The ultimate in ballseyness ..... pay your own damn legal bills you serial harasser!

Good Day Readers:

Will someone/anyone please hire this lad to work as an adviser in a woman's resource centre.

Sincerely,
Clare L> Pieuk

Fired JP wants public to pay $616K legal bill

A disciplinary panel found Errol Massiah guilty of sexually harassing woment at the Whitby courthouse. He earned $122,000 a year since 2010, though he has not prsiding

Jacques Gallant/Staff Reporter
Thursday, May 28, 2015

Errol Massiah has not presided as a justice of the peace since 2010, wants the public to pay his legal costs in a recent disciplinary hearing in which he was found to have sexually harassed women at the 
Whitby courthouse.

Former justice of the peace Errol Massiah, who was fired earlier this month after a disciplinary panel found he sexually harassed several women at the Whitby courthouse between 2007 and 2010, is asking the public to pay his full legal costs to the tune of about $616,000.

The Justices of the Peace Review Council, an independent body that investigates complaints into JPs, is poring over submissions from lawyers from both sides to decide whether it should recommend that the Attorney General pay none, part, or all of Massiah’s costs from his disciplinary hearing.

That probe dealt with comments he made to female staff, including “Oooh, lady in red” and “Looking gooood.”

Massiah had not been presiding since 2010, but continued to collect his $122,000-a-year salary.

“We don’t need to study this, we don’t need to think about this,” Progressive Conservative justice critic Sylvia Jones told the Star. “He was clearly wrong. It’s time for this guy to be shown the door and no more cheques.”

A different disciplinary panel suspended Massiah for 10 days and ordered him to take gender sensitivity training in 2012 over comments he made to women at the Oshawa courthouse, including: “Damn girl, where did that figure come from?”

That panel recommended that the government pay his full costs, totaling about $123,000.

That was one reason the council should recommend paying Massiah’s full legal costs from the second disciplinary hearing as well, his lawyers argue in submissions recently filed with the council and obtained by the Star.

They also argue that the “financial security component” of judicial independence means that the Attorney General must cover the defence costs in judicial misconduct proceedings.

“The practice of (judicial officers) defending themselves is in essence defending the right of the public to an independent and impartial judiciary,” one of Massiah’s lawyers, Ernest Guiste, told the Star. “And in accordance with the practice and tradition of cases cited, the Attorney General should indemnify.”

His other lawyer, Jeffry House, told the Star that “it would be unfair to isolate the defence cost,” adding: “What the public should be looking at is the overall cost of having two hearings, rather than one.”

Since 2009, six Ontario justices of the peace have had part or all of their legal fees paid by taxpayers, totalling more than $230,000. Four were found guilty of judicial misconduct, while two others retired before a hearing took place.

“Recognizing the nature of judicial independence, higher courts have held that judicial officers should be entitled to receive reimbursement of costs for legal representation where the allegations are dismissed, and in some circumstances where there is a finding of judicial misconduct,” council registrar Marilyn King told the Star last year.

Presenting counsel Marie Henein and Matthew Gourlay, who were retained to prepare and present the case against Massiah, argue in their submissions that the $616,000 is “staggering” and “exorbitant,” and that the council should not recommend paying Massiah’s legal bill.

They also wrote of Guiste bogging down the process with mostly “frivolous” pre-hearing motions. Guiste told the Star that his motions were not frivolous, but raised serious issues in a case he described as novel and that were examined by the panel.

“In these circumstances, considering the misconduct committed by the applicant and the manner in which this case has proceeded, a reasonable member of the public would not consider it just for the applicant’s legal bill to be paid by the public,” Henein and Gourlay wrote.

“Still less would a reasonable member of the public contemplate compensation in the breathtaking amount claimed by the applicant.”

Guiste had requested that he have a right to file a reply to Henein and Gourlay’s submissions, but the request was denied by the panel.

With files from Olivia Carville