Sunday, June 20, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Braidwood Inquiry Reaction to Second Report
From Wikipedia,
Coordinates: 49°16′57″N 123°07′05″W / 49.2824836°N 123.1181452°W / 49.2824836; -123.1181452 The Braidwood Inquiry is a public inquiry being conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, examining the safety of Tasers and the death of Robert Dziekanski.[1][2] The two-stage inquiry is being conducted by retired Court of Appeal of British Columbia and Court of Appeal of the Yukon Territory Justice The Honourable Thomas R. Braidwood, Q.C.
Contents [hide]
1 First stage (Taser safety)
1.1 Taser International Response
2 Second stage (death of Robert Dziekanski)
2.1 June 2009; new evidence
2.2 Notices of misconduct and applications for judicial review
2.2.1 British Columbia Supreme Court
2.2.2 British Columbia Court of Appeal
2.3 Delivery of Second Report
2.4 Reaction to Second Report
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
[edit] First stage (Taser safety)
The first stage of the inquiry began on May 5, 2008. The inquiry heard testimony from many experts, including J. Patrick Reilly, an electrical engineer at Johns Hopkins University, who concluded that a Taser could kill,[3] and the CEO of Taser International Tom Smith. In his testimony, Smith maintained the safety of his product but mentioned that his product was not "risk-free".[4] Smith also denied that his company rushed to market their product with inconsistent safety and medical research.[5]
The inquiry also heard from Ujjal Dosanjh, a Canadian Member of Parliament and former Attorney-General of British Columbia with opposing views to Smith; Robert Dziekanski's mother Zofia Cisowski, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Metro Vancouver Transit Police. Both agencies have announced changes to their Taser policies.[6][7] The first stage of the inquiry finished on May 23, 2008.[8] On June 10, Attorney General Wally Oppal granted a five-month extension to complete its report.[9] On 2008-11-04 Braidwood announced that he had requested a further extension “partly because of the complexity and volume of information he has received regarding the use of conducted energy weapons.”[10] The government granted an extension to June 30, 2009.[11]
On June 22, 2009, Commissioner Braidwood submitted the report on the first stage of the inquiry to British Columbia Attorney General Michael de Jong. It could be several weeks before the report is released to the public, while the government reviews whether any part of it should be withheld.[12]
On July 23, 2009, the Phase One report was tabled in the B.C. legislature. Among the conclusions were that Tasers have the capability to injure or kill by causing heart irregularities, especially where the individual is medically or emotionally compromised. Braidwood was quoted as saying, “Deploying a conducted energy weapon against an emotionally disturbed person is, in most cases, the worst possible response.” However, the report concluded that on balance Tasers are a net benefit to society, in many cases allowing police officers to resolve situations just by displaying the weapon. The report made 19 recommendations, and the goverrnment of British Columbia said it would comply with all of them. The provincial solicitor-general said that he expects all police forces operating in B.C., including the RCMP, to comply with the recommendations, but the RCMP said that it would not comply immediately, needing time to review the report.[13][14]
[edit] Taser International Response
On August 14, Taser International filed a petition against the Braidwood Inquiry and is challenging the commission's recommendations.[15] The company intends to commence an application for judicial review of the Braidwood Inquiry Stage One report, arguing that the procedure breached basic principles of fairness and natural justice, and that the Inquiry's findings were unsupported by medical science. The company reportedly will ask the court to quash large portions of the Inquiry's 19 recommendations.[16][17]
[edit] Second stage (death of Robert Dziekanski)
The second stage began on January 19, 2009.[18] The Inquiry has heard testimony from several witnesses including airline staff, passengers flying with Dziekanski, emergency response personnel and many others.[19] Constable Gerry Rundel and Constable Bill Bentley testified at the inquiry during the week of February 23, 2009, and Constable Kwesi Millington testified the following week. The fourth RCMP officer, Corporal Benjamin Robinson, is scheduled to testify beginning March 23, 2009.[20][21][22]
The inquiry was postponed twice because the RCMP had declined to participate until Crown Counsel made a decision whether to lay criminal charges against the officers involved. On November 4, 2008, the Commissioner announced that he would proceed with the inquiry in January 2009 regardless of whether Crown Counsel had made its decision, and subpoenas were being prepared that would compel the officers to testify.[10] On December 14, 2008 the Crown announced it had decided against laying criminal charges for the four officers involved in the death of Mr. Dziekanski.[23]
[edit] June 2009; new evidence
On June 19, 2009, just before oral closing submissions were about to begin, proceedings were postponed to September 2009.[24] The reason for this was an email between high-ranking officers of the RCMP from November 5, 2007, which mentioned in passing that Superintendent Rideout (the head of IHIT) had reported that the four RCMP officers had decided en route to the airport that if the man causing the disturbance was noncompliant, they would use the Taser on him. At the hearing on June 19, 2009 counsel for the RCMP as well as counsel for Superintendent Rideout indicated that the statement in this email was simply an error, and that IHIT had never received any information that the four officers had made this plan in advance. Counsel for the Government of Canada apologized for not having disclosed the email until this late date. Commissioner Braidwood stated he was "appalled" and, without expressing an opinion on the credibility of the email in question, noted that it would require further investigation and the reopening of evidentiary hearings; therefore he adjourned the Inquiry to September.
On June 19, new revelations surfaced over a document that was not disclosed to Commission counsel until that week.[25] The document is an email, sent by a top RCMP official, that relates information inconsistent with the testimony of the four RCMP officers before the Commission. This has led to the possibility of invalid testimony by the RCMP. The inquiry is postponed until September 22 to allow time to investigate whether the information is correct or whether, as the author of the email itself has said, it was erroneous.[26] The email's text includes the line "Finally, spoke to Wayne and he indicated that the members did not articulate that they saw the symptoms of excited delirium, but instead had discussed the response en route and decided that if he did not comply that they would go to CEW."[27]
[edit] Notices of misconduct and applications for judicial review
In April 2009, Commissioner Braidwood issued confidential notices of misconduct against each of the four RCMP officers present at the incident. The confidential notices stated that the Commissioner may make findings of misconduct against the officers in respect of their actions at the airport, as well as in respect of statements made to investigators and in respect of their testimony at the Inquiry. Such notices are required under subsection 11(2) of the Public Inquiry Act.[28] The Commissioner had not decided whether or not he would make such findings, but the notices were issued in order to give the officers fair notice that such findings were a possibility.
Counsel for the officers applied confidentially to the Commissioner for “particulars”, further details of what they were alleged to have done and the standard against which their conduct would be judged. On May 22, 2009, Commissioner Braidwood issued a confidential ruling concluding that further particulars were appropriate with respect to only one item in the notices. Amended notices of misconduct were then issued on May 28, 2009.[29]
On June 2, 2009, counsel for the officers applied confidentially to the Commissioner that the notices of misconduct be quashed, on the basis that they were ultra vires a provincially-created commission and, in any case, outside the terms of reference of this commission. On June 9, 2009, Commissioner Braidwood issued a confidential ruling dismissing that application.[29]
[edit] British Columbia Supreme Court
The four RCMP officers present at the tasering incident filed petitions in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, seeking judicial review of both those decisions. The petitions sought to prohibit the Commission of Inquiry from making findings of misconduct against the RCMP officers, and in the alternative to order further particulars of the alleged misconduct. The basis for the application is the argument that officers of the RCMP, a federal agency, are outside the jurisdiction of a commission created by the provincial government.[30][31] The court applications arise out of notices sent to each of the RCMP officers by commission counsel, warning them of the possibility that findings of misconduct could be made against them, relating to their conduct at the incident as well as their notes taken afterward and statements made to investigators, and testimony at hearings of the Inquiry.[32]
The RCMP itself did not support the legal position taken by the four officers in court. RCMP spokesperson Sgt. Tim Shields said, “The position of the RCMP is that the RCMP will co-operate fully with the inquiry and is also recognizing the jurisdiction of the inquiry as having authority.” Shields acknowledged the lawyers are paid with taxpayers' money but said the force itself has no power to stop them from contradicting RCMP policy.[33] Neither the RCMP nor the Attorney-General of Canada was represented at the court hearing.
On June 15, 2009 BC Supreme Court judge Arne Silverman ruled that Commissioner Braidwood has the power to make findings of misconduct against the four Mounties.[34]
Justice Silverman found that the details provided in the notices of misconduct satisfied the requirement of procedural fairness, and thus did not order that further particulars be provided.
On the constitutional issues, Justice Silverman concluded that making findings of misconduct (by a provincially-constituted Commission) would not encroach on the federal Parliament’s exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law, and also would not encroach on the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over the discipline of RCMP members.[29]
Finally, Justice Silverman concluded that the subject matter referred to in the notices of misconduct were within the bounds of the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry. Therefore, the petitions of the RCMP officers were dismissed.[29]
[edit] British Columbia Court of Appeal
Constables Kwesi Millington and Bill Bentley have launched appeals, in the British Columbia Court of Appeal, of Justice Silverman's ruling.[35]
As of June 30, the four RCMP members are appealing a previous court decision that allows misconduct findings in Taser inquiry.[36]
On December 29, 2009, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, thus confirming that Commissioner Braidwood has the right to make findings of misconduct against the officers should he consider it appropriate to do so.[37]
[edit] Delivery of Second Report
On June 18, 2010 Braidwood delivered his second report on the death of Robert Dziekanski.
The commissioner spoke of how members of the public viewing the Pritchard video were "shocked and repulsed". He viewed the matter as a failure to act in accordance with training. He said the “senior officer acted inappropriately and aggressively” when dealing with Mr. Dziekanski. He held the victim “did not brandish the stapler by either placing it above his head or motioning with it in an aggressive manner toward any of the officers”. Further, Dziekanski “did not step towards to the officers”. The use of the conducted energy weapon “was not justified”. The actions of the constable and the corporal were inappropriate and unjustified. Braidwood did “not believe that either of these officers honestly perceived that Mr. Dziekanski was intending to attack them or the other officers”. The two other officers offered “patently unbelievable” explanations of their actions. All four made “deliberate misrepresentations”. The commissioner “did not believe the claims of no discussion” of the event between themselves. Significantly, there was no finding of “collusion”. He characterized the action by the officers as a “storey of shameful conduct by a few” and contrasted that with good work by police.
As to the cause of death he ruled the cause of death was heart failure because of increased adrenaline. More precisely a “hyperadrenergic state that lead to ... fatal cardiac arrhythmia”[38] brought on by cumulative stress of travel and arrival made worse by the five deployments of the conducted energy weapon and struggle. He said the latter two are what killed him as they “contributed substantially to that tragic result”.[39] Emphatic he said “Mr. Dziekanski in no way brought this upon himself.”
On other aspects he spoke of the CBSA inaction to improve their procedures and policies in light of the incident. He offered no recommendation directly to CBSA and asked the provincial attorney general pass along the recommendation if he agreed with them. He praised the airport authority for their changes and recommended further changes. Of the RCMP’s media response to the incident he felt the force offered factually inaccurate but not intentionally misleading statements to the public. He endorsed the report of the Davies Commission on the death of Frank Paul and added to the recommendations therein to establish a civilian oversight body of all police “province wide”.
[edit] Reaction to Second Report
Commissioner of the RCMP William Elliot reacted with hours of the report's release. He said the force accepted the report and its recomendations.[40] He stated the RCMP failed at many levels over the incident. Speaking for the force he said "We acknowledge that the actions of our members who dealt with Mr. Dziekanski also fell short." And "our officers did not take enough time to try and de-escalate the situation and did not provide an appropriate level of care to Mr. Dziekanski."[41] The RCMP will be subject to B.C.'s civilian police oversight body once established.[42] Other changes to proceedures have already been annouced.
[edit] See also
Robert Dziekański Taser incident
Taser safety issues
[edit] References
1.^ Inquiry examining Taser use, Dziekanski's death begins Monday CBC News, May, 2008.
2.^ "Braidwood Inquiry Purpose and Terms of Reference". http://braidwoodinquiry.ca/terms_of_reference.php.
3.^ Death from Taser very rare, stun-gun experts tell inquiry The Vancouver Sun, May, 2008.
4.^ Tasers don't kill, says firm's boss. Not true, says Dosanjh The Province May 2008
5.^ Taser rushed into use, competitor tells inquiry The Star, Canada, May 2008
6.^ RCMP willing to change Taser policy, inquiry told CBC May 2008
7.^ Transit police have tightened policy on Taser use, inquiry hears CBC May 2008
8.^ First phase of Taser inquiry finished CBC May 2008
9.^ Braidwood Inquiry gets five-month extension to finish report June 2008
10.^ a b "Press Release: Braidwood Commission Prepares to Subpoena RCMP Officers Involved in Robert Dziekanski Incident". 2008-11-04. http://braidwoodinquiry.ca/whats_new/press_release_08-11-04.pdf. Retrieved 2009-03-18.
11.^ British Columbia Order in Council 882, approved and ordered 2008-11-28 "Resume of Orders in Council Volume 35, Number 28". http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/oic/2008/resume28.htm.
12.^ Carlito Pablo (2009-06-22). "Braidwood inquiry delivers Taser report to B.C. attorney general". Georgia Straight. http://straight.com/article-236292/braidwood-inquiry-delivers-taser-report-bc-attorney-general. Retrieved 2009-06-23.
13.^ "Braidwood stops short of recommending taser ban". The Globe and Mail. 2009-07-23. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/braidwood-stops-short-of-recommending-taser-ban/article1229030/. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
14.^ Braidwood Inquiry (2009-07-23). "Commissioner’s Comments on Phase One Report of Braidwood Inquiry into Taser Use in British Columbia (news release)". http://braidwoodinquiry.ca/whats_new/press_release_09-07-23.pdf. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
15.^ Taser International challenges Braidwood findings CBC, 2009
16.^ "Taser to file lawsuit against Braidwood inquiry". CTV.ca News. 2009-08-13. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090813/taser_lawsuit_090813/20090813?hub=TopStories. Retrieved 2009-08-13.
17.^ "Taser to file suit over Braidwood findings: report". CBC News. 2009-08-13. http://cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/08/13/taser-braidwood081309.html. Retrieved 2009-08-13.
18.^ 2nd phase of Taser inquiry begins in Vancouver CBC, News, 2009
19.^ Dziekanski caused no problems on flight: Witnesses Calgary Herald, Canada
20.^ "Braidwood Inquiry Hearing Transcripts". http://braidwoodinquiry.ca/hearing_transcripts.php. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
21.^ "Braidwood Inquiry Hearings Schedule". http://braidwoodinquiry.ca/hearings_schedule.php. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
22.^ Four cops to face spotlight at Taser inquiry CTV News, 2009
23.^ Vancouver Sun - No charges in Dziekanski Taser incident
24.^ Ian Bailey (2009-06-19). "RCMP e-mail throws taser inquiry into uproar". The Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rcmp-e-mail-throws-taser-inquiry-into-uproar/article1189182/.
25.^ Newly disclosed RCMP email drops bombshell on Taser inquiry CBC, June 2009
26.^ If true, RCMP e-mail shows four officers have lied through their teeth Vancouver Sun
27.^ [1]
28.^ Public Inquiry Act, Statutes of British Columbia 2007, chapter 9.
29.^ a b c d Rundel v. British Columbia – Braidwood Commission, 2009 BCSC 814, oral reasons for judgment of Silverman J., June 15, 2009.
30.^ Ian Bailey (2009-06-10). "Judge mulls misconduct ruling in taser case". The Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/judge-mulls-misconduct-ruling-in-taser-case/article1174138/. Retrieved 2009-06-10.
31.^ Suzanne Fournier (2009-06-09). "Four cops who Tasered Dziekanski seek court protection". The (Vancouver) Province. http://www.theprovince.com/Four+cops+Tasered+Dziekanski+seek+court+protection/1676399/story.html. Retrieved 2009-06-10.
32.^ James Keller (2009-06-09). "Mounties want B.C. court to prevent Taser inquiry from finding misconduct". Canadian Press. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jndUpfejfXiPshUfW2A9PNVxpkxA. Retrieved 2009-06-10.
33.^ CBC News (2009-06-09). "RCMP distances itself from officers’ lawsuit over Dziekanski inquiry". CBC.ca. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/09/inquiry-dziekanski.html. Retrieved 2009-06-10.
34.^ Dan Buritt (2009-06-15). "Braidwood can find officers guilty of misconduct". cknw.com. http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1103227. Retrieved 2009-06-15.
35.^ Neal Hall (2009-06-30). "Mounties involved in Dziekanski death launch appeal". Vancouver Sun. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mounties+involved+Dziekanski+death+launch+appeal/1747451/story.html. Retrieved 2009-06-30.
36.^ http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090630_142503_5936
37.^ "Bentley v. Braidwood, 2009 BCCA 604". http://courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/09/06/2009BCCA0604.htm.
38.^ Braidwood Inquiry (2010-06-18). "Braidwood Commission on the Death of Robert Dziekanski, Phase 2 Report, Part 7 The Cause of Mr. Dziekanski’s Death". p. 336. http://www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/report/P2Report.php. Retrieved 2010-06-18.
39.^ Braidwood Inquiry (2010-06-18). "Braidwood Commission on the Death of Robert Dziekanski, Phase 2 Report, Part 7 The Cause of Mr. Dziekanski’s Death". p. 337. http://www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/report/P2Report.php. Retrieved 2010-06-18.
40.^ Officers 'fell short' with Dziekanski: RCMP CBC, 2010, June 18
41.^ Officers 'fell short' with Dziekanski: RCMP CBC, 2010, June 18
42.^ Officers 'fell short' with Dziekanski: RCMP CBC, 2010, June 18
[edit] External links
Braidwood Inquiry Website
"Public Inquiry begins in Vancouver" (Video). Video. 5 May 2008. http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/bc/ondemand/video/bc-080505-taser-inquiry-MILEWSKI.wmv.
Phase 1 Report
Thursday, June 17, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA -- JUDGMENT TO BE RENDERED IN APPEALOTTAWA, 2010-06-14. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENT IN THE FOLLOWING APPEAL WILL BE DELIVERED .
Source: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/news_release/2010/10-06-14.2/10-06-14.2.html
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA -- JUDGMENT TO BE RENDERED IN APPEAL
OTTAWA, 2010-06-14. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENT IN THE FOLLOWING APPEAL WILL BE DELIVERED AT
9:45 A.M. EDT ON THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2010.
FROM: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (613) 995-4330
COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA -- PROCHAIN JUGEMENT SUR APPEL
OTTAWA, 2010-06-14. LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA A ANNONCÉ AUJOURD’HUI QUE JUGEMENT SERA RENDU DANS L’APPEL SUIVANT LE JEUDI 17 JUIN 2010, À 9h45 HAE.
SOURCE: COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA (613) 995-4330
Comments / Commentaires : comments-commentaires@scc-csc.gc.ca
Ministry of Public Safety and Security (Formerly Solicitor General) et al. v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ont.) (Civil) (32172)
Note for subscribers:
The summary of the case is available at http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca:
Click on Cases and on SCC Case Information, type in the Case Number and press Search. Click on the Case Number on the Search Result screen, and when the docket screen appears, click on “Summary” which will appear in the left column.
Alternatively, click on
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/news_release/2010/10-06-14.2/10-06-14.2.html
Note pour les abonnés :
Le sommaire de la cause est affiché à l’adresse http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca :
Cliquez sur « Dossiers », puis sur « Renseignements sur les dossiers ». Tapez le no de dossier et appuyez sur « Recherche ». Cliquez sur le no du dossier dans les Résultats de la recherche pour accéder au Registre. Cliquez enfin sur le lien menant au « Sommaire » qui figure dans la colonne de gauche.
Autre façon de procéder : Cliquer sur
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/fr/news_release/2010/10-06-14.2/10-06-14.2.html
32172 Ministry of Public Safety and Security (formerly Solicitor General) v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association
Constitutional law ‑ Charter of Rights ‑ Freedom of expression ‑ Reasonable limits prescribed by law ‑ Constitutional principle of democracy ‑ Access to information ‑ Compelling public interest ‑ Administrative law ‑ Judicial review ‑ Disclosure of government records refused on basis of exemptions for law enforcement records, solicitor‑client privilege and personal privacy under the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 (the “Act”) ‑ Whether s. 23 of the Act infringes s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and/or an underlying principle of constitutional democracy by failing to extend the public interest override to the law enforcement and solicitor‑client exemptions ‑ Justification under s. 1 of the Charter ‑ Does s. 2(b) of the Charter include a right to compel government to disclose information? ‑ Does the claimant who impugns a statutory exemption from a statutory right, seek a positive entitlement to government action or a right to be free from government interference? ‑ Does the Charter require that government documents protected by solicitor‑client privilege be subject to a balancing test on a case‑by‑case basis to determine if they will be disclosed?
Severe judicial criticism of the conduct of the Crown in its prosecutorial role and of the police in their investigative role, led to a stay of proceedings in the retrial of two men charged with the murder of Dominic Racco: R. v. Court and Monaghan (1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 263. The Ontario Provincial Police was asked to review the conduct of the police officers and Crown counsel and found no evidence of any attempts to obstruct justice. The Respondent submitted a request to the Appellant Ministry under the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, seeking access to the records underlying the OPP’s investigation. The Appellant declined to produce certain records on the basis of the exemptions in ss. 14 (law enforcement records), 19 (solicitor‑client privilege) and 21 (personal privacy) of the Act. The Respondent appealed the decision before the Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner, who upheld the Appellant’s decision. The Respondent applied for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. The application for judicial review was dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and the matter was remitted to Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner for re‑determination with ss. 14 and 19 read into s. 23 of the Act.
Origin of the case: Ontario
File No.: 32172
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: May 25, 2007
Counsel: Dan Guttman and Sophie Nunnelley for the Appellants
David Stratas for the Respondent
32172 Ministère de la sûreté et de la sécurité publique (auparavant Solliciteur général) c. Criminal Lawyers’ Association
Droit constitutionnel ‑ Charte des droits ‑ Liberté d’expression ‑ Règle de droit ‑ Principe constitutionnel de démocratie ‑ Accès à l’information ‑ Intérêt public supérieur ‑ Droit administratif ‑ Contrôle judiciaire ‑ Divulgation de documents gouvernementaux refusée en raison d’exceptions relatives à l’exécution de la loi, au secret professionnel de l’avocat et à la vie privée prévues dans la loi ontarienne intitulée Loi sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée, L.R.O. 1990, ch. F.31 (la « Loi ») ‑ L’article 23 de la Loi porte‑t‑il atteinte à l’al. 2b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ou à un principe sous‑jacent de démocratie constitutionnelle, ou aux deux à la fois, en n’étendant pas la primauté de l’intérêt public aux exceptions relatives à l’exécution de la loi et au secret professionnel de l’avocat? ‑ Justification au regard de l’article premier de la Charte ‑ L’alinéa 2b) de la Charte comporte‑t‑il le droit de contraindre le gouvernement à divulguer de l’information? ‑ Le demandeur qui attaque une exception, prévue dans un texte de loi, quant à l’exercice d’un droit établi dans ce texte de loi, revendique‑t‑il un droit positif à une action gouvernementale ou le droit de ne pas subir une ingérence gouvernementale? ‑ La Charte exige‑t‑elle qu’il soit déterminé au cas par cas, selon un critère fondé sur la recherche d’un juste équilibre, si des documents gouvernementaux protégés par le secret professionnel de l’avocat doivent être divulgués?
Le comportement de la Couronne dans l’exercice de son rôle de poursuivant et celui de la police dans son rôle d’enquêteur ayant été sévèrement critiqués par le tribunal, il y a eu suspension d’instance dans le nouveau procès de deux hommes inculpés du meurtre de Dominic Racco : R. c. Court and Monaghan (1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 263. La Police provinciale de l’Ontario, chargée d’examiner le comportement des agents de police et du procureur de la Couronne, n’a trouvé aucune preuve d’une tentative d’entrave à la justice. L’intimée a présenté au ministère appelant, en vertu de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée, L.R.O. 1990, ch. F.31, une demande en vue d’avoir accès aux documents sur lesquels s’appuyait l’enquête de la Police provinciale. L’appelant a refusé de produire certains documents en se fondant sur les exceptions prévues aux art. 14 (documents relatifs à l’exécution de la loi), 19 (secret professionnel de l’avocat) et 21 (vie privée) de la Loi. L’intimée a interjeté appel de la décision auprès du Bureau du commissaire à l’information et à la protection de la vie privée, qui a confirmé la décision de l’appelant. L’intimée a demandé que la décision du commissaire fasse l’objet d’un contrôle judiciaire. La demande de contrôle judiciaire a été rejetée. En appel, la Cour d’appel a accueilli l’appel et l’affaire a été renvoyée au Bureau du commissaire à l’information et à la protection de la vie privée pour nouvelle décision, les art. 14 et 19 étant considérés comme mentionnés à l’art. 23 de la Loi.
Origine : Ontario
No du greffe : 32172
Arrêt de la Cour d’appel : 25 mai 2007
Avocats : Dan Guttman et Sophie Nunnelley pour les appelants
David Stratas pour l’intimée
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA -- JUDGMENT TO BE RENDERED IN APPEAL
OTTAWA, 2010-06-14. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENT IN THE FOLLOWING APPEAL WILL BE DELIVERED AT
9:45 A.M. EDT ON THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2010.
FROM: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (613) 995-4330
COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA -- PROCHAIN JUGEMENT SUR APPEL
OTTAWA, 2010-06-14. LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA A ANNONCÉ AUJOURD’HUI QUE JUGEMENT SERA RENDU DANS L’APPEL SUIVANT LE JEUDI 17 JUIN 2010, À 9h45 HAE.
SOURCE: COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA (613) 995-4330
Comments / Commentaires : comments-commentaires@scc-csc.gc.ca
Ministry of Public Safety and Security (Formerly Solicitor General) et al. v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ont.) (Civil) (32172)
Note for subscribers:
The summary of the case is available at http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca:
Click on Cases and on SCC Case Information, type in the Case Number and press Search. Click on the Case Number on the Search Result screen, and when the docket screen appears, click on “Summary” which will appear in the left column.
Alternatively, click on
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/news_release/2010/10-06-14.2/10-06-14.2.html
Note pour les abonnés :
Le sommaire de la cause est affiché à l’adresse http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca :
Cliquez sur « Dossiers », puis sur « Renseignements sur les dossiers ». Tapez le no de dossier et appuyez sur « Recherche ». Cliquez sur le no du dossier dans les Résultats de la recherche pour accéder au Registre. Cliquez enfin sur le lien menant au « Sommaire » qui figure dans la colonne de gauche.
Autre façon de procéder : Cliquer sur
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/fr/news_release/2010/10-06-14.2/10-06-14.2.html
32172 Ministry of Public Safety and Security (formerly Solicitor General) v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association
Constitutional law ‑ Charter of Rights ‑ Freedom of expression ‑ Reasonable limits prescribed by law ‑ Constitutional principle of democracy ‑ Access to information ‑ Compelling public interest ‑ Administrative law ‑ Judicial review ‑ Disclosure of government records refused on basis of exemptions for law enforcement records, solicitor‑client privilege and personal privacy under the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31 (the “Act”) ‑ Whether s. 23 of the Act infringes s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and/or an underlying principle of constitutional democracy by failing to extend the public interest override to the law enforcement and solicitor‑client exemptions ‑ Justification under s. 1 of the Charter ‑ Does s. 2(b) of the Charter include a right to compel government to disclose information? ‑ Does the claimant who impugns a statutory exemption from a statutory right, seek a positive entitlement to government action or a right to be free from government interference? ‑ Does the Charter require that government documents protected by solicitor‑client privilege be subject to a balancing test on a case‑by‑case basis to determine if they will be disclosed?
Severe judicial criticism of the conduct of the Crown in its prosecutorial role and of the police in their investigative role, led to a stay of proceedings in the retrial of two men charged with the murder of Dominic Racco: R. v. Court and Monaghan (1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 263. The Ontario Provincial Police was asked to review the conduct of the police officers and Crown counsel and found no evidence of any attempts to obstruct justice. The Respondent submitted a request to the Appellant Ministry under the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, seeking access to the records underlying the OPP’s investigation. The Appellant declined to produce certain records on the basis of the exemptions in ss. 14 (law enforcement records), 19 (solicitor‑client privilege) and 21 (personal privacy) of the Act. The Respondent appealed the decision before the Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner, who upheld the Appellant’s decision. The Respondent applied for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. The application for judicial review was dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and the matter was remitted to Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner for re‑determination with ss. 14 and 19 read into s. 23 of the Act.
Origin of the case: Ontario
File No.: 32172
Judgment of the Court of Appeal: May 25, 2007
Counsel: Dan Guttman and Sophie Nunnelley for the Appellants
David Stratas for the Respondent
32172 Ministère de la sûreté et de la sécurité publique (auparavant Solliciteur général) c. Criminal Lawyers’ Association
Droit constitutionnel ‑ Charte des droits ‑ Liberté d’expression ‑ Règle de droit ‑ Principe constitutionnel de démocratie ‑ Accès à l’information ‑ Intérêt public supérieur ‑ Droit administratif ‑ Contrôle judiciaire ‑ Divulgation de documents gouvernementaux refusée en raison d’exceptions relatives à l’exécution de la loi, au secret professionnel de l’avocat et à la vie privée prévues dans la loi ontarienne intitulée Loi sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée, L.R.O. 1990, ch. F.31 (la « Loi ») ‑ L’article 23 de la Loi porte‑t‑il atteinte à l’al. 2b) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ou à un principe sous‑jacent de démocratie constitutionnelle, ou aux deux à la fois, en n’étendant pas la primauté de l’intérêt public aux exceptions relatives à l’exécution de la loi et au secret professionnel de l’avocat? ‑ Justification au regard de l’article premier de la Charte ‑ L’alinéa 2b) de la Charte comporte‑t‑il le droit de contraindre le gouvernement à divulguer de l’information? ‑ Le demandeur qui attaque une exception, prévue dans un texte de loi, quant à l’exercice d’un droit établi dans ce texte de loi, revendique‑t‑il un droit positif à une action gouvernementale ou le droit de ne pas subir une ingérence gouvernementale? ‑ La Charte exige‑t‑elle qu’il soit déterminé au cas par cas, selon un critère fondé sur la recherche d’un juste équilibre, si des documents gouvernementaux protégés par le secret professionnel de l’avocat doivent être divulgués?
Le comportement de la Couronne dans l’exercice de son rôle de poursuivant et celui de la police dans son rôle d’enquêteur ayant été sévèrement critiqués par le tribunal, il y a eu suspension d’instance dans le nouveau procès de deux hommes inculpés du meurtre de Dominic Racco : R. c. Court and Monaghan (1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 263. La Police provinciale de l’Ontario, chargée d’examiner le comportement des agents de police et du procureur de la Couronne, n’a trouvé aucune preuve d’une tentative d’entrave à la justice. L’intimée a présenté au ministère appelant, en vertu de la Loi sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée, L.R.O. 1990, ch. F.31, une demande en vue d’avoir accès aux documents sur lesquels s’appuyait l’enquête de la Police provinciale. L’appelant a refusé de produire certains documents en se fondant sur les exceptions prévues aux art. 14 (documents relatifs à l’exécution de la loi), 19 (secret professionnel de l’avocat) et 21 (vie privée) de la Loi. L’intimée a interjeté appel de la décision auprès du Bureau du commissaire à l’information et à la protection de la vie privée, qui a confirmé la décision de l’appelant. L’intimée a demandé que la décision du commissaire fasse l’objet d’un contrôle judiciaire. La demande de contrôle judiciaire a été rejetée. En appel, la Cour d’appel a accueilli l’appel et l’affaire a été renvoyée au Bureau du commissaire à l’information et à la protection de la vie privée pour nouvelle décision, les art. 14 et 19 étant considérés comme mentionnés à l’art. 23 de la Loi.
Origine : Ontario
No du greffe : 32172
Arrêt de la Cour d’appel : 25 mai 2007
Avocats : Dan Guttman et Sophie Nunnelley pour les appelants
David Stratas pour l’intimée
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Kory Teneycke conflict of interest Did he forget the Accountability Act of 2006 ?
This past week, a license application was filed with the CRTC to create a right wing news channel. The key person for the new channel's business development is Kory Teneycke. As he was the former communications director for Stephen Harper, would he not be covered under the Accountability Act of 2006? If he was, would he not be covered under the lobbying ban which lasts for 5 years after leaving your position in the Federal government as he did in 2008 or 2009? To be fair, we have no idea who filed the CRTC application. Even if his name was not on the application, the position that he currently holds as Vice-President of business development at Quebecor, may necessitate his need to make contact with the CRTC. In this particular case, would it not be considered lobbying as he would want the CRTC to grant him a certain type of license, therefore he would be in active negotiations trying to pitch his business plan to get the license. Wouldn't this force him to inadvertently violate the Accountability Act thus making him vulnerable to criminal charges under that Act?
I would really appreciate some feedback on this because one can go easily cross-eyed looking at the Act as well as going through the updated rules on lobbying and public office holders definitions in Parliamentary rules manuals.
msdogfood@hotmail.com
Thanks
I would really appreciate some feedback on this because one can go easily cross-eyed looking at the Act as well as going through the updated rules on lobbying and public office holders definitions in Parliamentary rules manuals.
msdogfood@hotmail.com
Thanks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)