allegations made by Chapman against the officers and also awarded no damages to him.

Chapman was first arrested in 2001, when his estranged wife called police and claimed he’d assaulted her. The charges were later dropped when the woman said she made up the story.

Chapman sued the police over it, but he was arrested twice in 2002 when his wife called police again, the first time just days after he launched his lawsuit and the arresting officers worked with the officers he was suing. All criminal charges against Chapman were later dropped.

He made national headlines in 2010 when he filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council against Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice Lori Douglas and her husband, Winnipeg lawyer Jack King.

Chapman claimed he was harassed by them. He said King — his former lawyer — showed him explicit nude photos of Douglas in an attempt to arrange a sexual tryst. Those photos were widely circulated online.

The complaint triggered a well-publicized and controversial formal judicial hearing that was recently scrapped against Douglas when she announced her retirement, effective next month. King was previously sanctioned by the Law Society for his role and has since died.

CyberSmokeBlog's prediction: Team City of Winnipeg =1 Team Chapman-Histed = 0!

How to impress and influence a jury!

Good Day Readers:

Late yesterday both sides completed their final summations to the jury in Alex Chapman's lawsuit for alleged assault and false arrest against Winnipeg's Police Service. Tomorrow Justice Rempel will charge the jury and the deliberations will begin.

It is CSB's considered opinion counsel for the City, Denise "Side Saddle" Pambrun, delivered the more detailed, precise, specific presentation thus the stronger and more compelling argument. CyberSmokeBlog has asked for a  head's up e-mail from a senior court administrator so hopefully it can get there in time to hear the decision.

Note: The "Side Saddle" comes from Ms Pambrun's tendency to shoot a knee up on the counsel table behind the dais where the bench/jury can't see it (as she did a few times yesterday) during her comments. CyberSmokeBlog thinks that's really cool - a welcomed "relief" from what can be the staid, boring, humourless, process laden decorum of a courtroom. Hopefully, she'll continue this practice. However, this in no way influenced CSB's prediction.

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Bloody hypocrites!

Want to become Manitoba's next millionaire? Play Winnipeg's litigation lottery!

Good Day Readers:

No trial is without its surprises while taking on its own personality along the way. This one is no exception.

 Alex Chapman's (of Douglas Inquiry fame) is no exception. He's suing the City and its police department for $5.5 million for alleged assault and false arrest that date back to January of 2002. It's a rare civil trial by judge and jury (6) about which CyberSmokeBlog will have more to say shortly. Justice Herbert Rempel of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench presiding.

 Yesterday (Wednesday, April 29) both sides completed their final summations to the jury which is now deliberating so a decision could come at anytime.

Since the file resided with Justice Rempel during the trial, a special thank you to counsel for the Defence for allowing CSB to reproduce its copy of the Statements of Claim and Defence. Here they are stripped of the preamble adn legalese - the bare Bones.

Plaintiff: Alexander Chapman
Defendants: Chief of the Winnipeg Police Service, Ian Christopher Hinds, Velvetina Brown, Constables J. Kapka, K. Azaransky, J. Contrad and T. Michalinik

Statement of Claim

An amended version was filed September 8, 2008

1. The plaintiff claims:

a. general damages
b. punitive damages
c. special damages in an amount to be assessed; and
d. solicitor and client costs

2. The plaintiff, a Network Systems Manager, resided at 30 Elm Grove Way in Winnipeg, Manitoba ("the dwelling") in January, 2002.

3. The defendants Constable J. KAPKA, Constable K. AZARANSKY, Constable J. CONRAD, and Constable T. MICHALIK are constables of the Winnipeg Police Service.

4. The defendant THE CHIEF OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE SERVICE is liable for the torts committed by the other defendant members of the Winnipeg Police Service by virtue of the provisions contained in The Provincial Police Act.

5. The plaintiff was married to and in January 2002 resided with Wendy Janice Chapman at 30 Elm Grove Drive in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

6. VELVETINA BROWNE is the mother of Wendy Janice Chapman.

7. IAN CHRISTOPHER HINDS is the nephew of Wendy Janice Chapman.

8. The plaintiff was 35 years of age, university educated, professionally employed and has no criminal record.

9. As a result of an arrest for assault against Wendy Janice Chapman, the plaintiff initiated civil proceedings on January 14, 2002 in Court of Queen's Bench Winnipeg Centre Suit No. C102-01-26273 against THE CHIEF OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE and two constables of the Winnipeg Police Service for arbitrary detention and false imprisonment.

10. A copy of the statement of claim CI02-01-26273 was delivered via fax to counsel for the defendant THE CHIEF OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE SERVICE on January 14, 2002.

11.Late in the evening of January 18, 2002, the plaintiff and Wendy Janice Chapman got into an argument over Wendy Janice Chapman's cancellation of the telephone service to the dwelling.

12. Wendy Janice Chapman was in a rage.

13. The plaintiff feared that he would be the subject of a further false arrest and contacted the police to alert them to the fact that Wendy Janice Chapman was irrational and that there may be a further false complaint.

14. Wendy Janice Chapman arrived home, settled down and eventually went to sleep.

15. The defendants HINDS and BROWNE arrived a short while later.

16. From his basement office, the plaintiff overheard HINDS and BROWNE speaking maliciously of him. He went upstairs and asked them to leave.

17.HINDS and BROWNE refused to leave while BROWNE began yelling at the plaintiff.

18. The plaintiff showed the defendant HINDS the way out, but Wendy Janice Chapman let him back into the house.

19. The defendants HINDS and BROWNE and Wendy Janice Chapman were all yelling at the plaintiff.

20. The plaintiff made several calls to 911 and the police non-emergency line to seek the assistance of the police in removing HINDS and BROWNE from the dwelling.

21. The defendant HINDS threatened the plaintiff by saying that he would contact his father to "work you over."

22. At that time, Wendy Janice Chapman experienced a panic attack and began screaming.

23. The plaintiff contacted the Winnipeg Police Service for assistance.

24. The plaintiff told the defendants BROWNE and HINDS that everyone would get hurt if it were necessary for the police to remove them since their names would be permanently recorded on the police computer.

25. The defendant BROWNE told the plaintiff that she didn't care because it was her house and that she would only leave upon delivery of $27,000.from the plaintiff.

26.The defendant HINDS' father Lionel arrived and also commenced yelling at the plaintiff.

27. The plaintiff then locked himself in the master bedroom pending the arrival of the police.

28. Shortly after the arrival of the defendants Constable J. KAPA, and Constable K. AZARANSKY, the defendants HINDS and BROWNE and Windy Janice Chapman falsely accused the plaintiff of the offence of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm to them.

29. The defendants Constable KAPKA and Constable AZAZANSKY proceeded to falsely arrest the plaintiff for the offence of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm without any further investigation.

30. The defendants Constable KAPKA and Constable AZARANSKY acted as agents for and at the direction of the defendants HINDS and BROWNE and Wendy Janice Chapman.

31. The plaintiff was only released from custody on his undertaking, among other things, not to have contact or communication with the defendants KINDS and BROWNE and Wendy Janice Chapman and not to reside or attend at his own dwelling.

32. The defendants Constable KAPKA and Constable AZARANSKY did not believe and did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the plaintiff committed the offence of threats to cause death or bodily harm to the defendants BROWNE, HINDS or Wendy Janice Chapman.

33. The defendants Constable KAPKA and Constable AZARANSKY then caused a criminal prosecution to be brought against the plaintiff for the offence of uttering threat to kill or cause bodily harm to the defendants BROWNE and HINDS and Wendy Janice Chapman (the first criminal prosecution).

34. On June 2, 2002, the defendant BROWNE falsely reported to the defendants Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK that the plaintiff had telephoned her at 2:00 a.m. and told her "You had better pray for your daughter."

35. At 5:29 a.m. on June 2, 2002, the defendants Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK, without undertaking any investigation or first obtaining a warrant, proceeded to locate and falsely arrest the plaintiff at his dwelling.

36. The defendants Constable J.CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK acted as agents for and at the direction of the defendant BROWNE.

37. The defendants Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK did not believe nor did they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the plaintiff committed the offence of breaching his recognizance by contacting the defendant BROWNE.

38. The defendants Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK initiated prosecution of the plaintiff for the offence of breach of recognizance. (the second prosecution)

39,. Both criminal prosecutions terminated in the plaintiff's favour when the Crown Attorney directed a stay of proceedings with respect to them on or about February 21, 2003.

40. The criminal prosecutions were malicious because:

a. Constable J. KAPKA and Constable K. AZARANSKY, Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK acted with reckless indifference as to the guilt or innocence of the plaintiff

b. The arrests and prosecutions of the plaintiff were initiated by the defendant BROWNE for the purpose of extorting a financial advantage from the plaintiff for herself and her daughter Wendy Janice Chapman;

c. The arrest and prosecution of the plaintiff on January 19, 2002 was initiated by the defendant HINDS to divert attention from his criminal threat to incite his father to cause bodily harm to the plaintiff;

d. The arrest and prosecution of the plaintiff on January 19, 2002 was initiated by Wendy Janice Chapman to gain advantage in matrimonial proceedings to preserve her occupancy of the
marital home and out of anger to the plaintiff;

e. The criminal prosecutions were brought by Constable J. KAPKA, and Constable K. AZARANSKY in retaliation for the plaintiff's claim in Court of Queen's Bench Winnipeg Centre Suit No. CI02-01-26273.

41. The defendants BROWNE and HINDS and Wendy Janice Chapman conspired and agreed, one with the other, to procure the false arrest and malicious prosecution of the plaintiff on January 19, 2002 and did thereby commit the tort of conspiracy.

42. In the premises, the defendants Constable J. KAPKA, Constable K. AZARANSKY, and THE CHIEF OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE SERVICE, are liable to the plaintiff in damages for the torts of false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and arbitrary detention contrary to section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms.

43. In the premises, the defendants Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK, and THE CHIEF OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE SERVICE, are liable to the plaintiff in damages for the torts of false imprisonment and arbitrary detention contrary to section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms.

44. In the premises, the defendants HINDS and BROWNE are liable to the plaintiff in damages for the torts of conspiracy, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

45. As a result of the conspiracy, false imprisonment, arbitrary detention, and malicious prosecution
aforesaid the plaintiff suffered loss and damage and;

a. Suffered embarrassment, humiliation and great emotional strain;

b. Was denied legal access to his dwelling for an extended period of time causing great hardship and providing Wendy Janice Chapman with the opportunity to unlawfully dispose of his personal property; and

c. Was put to expense in legal fees to defend the criminal prosecutions.

46. The arrests and prosecutions of the plaintiff were carried out by the defendants Constable J. KAPKA, and Constable K. AZARANSKY despite the fact that an action for false arrest and arbitrary detention was already pending against the CHIEF OF THE WINNIPEG POLICE SERVICE and others for a prior false arrest of the same plaintiff.

47. As such, the conduct of Constable J KAPKA and Constable K. AZARANSKY was arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional, as well as malicious. It warrants a denunciatory award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter the Winnipeg Police Service from such conduct.

48. As such, the conduct of Constable J. CONRAD and Constable T. MICHALIK was arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional. It warrants a denunciatory award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter the Winnipeg Police Service from such conduct.

Dated March 14, 2003

DOWNTOWN LEGAL ACTION

586 Broadway
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 0W5
(204) 779-5741
R. Ian Histed
Solicitor for the Plaintiff

CyberSmokeBlog requests God in his/her/its infinite wisdom make Stephen Harper/"Helicopter Pete" MacKay" appoint Vic Toews so Rocco Galati can successfully challenge it!

Justice Marshall Rothstein to retire from Supreme Court of Canada in August

Friday, April 24, 2015

Supreme Court Justice Marshall Rothstein shares a laugh with the Supreme Court during a weccoming ceremony in Ottawa on April 10, 2006. Justice Rothstein is retiring from the Supreme Court of Canada effectrive August 31, just months short of his mandatory retirmemtn on his 75th birthday in December. Rothstein was appointed to the court by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in March 2006 after 13 years with the Federal Court adn the Federal c=Court of Appeal. (The Canadian Press/Fred Chartrand)

OTTAWA - Justice Marshall Rothstein is retiring from the Supreme Court of Canada effective Aug. 31, just months short of his mandatory retirement on his 75th birthday in December.

Rothstein was appointed to the court by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in March 2006 after 13 years with the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has formally notified Justice Minister Peter MacKay of the coming vacancy on the bench.

Although Rothstein steps down at the end of August, the Judges Act provides that for six months after retirement, he can continue to participate in judgments of cases heard before his departure.

Rothstein was Harper's first appointment to the highest court, shortly after the Conservative government took office.

Harper has appointed all but two of the nine judges on the court.

McLachlin said Rothstein will be greatly missed.

"Justice Rothstein has served on the court with distinction, and made enormous contributions to the court and to Canada," she said in a statement.

The prime minister thanked Rothstein for his distinguished service over the years.

Rothstein pointed out that on retirement, he will have been a judge for more than 23 years.

"I am grateful for this privilege and mindful of the honour and public trust that attach to the holding of judicial office in Canada," he said in a statement.

Rothstein was born and raised in Winnipeg. He earned a commerce degree and a law degree at the University of Manitoba and began in private practice in 1966.

During his career, he taught law at the University of Manitoba and was a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from 1986 to 1992.

He was appointed to the Federal Court in 1992 and moved to the Federal Court of Appeal in 1999.

Hillary Bill's election financing campaign

Alex Chapman versus the "temporary"one-legged City of Winnipeg legal counsel!

Good Day Readers:

CyberSmokeBlog was in court Wednesday for the following. It will explain the reference to the City's temporary one-legged legal counsel shortly. Suffice it to say for now it was beyond hilarious - loved it!

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

City police sued for harassment

Accuser key part of case against judge

By Mike McIntyre
Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Alex Chapman seen in 2012 was embroiled against a female judge. (Boris Minkeich/Winnipeg Free Press)

A 13-year-old case of alleged police misconduct has finally made its way to a Winnipeg jury.

Alex Chapman filed a lawsuit in 2002, claiming city police carried out repeated acts of false arrest, harassment and malicious prosecution. The case slowly worked its way through the system with some of the other parties - including his ex-wife and her family members -  reaching settlements.

But cases involving two police officers and the City of Winnipeg remain before the courts. Jurors began hearing evidence this week in a rare civil trial. None of Chapman's allegations has been proven. He is seeking unspecified financial damages.

Chapman, 49, testified Tuesday. He was first arrested in the fall of 2001 after his estranged wife called police, claiming he'd assaulted her and locked her out of their home.

He described waking up to find two officers in his bedroom.

"I was in a deep sleep. I said 'What are you doing in my room?' They said my wife complained I assaulted her," Chapman testified.

The charges were dropped weeks later when the woman said she'd made up the story.

"She had some mental issues," lawyer Ian Histed told jurors in his opening statement. He added the woman was placed in a psychiatric ward for several weeks following the incident.

"She said she was agitated that day and hadn't taken her meds," Chapman said.

Chapman sued the police in early 2002, but that was only the beginning of his issues, court was told. He was arrested a second time in late January of that year after his wife again called police and claimed he'd threatened to kill her and other family members during a confrontation in their home.

Chapman again denied any wrongdoing, and had placed a handful of 911 calls just prior to his arrest, asking police for help from the woman. He said she'd taken his vehicle without permission and he feared she was again going to make a false complaint against him.

Chapman told jurors Tuesday he pleaded with his wife to calm down.

"She started cursing me. She became enraged. She went ballistic on the phone," he said.

Those 911 calls made by Chapman were played for the jury. The operator tells Chapman there's not much police can do to assist him.

Histed said Chapman's second arrest happened just days after he filed his lawsuit -- and came at the hands of police officers who worked with the officers being sued.

"We say he was prosecuted in retaliation," Histed told jurors. "Things were generally unravelling."

Chapman was arrested a third time, in June 2002, when his wife phoned police to say he'd breached his no-contact order by calling her home and hanging up. All of the charges were dropped. Chapman later got a divorce.

"It is up to the police to prove their actions were lawful," Histed said in his opening statement. "We say they did so without any reasonable grounds, and maliciously."

Chapman made national headlines in 2010 when he filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council against Queen's Bench Justice Lori Douglas and her husband, Winnipeg lawyer Jack King.

Chapman claimed he was harassed by them. He said King - his former lawyer - showed him explicit nude photos of Douglas in an attempt to arrange a sexual tryst. Those photos were widely circulated online.

The complaint triggered a well-publicized and controversial formal judicial hearing that was recently scrapped against Douglas when she announced her retirement, effective next month. King was previously sanctioned by the Law Society for his role and has since died.

www.mikeoncrime.com

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition April 22, 2015 A3

Will you soon know the Harpers' dirty little secrets?

Decision delayed on whether to unseal evidence in case that could reveal Harper family secrets

Stephen Maher
Friday, April 17, 2015

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, pictured with his wife Laureen during a trip to New Zealand in 2014. (The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld)

Newmarket, Ontario — An Ontario Superior Court judge has reserved decision on whether to unseal vidence in a case believed to contain information about the prime minister’s family.

Media lawyer Brian MacLeod Rogers asked Justice Mary Vallee on Friday to lift the unusually strict sealing order, while Justice Department lawyer Barney Brucker invoked Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act in an effort to block media organizations from getting access to an affidavit filed in December by a lawyer acting for Sergeant. Peter Merrifield. The officer is suing the RCMP for harassment and bullying, alleging systematic abuse and coverups by senior Mounties.

Section 37, which was made law as part of a 2001 anti-terror act, allows a judge to order information be kept secret to protect a “specified public interest.” It has been invoked previously to protect evidence presented in the trial of Canadian terrorist Momin Khawaja.

During the hearing, Vallee asked Brucker how she should proceed if she decides to lift the ban.

Sources say the sealed affidavit in this case is accompanied by four letters sent by private investigator Derrick Snowdy to assistant commissioner Stephen White. The letters contain allegations about RCMP wrongdoing, including repeated information leaks that threaten the safety of confidential informants, and the leak of private information about Stephen Harper’s family by officers from the prime minister’s protection detail.

Rogers argued Friday that Supreme Court rulings make it clear that Vallee has the responsibility to make evidence public “to the greatest degree possible,” because courts have repeatedly ruled that democracy depends on journalists being able to inform the public about legal proceedings.

Rogers, who is acting for Postmedia News, CBC,Maclean’s and the Toronto Star, wants Vallee to ease the conditions of a broad sealing order, which he has not been able to see.

“This is an extraordinary situation,” Rogers told Vallee. “I’m in the dark about what’s been going on.”

It was imposed after the affidavit containing allegations about RCMP wrongdoing were presented in December, when reporters were ordered from the courtroom.

The trial is to resume in May, with the testimony of “Witness X,” whose identity can’t be reported.

Rogers said that while Vallee was right to grant a sealing order to protect the identity of an RCMP confidential informant, there is reason to believe that much of the evidence can be released without revealing the identity.

“The judge must accommodate the open court principle without breaching informer privilege,” he said.

After the hearing, Brucker told reporters Section 37 was not invoked to protect information about the Harper family from becoming public.

“I wouldn’t think so,” he said. “We’re protecting the public interest and the decision is under seal.”

Related

Federal government to invoke terrorism clause to keep Harper family secrets private

Media seek access to sealed documents alleging leaks in RCMP security unit that protects Stephen Harper

Mountie in charge of Harper ’s security says investigation into his tough leadership style is a ‘witch hunt’

Laura Young, lawyer for Sgt. Merrifield, told Vallee that her client also wants the evidence under seal to be made public.

“Sergeant. Merrifield has been a long time coming to this point in the trial, and has invested a lot of time and energy and deserves to have his case heard, to the extent possible, in open court,” said Young.

Merrifield alleges senior officers sidelined his career after he launched an unsuccessful bid to run for the federal Conservatives in Barrie, Ont., in 2005. He has been pursuing his case in the courts ever since.

Vallee is expected to issue a ruling sometime before the case resumes May 19, with the testimony of Witness X.

After the hearing Friday, Rogers, a veteran media lawyer, told reporters that the only example he could think of with a similarly restrictive sealing order was the Eurocopter case, which was connected to the Airbus affair, and former prime minister Brian Mulroney.

“I think it was 2003,” he said. “That’s 12 years ago. This is a very unusual situation.”

National Post

• Email: smaher@postmedia.com | Twitter:

Requiem for a senate!

Did you hear about the time Laureen ..... or young Ben came home .....?

The Selfie Family

Federal government to invoke terrorism clause to keep Harper gamily secrets private

By Stephen Maher
Friday, April 17, 2015

Sergeant Peter Merrifield alleges senior RCMP officers sidelined his career after he launched an unsuccessful bid to run for the federal Conservatives in 2005.

The federal government will invoke a clause used in terrorism trials on Friday as part of its fight to keep information about the prime minister’s family from being made public.

Federal Justice Department lawyers filed a factum on Wednesday that states they will invoke Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act in an effort to block media organizations from unsealing documents containing allegations that the RCMP leaked secrets about Stephen Harper’s family.

The clause, which was used by the government in an effort to close the hearing of Canadian terrorist Momin Khawaja, was made law as part of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2011. It allows a judge to order that information be kept secret as part of a “specified public interest.”

In the factum filed by federal justice department lawyer Barney Brucker on Wednesday, the Crown says the sealed documents contain “information that, if released, would compromise the public interest.”

The documents were sealed by Justice Mary Vallee at a closed-door hearing at Ontario Superior Court in Newmarket, Ontario in December..

Lawyer Brian MacLeod Rogers will ask Judge Vallee to unseal the documents in Newmarket Friday morning. Rogers is acting for Postmedia News, CBC, Maclean’s and the Toronto Star in this matter.

The documents were filed in December by a lawyer acting for Sgt. Peter Merrifield, who is suing the RCMP for harassment and bullying, alleging systematic abuse and coverups by senior Mounties.

Merrifield alleges senior officers sidelined his career after he launched an unsuccessful bid to run for the federal Conservatives in Barrie, Ontario in 2005. He has been pursuing his case in the courts ever since, repeatedly defeating RCMP attempts to quash it.

When one of Merrifield’s lawyers, John Phillips, entered the affidavit into evidence in December, Judge Vallee expelled journalists from the courtroom and imposed a sealing order.

Sources say the sealed affidavit is accompanied by four letters sent by private investigator Derrick Snowdy to assistant commissioner Stephen White.

In his application, Rogers argues Judge Vallee’s sealing order represents “a breach of the rights of the applicants and their reporters and an infringement of their freedom of expression, including freedom of the press.”

The application is accompanied by affidavits from CBC producer John Nicol and Maclean’s reporter Charlie Gillis, who were prevented by the sealing order from covering the hearing in December when the affidavit was sealed.

The letters from Snowdy are believed to contain allegations about RCMP wrongdoing, alleging repeated information leaks that threaten the safety of confidential informants, and the leak of private information about the Harper family.

Snowdy came to public attention in 2010 when Conservative MP Helena Guergis was involved in the so-called “busty hookers scandal.” She was later cleared after being stripped of her cabinet seat and expelled from the Conservative caucus.

National Post

• Email: smaher@postmedia.com | Twitter:

"Got any food up here ..... eh?"

Raccoon climbs 200 metres up Toronto crane

A photo of the raccoon, taken by a Toronto tower crane operator, is being widely shared by Twitter

By Tamara Khandaher/Staff Reporter
Thursday, April 16, 2015

A raccoon was photographed after climbing 200 metres up a crane in downtown Toronto. (Twitter)

A fearless raccoon who climbed more than 200 metres up a crane in Toronto briefly became Twitter-famous on Thursday morning after his photo was tweeted by a tower crane operator.

Rob MacFarlane, known for posting photos of the breathtaking views he’s often exposed to on the job, took a photo of the raccoon clutching onto the ladder, looking a little apprehensive, with his eyes wide open.

Many people expressed concern for the animal’s safety, but MacFarlane reassured everyone that it got back down unhurt, and that it was just as brave on its way down.

“They are the tortoise in the story,” MacFarlane told the Star. “Not so fast, but efficient

The raccoon had made the 213-metre climb overnight and was waiting for MacFarlane when he arrived at work.

When he got close, the raccoon stared at him blankly and hissed a bit. Seemingly annoyed by MacFarlane’s presence, it then confidently made his descent to the ground.

Surprisingly, this was not the first time MacFarlane has encountered a raccoon so high off the ground, he said on Twitter. Face-to-face, this was the second incident, but he has seen “evidence” multiple times before.

“It’s not unusual,” he said. “Raccoons seem to like cranes.”

The question for you to answer Your Honour is, "At any time as a Senator did Mike Duffy ever pay for anything out of his own pocket?"

"No, you speak up Sam tell Winnipegers it ain't so!"

Good Day Readers:

Jeez, aren't you glad Sam Katz didn't run the City when he was mayor as he does his personal finances!

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Credit union sues former Winnipeg mayor Sam Katz for $87K

Assiniboine Credit Union suing former mayor Sam Katz over restaurant loan

By Vera-Lynn Kubinec
Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Former Winnipeg mayor Sam Katz sued by Assiniboine Credit Union. (CBC)

A Manitoba credit union is suing former Winnipeg mayor Sam Katz for more than $80,000 in connection with a loan the mayor had for a restaurant he owned.

Assiniboine Credit Union filed the claim April 1, 2015 against Katz regarding a loan he took out in 2009 for the restaurant Hu's Asian Bistro Inc.

The statement of claim alleges Katz was president, director and shareholder of Hu's Asian Bistro when Hu's got the loan on July 9, 2009.

The restaurant is no longer in operation on Ellice Avenue, but corporation records show Katz is still president of Hu's Asian Bistro Inc.

The credit union is seeking $87,500 plus interest, alleging the loan is in arrears because Hu's Asian Bistro failed to pay when the money was demanded.

The statement of claim alleges that in addition to taking out the loan for $350,000, Katz had also signed a July 9, 2009 guarantee for the loan in the event there was a default.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

Katz was not available to comment on the lawsuit on Wednesday, and Assiniboine Credit Union declined further comment.

Jason McRae-King, who served as chief financial officer for the restaurant, said that in 2012, Hu's Asian Bistro ceased operating and sub-leased the building on Ellice Avenue to another company that operated a restaurant there.

McRae-King said the other company was to pay the loan but left the Ellice Avenue premises last month, resulting in the credit union demanding payment from Katz.

The restaurant had been a source of controversy for Katz during his time as mayor because he held a 2010 Christmas party for city councillors at the restaurant and paid the bill of nearly $3,000 with taxpayer money.

That prompted Winnipeg restaurateur Joe Chan to file a declaration in court alleging Katz was in a conflict of interest.

Chan's case was ultimately dismissed in court in 2013, but the judge called Katz's actions "bad political and ethical behaviour."

Katz had filed documents saying he was unaware of how the restaurant bill was paid after he submitted the invoice to the mayor's office.

Katz was elected mayor in 2004 and did not seek re-election in October 2014.

The Harper diaries coming soon?

Good Day Readers:

How fitting if the inner secrets of the Harper family are soon revealed. The National Post's Christie Blatchford the other day described Mike Duffy "as a guy with no limits in a place with no rules." Will Stephen Harper be shown to be the same? Perhaps the Duffy-Harper alliance wasn't so wacky after all. Birds of the same feather you might say. Or will it be the duelling diaries?

On Guard: "Duff" versus "Harp!"

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

Court asked to unseal RCMP documents on Harper family

By Stephen Maher
Friday, April 10, 2015

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and wife Laureen take a selfie with son Ben. (Photograph: Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press/National Post files)

An order sealing documents containing allegations of RCMP leaks of private information about the prime minister's family violates Charter rights to freedom of the press, a lawyer for Postmedia News and other news organizations will argue in court next Friday.

Last week, Brian MacLeod Rogers filed an application asking Justice Mary Vallee to unseal documents believed to contain private information about the family of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Vallee ordered the documents sealed at a closed-door hearing at Ontario Superior Court in Newmarket in December.

The documents were filed by a lawyer acting for Sergeant. Peter Merrifield, who is suing the RCMP for harassment and bullying, alleging systematic abuse and cover-ups by senior Mounties. Merrifield alleges senior officers sidelined his career after he launched an unsuccessful bid to run for the federal Conservatives in Barrie, Ontario in 2005. He has been pursuing his case in the courts ever since, repeatedly defeating RCMP attempts to quash it.

When one of Merrifield's lawyers, John Phillips, entered the affidavit into evidence in December, Judge Vallee expelled journalists from the courtroom and imposed a sealing order.

Sources say the sealed affidavit is accompanied by four letters sent by private investigator Derrick Snowdy to Assistant Commissioner Stephen White.

Rogers is acting for Postmedia News, CBC, Maclean's and the Toronto Star in this matter.

In his application, he argues Judge Vallee's sealing order represents "a breach of the rights of the applicants and their reporters and an infringement of their freedom of expression, including freedom of the press."

The application is accompanied by affidavits from CBC producer John Nicol and Maclean's reporter Charlie Gillis, who were prevented by the sealing order from covering the hearing in December when the affidavit was sealed.

The letters from Snowdy are believed to contain allegations about RCMP wrongdoing, alleging repeated information leaks that threaten the safety of confidential informants, and the leak of private information about the Harper family.

Snowdy came to public attention in 2010 for his role in making allegations about MP Helena Guergis and her husband. She was later cleared after being stripped of her cabinet seat and expelled from the Conservative caucus.

Original source article:
The StarPhoenix

Original source article: Court asked to unseal RCMP documents on Harper family

Note to Readers:

Doesn't it seem a tad strange the appeal is being heard by the same judge who issued the original publication ban? Potential conflict of interest? Will she also slap a publication ban on the reasons for her decision?

"Helicopter Pete" MacKay on his way to buddy Mike Duffy's trial!

Duffy diary: Peter MacKay claims set up in chopper-fishing flap

Paul McLeod/Ottawa Bureau
Wednesday, April 8, 2015

According to notes in Mike Duffy's diary, Peter MacKay believed former senior Conservative staffer Dimitri Soudas was responsible for leaking the story about the then-Minister of Defence taking a search and rescue chopper from a private fishing lodge. (The Canadian Press)

Peter MacKay believed he was set up by a former senior Conservative staffer who leaked an embarrassing story about MacKay taking a search and rescue chopper to leave a fishing vacation, according to evidence entered in the trial of suspended senator Mike Duffy.

According to Duffy’s personal journal, senators were enraged by the story and MacKay privately claimed he was burned by Dimitri Soudas, former director of communications for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

MacKay, then the minister of defence, was hounded for months in the fall of 2011 by media reports he was picked up from a private fishing lodge in Newfoundland and Labrador so he could make his flight at the Gander airport.

MacKay told reporters he was observing a search and rescue demonstration. But documents obtained by media outlets showed the search referred to the flight being done “under the guise” of a search and rescue exercise.

According to Duffy’s journal, MacKay later confided in the senator that he believed he was set up by Soudas. The conversation apparently happened at or after a national caucus meeting on May 9, 2012.

“Peter MacKay tells (Mike Duffy), Dimitri Soudas ordered him to fly out of Nfld to do photo op — then leaked the helicopter story to the media,” Duffy wrote in his highly detailed daily diary.

In the same calendar entry, he mentions that Harper “doesn’t like Conrad Black” and notes the NDP are beginning stalling tactics.

The entry was redacted by a black marker but was still clearly legible.

A week earlier, on May 1, Duffy noted the helicopter story came up at the Senate Conservative caucus meeting.

“7 or 8 Sens express anger at (the Prime Minister’s Office)’s media & comms strategy (Newfoundland senator) Fabian Manning & others enraged by Peter MacKay’s handling of Search and Rescue.”

MacKay did fly from Newfoundland to London, Ont., for a media event but it’s not clear what authority Soudas would have had to make that order.

Soudas was previously director of communications for the prime minister and would later return to the fold as executive director of the Conservative Party of Canada. But during the fall of 2011, Soudas was executive director of communications for the Canadian Olympic Committee.

Soudas would later be forced out of his job running the party when he was alleged to have interfered with a nomination race involving his partner, member of Parliament Eve Adams.

Earlier this year, Adams left the Conservative caucus to join the Liberals.

Reached Wednesday, MacKay’s office said there would be no comment on the evidence of an ongoing trial.

About the Author
PAUL MCLEOD

E-Mail: pmcleod@herald.ca

Mike Duffy at the public teat!

Raccoon versus green bin: see who wins

City releases video of a raccoon locked in combat with its "racoon-proof" green bin

Thursday, April 9, 2015

It's showtime!

The trial of suspended senator Mike Duffy, is set to begin Tuesday. Here's a break down of the 31 charges the former conservative is facing.

Mike Duffy trial judge no stranger to controversial cases

Ontario Court Justice Charles Vaillancourt, the judge in Mike Duffy's fraud trial, is a good choice for the politically charged trial, lawyers say

By Donovan Vincent/News Reporter
Sunday, April 5, 2015

The Toronto judge who’ll preside over the Mike Duffy fraud trial is no stranger to complex and controversial cases, say lawyers who’ve appeared in his courtroom.

Duffy, the former journalist and suspended senator who faces 31 charges including breach of trust and fraud, is scheduled to stand trial in front of Ontario Court Justice Charles Vaillancourt, starting this Tuesday in Ottawa.

Vaillancourt, who was a small claims court judge in Algoma, Ontario and a school teacher before being appointed to the Ontario Court in 1990, is a good choice to preside over the highly sensitive, politically charged trial, lawyers say.

“His temperament is ideally suited for a high-profile case like this,” says Toronto defence lawyer Julian Roy. “He’ll give both sides ample opportunity to make their case.”

Vaillancourt is a very experienced trial judge known for his thoughtful and detailed judgments along with his ability to ensure his trials proceed in a “respectful, fair and orderly manner,” says defence lawyer Howard Rubel.

And John Struthers, a defence lawyer and provincial Director for the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, said judges who assigned Vaillancourt to the Duffy trial “looked through the roster and made a very intelligent decision about who to put in charge of such a controversial case.”

Justice Charles Vaillancourt will be weighing the evidence in Mike Duffy's fraud trial, which gets under way in Ottawa April 7. The Toronto-based Ontario jurist is known as an experienced trial judge who is fair to both the defence and crown. (Ontario Court of Justice)

Vaillancourt was called in to hear the Duffy case after Justice Hugh Fraser, the regional senior judge for Ontario’s east region, asked Ontario Court Chief Justice Annemarie Bonkalo to assign a judge from another region, said a spokeswoman for the office of the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court.

An outside judge was sought to ensure there are enough local judges available to meet Ottawa’s criminal case scheduling demands, said Jane Warwick, spokeswoman for the chief justice’s office.

Vaillancourt has presided in Ottawa on various cases in the past, she said.

Duffy was charged by the RCMP last year, and investigators say the case against him involves living- and travel-expense claims he submitted as a senator.

His lawyer elected to have the matter tried in Ontario Court.

Lawyer Andrew Furgiuele says it’s “no accident” Vaillancourt was picked for Duffy’s case, given he’s used to handling complex trial litigation.

As an example, Furgiuele pointed to Vaillancourt’s handling of the trial involving telecommunications giant Telus, a case that made it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2008.

Telus sought financial compensation for a court order requiring it to hand over records of telephone calls connected with a murder investigation being conducted by the Ontario Provincial Police — or an exemption from the order.

Telus argued the financial burden of complying with the order would be unreasonable.

In dismissing Telus’s application to the court, Vaillancourt ruled that in instances where there are production orders, judges and justices of the peace lack the statutory authority to order financial compensation to the impacted parties.

He went on to say that citizens and corporations have a civic duty to help the state uphold laws, and found Telus “certainly would have or should have been aware that the nature of its business leaves it open for production orders” or similar procedures.

He found the $662,000 yearly cost for Telus to comply with these production orders amounted to about .058 per cent of the company’s annual pre-tax earnings.

“I have found that at this particular time, the applicant has not been so inconvenienced by the current production orders as to require the court to grant an exemption from (them),” Vaillancourt ruled.

The Supreme Court upheld his decision.

A highly charged case Vaillancourt presided over involved Métis hunting rights in Ontario. A father and son were charged under the Game and Fish Act after they shot a moose in the bush near Sault Ste. Marie in October 1993.

The pair were charged with unlawfully hunting and possessing moose, but Vaillancourt dismissed the charges in 1998, ruling Métis have the right under the Constitution to hunt for food, and that the Game and Fish Act violated their aboriginal rights to do so.

The judge said that at the time that Métis had to “skulk through the forests like criminals as opposed to hunters exercising their constitutional rights.”

His ruling was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003 in a 9-0 decision that found Métis people can claim aboriginal rights to hunt for food under the Constitution.

Last year, Vaillancourt was in the middle of another controversial case — that of a female who wears a niqab and who was the complainant during a sex-assault preliminary hearing.

The woman alleged that two men sexually assaulted her for five years while she was a child, in the mid-1980s.

The original judge in the case, who retired before Vaillancourt took over, ruled that seeing the face of a key witness is “an important feature of a fair trial” with serious implications for the accused.

After taking over the case, Vaillancourt made an accommodation for the woman, who agreed to remove the veil on condition she be allowed to avoid seeing or making eye contact with everyone in court except the judge, Crown counsel and court staff.

Vaillancourt added the accused to the list, saying they couldn’t be denied the right to see their accuser.

A courtroom was set up to enable a separate viewing room for the public, who could only see the back of the woman’s head via a camera feed.

(Crown prosecutors in the case later withdrew sexual-assault charges against the two accused, concluding there was “no reasonable prospect of conviction.”)

In response to an appeal in the case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2012 that judges can order witnesses to remove the niqab, but that must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Vaillancourt was one of nine Toronto-area judges whose rulings were studied in a 2001 Star series, Crime and Punishment, which looked at sentencing patterns in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Included in the series was an informal poll of 50 lawyers, both Crown and defence, who worked in various courthouses around the city. The newspaper asked the lawyers to subjectively rate the rulings of the men and women on the bench on a scale from “lenient to harsh.”

Vaillancourt was rated as a “moderate.”

In an interview for the series, Vaillancourt touched on a number of topics including sentencing and the public’s opinion of judges.

On the former, he said: “If (an accused) is showing you something such as getting into a drug program, then they should get a second or even a third chance.”

On public opinion he said: “When the public is demanding stiff penalties, I always turn it around. What if they became the accused? They might look at the system a bit differently. Crying for blood is an easy thing to do, but do they really want it?”

And if the past is any indication, he won’t be intimidated when he presides over the Duffy trial.

In an earlier 1996 interview with late Toronto Star reporter Tracey Tyler, Vaillancourt recounted an incident that occurred during one of his trials, a case involving three police witnesses, two of whom according to Vaillancourt “had to be lying.”

The officers’ “whole platoon” filled the seats in the courtroom the day of the verdict, anticipating that Vaillancourt’s ruling was about to go against the Crown because of the officers’ inconsistencies.

Vaillancourt said he walked into court to see all the police officers glaring at him, “with their arms crossed.”

“That terrorized me,” Vaillancourt told the Star, adding, “but I went on to give the judgment I had prepared.”