|
August,
2001: What
is Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin thinking? (Chief judge wants Supreme
Court to have control over which cases it hears) | Judge
Richard Lajoie is a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice in
Timmins Ontario |
Dueck says
injusticebusters are scandalous, frivolous,
vexatious and defamatory!
January
10, 2001: This is the
page which must have got to Judge Paul Hrabinsky when he granted
the interim publication ban on discovery materials to be released
to the plaintiffs in the $10M lawsuit, QB 271 - 1994. In keeping
with his personal style, he granted the order in secret, sometime
between Xmas and New Years, awaiting the January 16 hearing when
McKillop and Rossman, the lawyers representing Superintendent
Dueck and his government co-defendents in the claim hope to get
a permanent order shutting this story -- and us -- down. Hello?
Do they not realize that Fifth Estate
told this story to millions across Canada Nov. 19, 2000 and on
repeat showings on Newsworld? The sneakiness and stupidity of
these people defies all reason. The main text on this page remains
exactly as it has been for two years. Of course it is embarassing
to these judges. That is the point. The story is already out
there. The public has an interest. And now they are interested!
Ban: page 1
| 2
The process, which was secret,
gave legal secrecy to Dueck's lawyer: the actual order is not
placed in the public file so the public has no way of discovering
that such an order is even in place! The
significance of Rossman's brief
Paul
Hrabinsky | Mary-Ellen
Turpel-Lafond | Claire MacLellan
| Albert Lavoie | Judge
R. G. Finley | Judge Peter Dielschneider
| Judge Paul Cosgrove
| Queen's Bench Justice
Robert Laing | Marjorie Gerwing
| Mona Duvall | Know your
Supreme Court Judges: Louise Arbour
Judges to get 10.8% raise
Canadian Pressy, Dec 1, 2004
Ottawa - Judges will get 10.8
per cent wage increases, plus indexing for three years, under
recommendations accepted this week by the federal government.
Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin's
annual salary would be $308,000, retroactive to April 1, under
amendments to the Judges Act that Justice Minister Irwin Cotler
is expected to table early in the New Year.
Other justices of the Supreme
Court of Canada would receive almost $286,000 annually.
Chief justices and associate
chief justices of the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada,
provincial appeal courts, superior and supreme courts and courts
of Queen's Bench would receive $263,000.
Under recommendations made
by the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, northern
senior judges would receive the same salaries as chief justices
of the provincial superior court.
Supreme Court of Canada judges
would also be permitted to retire after 10 years' service, regardless
of their age.
The commission reports to the
federal government every four years.
Proposed salaries of members
of Parliament, which used to be tied to those of judges, will
be tabled separately in the House of Commons by government House
Leader Tony Valeri.
Judges'
raise offends realism -- StarPhoenix editorial , Jan 14,
2000
Judges demand pay raise
Only Newfoundland counterparts paid less
James Parker, The StarPhoenix,
August 30, 2002
Saskatchewan's provincial court
judges will be asking for a substantial pay hike this year, a
demand that won't be welcomed by a cash-strapped government attempting
to keep a lid on public-sector wage increases.
The three-person Provincial
Court Commission will set the remuneration and benefits for the
province's 47 provincial court judges for the period running
from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006.
The commission, chaired by
retired University of Saskatchewan professor Jack Vicq, is asking
for submissions on the issue of judges' salaries and will hold
public meetings in Saskatoon and Regina in October. It is scheduled
to publish a final report with recommendations for the government
by Dec. 31. The government is expected to announce how much the
judges will be paid in January.
Gordon Kuski, a Regina lawyer
representing the Saskatchewan Provincial Court Judges Association,
declined comment when contacted Thursday. But sources say the
judges once again will seek a significant boost in their base
salary, which is now $143,000.
In 1999, their association
demanded a $65,000 raise to achieve parity with federally appointed
Court of Queen's Bench judges (a 57 per cent increase).
Their argument was based on
the concept of equal pay for work of equal value, or "a
judge is a judge is a judge." The lawyer acting for the
association at the time told the commission the disparity in
pay between the two levels of judges was in conflict with the
public interest.
The government argued the salaries
shouldn't be measured against federal pay or the compensation
paid in other provinces, but determined on what was appropriate
for Saskatchewan.
The province urged the commission
to consider Saskatchewan's ailing farm economy, the financial
pressures facing the government and recent public-sector wage
settlements.
In the end, the commission
recommended a 27 per cent wage increase, boosting the judges'
salaries to $143,000 from $112,961.
The government reluctantly
agreed to pay up. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled
provinces are obligated under the Constitution to set up independent
bodies to review judges' salaries.
According to the provincial
legislature, the judges must receive at least the national average,
which is now $152,068, a provincial official said Thursday.
That means the judges will
get at minimum a 6.3 per cent wage hike, more than double the
three per cent salary increase most provincial employees have
received this year. But they will likely want a much richer package.
Only provincial court judges
in Newfoundland make less ($142,700) than those in Saskatchewan.
Judges in Alberta, Ontario,
Yukon and the Northwest Territories make $170,000 or more. Queen's
Bench and Appeal Court judges earn $210,200.
The chief justice of Saskatchewan,
E.D. Bayda, is paid $230,400.
Larry Hubich, acting president
of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL), said he understands
judges should be well compensated. However, he said the judges'
association would be out of line if it again asks for salary
parity with the Queen's Bench judges.
"If they are looking to
almost double their salary within a period of under four years
(from $112,961 to $210,200), that would seem to be exorbitant.
I'd certainly be interested to hear what the chamber of commerce's
take on it will be. They were apoplectic about an increase in
the minimum wage of just 35 cents an hour."
University of Saskatchewan
law Prof. Doug Schmeiser said the judges should not be considered
civil servants. "In my view, they are another legitimate
branch of government, like the legislative branch and the executive
branch. To suggest that somehow the (wage) guidelines for civil
servants apply to judges is wrong in principle."
In drawing up its recommendations,
the commission should consider the compensation of prominent
practising lawyers, the salaries of provincial court judges in
other provinces and the salaries of superior court judges, said
Schmeiser.
Saskatoon lawyer Ted Priel
and Regina lawyer Brian Barrington-Foote are also on the commission
along with Vicq. Priel is representing the judges' association
while Barrington-Foote is the government appointee.
The commission has scheduled
hearings in Saskatoon on Oct. 16, 17 and 18 at the Sandman Hotel.
A public hearing in Regina is scheduled to be held at the Hotel
Saskatchewan on Oct. 21.
© Copyright 2002 The
StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)
Add Alberta Justice James Foster of Court of
Queen's Bench to the list of judges with no sense of judgment
for his May 24, 2001 decision to force Schneeberger's ex-wife,
whose daughter he he had drugged and raped while married to her,
to bring his two daughters to prison to visit him and to enable
him to talk with them on the phone. Bad fathers should lose their
rights to fathering privileges and bad judges should lose the
privilege of sitting on the bench. Why, you ask do we say Schneeberger
was a bad father? HE RAPED THEIR SISTERS' SISTER! Fuller coverage
of the Schneeberger case (another perversion horror story originating
in Saskatchewan).
Judge made mistake, CBC told
cbc. January 10, 2001
REGINA - Saskatchewan's chief
justice has determined that one of his colleagues made a mistake
when she locked the doors of a courtroom last year, and Justice
Ed Bayda says it will not happen again.
Last January, appeal court
judge Marjorie
Gerwing ordered that the
door to her courtroom be locked, and that no one should be allowed
to hear what was going on inside.
Judge Gerwing was dealing with
a routine request to appeal a minor legal dispute at the time.
Normally, courts in the province are open to the public.
In a letter to CBC Radio, Chief
Justice Bayda says it was wrong for Judge Gerwing to refuse entry
to her court, but he points out that a speakerphone was being
used in the case. At the time, he says, the court had no idea
what practice judges should follow when a telephone is involved.
injusticebusters have
this to say about appeal court judge Gerwing: This is not the
first mistake Gerwing has made. We remember her trip to Saskatoon
in May, 1994 to adjudicate Peter Klassen's right to appeal his
conviction. The application was to waive the time limit so that
Peter
Klassen
could present new evidence. The arguments were strong then and
they are even stronger now. We think it is possible she did not
even read the excellent submissions presented by Reg Parker.
We base this on her court demeanor. She chatted amiably with
the prosecutor before and after the hearing. They chatted about
their summer plans, and more importantly to Gerwing, it would
seem, her immediate plans for the week-end. Hearing this appeal
seemed to be an annoying interruption to her hectic social schedule.
We hold her in high contempt.
Wilfred Tucker: This
judge was a prosecutor of John Lucas who was the second of five
to be arrested for defaming Brian Dueck, then a sergeant and
now a superintendent, and who was completely guilty of the allegations
Lucas made. Because one of the signs Lucas carried ironically
compared Dueck's actions in allowing Miachael to rape his sisters
to actually doing it himself (a fair comparison since aiders
and abetters often receive the same sentence as actual perpetrators)
there was an interpretive loophole through which the courts could
convict him and Johanna Lucas. Lucas appealed all the way to
the Supreme Court -- and lost. This unanimous decision is a dirty
mark on the Supreme Court and has served as precedent for many
more dirty marks on the entire justice system.
Tucker was called to the bench
in the middle of the Lucas hearings. His dirty tricks as a prosecutor
served him well -- it earned him a place among his peers in the
Saskatchewan judiciary.
  Judge Hrabinsky runs
a secret court!
QB No. 7 A.D. 1994, JCS : R
v. John and Johanna Lucas.
The defendants were convicted
of criminal defamation against Sgt. Brian Dueck February 13,
1995.
Attached to the guilty verdict
was a note: "Not for publication or broadcast."
Sentencing was held over to
April 12, 1995
Judgement No. 3 by Judge Hrabinsky
was an 18 page diatribe against the Lucases and praising the
virtues of Dueck, the cop who had manufactured the evidence in
the Foster Parent case. A man's reputation is the most important
thing he has, pontificated the judge as he went on to sentence
John Lucas to two years less a day and Johanna Lucas to 22 months.
Judge Hrabinsky must have known
he was being a bad boy -- or else he thought that Dueck was a
child whose identity needed protection. He made the following
special order which he called "Judgment No. 3" as part
of the Lucas sentencing:
There shall
be an order directing that the identity of any individuals alleged
to have been involved in sexual misconduct and any information
that could disclose the identity of such individuals, as well
as anything which may be construed as defamatory material, shall
not be published in any document or broadcast in any way.
injusticebusters are puzzled by this. Is the judge
rehearsing for his role in a police state where Dueck is in charge?
(We would point out that four years later, Dueck has been promoted
to Acting Superintendent). The sad fact is that the media respected
this absurd order instead of exposing it. Apparently Judge Hrabinsky
had been upset that John Lucas had called him a robed buffoon
on a poster.
The Saskatchewan
Appeal Court reduced the Lucas sentences, but showed themselves
to be equally as thin-skinned and childish as Hrabinsky as they
set about to tighten the rules of disclosure.
injusticebusters is satisfied that the identity of
Sgt. Brian Dueck, who was involved in extreme and perverse sexual
misconduct in his investigation of the Ross children, is properly
published at last! Star Phoenix
June 19 feature |
injusticebusters is pleased to direct
you to a judge
showing excellent judgment in a case with many similarities to the Foster
Parent and Martensville cases!
- February 10, 1999 | See Judge
John McBride and the Dallas
observer story about him. Money-laundering
Quebec judge | No means No page
The conservative viewpoint on
electing versus appointing judges
Saskatchewan
Judges
Albert Lavoie takes
the prize for most erratic judge in the provincial court system.
Sometimes he's in Regina, or somewhere else on the circuit. He
was in Saskatoon to try T.S. who was tried as a young offender
in 1994, in the first of the Martensville trials. Throughout
the trial, Lavoie catered to the pre-adolescent boy witnesses
who were lying through their teeth and clearly  enjoying
the attention. (One of them testified that on one occasion, T.S.
took him to the basement at gunpoint and made him suck on her
breasts for twenty minutes. Then they went upstairs and had lunch.
On another occasion, according to this little perv-in-the making,
T.S. took him at gunpoint and made him suck on her vagina for
twenty minutes. Then they went upstairs and had lunch. This same
child claimed T.S.'s body was smooth while in fact it is roped
with scars from many childhood surgeries. The judge at no time
challenged the boy: instead he encouraged him and praised him
for being so brave. ) When Albert Lavoie announced his guilty
verdict, he said he found the witness's testimony to be credible
while he disbelieved T.S. who admitted she has occasionally experienced
blackouts when she was suffering insulin shock from her diabetes.
But he was not content to leave it at that! He said, in the same
breath, that T.S. was probably a victim herself and that he found
it odd that her father accompanied her to Court and sat with
her every day of the lengthy trial! (This guilty verdict was
overturned a year laterby the Saskatchewan Appeals Court, along
with scathing comments on the judicial errors. Ever since this
time, in an apparent effort to avoid more judicial error, Lavoie
let guilty sex offenders walk and stopped listening to children,
and then flipflopped back again.) The man does not seem to have
any mind of his own and relies on what he thinks the public will
approve to make his decisions.
injusticebusters
assert that Judge Albert Lavoie knows nothing about the law and
should be a janitor, not a judge.
Judge Lavoie's recent case
was a junior hockey coach he sentenced to four months in jail
for watching a seventeen year old hockey player masturbate. On
another occasion, in Saskatoon in 1996, Lavoie acquitted a seventeen
year old boy of sexual assault on an eleven year old girl he
was babysitting, despite taped evidence the assault had taken
place.
When Rob Klassen appeared before
him on charges that he had defamed Sgt. Brian Dueck in 1995,
Judge Lavoie suggested that injusticebusters Rick Klassen and
Sheila Steele who faced the same charges in adult court must
have coerced him to picket! (Charges did not stick on any of
the three charged). The idea that a sixteen year old might independently
picket about Sgt. Brian Dueck, particularly one whose parents
had been arrested on charges Dueck had trumped-up, did not occur
to Judge Lavoie.
In the fall of 1998, an injusticebuster
was present in Lavoie's court in Saskatoon when a young woman
appeared before him because she had failed to complete her community
hours. Lavoie suggested that she could serve her hours on a leash
which he would hold while he goes for his bicycle ride in the
mornings.
Judge Lavoie's court is never
boring. And there is no way of knowing whether he is serious
or not when words fall out of his mouth. It would be like watching
a Monty Python sketch, except his words have the power to seriously
affect people's lives.
Judge R. G. Finley
also wanders the circuit
and might show up in your court. He is a drunk so you can count
on getting lots of recesses when he presides. Finley also knows
nothing about the law. His Court is occasionally entertaining
but cannot be counted upon for the same entertainment value you
will find in Lavoie's Court. Off the bench, he is more entertaining
according to people he has partied with. Judge Finley will smoke
pot and drink at night and the next morning convict and sentence
drunks and potsmokers. He is a hypocrite.
Judge Finley presided at the
preliminary hearing into the Foster Parent case. At the end of
the hearing, Prosecutor Matthew Miazga told the Court that he
had lost confidence in his child witnesses and that a stay of
proceedings might be in order. Finlay told Miazga not to be so
hasty, that he had heard enough and was ready to send the defendants
to trial. Which he did. Now Miazga finds himself defending his
actions in a ten million dollar lawsuit. He really should not
have listened to Judge Finley!
See Judge
Larry Kyle's judgment in the Walchuk case
Judge Wilfred Tucker did his
time as a prosecutor before being sent to the bench in 1996.
His M.O. as a prosecutor was to use tricks, to get convictions,
and to deprive his defendants of full answer and defense. Judge
Tucker does know the law and has used this knowledge to further
his ambitions rather than to serve the cause of justice. (He
was in the middle of proseucting the Lucas case when he got bumped
upstairs.)
Judge Rosemary
Weisgerber insisted
that 17 year old Jonathan Poundmaker get a legal aid lawyer and
overrode those in the courtroom who tried to speak up on Jonathan's
behalf. She went so far as to make special arrangements with
legal aid to contact him. Jonathan had been picked up on a Friday
afternoon and held until Monday morning (causing him to miss
school) and only then did he learn that he was charged with stealing
a videotape valued at $20 from One-Stop Video. He was put on
an undertaking with a severe curfew. injusticebusters helped him obtain disclosure, which included
a tape from the store's security camera. The culprit was not
Jonathan. Jonathan also learned that the tape had been returned
to the store the following morning. He was clearly innocent and
he wanted to defend himself, plead not guilty, present his evidence,
have his name cleared and the curfew lifted. This incident
took place in early spring and has not yet come to conclusion.
In the meantime Jonathan did get charged with having broken the
strict terms of his curfew by being out after nine o'clock. He
now stands charged with the more serious crime of breach of an
undertaking. (This means it will be much harder for him to obtain
bail if he is ever picked up again on the whim of a police officer,
as happened with the videotape.) If Judge Weisberger had butted
out and listened to Jonathan Poundmaker, he would not be in this
position.
The outcome of this case was
that Jonathan Poundmaker was acquitted of the theft charge, pled
guilty to breach of an undertaking (related to the original offense)
and missed five days of school. He also got to spend the whole
Easter weekend in the Saskatoon Police City cells, where young
persons are NEVER supposed to be held. (spring-fall 1998). He
dropped out of school and moved to North Battleford.
Meanwhile, Weisgerber shares
with Marty Irwin the top
Pimping for Lawyers award
Judge Betty
Jane Hucaluk
could have
told the defendant that the new Drug and Substance Act gives
provincial courts absolute jurisdiction over  marijuana trafficking
cases and accepted his plea. Instead she refused to accept Edmund
Khayfets' plea until he talked to a lawyer, even though he said
he wanted to represent himself. She repeatedly said she had absolute
jurisdiction and seemed to relish the power associated with that
term.
Khayfets -- punished by having
his trial delayed for four months because a provincial court
judge wouldn't talk to him until he got a lawyer! If he shows
up for his trial in January representing himself, will they refuse
to give him a trial? UPDATE: Khayfets went with a lawyer and
took a plea bargain even though the Crown would have been hard-pressed
to make its case. This is typical of Saskatchewan defence lawyers.
This deal with the Crown assured convictions in the rest of the
Flotilla cases.
Judge Ross Wimmer presided over
the Martensville trial and Judge Marian Wedge judged the Foster
Parent trial (preliminary hearing).
Appeal court justice Ellen Gunn worked
for prosecutions before Quinney during the preparation of the
manufactured case against the Klassens and Kvellos.
Evelyn Morgan's story has moved
September 1,
1998
Controversial
judge faces hearing
BATHURST, N.B.
(CP) -- A New Brunswick judge who suggested people on the province's
Acadian peninsula are dishonest will be investigated by the provincial
judicial council.
In a courtroom
last February, Judge Jocelyne Moreau-Berube said there were more
dishonest people than honest ones on the Acadian peninsula.
She also wondered
aloud whether she was surrounded by crooks in her neighborhood.
The comments
angered groups such as the Acadian society and the provincial
labour federation.
The judge apologized.
The judicial
council has scheduled a hearing for next month. (posted Aug.
98)
Update: Judge loses job over
anti-Acadian remark
May 21 1999
MONCTON - A former New Brunswick
judge is appealing her removal from the bench for making derogatory
comments about Acadians.
At a sentencing hearing in
a provincial court, Jocelyne Moreau-Berube said a poll in the
Acadian peninsula would uncover more dishonest people than honest
ones.
Moreau-Berube's lawyer says
the New Brunswick Judicial Council erred in law when it disregarded
a report from a three-member committee. The committee said she
only deserved a reprimand.
See the 1998
Parliamentary Committee Report on custody
Chief judge wants Supreme Court
to have control over which cases it hears
CRAIG WONG. Aug. 12, 2001
SASKATOON (CP) - The Supreme
Court of Canada should not be obliged to hear some cases, as
a way of easing its growing workload and getting decisions out
quicker, says the high court's chief justice.
"The fact is, a certain
amount of our time is taken up with cases that are really not
engaging our primary mandate at the Supreme Court of Canada,"
Beverley McLachlin said Sunday at the annual meeting of the Canadian
Bar Association.
Last year there were 17 cases
the Supreme Court was obligated to hear, plus the court heard
77 other cases which it felt raised issues of national importance.
Many of the "as of right
cases" did not raise new issues and ended with the Supreme
Court reiterating the provincial appeal court's ruling, McLachlin
said.
"If I can speak frankly
and personally, I feel that there should be no 'as of right'
to tell you the truth," she said.
"The ones that are appropriate
we would presumably be granting leave on anyway, and I would
think that would be the best allocation of our resources."
In criminal cases, there is
an automatic right of appeal when one judge in a provincial court
of appeal dissents on a question of law. The Supreme Court must
also hear "reference cases" which are referred by the
federal government for its opinion on constitutional or other
questions.
Changes to which cases the
Supreme Court is obligated to hear would require an amendment
to the Criminal Code. McLachlin said this would have to be done
with the co-operation of the legal profession.
"Before anything would
happen I would want to see a process initiated with the bar so
that this could be discussed," she said.
McLachlin made the suggestions
as a way of dealing with the growing workload of the high court.
Over the first six months of
this year there has been an increase of 12.5 per cent in the
number of applications for hearings by the Supreme Court.
McLachlin highlighted the court's
work to reduce the time spent dealing with the applications,
noting the response time was down from 26 weeks to 19 weeks in
the past year.
However the chief justice said
the court's resources are finite and that by decreasing the time
taken to deal with applications for leave to appeal, the court
risks increasing the time it takes to issue judgments.
It currently takes the court
on average about 7* months to return a written judgment after
hearing oral arguments.
"We probably cannot decrease
the time period for releasing judgments without increasing staff,"
she said.
"However increasing staff
is not a simple matter . . . The court's physical resources,
like its human resources, are stretched to capacity."
"We've put people in every
nook and cranny and so on, but we're running out of nooks and
crannies and sub-basements."
McLachlin took over as chief
justice in January 2000 with the retirement of former chief justice
Antonio Lamer.
The first woman to lead the
court, McLachlin is known for decisions on equality and freedom-of-expression
rights.
Her judicial career began with
an appointment to the County Court of Vancouver in 1981. She
was later appointed to the British Columbia Supreme Court and
the Court of Appeal in B.C.
In 1998, she became chief justice
of the Supreme Court of B.C. and less than a year later was appointed
to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The
fourth annual LaFontaine-Baldwin lecture was delivered Friday
night in Halifax by Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada,
March 2003
Judges'
raise offends realism -- StarPhoenix, Jan 14, 2000
If you are merely a nurse,
teacher, bureaucrat or some other working stiff in Saskatchewan,
chances are that your paycheque barely will keep pace with inflation
over the next three years.
You can argue all you want
that Canadians doing the same work in other provinces are paid
more, that your wages are lagging the national average for your
occupation, that the wage gap means Saskatchewan won't be able
to attract the best-qualified persons. It won't do you any good.
Your employer will point out
that the going rate is what he or she is able to pay. If wages
are higher elsewhere, you'll be reminded, all you have to do
is get packing to avail yourself of the opportunity.
Besides, you'll be told, and
rightly so, that cross-Canada wage comparisons are nearly meaningless
unless the cost of living and other factors are taken into account.
The wage you are paid reflects the value of your job in the Saskatchewan
market, especially when it's paid for through tax dollars.
It's a lesson that everyone
from nurses to teachers, from firefighters to police officers,
from electrical workers to grader operators has learned over
the years.
But in the rarefied world of
judges - appointed from legal practice to the bench as much for
their political leanings as their legal acumen - affordability
and local conditions carry no weight.
Even though not one judge has
quit in protest over having her wages established through direct
negotiations with the government, the provinces are now constitutionally
obliged to set up independent bodies to recommend judges' pay.
Accordingly, a three-person body has recommended that Saskatchewan's
judges, who make $112,961, should get a 27-per-cent pay hike
to $143,000. While the government may decide the recommendation
is out to lunch, it's still required to pay judges at least $140,963,
the national average expected in April.
The judges, who received a
19.5-per-cent raise in June 1997, sought wage and benefit enhancements
amounting to 61 per cent. The commission felt a 27-per-cent hike
was merited for judges because of their heavy workload and stress.
Of course, none of the rest
of us in the regular world who put in long days, pay crippling
taxes and learned to somehow deal with the cutbacks in recent
years knows anything about heavy workloads or stress.
It's only in the real world
- one that apparently doesn't include the judiciary - that such
things as affordability and equity are considerations.
See Teachers
jailed in New Jersey
September 6, 2000 - Globe
and Mail - story by
Peter Cheney
A small-town Alberta judge
whose sharp criticism of Canadian native reserves made him a
national figure and threatened his career on the bench has won
a key ruling that will allow him to continue his role as judicial
crusader. Judge John Reilly of the Alberta Provincial Court,
who became nationally known after describing an Alberta reserve
as a "banana republic," said he was "extremely
happy" about the Alberta Court of Appeal decision, which
says that the province's chief judge had no right to discipline
him over a series of controversial rulings.
|
Saskatchewan Judges are
getting a 27% pay raise. Albert Lavoie will get it. Judge Finley
will get it. And the good judges will get it, too.
The amount of EXTRA money
these judges will get in their monthly paychecque will be more
than many Saskatchewan citizens receive for their entire paycheque!
Seventh grader
jailed for writing
Halloween essay (Dallas, Nov. 3, 1999)
|
Chief judge wants Supreme Court
to have control over which cases it hears
CRAIG WONG. Aug. 12, 2001
SASKATOON (CP) - The Supreme
Court of Canada should not be obliged to hear some cases, as
a way of easing its growing workload and getting decisions out
quicker, says the high court's chief justice.
"The fact is, a certain
amount of our time is taken up with cases that are really not
engaging our primary mandate at the Supreme Court of Canada,"
Beverley McLachlin said Sunday at the annual meeting of the Canadian
Bar Association.
Last year there were 17 cases
the Supreme Court was obligated to hear, plus the court heard
77 other cases which it felt raised issues of national importance.
Many of the "as of right
cases" did not raise new issues and ended with the Supreme
Court reiterating the provincial appeal court's ruling, McLachlin
said.
"If I can speak frankly
and personally, I feel that there should be no 'as of right'
to tell you the truth," she said.
"The ones that are appropriate
we would presumably be granting leave on anyway, and I would
think that would be the best allocation of our resources."
In criminal cases, there is
an automatic right of appeal when one judge in a provincial court
of appeal dissents on a question of law. The Supreme Court must
also hear "reference cases" which are referred by the
federal government for its opinion on constitutional or other
questions.
Changes to which cases the
Supreme Court is obligated to hear would require an amendment
to the Criminal Code. McLachlin said this would have to be done
with the co-operation of the legal profession.
"Before anything would
happen I would want to see a process initiated with the bar so
that this could be discussed," she said.
McLachlin made the suggestions
as a way of dealing with the growing workload of the high court.
Over the first six months of
this year there has been an increase of 12.5 per cent in the
number of applications for hearings by the Supreme Court.
McLachlin highlighted the court's
work to reduce the time spent dealing with the applications,
noting the response time was down from 26 weeks to 19 weeks in
the past year.
However the chief justice said
the court's resources are finite and that by decreasing the time
taken to deal with applications for leave to appeal, the court
risks increasing the time it takes to issue judgments.
It currently takes the court
on average about 7* months to return a written judgment after
hearing oral arguments.
"We probably cannot decrease
the time period for releasing judgments without increasing staff,"
she said.
"However increasing staff
is not a simple matter . . . The court's physical resources,
like its human resources, are stretched to capacity."
"We've put people in every
nook and cranny and so on, but we're running out of nooks and
crannies and sub-basements."
McLachlin took over as chief
justice in January 2000 with the retirement of former chief justice
Antonio Lamer.
The first woman to lead the
court, McLachlin is known for decisions on equality and freedom-of-expression
rights.
Her judicial career began with
an appointment to the County Court of Vancouver in 1981. She
was later appointed to the British Columbia Supreme Court and
the Court of Appeal in B.C.
In 1998, she became chief justice
of the Supreme Court of B.C. and less than a year later was appointed
to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The
fourth annual LaFontaine-Baldwin lecture was delivered Friday
night in Halifax by Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada,
March 2003
Judges'
raise offends realism -- StarPhoenix, Jan 14, 2000
If you are merely a nurse,
teacher, bureaucrat or some other working stiff in Saskatchewan,
chances are that your paycheque barely will keep pace with inflation
over the next three years.
You can argue all you want
that Canadians doing the same work in other provinces are paid
more, that your wages are lagging the national average for your
occupation, that the wage gap means Saskatchewan won't be able
to attract the best-qualified persons. It won't do you any good.
Your employer will point out
that the going rate is what he or she is able to pay. If wages
are higher elsewhere, you'll be reminded, all you have to do
is get packing to avail yourself of the opportunity.
Besides, you'll be told, and
rightly so, that cross-Canada wage comparisons are nearly meaningless
unless the cost of living and other factors are taken into account.
The wage you are paid reflects the value of your job in the Saskatchewan
market, especially when it's paid for through tax dollars.
It's a lesson that everyone
from nurses to teachers, from firefighters to police officers,
from electrical workers to grader operators has learned over
the years.
But in the rarefied world of
judges - appointed from legal practice to the bench as much for
their political leanings as their legal acumen - affordability
and local conditions carry no weight.
Even though not one judge has
quit in protest over having her wages established through direct
negotiations with the government, the provinces are now constitutionally
obliged to set up independent bodies to recommend judges' pay.
Accordingly, a three-person body has recommended that Saskatchewan's
judges, who make $112,961, should get a 27-per-cent pay hike
to $143,000. While the government may decide the recommendation
is out to lunch, it's still required to pay judges at least $140,963,
the national average expected in April.
The judges, who received a
19.5-per-cent raise in June 1997, sought wage and benefit enhancements
amounting to 61 per cent. The commission felt a 27-per-cent hike
was merited for judges because of their heavy workload and stress.
Of course, none of the rest
of us in the regular world who put in long days, pay crippling
taxes and learned to somehow deal with the cutbacks in recent
years knows anything about heavy workloads or stress.
It's only in the real world
- one that apparently doesn't include the judiciary - that such
things as affordability and equity are considerations.
See Teachers
jailed in New Jersey
September 6, 2000 - Globe
and Mail - story by
Peter Cheney
A small-town Alberta judge
whose sharp criticism of Canadian native reserves made him a
national figure and threatened his career on the bench has won
a key ruling that will allow him to continue his role as judicial
crusader. Judge John Reilly of the Alberta Provincial Court,
who became nationally known after describing an Alberta reserve
as a "banana republic," said he was "extremely
happy" about the Alberta Court of Appeal decision, which
says that the province's chief judge had no right to discipline
him over a series of controversial rulings.
|
Saskatchewan Judges are
getting a 27% pay raise. Albert Lavoie will get it. Judge Finley
will get it. And the good judges will get it, too.
The amount of EXTRA money
these judges will get in their monthly paychecque will be more
than many Saskatchewan citizens receive for their entire paycheque!
Seventh grader
jailed for writing
Halloween essay (Dallas, Nov. 3, 1999)
|
 Nova
Scotia conflict of interest and cover-up!
Family Court Judge Claire MacLellan,
wife of Premier Russell MacLellan was a Cape Breton Children's
Aid Society lawyer (working out of the Sydney office headed by
Frank Sampson) before her judicial appointment.
MacLellan sat on the bench
and ruled in favour of Cas' application to permanently apprehend
Emma McCarthy in 1997. She also called former child protection
worker Arlene MacIsaac into her office last winter in a nasty
bit of judicial interference in a court proceeding.
During April, 1999, the Nova
Scotia Judicial system was completely revamped and the Family
Court was merged into the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, with
all Family Court judges "signed up". Part of this revamping
included burying (shredding?) any family court documents which
are more than two years old! The McCarthys already had copies
of the audiotaped hearings,provided to them by fill-in staff
while the regulars were at a conference in Halifax.
The McCarthys have in their
hands all the documentation they need to show any reasonable
judge that Emma's apprehension was illegal and that CAS has sought
to cover the fact that Emma was sexually abused ONLY AFTER she
came into its care. Repeated and regular sexual abuse by a 14
year old retarded boy occurred in the McInnis foster home, where
Emma was placed from Nov. 21, 1997 through at least September
29, 1998. Mr. and Mrs. McCarthy became aware of this abuse and
when they raised a complaint, they received a letter from CAS
lawyers Khattar & Khattar restraining them from going anywhere
near the McInnis property. When Emma was next moved, her whereabouts
were concealed from the McCarthys! See full
story.
The Judiciary, Cape Breton
CAS and the Nova Scotia government are so bound together in this
cover-up that injusticebusters believes nothing fair can happen here
without a
Full Judical
Inquiry conducted by an honest judge outside Nova Scotia!
|
For a fairly comprehensive look
at Canada's Supreme Court Justices, see David
Nicholson's page | American
Judicial
Hall of Shame
|
Truth can never be told so as to be understood,
and not be believ'd. 
